George Carlin Says CA Fire Victims Deserved It

[Pangloss]

Link includes video:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20153859,00.html

 

"People are selfish," he said. "These people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild and they put nature to the test, and they get what's coming to them[/b'], that's what I say."

 

At least seven people are DEAD because of those fires. This was on one of the most popular daytime television programs in the country.

 

I think Carlin is an idiot and a jerk. What a completely moronic and insulting thing to say.

 

I think there's a perfectly valid point to be made that housing development methods contributed to these problems -- nobody seems to disagree with that point. But this is the kind of knee-jerk idiocy that drives people AWAY from doing the right things, like building housing more intelligently and fighting global warming. What the heck was he thinking?

[swansont]

I think Carlin is an idiot and a jerk. What a completely moronic and insulting thing to say.

 

And he was out of character in what way? However, it's possible that one could decouple the burning of personal property with loss of life. And in that regard, crude as it was, I think he has a point.

[DrDNA]

George Carlin has made millions of dollars being a jerk and insulting people. You can expect that to change only when/if the money stops coming in.

[john5746]

I think Carlin is talking about humanity in general, including himself in this remark. Like if I said, humanity will be wiped out by an asteroid someday and that will be a good thing for the earth. Timing is everything and in this case it was very bad timing.

[iNow]

As usual, he's spot on. You don't have to like what he says, but he's still allowed to say it. The fact that it was on television means you can change the channel.

 

 

If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

[Pangloss]

Sure he has the right to say it. And I have the right to call him on it.

 

As usual, he's spot on.

 

Do I deserve to be hit by the next hurricane? Bear in mind I don't even live anywhere near the coast, but my house could still be wiped out. In fact I've seen hurricanes pass over my house and watched the resulting storm knock over trailers in ATLANTA. Did they deserve that?

 

What about Hurricane Katrina victims? I didn't hear George Carlin saying they deserved it -- why not? They certainly lived below the flood plain. What's the difference? Isn't Carlin's objection based on "man thwarting nature" or some such wacko nonsense? As if he isn't thwarting nature by his very existence at his age. Wanna help us with the population problem, Georgie? I know a way you can stop contributing to that problem right now, Mr. Carlin.

 

Is that really how we want to look at it? Be mean to people until they behave the way they're supposed to?

 

On top of that, is his point really even valid? Do we need every single person in this country to move on top of Manhattan bedrock or Kansas farming soil above the flood level?

[iNow]

Do I deserve to be hit by the next hurricane?

If you are aware of the risk hurricanes pose, and still choose to live in this area despite that risk, then Yes. I believe the issue is that you find greater benefits in that region which outweigh your perception of the risk, so you choose to stay. However, if a hurricane comes and wipes out everything you have (I sincerely hope this does not happen, btw), then ultimately you need to live with the consequences. You could move now, yet you choose not to.

 

 

Bear in mind I don't even live anywhere near the coast, but my house could still be wiped out. In fact I've seen hurricanes pass over my house and watched the resulting storm knock over trailers in ATLANTA. Did they deserve that?

It's not so much about "deserving" it in my mind, but you're clearly aware of the risk, and so were the others who got hit, yet you all chose to stay.

 

 

What about Hurricane Katrina victims? I didn't hear George Carlin saying they deserved it -- why not?

Maybe because it's already too late for them, and perhaps his motivation is to call attention to some of our stupid decisions, decisions we can still change. His intent isn't generally to piss people off, but to make them think and encourage action. That's my personal perception of him, though, so it might be different for you (judging by your comments, this would not surprise me).

 

 

Is that really how we want to look at it? Be mean to people until they behave the way they're supposed to?

I suggest it's more, you have to find a way to get through to people, and much of the populace is desensitized. If you can get your point through some method, whether it be abrasive terms or providing chocolate, get people to think about issues and potentially act to improve matters, then you've done them a service. Carlin's words must be couched in context of an overall frustration with people and leadership, and a sense of bewilderment as to where our priorities seem to be lately.

 

 

On top of that, is his point really even valid? Do we need every single person in this country to move on top of Manhattan bedrock or Kansas farming soil above the flood level?

 

With sea levels rising, Manhattan might not be the best choice either.

[john5746]

Maybe because it's already too late for them, and perhaps his motivation is to call attention to some of our stupid decisions, decisions we can still change. His intent isn't generally to piss people off, but to make them think and encourage action. That's my personal perception of him, though, so it might be different for you (judging by your comments, this would not surprise me).

 

I suggest it's more, you have to find a way to get through to people, and much of the populace is desensitized. If you can get your point through some method, whether it be abrasive terms or providing chocolate, get people to think about issues and potentially act to improve matters, then you've done them a service. Carlin's words must be couched in context of an overall frustration with people and leadership, and a sense of bewilderment as to where our priorities seem to be lately.

 

C'mon, this guy is a comedian. He has few answers, he just criticizes. Sometimes he makes a point, sometimes he just rants, but he offers no solutions and I think he even admits it. Don't try to make more out of his BS than a funny way to look at things.

[ParanoiA]

Sure he has the right to say it. And I have the right to call him on it.

 

 

 

Do I deserve to be hit by the next hurricane? Bear in mind I don't even live anywhere near the coast, but my house could still be wiped out. In fact I've seen hurricanes pass over my house and watched the resulting storm knock over trailers in ATLANTA. Did they deserve that?

 

What about Hurricane Katrina victims? I didn't hear George Carlin saying they deserved it -- why not? They certainly lived below the flood plain. What's the difference? Isn't Carlin's objection based on "man thwarting nature" or some such wacko nonsense? As if he isn't thwarting nature by his very existence at his age. Wanna help us with the population problem, Georgie? I know a way you can stop contributing to that problem right now, Mr. Carlin.

 

Is that really how we want to look at it? Be mean to people until they behave the way they're supposed to?

 

On top of that, is his point really even valid? Do we need every single person in this country to move on top of Manhattan bedrock or Kansas farming soil above the flood level?

 

Yeah this business about people living in areas prolific with natural disasters, or at least natural disasters to us, and then acting like they deserve it for living there seems more that ridiculously ignorant. Where can you live where there is NO occurence of natural events that can wreck our build-ups? And can EVERYONE live there? That's silly.

 

Live on the coast or under sea level and you're an idiot because of hurricanes. Live in the midwest and you're an idiot because of tornadoes. Live near the forest and you're an idiot because of forest fires. Live around fault lines and you're an idiot because of earthquakes. Live in flood zones and you're an idiot come flood time. What exactly is the alternative?

 

Where's everyone supposed to live? We're supposed to abandon thousands of acres of land, that remains free from destruction 99.9% of the time just because ever once in a while in isolated spots we have a natural disaster of some sort?

 

What about the folks living around Yellowstone? Are they all stupid because they built cities over a super volcanoe? Should everyone in the US move because it's stupid to live here with a super volcanoe that will destroy all life in the country? Do we all then deserve it when it happens?

 

I love George Carlin. But like all artists, he conveys emotions - not logic or critical thinking. I try not to pay attention to these idiots when they separate themselves from the artistic position and act like their "art opinion" is an actual worthy opinion. It's not. Art doesn't have to make sense, so I can overlook Carlin's stand-up routine and John Lennon's unrealistic ideas of the power of love to solve everything. These are emotional statements that I can agree with - artistic feeling and expression. NOT to be taken as logical, nor thoughtful conclusions to be applied to the real world.

 

Just my two cents..

[Pangloss]

If George Carlin lives west of the San Andreas fault (which seems likely), doesn't that make him a hypocrit?

 

It's not so much about "deserving" it in my mind

 

I appreciate that, but that's different from saying Carlin was "spot on" -- he actually said "they got what they had coming to them". It was a mean and vindictive thing for him to say, and I think if he had said it about Katrina victims, who did exactly the same thing, he would have had to issue an apology by morning.

 

He got away with it because of the perception of economc differences between the two groups. It's politically incorrect to criticize the poor when they make bad decisions. The middle class or upper class, not so much.

 

In looking into this further, though, I think he just made a mistake, and he isn't correcting his mistake because it's not necessary under the rules of political correctness. In this video, from an HBO show, he actually talks about how if there's a wildfire he doesn't want it put out. He says in the video that he "doesn't want the firement to get hurt or nothin'", he just doesn't want it put out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pe4XVVUbiA

 

I guess he doesn't really mean people direct harm, he just wants nature to have it's day. Okay, I'll give him credit for consistency. But he's still a hypocrit. Maybe he'd be the first to admit it, I don't know.

 

--------

 

The thing I have to wonder is, shouldn't it be the Katrina victims who get the MOST criticism, rather than the LEAST? I wonder if people have any idea how much money I pay for homeowners insurance, or how hard it is for me to get it. But I don't complain about the cost -- I live 12 miles inland and outside of evacuation zones, btw, and pay far less than THOSE people. But it makes SENSE that if the risk is higher, so should be the COST. DUH.

 

Furthermore, when something happens to me, as opposed to a typical 9th Ward dweller, it costs YOU less. The disaster of Katrina couldn't happen here, at least not to the degree that it happened where it did. We're prepared. My state reported in the black the same year that eight hurricanes hit it! Sure we took a little FEMA aid, but it went to the idiots who weren't prepared.

 

And so what? Government is for the occassional helping hand. That's part of it's purpose. The ironic thing is that people see Carlin as a liberal -- in fact he's not a liberal at all! He thinks everyone should be left to their own devices! You're poor and get stuck unprepared? TOO BAD. You're down on your luck and get shafted for it? TOO BAD. Snooze and lose, buddy.

 

His message works with liberals anyway because he focuses on the thwarting of nature theme and the idea that the harm will come primarily to people who can afford it. And he's absolutely wrong on both counts. EVERY ONE of us is "thwarting nature" every single day, and most of the people who are harmed the most by natural disasters are the ones who can LEAST afford it.

 

THAT's why Carlin is wrong.

[iNow]

It was a mean and vindictive thing for him to say, and I think if he had said it about Katrina victims, who did exactly the same thing, he would have had to issue an apology by morning.

 

He got away with it because of the perception of economc differences between the two groups. It's politically incorrect to criticize the poor when they make bad decisions. The middle class or upper class, not so much.

I very much disagree with you here. I don't think the evidence supports this position. It's your opinion, and that is fine, but I have formed a completely different understanding of the situation.

 

For context, he also said this while on "The View":

 

CARLIN: There are places that are going to go away. The map is going to change and that's because -- people think nature is outside of them. They don't take into them the idea that we are part of it. They say, "oh, we're going for a nature walk. We're going to the country because we like nature." Nature is in here. And if you're in tune with it, like the Indians, the Hopis, especially, the balance of life, the balance, the harmony of nature, if you understand that, you don't overbuild. You don’t do all this moron stuff. There are too many people-

 

 

From wiki:

 

George Carlin's most recent stand up routines are primarily focused on attacking the flaws in modern-day America. He often takes on contemporary political issues in the United States and satirizes the excesses of American culture.

 

 

 

Also, I'm pretty sure he lives in New York, not Cali, so your comment about hypocracy is somewhat unfounded or misdirected. I suppose I have to ask, though, why does this bother you so much? He's a comedian, not a world leader.

 

 

 

"The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions. "

[ParanoiA]

It was a mean and vindictive thing for him to say' date=' and I think if he had said it about Katrina victims, who did exactly the same thing, he would have had to issue an apology by morning.

 

He got away with it because of the perception of economc differences between the two groups. It's politically incorrect to criticize the poor when they make bad decisions. The middle class or upper class, not so much. [/quote']

 

Great point.

 

His message works with liberals anyway because he focuses on the thwarting of nature theme and the idea that the harm will come primarily to people who can afford it. And he's absolutely wrong on both counts. EVERY ONE of us is "thwarting nature" every single day, and most of the people who are harmed the most by natural disasters are the ones who can LEAST afford it.

 

THAT's why Carlin is wrong.

 

And I believe the "rich Cali" folks who are enduring this catastrophe have not been on TV whining and moaning how unfair the government's response has been. From what I've read, although not too much because I tend to get bored with these stories, they've been helping each other out and didn't wait for uncle Sam to do a damn thing.

 

On Rush's show, a few days ago anyway, there were several callers upset about the national media trying to make victims out of them (even though I'm thinking they really are, in this case) due to lack of government response, when they were actually proud of their own efforts and didn't appreciate being portrayed as helpless children hopelessly dependent on the government to bail them out.

 

Weird too, because I'm thinking they had every right to expect help in this case. This is one of those times the government should get involved - well everyone really, not just the "assigned" work groups.

 

Not that CNN and company couldn't find someone to complain about it, but I think it's noteworthy that these people apparently didn't ask to be portrayed as victims - they seem to be stepping up and accepting their plight, which makes Carlin's comments all the more ignorant.

 

The poor have something to learn here. There's nothing noble about being helpless.

[Pangloss]

Also' date=' I'm pretty sure he lives in New York, not Cali, so your comment about hypocracy is somewhat unfounded or misdirected. I suppose I have to ask, though, why does this bother you so much? He's a comedian, not a world leader.

[/quote']

 

He used to have a television program filmed in LA so obviously at some point he lived west of the San Andreas, so his statement is clearly hypocritical. But as ParanoiA says, there are no safe places, which is a point you agreed with earlier.

 

Fair enough, you feel differently, I respect that. It doesn't bother me "so much", it bothers me this much, which is an amount that is neither the subject of this thread nor truly your concern.

 

And I believe the "rich Cali" folks who are enduring this catastrophe have not been on TV whining and moaning how unfair the government's response has been. From what I've read, although not too much because I tend to get bored with these stories, they've been helping each other out and didn't wait for uncle Sam to do a damn thing.

 

As usual, you're "spot on."

[iNow]

And I believe the "rich Cali" folks who are enduring this catastrophe have not been on TV whining and moaning how unfair the government's response has been. From what I've read, although not too much because I tend to get bored with these stories, they've been helping each other out and didn't wait for uncle Sam to do a damn thing.

 

On Rush's show, a few days ago anyway, there were several callers upset about the national media trying to make victims out of them (even though I'm thinking they really are, in this case) due to lack of government response, when they were actually proud of their own efforts and didn't appreciate being portrayed as helpless children hopelessly dependent on the government to bail them out.

 

Weird too, because I'm thinking they had every right to expect help in this case. This is one of those times the government should get involved - well everyone really, not just the "assigned" work groups.

Uhhm. The government is actually already on the ground helping. They are, in fact, being praised for their expedience and efforts here... having "learned from their mistakes in Katrina." It sounds like you are implying that the Californians are doing everything on their own and the federal government hasn't stepped in. That's not necessarily what you posted, but that's how I read it. The government is there helping, and FEMA has really shown a presence (to avoid another PR boondoggle like the one in NOLA).

[ParanoiA]

Also, I'm pretty sure he lives in New York, not Cali, so your comment about hypocracy is somewhat unfounded or misdirected. I suppose I have to ask, though, why does this bother you so much? He's a comedian, not a world leader.

 

Because people listen to him and other artists as if they are a world leader, and in most cases they are heard OVER world leaders. That's how stupid our country really is, iNow.

 

Get this...I was listening to Alex Jones, a 9/11 truther, conspiracy wacko dude, but endlessly entertaining - and he was actually serious, repeated himself several times - that "Top Celebrities are coming out and demanding answers". He went on about how Martin Sheen, following the footsteps of Charlie Sheen, was seriously concerned about the collapse of building 7.

 

He actually got in the microphone and voiced this crap like a charge. "I'm telling you folks, the lid is about to blow off this thing. We got top celebs coming out. George Carlin questions the 9/11 report. Martin and Charlie Sheen, and we've got more coming."

 

Haha! Top Celebs? Might as well brag about the janitors for Microsoft are about to go public about their doubts on the 9/11 report. Who gives a flying f#$k?

 

Our countrymen do. That's who. Our countrymen care more about what their favorite actor, musician, comedian says, rather than what an actual expert in the field, nor an actual legislator has to say. It may be trendy, but not very thoughtful.

 

So yeah, it matters.

[iNow]

Get this...I was listening to Alex Jones, a 9/11 truther, conspiracy wacko dude, but endlessly entertaining

Yeah... I think he may be from Austin. When I was in HS, I had a buddy who would watch this guy and his discussions of black helicopters and military infiltrations on the homeland... all why taking a bong rip. Some of what he says is well founded, but not all.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah... I think he may be from Austin. When I was in HS, I had a buddy who would watch this guy and his discussions of black helicopters and military infiltrations on the homeland... all why taking a bong rip. Some of what he says is well founded, but not all.

 

My favorite is the commercials they run for his "Endgame" documentary that supposedly exposes "the elites" and their plan. He purposely lowers his already gravely voice as he pretentiously narrates extremely charged dialogue of fear and "warning" - with some guy in the background yelling through a bullhorn, bombs and crap going off - it's hilarious.

 

Sorry don't mean to derail the thread. Carlin is my favorite comedian - or has been my whole life. I've always enjoyed his political humor as well (the "civil" war bit still makes me smile...oh, and baseball with randomly placed landmines - definitely a keeper). I love his rant on capitalism - everywhere you turn somebody's trying to sell you something..etc.

 

But I have to put this stuff in perspective. That's comedy, that's art and it can reflect how we feel, but it's not critical thought - well, honest critical thought - otherwise it wouldn't really be funny.

 

Good humor has a dash of truth and heaping spoonfulls of exaggeration.