We are in our tween years of technology. maybe not even that old. the speed of change, the megaflux of info is a large part of what has caused the ease at which tides can turn in public emotion because we all are in a state of mildly neurotic agitation. That is not to say we are all crazy, nor that its an obvious neurosis. Seeing as every system has in it entropy as an ingredient, the breakdown into diversity is natural and we are not outside of nature as much as technology can make us feel that way at times. It is impossible to say that it will be our savior or our ruin. Just as receiving that 200 million dollar lotto prize money made you leave you job to live comfortably financially but separated you from a jealous family(or conversely made all your family happy to now be living well financially due to your largess and your work has greater meaning because its not tied to financial matters). Until technology becomes more integrated into our every day lives it will be something that causes fear and unrest, in a way that is presented in the video might cause you a bit of "overwhelmed by the ideas". That middle aged comfort zone might be here sooner than we think. But then again, instead of reaching middle age and finding yourself fit and happy. You may be a dumpy loner living on the streets. I'm hoping we reach old age, find the fountain of youth that comes with a pill for happiness, where everything works the way it should for all, where information isn't the overwhelming creature that lurks and growls from the corners of our eyes. Better to move forward focusing and being open to a golden rule, an openness to a bigger something, than dwell on the demons of multiplicity and what might be, that speculation steeped in fear. Its so thrilling to live in our age. Please excuse my OVERUSE of analogy.

I'd agree with you if you were talking about John Stewart or Colbert, but Stern is known for hitting at the low end especially with those interviews. I followed/listened to him for years. And while I thoroughly enjoyed the queef queens, drunken dwarves and much of Stern's view on things...many/much of his public interview items were less about educating the public to the "truth" of things than for just serving up some humorous bits.

I don't know if I'd agree either that all the candidates are lying. They all play the politics game, and say things they don't fully believe or know that they won't ever be able to deliver but that has always been the case for those looking to gain power. Staying informed from as many sources as possible these days is the only way to gain a closer understanding of what is Really going on.

Not sure one can use the humorous interviews of Howard Stern to point towards any truths in the American public other than...he's good at making us laugh at ourselves and how some can be duped.

For so many reasons I think he will but a few:

1. He exhibits great leadership qualities.

2. He's not GWB

Oh and I like that he's not older than William Harrison was when elected and then died 30days later.

Because Palin was a beauty queen, heh. It's a far more interesting target and she's made it easy. Although I have heard about Biden's gaffes on NPR...but no, I know...not the same as the fun we've all been enjoying with Palin's remarks.

No. I want to believe that what we're being served isn't a "cowpie with a marshmallow in it"

What is the same destination we are seeking? I see it as a process not a destination, and its the process I address with the question above. I find it interesting you think it a lack of understanding. I think you walk a fence actually. How is a Liberal world view more polarized than a conservative? Where on the far left do they think the world will end soon? heh. You obviously are answering from an uninformed bias. But that's okay.

I'm not sure the history of a "conservative philosophical" outlook or party has shown it to be "practical"

Conservatiism by definition is "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes" and why I ask is because of the portions of the definition "preservation" and "opposing radical change". Opposing radical change, if fear had been followed...would have kept women from the voting booths, many men in slavery, and really from the US from ever coming into being.

While fear is a human emotion not everyone is motivated by it, or has it as a root of their philosophy.

I agree with you however about the difficulty in believing in people in politics these days...or possibly ever. Chasing power in the ways that they do, one must wonder if corruption on some level is inevitable.

I think demanding order in a chaotic world suggests fear of that chaos...while going with the flow does not.

But yes it's often about balance...although that was not my question.

Limited government suggests fear of being controlled.

Keeping Traditions alive suggests desire for sameness or fear of the new.

While neither is necessarily wrong to have or want, both have fear as one of its roots.

I suppose I also asked the question because so much of the current administration has run on "fear" but largely because the majority of individuals I've met that call themselves conservatives come off as reacting to politics in ways that seem steeped in fear.

Still...thank you all for your responses.

Cheating...whether married or not...is wrong and points towards an individual who is willing to lie/deceive to do what they want. We all learned in the fourth grade that its wrong. It's about fear and weakness.

Sadly it does appear to be more acceptable in politicians and famous individuals although I can't understand why.

There is no difference between either. One from a bad marriage, one from the strain of dealing with disease. Both unworthy of respect for such actions and should not be fully trusted. It shows a type of character. Certainly it does not mean that either is incapable of doing good.

I've not read enough as I'd like about the history of Islam/Muhammed but I enjoyed your encapsulation. thanks.

It does, and I'm trying to stop.