No need to guess about that – he told us straight up that his views changed because he was a “have-not” then and a “have” now, which is obviously irrelevant to the objective merit of either his old or his new position.
Not so. The amount of food vermin actually consume is small compared to the amount of food that is lost as a result of verminous infestation. Similarly, the actual illicit gains of crony “capitalists” who decouple their pay from their performance is trivial compared to the economic damage caused by breaking the feedback mechanism.
“What’s the secret knowledge?”
“FUCK YOU, that’s the secret knowledge!”
Well, let’s see, if someone defended high CEO salaries and Wall Street bailouts on the basis of, “Being rich means God approves of you, so we gotta support our rich people who are beloved by God cause they will do good things, being God’s people” then I would say that demonstrates poor judgement, because the person is kind of ignoring the existence of an awful lot of devout Christians who are very poor, and some Bible verses that specifically cite rich people as problematical in God’s eye (camel and needles eye, etc.).
Now if someone defends high CEO salaries on the basis that the salaries are tiny in terms of the net profits/worth of the companies they head and that their decisions are important to the continued success of said companies and therefore are justified, if very high, and the defend Wall Street bailouts on the grounds that they were a stopgap measure needed to prevent a total breakdown in the financial system, well, I will disagree with them, but I will find their rationales much more deserving of a thoughtful response, and indicative of sounder judgement.
I’m not really getting an angle on what he’s defining as “liberal.” Is he basically just a rich guy that doesn’t want to pay his taxes, or has he also become a social conservative as well? Has he decided that evolution is a liberal plot and that gay marriage is an attack on America and all that kind of shit. His statements about “belief” don’t seem to parse since it’s the political right in the US which is subsumed in magical beliefs (such as global warming denial, creationism, “American exceptionalism,” free market mythology, superstitious fears about sexual purity, and terrors of homosexuality, etc.).
How is Mamet characterizing “liberal” and “conservative,” exactly? If he’s become a social conservative, then he lacks critical thinking skills and should be dismissed as an idiot. If he has not become a social conservative, then he’s not really conservative.
So I can be a fiscal conservative, and you all will still think I’m a liberal? Awesome…best of both worlds! 
I haven’t read his book, but I’m guessing he’s conservative like, I don’t know, Dennis Miller…a post-9/11 conservative, who thinks we need less government (except when it comes to the military) and lower taxes. I think that’s conservative enough to call yourself one.
This my favorite:
I always thought that when the landowners made the decisions you were on your way to serfdom. But then again, what do I know? My car is worth more than my watch.
I don’t think it’s that simple, but Mamet is using language to suggest that it is - that “liberal” is all one thing.
What evidence does he offer for the latter that’s anymore plausible than the former? Does he do an analysis of various corporations and find that the ones with the highest CEO salaries make the greatest profits? (He doesn’t because this isn’t true.)
Mamet just says the high CEO salaries are good because … they’re not bad. He might as well as offered divine approval as justification.
Sh1bu1 makes the valid point that Mamet claims that serfdom is when you let a democratically elected government make decisions. So you abolish serfdom by taking democracy out of the picture and letting the wealthy and powerful people make the decisions. And I’m supposed to respect the intelligence of somebody who says this?
I’ll admit I never heard about Mamet’s political views prior to his recent conversion. And that, to me, indicates he was wiser when he was a liberal. Because apparently as a liberal, he was willing to stay relatively quiet on subjects he was not very well-informed on.
I had never heard anything about (nor particularly cared about) Mamet’s political views nor his opinions outside of his films, but simply based on my impressions of his work I would’ve guessed him to at least lean conservative, if I’d had to guess. So no, not particularly shocking.
David Mamet Exchanges One Herd for Another
http://near-earth.com/2011/05/15/david-mamet-exchanges-one-herd-for-another/
But it is his position on global warming that really demonstrates that Mamet does not care about facts, so he is not being “more mature”.
In fact, I have to question those who claim that he is a “towering intellect” If Rush Limbaugh and Beck are the ones that changed you, you bet that I’m not impressed at all by the reasons he is giving for his conversion.
- In fact even one of the last working scientists that is skeptical of global warming, Pat Michaels, told the American Heritage that anyone using that “it has not cooled in the last 10 years” canard would kill all the skeptical movement as it is one of the most stupid ideas used against global warming.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
What evidence does he offer for the latter that’s anymore plausible than the former? Does he do an analysis of various corporations and find that the ones with the highest CEO salaries make the greatest profits? (He doesn’t because this isn’t true.)
Mamet just says the high CEO salaries are good because … they’re not bad. He might as well as offered divine approval as justification.
[/quote]
I never said I thought Mamet’s judgement was sound, only that I would need to know his rationale for changing his mind before I could judge. If he is getting his ideas from talk radio types, as indicated upthread, that’s a concern, too.
At last a liberal has finally seen the light. Maybe there’s hope for the rest of the deluded left…
What is a “liberal?”
Really? I’m not real familiar with the guy, but I read the New York Times magazine bit on Sunday, and was taken aback by the overall vapidity. This guy is counted an intellectual… really?
Yes, it would be one thing if his views were changed because he had earned a degree in economics or political science. But changing his views because he started listening to a different group of pundits isn’t a sign of growing wisdom. Mamet was dumb if he believed everything that Jane Fonda and Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky said and now he’s dumb is he believes everything that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Michael Medved say. You get smarter when you start actually thinking about things not when you just change the channel.
Well, “Hollywood Intellectual”. It’s kind of like being the most athletic guy in your Dungeons and Dragons group.
“Matt Damon.”
My D&D group includes a Marine and an army Ranger.
Just sayin’.
Oh sure, ruin a good joke with facts.