Dear Mr. Jillette~
Your response to a Fox commentator regarding President Obamas speech that used Vegas as a generic term for irresponsibility was disappointing on several fronts which I will try to delineate here. In the front of all this, I will concede that at least, the President could have used another metaphor, but beyond that, it seems that your and others responses missed the point the President was trying to make, which is that people need to tighten belts and be responsible with their economic resources. In this, no one should find fault with logic or common sense.
First off was the jumping on the bandwagon to riff on the notion that the President was singling out Vegas as the Only example of egregiously excessive behaviors. In most peoples perception, which you have also admitted in so many appearances, but in particular, the one on Red Eye, Vegas IS an example of egregious excesses, which includes gambling, showgirls and drinking too much, not to mention other activities you mentioned that are legal there and not anywhere else. Surely, you would not suggest that the only way to improve our economy is to engage in this kind of entertainment exclusively. I get that you and other entertainers dont like or appreciate criticisms that can directly affect your ability to make a living, but again, I do not believe this was the point the President was trying to make, and I think you and others dont believe this either. Whats more, even if the president did mean to single out Vegas as the only Example of Irresponsibility, do you honestly think those who frequent Vegas would suddenly stop going? From my former Catholic perspective, the compulsion to sin (or, to put it in less religious terms, to be entertained) does not stop because someone slammed one of their favorite vices. The bible has been doing this for centuries and it surely hasnt stopped people from enjoying all the pleasures of the flesh.
Secondly, while my opinion of your talent, intellect or credibility probably only matters in terms of your bank account, I am still compelled to express my distrust, dismay and disdain for your appearances on Fox. Granted, who am I to judge anyone, even those of whose opinions I have appreciated regarding life, religion, social mores? But the crux of the matter is, because of my high regard for your intellect, it disturbs me to see you and others give credibility to a media source that is overwhelmingly biased, hateful, and in many respects, dangerous to free-thinking. I cannot reconcile this with what I understand to be one of Libertarian values. The consequences of your appearances on Fox are such that your credibility is diminished as Fox is augmented. At some point, yes, there comes an equilibrium, but one that registers below any standard of fair and balanced, reasoned, objective, or honest journalism for the latter and eventual disinterest in the former.
Appearances on Red Eye or Glenn Beck are not just beer, barbequed buffalo wings and chips parties at a buddys apartment. They are broadcast and a designed to specifically color the opinions of those who watch to promote an agenda. Surely, you are not blind to the constant barrage of negative and outright false commentary from just these two programs. Your appearances, then, tacitly endorse the views expressed therein, especially if you do not overtly counter such appalling commentary either during the show, or in others.