When I was engaged to be married, I asked some of my married friends for advice. The moist poignant piece I received went something like this:
"It's all give-and-take. Give in, and take a lot of sh_t."
Looks like I'm going to have to give Jon Stewart the same talk.
This past week, Stewart's The Daily Show conducted an interview with Palestinian Democracy Activist Mustafa Barghouti and human rights activist Anna Baltzer. During the interview, Barghouti was heckled ("You lie!"), to which Stewart responded, "Apparently, Joe Wilson is in our audience." This was reportedly the first time The Daily Show had faced a heckler in its 11-year history. So much for the "liberal" audience...
Now it's pretty obvious in the American political landscape that there is no real room for debate on Palestinian/Israeli issues. It's pretty simple - if you criticize Israel's policies, you're anti-Semetic by default. Stewart, a prolific cultural Jew, has prided The Daily Show's liberal stance by backing up all jokes and satirical acts with actual quantitative and qualitative facts. This is refreshing, when considering the prevalent news outlets such as Fox News (right-wing oriented), MSNBC (left-leaning), and CNN (whichever way the public tide is currently swinging).
Comedy that takes a stance while reviewing facts is more trustworthy than journalists taking manipulated stances.
But just as Jon Stewart has given in to the right to allow them to express their viewpoints (ex. Mike Huckabee, Jonah Goldberg, Zell Miller, etc), he now must take sh_t from the Zionist Pro-Israel lobby for allowing the other side of the Middle East debate to receive airtime.
Funny how no one seemed to complain during such segments like "Even Stephvens" where Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell "debated" over which religion, Islam or Christianity, was better, while admitting that they didn't really like Jews. The bit provoked a raucous reaction of humor from the live audience. Or how about when "Senior Black Correspondent" Larry Wilmore did an "editorial" concerning Michael Richards' use of the N-word and interjected something to the effect of "Jewing them down" when in negotiations to use N-word references? More wild laughter from the crowd at the hint of irony.
As an Executive Producer of one of the most popular satire outlets in American media, Stewart has always allowed comedy to express actual and populist views to the public on a nightly basis. While some of this humor may seem demeaning to his Jewish heritage, it has always been taken with a truth-in-jest-everyone-gets-slammed chil pill. So now that another side of a HEATED debate gets aired in a serious nature, Stewart must face hate-mail?
Maybe Stewart should have presented the Palestinian viewpoint with a soliloquy from John Oliver hitting on Samantha Bee, As Bee could have represented the world and Oliver could have been Palestine begging for Bee to "just hear him out!!!" Would that have angered the Pro-Israel lobby the same way? Would the Zionists have been bent out of shape if Wyatt Cenac had editorialized a heavy-handed punishment administered by the Jewish Stewart if The Show's writers had carefully and masterfully scripted an ironically heated exchange betwen the two?
The next trend in American media: present the news of the day with ironic humor. I guess it would have to be because Jon Stewart shouldn't have to get slammed for presenting a serious issue in it's true context: SERIOUS.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Republicans Endorse Swine-Flu
It's True! It's True! (not really, but it is funny)
WASHINGTON—Claiming that the president was preying on the public's fear of contracting a fatal disease last week when he declared the H1N1 virus a national emergency, Republican leaders announced Wednesday that they were officially endorsing the swine flu. "Thousands of Americans—hardworking ordinary Americans like you and me—already have H1N1," Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said during a press conference. "Now Obama wants to take that away from us. Ask yourself: Do you want the federal government making these kinds of health care decisions for you and your family?" Other prominent Republicans opposing Obama's declaration of emergency include Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who urged residents of his state to continue not washing their hands, and radio host Rush Limbaugh, who made a point of dying of the virus during his show on Wednesday.
WASHINGTON—Claiming that the president was preying on the public's fear of contracting a fatal disease last week when he declared the H1N1 virus a national emergency, Republican leaders announced Wednesday that they were officially endorsing the swine flu. "Thousands of Americans—hardworking ordinary Americans like you and me—already have H1N1," Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said during a press conference. "Now Obama wants to take that away from us. Ask yourself: Do you want the federal government making these kinds of health care decisions for you and your family?" Other prominent Republicans opposing Obama's declaration of emergency include Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who urged residents of his state to continue not washing their hands, and radio host Rush Limbaugh, who made a point of dying of the virus during his show on Wednesday.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
I'm a Barack Obama supporter. But I'm not some partisan tribalist who saw an eloquent, somewhat scholarly man of similar race and thought, "Hmmmm....November 2008 would be the perfect time to stick it to whitey", as Rush Limbaugh might suggest. No, I saw John McCain, a man who I would have voted for in 2000 if he had gotten his party's nod, as a shell of his former self, kissing up to the far fringes of his constituency and trashing his "maverick" status in a last ditch attempt to become President of the United States. I also saw a man in Barack Obama who was actually smart enough to read a teleprompter, had the ability to "mobilize the troops" in following his lofty ideas for change, and inspired my fellow Generation Xers who had given up on voting completely due to the feeling that nothing would change no matter which side, the jackass or the trunk-nose, won the election. The choice was clear to me.
So, nine months into his first term, President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. I have to be honest and say that the prize is as much a joke as when peace-monger Jimmy Carter won it (his record on America's policies towards Latin America and Southeast Asia should have been considered). It was clear that mister Carter won because he was so vocally anti-Bush during Dubya's war campaigns.
It also seems to be clear that President Obama has won his award on the basis of "hope." Realistically, it's only been nine months for chrissake. How much do we really think the man is going to get achieved? I have to question the intellectual capacity of those who believed that racism would cease, everyone would get healthcare, the rain would never dampen our spirits, and a permanent rainbow would greet our our vision every morning once Obama got elected. Presidents generally don't make significant change in the American society in their first year in office. I'm willing to give the president a full 4 year term to prove him/herself as worthy of continuity. My criticism lies elsewhere.
Tom Tomorrow's latest satirical work paints a pretty good picture of how I'm feeling:
Wow....a picture can say so much more than words. Especially when those pictures are accompanied by words of sarcasm.
But this is "g-check" time for the POTUS. In too many instances (already) Pres. Obama has extended the olive branch to people who have no intention of working with him. I agree with Michael Moore's criticism that you don't go into a proposal with compromise as part of your argument. Hence, the debacle that the healthcare debate has become.
Okay, TMI, I guess. I'm going into my political feelings as though this were my former blog (with considerably less profanity ;-)). Just read the comic above and get an understanding of how many of us liberals are thinking with regards to president's seemingly dual personalities.
So, nine months into his first term, President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. I have to be honest and say that the prize is as much a joke as when peace-monger Jimmy Carter won it (his record on America's policies towards Latin America and Southeast Asia should have been considered). It was clear that mister Carter won because he was so vocally anti-Bush during Dubya's war campaigns.
It also seems to be clear that President Obama has won his award on the basis of "hope." Realistically, it's only been nine months for chrissake. How much do we really think the man is going to get achieved? I have to question the intellectual capacity of those who believed that racism would cease, everyone would get healthcare, the rain would never dampen our spirits, and a permanent rainbow would greet our our vision every morning once Obama got elected. Presidents generally don't make significant change in the American society in their first year in office. I'm willing to give the president a full 4 year term to prove him/herself as worthy of continuity. My criticism lies elsewhere.
Tom Tomorrow's latest satirical work paints a pretty good picture of how I'm feeling:
The idea of Obama
Wow....a picture can say so much more than words. Especially when those pictures are accompanied by words of sarcasm.
But this is "g-check" time for the POTUS. In too many instances (already) Pres. Obama has extended the olive branch to people who have no intention of working with him. I agree with Michael Moore's criticism that you don't go into a proposal with compromise as part of your argument. Hence, the debacle that the healthcare debate has become.
Okay, TMI, I guess. I'm going into my political feelings as though this were my former blog (with considerably less profanity ;-)). Just read the comic above and get an understanding of how many of us liberals are thinking with regards to president's seemingly dual personalities.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Glenn Beck/Stephen Colbert
Cotdamn!.....That Stephen Colbert is a funny bastard. The "conservative" pundit "defended" the so -called Fox News personality this past Thursday.
You can see it here.
For those who still may not know, Colbert, pronounced Col-bear' ("It's French, b!tch"), has fashioned himself as a liberal comedian disguised in conservative-pundit wares. In short, as a conservative pundit on a "fake-news" program four nights a week, Colbert expresses his liberal views concerning the news of the day by ranting from a right-wing viewpoint. This sarcasm-on-speed captures the liberal audiences' attention through comic rhetoric and easy-to-grasp irony, while at the same time satisfying left-wing anger through insulting side-slaps and feigned, selective Republican outrage.
Glenn Beck is a radio-television personality who built his popularity as a conservative commentator on the well-respected Cable News Network (CNN). In October 2008, Beck left CNN and joined Fox News to host his own television program Glenn Beck. In recent months, Beck has been highly analyzed and criticized for his outlandish personality and his constant srying on screen. While he is the scourge of the liberal media, he is the newewst darling of conservative mouthpiece.
What's the difference between the two? Colbert readily admits that he is a satirist performing on a comedy station. Glenn Beck admits to being an entertainer and rodeo-clown, but from a station that clings to the image of a credible, trusted news source.
Should both programs be considered satire? Stephen Colbert ran for president in 2008 (he officially filed in his home state of South Carolina) with the intention, not to actually be US President, but to raise money for an online charity which works to benefit low-income students.
Glenn Beck places Vick's VapoRub under his eyes to appear to have tear-jerking reactions to liberal policies and procedures which appear on the daily news wire.
So are both programs works of entertainment meant to pander to distinct political audiences? Should they both be taken as seriously as Brian Williams' nightly newscast, or should we treat these shows as seriously as we would treat a Carrot Top political commentary?
Okay, I need YOU, the reader, for this. Leave your comment on the above. Let me know how you feel. Do you like either one of these media clowns? Do you like their performances, political views, or both? Neither? Are you even political? Get at me!
You can see it here.
For those who still may not know, Colbert, pronounced Col-bear' ("It's French, b!tch"), has fashioned himself as a liberal comedian disguised in conservative-pundit wares. In short, as a conservative pundit on a "fake-news" program four nights a week, Colbert expresses his liberal views concerning the news of the day by ranting from a right-wing viewpoint. This sarcasm-on-speed captures the liberal audiences' attention through comic rhetoric and easy-to-grasp irony, while at the same time satisfying left-wing anger through insulting side-slaps and feigned, selective Republican outrage.
Glenn Beck is a radio-television personality who built his popularity as a conservative commentator on the well-respected Cable News Network (CNN). In October 2008, Beck left CNN and joined Fox News to host his own television program Glenn Beck. In recent months, Beck has been highly analyzed and criticized for his outlandish personality and his constant srying on screen. While he is the scourge of the liberal media, he is the newewst darling of conservative mouthpiece.
What's the difference between the two? Colbert readily admits that he is a satirist performing on a comedy station. Glenn Beck admits to being an entertainer and rodeo-clown, but from a station that clings to the image of a credible, trusted news source.
Should both programs be considered satire? Stephen Colbert ran for president in 2008 (he officially filed in his home state of South Carolina) with the intention, not to actually be US President, but to raise money for an online charity which works to benefit low-income students.
Glenn Beck places Vick's VapoRub under his eyes to appear to have tear-jerking reactions to liberal policies and procedures which appear on the daily news wire.
So are both programs works of entertainment meant to pander to distinct political audiences? Should they both be taken as seriously as Brian Williams' nightly newscast, or should we treat these shows as seriously as we would treat a Carrot Top political commentary?
Okay, I need YOU, the reader, for this. Leave your comment on the above. Let me know how you feel. Do you like either one of these media clowns? Do you like their performances, political views, or both? Neither? Are you even political? Get at me!
Saturday, October 3, 2009
So who do you trust for news?
Ok, so check this out-
Last year, I was perusing the NY Times and I came across a news article,
Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man In America?
Of course, I thought this was hilarious. But minutes later I began to ask myself, how do I get most of my news? At that time I was working a full-time job in NYC while still tending to my 3 hr-a-day-after-work responsibilities as an amateur boxing trainer and gym treasurer. Factor in my 2 hr door-to-door commute each way, and you'll understand that I didn't have a lot of time to check multiple sources for the news each day.
But during my lunch breaks I would check the NY Times one day, Rawstory another day, and The Onion on most days. Of the three, the NY Times is the most balanced, with The Rawstory having an accurate, but left-leaning slant towards the stories they report and write. But The Onion was the most enjoyable, poking fun at politics and America's social ills. The Onion, too, is left-leaning, yet is enjoyed by both liberals and right-leaning centrsits alike.
At the end of my long day (usually around 9:30, 10 pm) the wife and I enjoy both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. A great way to wind down and go to sleep in a good mood. Did I also mention that they cover news of the day we both may have missed? They've got jokes and jokes and jokes...and yet you'll be hard pressed to find a CREDIBLE news source that will criticize either show for mis-characterizing the news. Stephen Colbert, a "satirist on Speed," absolutely TORCHED President George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 2006 and was only criticized for poor taste. Jon Stewart ripped financial guru Jim Cramer a new one and netted 2.3 million viewers.
So why is Jon Stewart trusted more than Soledad O'Brien, Tucker Carlson, or Katie Couric?
Do you think the satirical videos posted on YouTube or individual blog sites have merit? How do you know who's real and who's completely misinformed (or has the intention to misinform the viewer/reader)?
Tom Tomorrow has comics posted weekly which lampoon the politics of the day, assuming the reader trusts his interpretation of current events. But where does Tom Tomorrow get his facts to lampoon? Bill Maher's Real Time is a popular weekly satire program filled with F-bombs, sexual references, and vulgar inferences toward political opponents. So why do Bill's fans listen intently to his New Rules segment? Is it just entertainment is does he make a good point while stretching the audiences' collective attention spans longer than Jim Lehrer ever could?
So who's sense of humor keeps your attention? Feel free to comment on whoever you believe
has mastered the art of "ha ha ha.....nah, I'm only serious..."
Last year, I was perusing the NY Times and I came across a news article,
Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man In America?
Of course, I thought this was hilarious. But minutes later I began to ask myself, how do I get most of my news? At that time I was working a full-time job in NYC while still tending to my 3 hr-a-day-after-work responsibilities as an amateur boxing trainer and gym treasurer. Factor in my 2 hr door-to-door commute each way, and you'll understand that I didn't have a lot of time to check multiple sources for the news each day.
But during my lunch breaks I would check the NY Times one day, Rawstory another day, and The Onion on most days. Of the three, the NY Times is the most balanced, with The Rawstory having an accurate, but left-leaning slant towards the stories they report and write. But The Onion was the most enjoyable, poking fun at politics and America's social ills. The Onion, too, is left-leaning, yet is enjoyed by both liberals and right-leaning centrsits alike.
At the end of my long day (usually around 9:30, 10 pm) the wife and I enjoy both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. A great way to wind down and go to sleep in a good mood. Did I also mention that they cover news of the day we both may have missed? They've got jokes and jokes and jokes...and yet you'll be hard pressed to find a CREDIBLE news source that will criticize either show for mis-characterizing the news. Stephen Colbert, a "satirist on Speed," absolutely TORCHED President George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 2006 and was only criticized for poor taste. Jon Stewart ripped financial guru Jim Cramer a new one and netted 2.3 million viewers.
So why is Jon Stewart trusted more than Soledad O'Brien, Tucker Carlson, or Katie Couric?
Do you think the satirical videos posted on YouTube or individual blog sites have merit? How do you know who's real and who's completely misinformed (or has the intention to misinform the viewer/reader)?
Tom Tomorrow has comics posted weekly which lampoon the politics of the day, assuming the reader trusts his interpretation of current events. But where does Tom Tomorrow get his facts to lampoon? Bill Maher's Real Time is a popular weekly satire program filled with F-bombs, sexual references, and vulgar inferences toward political opponents. So why do Bill's fans listen intently to his New Rules segment? Is it just entertainment is does he make a good point while stretching the audiences' collective attention spans longer than Jim Lehrer ever could?
So who's sense of humor keeps your attention? Feel free to comment on whoever you believe
has mastered the art of "ha ha ha.....nah, I'm only serious..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
