TDS: Negative Campaigning

Case in point:

TDS: Postcards From The Pledge

So, you don't like the way things are going in America today and despite the fact that many of our current woes originated during the last Republican administration you're still thinking of voting them back into power for some new leadership and fresh ideas. Jon Stewart takes a look at their new Pledge to America and finds a few things that might look a little familiar:

TDS: The Hurt Talker

I know I've been posting a lot of Daily Show clips lately but these boys have just been on fire the last couple of weeks. Case in point:

I haven't yet commented upon the Laura Schlessinger fracas for two reasons: 1) I've just been too busy and 2) I begrudgingly respect her for having the balls to actually enunciate the word "nigger" in a discussion about the use of that word. Nothing bugs me more than listening to grown adults saying things like "N-word", "F-word" or "C-word" during a discussion with other adults as if there were a bunch of children within earshot. If there are kids in the room with you then yes, don't use these words in front of them but adults should be able to use epithets in discussions with other adults. As Stewart says, context and intent are far more important than the actual words themselves. How does one have a substantive discussion about the use or misuse of the word "nigger" if one is too cowed by political correctness to utter it even innocuously?

Now, as to Schlessinger's use of the word: did I say "having the balls" earlier? Because what I really meant was "lacking the brains". Yes, adults should be able to say "nigger" in a discussion about the use of that word and its effect on our society but an old white woman claiming that she should have the same leeway in its use as black comedians on HBO is just about the dumbest way to go about having that discussion I can think of. I can't count the number of times I've heard white people say, "Well if black people can say the N-word why can't we?" and my answer is always the same: hundreds of years of culturally institutionalized slavery and racial discrimination, that's why. I don't support slavery reparation policies or anything like that but I am OK with this small double standard as it concerns racial disparity. It's the same reason I can say that one of my little sisters is acting like a bitch but I better not hear you say it: it's a right reserved for my family only. On the 300th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington white people should feel free to check in with the black community at that point to see if it's OK to chant "nigger, nigger, nigger" yet but until then idiots like Schlessinger just need to relax on that count or else they'll find themselves in the same situation she does now. Freedom of speech is a great thing but it does have consequences for which one must take responsibility.

My favorite part about this whole brouhaha however is the fact that Sarah Palin has injected herself into the fray and proven once again that she has absolutely no concept of what constitutes First Amendment freedom of speech rights. Ignoring the hypocrisy of her calling for Emmanuel's resignation for using the word "retarded" discussed above I'm reminded of a post I wrote about Palin and the First Amendment a couple of days before the 2008 presidential election:

She's already proven that she has no idea what the job of the vice-president is, so why should we expect her to understand how the first amendment works?

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Really? Since Chris Plante is a right-wing talk radio host it's no surprise that he didn't call her on her shit but just in case any of you (besides Palin and Plante) have forgotten:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So according to Sarah Palin (and yes, I know how loaded a phrase that can be) the media and others exercising their free speech rights to refute and/or criticize what she says is the same thing as the United States government passing laws explicitly outlawing what she says. In other words, Palin's idea of free speech is the right to say anything critical about anybody or anything without anyone else criticizing what you've just said; in point of fact, that's the exact opposite of free speech.

At least she's remained consistent in her constitutional ignorance. I wonder if she's had time between speeches and media appearances to learn what the vice-president does yet? I'll say it again, Republicans: run her, please. Hell, put Schlessinger on the ticket as her VP nominee while you're at it. I can certainly use all the laughs I can get.

TDS: The Parent Company Trap

So it turns out that FOX News is partially funding the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque. No really, they actually are. And the question now becomes: evil or stupid?

TDS: Stewart And Cooper Look At Gaping Holes

OK, forget what I said about Basil Marceaux.com: Republican Representative and all around fruitcake Louie Gohmert should be given as many opportunities to speak in front of a microphone and/or camera as is humanly possible:

TDS: I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill

What he said:

Jon Stewart's Goatee

A lot of people are talking shit but I like it. Now maybe my perceptions are somewhat colored by the fact that I'm such a big fan of The Daily Show or because I myself am also beardily-challenged, hence leaving the goatee as my only outlet for facial hair expression (what I wouldn't give to be able to grow a pair of really kick-ass Wolverine mutton chops...) but I'm siding with Stewart on this one. It gives him a kind of elder statesman of the fake news vibe, plus I thought Wyatt Cenac's "Tony Stark" jab the other day was pure beardist gold.

Electoral Sour Grapes Of The Day

Found at my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas' site American Power, just for the laughs. Now obviously the items on this list are mostly the product of fevered neocon dreams and callous fear-mongering but it was the declaration "59 Million Americans Didn't Vote for This" that struck me. Even if this were a list of Obama's political ambitions, who the fuck cares what those 59 million people voted for? They lost! Yet we're told to believe that this is how democracy is now supposed to work: the side that loses the election gets to set the agenda for the next four years (although to be fair, Obama and the Democrats have caved on a number of issues only to get a "bi-partisan" middle finger from Republicans time and again).

Well I'm one of the 69 million people who voted for Obama and and I think I speak for most of us when I say that we're quite happy to let him continue running the country. Here's a reminder for everyone else:

TDS: Wish You Weren't Here

Jon Stewart beaks down why President Obama wants those dirty Muslims ("non-Christians", if you're scoring at home) to rule space and build mosques next door to you:

TDS: Into Africa - Two Teams, One Cup

Englishman John Oliver of The Daily Show visits the US World Cup training camp as the team prepares to play its first match against the mincing crumpet nibblers of England:

And then there's this:

Leaked diplomatic correspondence between Washington and London has revealed the latest bump in the so-called “special relationship” -- a high stakes wager between ambassadors over the outcome of their teams’ World Cup clash, The Times writes in its Wednesday edition.

Louis Susman, the American Ambassador to London, approached his British counterpart in Washington through a staff intermediary to offer a bet on the outcome of Saturday’s game between England and the United States.

“We will understand if you decline, given the outcome of the last such encounter,” Philip Breeden, the American press secretary in London gibed.

Martin Longden, his counterpart in Washington, protested ignorance. “Since the history of English football is long and extensive, in contradistinction to U.S. soccer, I regret that I cannot immediately recall the encounter to which you refer.

"No doubt it is remembered fondly on these shores; we have quite forgotten it, however.”

Longden proposed the terms of the wager: dinner at a Washington DC steakhouse if England triumphs; supper at a London pub on Ambassador Nigel Sheinwald’s dime if the U.S. is the winner.

Breeden accepted, reminding Longden of the outcome of last Anglo-American encounter at the World Cup: a 1-0 victory for the U.S. in Brazil.

Longden would not be deterred. “You should know that the Ambassador takes his steak like American soccer victories — somewhat rare,” he retorted.

Damn. That's cold. Alright Britain, it's on now. USA! USA! US... Wait a minute, this is still a soccer game. I'll just watch the highlights on Sportcenter.

TDS: Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's

There's a reason Godwin's Law exists and that reason is Glenn Beck (and yes, I can sense your collective surprise at finding this out):

(via)

TDS: Bernie Goldberg Fires Back

I was watching The O'Reilly Factor a few days ago when Bernie Goldberg went off on Jon Stewart and at the time thought to myself, "I know Stewart is going to respond to this but I wonder what he'll say?" As always, he didn't disappoint:

TDS: A Farewell To Arms

Does that logo look familiar to you?

If it does, it might be because I lamented it's non-inclusion in this film.

How CNN Could Stop Leaving It There

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen is concerned that CNN's attempt at moderate nonpartisanship, also known as the View from Nowhere, isn't working (their prime time viewership was down 40% in the last year). Jon Stewart brilliantly addressed this problem last fall:

Rosen's concern derives from the fact that because CNN operates this way most of the time (they occasionally do some real digging and reveal some truth) they are failing to adequately address the vast chasm of news reporting between the fairly liberal MSNBC on the left and the ultra-conservative FOX News on the right. His answer to this problem is what I consider to be a refreshing and inspired alternate line-up for CNN's prime time block:

• 7 pm: Leave Jon King in prime time and rename his show Politics is Broken. It should be an outside-in show. Make it entirely about bringing into the conversation dominated by Beltway culture and Big Media people who are outsiders to Beltway culture and Big Media and who think the system is broken. No Bill Bennett, no Gloria Borger, no “Democratic strategists,” no Tucker Carlson. Do it in the name of balance. But in this case voices from the sphere of deviance balance the Washington consensus.

• 8 pm: Thunder on the Right. A news show hosted by an extremely well informed, free-thinking and rational liberal that mostly covers the conservative movement and Republican coalition… and where the majority of the guests (but not all) are right leaning. The television equivalent of the reporting Dave Wiegel does.

• 9 pm: Left Brained. Flip it. A news show hosted by an extremely well informed, free-thinking and rational conservative that mostly covers liberal thought and the tensions in the Democratic party…. and where the majority of the guests (but not all) are left leaning.

• 10 pm: Fact Check An accountability show with major crowdsourcing elements to find the dissemblers and cheaters. The week’s most outrageous lies, gimme-a-break distortions and significant misstatements with no requirement whatsoever to make it come out equal between the two parties on any given day, week, month, season, year or era. CNN’s answer to Jon Stewart.

• 11 pm.: Liberty or death: World’s first news program from a libertarian perspective, with all the unpredictablity and mix-it-up moxie that libertarians at their best provide. Co-produced with Reason magazine.

I like the idea of Politics is Broken as long as it doesn't denigrate into a "man on the street" format. I'm all for removing the usual crew of talking heads and political insiders from the national discussion but neither do I want to hear what whoever happened to be at the Starbucks on K Street today thinks about tort reform. A show featuring a seasoned interviewer moderating a rotating panel of well educated experts, professors and entrepreneurs discussing the major issues of the day would be a welcome change from the current format of two extremes lying to the camera and going for each other's throats with a largely impotent host ringing the bell at the end of each round.

Thunder on the Right and Left Brained would be a nice compliment to each other and I love the idea of a news show where every guest is in the camp opposite from the host. While the host/moderator of any show holds most of the power they would be outnumbered by their guests and thus forced to bring their A-game to every show. Again, a welcome change from watching a host and whichever guests they agree with ganging up on whomever they're philosophically opposed to or even worse, everyone agreeing and giving each other rhetorical reach arounds for an hour.

Fact Check is my absolute favorite of these show ideas, which is probably why I like Jon Stewart and The Daily Show so much. Cable news viewers are crying out for a program that holds both parties' feet to the fire, not in the pathetic limp-wristed way that CNN tries to now by attempting to make everything equal (a problem I've previously discussed) but rather giving either side more shit than the other if they deserve it at that particular time for that particular issue. Honest political discussion is tragically hampered by the media being so intertwined with politicians that one can hardly figure out who's who anymore. This show would be a breath of fresh air.

Liberty or Death is a good way to wrap up the day: a political news show that argues in favor of less politics, something that no cable news station would ever countenance today. Political pugilism and the horse race aspect of politics are their bread and butter, while these very same things are what is severely hurting the country and poisoning the waters of civil debate. Now of course most of these shows would never have a chance in Hell of being made, mostly for the very same reasons that I and many like me want them to be but I can dream, can't I?

(via)

[Update: James Joyner echoes my lament at Outside the Beltway:

Of course, Jay seems to be designing shows for intellectuals when the evidence seems to show that people are really after infotainment. The highest rated “news” shows are either red meat diatribes that reinforce the viewers’ prejudices about people who hold different political views or are smarmy satires that reinforce the viewers’ prejudices about people who hold different political views. There seems to be a pattern there.

Disheartening but true, but mostly just disheartening.]

TDS: Progressivism Is Cancer

Jon Stewart uses his first two segments to brilliantly mock the conspiratorial rantings of an unlikely moron. The intro:

And part II, the remockening:

Genius. Obvious fish in a barrel, yet genius nonetheless.

(hat tip: halnwolf)

[Update: Stephen Colbert follows with one of the cleverest interviews of a Republican political strategist (Mary Matalin) I've ever witnessed. Watch her hopelessly flounder as she tries to avoid her carefully prepared bingo card, right-wing talking points:
]

TDS: Unusually Large Snowstorm

The Daily Show backs up Republican claims that the study of climatology is no more difficult than looking out one's window:

TDS: An Inconvenient Trial

Jon Stewart explains what the Republicans already know: that we will never win the war on terror until we can do so comfortably:

Stewart Punks Kristol On Health Care Reform

It's recently been brought to my attention through private emails and public admonitions that many of you would like to see more of the lengthy commentary that was a staple of this site several months ago. Again, I apologize for the lack thereof (recounted and explained with as much emotional honesty as I could muster in this previous post) and I promise to make a considerable effort to pull myself from out my current intellectual funk. In so doing, I have a few things to say about this Jon Stewart interview of leading neoconservative William Kristol on health care reform in America from the middle of last year, which I apparently completely missed at the time. The mental disconnect here is staggering:


So, what does Kristol mean to say here? Stewart is the one who lets slip the phrase "our better citizens" yet Kristol seems to agree with the sentiment when he answers "Our soldiers? Absolutely." Now before I say what I'm about to say let me first state that I have great respect for the soldiers in our military and that I'm truly thankful for the protection they provide this country. In fact, for those not in the know, I almost attended West Point myself (I blew my scholarship partying way too much in my first year at Texas A&M instead). Just wanted to get that out of the way before I say this.

I'm getting a bit tired of the constant claim that every one of our military men and women are the best this nation has to offer, that by signing up to join the American military you somehow automatically become an incredible individual who is a far better person than those who have not done so. Granted, there are a lot of brave and extraordinarily capable individuals serving in the military (many of them truly are the best America has to offer) and we're lucky to have them fighting for us but the truth is that the military has also traditionally been somewhat of a last resort for many in our society, especially during times of economic duress.

Ever since the Bush administration got this country hopelessly mired in two intractable wars overseas our military has been stretched to the breaking point, so much so that the admission standards have had to be drastically lowered. As a result of these lowered standards, our military now admits recruits of lesser physical and mental prowess, recruits with less than healthy psychologies, recruits well over the traditional age of service and even recruits with substantial criminal records. We've watered down the ranks in an effort to maintain unsustainable recruitment numbers during a time of unpopular war. Yet Kristol and other neocons still insist that every one of these men and women are inherently better than any one of us and thus deserve better health care than you and I. Why is this?

Is it because they perform a service that is more dangerous than the average American's job? OK, I'll readily admit that but what does Kristol have to say about timber-cutters, deep sea fishermen, pilots, structural metal workers, delivery drivers, roofers, electrical power installers, farm workers, construction laborers and truck drivers? These are the ten most dangerous occupations in the country and I don't think that anyone could argue that these jobs are not essential to our economy and society, so all things being equal why should they not receive the same level of health care as those in our military?

Kristol also claims that "the military need different kinds of health care than the rest of us". Again I ask, why is this? Granted, their jobs (those active duty soldiers and civilian personnel who are currently serving and working in dangerous war zones, which is about ten percent of the total military employed by our government) are indeed dangerous but how is the health care they require that different from that of the occupations I referenced above? When a soldier incurs a serious head injury in battle does he need different medical care than a timber-cutter or construction laborer who receives the same type of head wound at their work site? Does a soldier who loses a limb in combat any more disadvantaged or physically traumatized than a farm worker who loses the same limb within the blades of a motorized thresher? Just how exactly are the wounds and injuries of soldiers in the military any different or more serious than those same wounds or injuries received by civilians, thus requiring "different kinds of health care than the rest of us"?

The obvious answer is that they are not but to Kristol and the other architects of the Iraq war who favor constant American military interventionism across the globe the role of the soldier and the United States military must be all but mythologized in order to support their warmongering ambitions. Yet the problem for the neocons is that most of America already subscribes to this supposed mythology: "Support Our Troops" signs are ubiquitous within our society and stories abound of everyday Americans buying beers for returned servicemen and women (which I wholeheartedly support by the way, especially for those soldiers who are under the legal drinking age). Despite the neocons' best efforts to insist otherwise, we Americans already treat our soldiers as our somewhat social betters.

So Kristol chooses instead to denigrate the sacrifices and hard work of those Americans not belonging to the military as being somehow inferior to that of our soldiers in order to justify his support for never-ending wars around the world (wars he himself would never deign to fight in, of course), hence his insistence that the well being of those in civilian American society deserves much less respect and regard than that of those serving in the American military. And despite his usual inane and hypocritical posturing about the costs of various government subsidies he is also all too happy to let those same Americans pay for these wars with the tax dollars they might very well have spent on their own health care system, if only it was something that they, you know, actually deserved.

Chart Of The Day

To quote Jon Stewart during his recent interview with now unemployed CNN personality Lou Dobbs: "It feels like all of the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans." Of course, there's a logical explanation for this apparent aberration in the principles of the supposedly fiscally conservative: nakedly partisan hypocrisy. Shorter Republicans: it's OK when we do it.

(via)

TDS: The Rogue Warrior

Jon Stewart explores why the left totally hates Sarah Palin and must therefore destroy her:


[Update: These two Palin supporters perfectly exemplify the art of mindlessly spouting talking points even in the face of contradicting truth and reality:


(via)]