Fremde Frau
-
Posts
548 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Fremde Frau
-
-
I live in a district where there is rarely any difference between the local Democrats and Republicans. They're all trying to appeal to the same conservative base, so policies are rarely qualitatively different, and genuinely progressive people have no chance in hell. In addition to that, there are far too many cases where the only option is the incumbent. So, I'm often indifferent to the candidates themselves, but I take every chance I can to vote on the issues. Not that it makes any immediate difference, but I always think, "This time, maybe..." One day, it will make a difference. I can believe that if only because society does change over time, as power dynamics shift between generations. (Ever since Jason's Russia series, I also have in the back of my mind that quote from Angel.)
That said, I do think that people who feel completely unrepresented by policies and politicians aren't being unreasonable to refrain from voting as a matter of principle. If they've voted before but nothing ever changes for them no matter who is in office and which party has power, what should compel them to continue participating? This is a big failure of a two party system. On another note, I also have ambivalent feelings about this idea that celebrities need to explicitly tell people to vote, because people who need to be explicitly instructed to vote probably haven't taken the time and effort to make an informed vote.
-
I thought it was cute how he said [ǰɪf] earlier in the program but got a bit self-conscious in front of Cleese.
-
Is it this way everywhere, that politicians can't or won't just explicitly call bullshit on others? From what I've seen of the UK, it seems as though politicians there have to face direct, public criticism on any number of false claims and disingenuous behavior. Compared to that, it bugs the hell out of me that Gillibrand can't or won't just slap the GOP in the face with their own bullshit, instead of this routine of "Oh, I hope they mean it because we should be able to agree on issues XYZ." That's just additional fake talk building on original fake talk, which is now so normalized that it's the standard political dialogue in government and in the media. It's such a thing now that Obama calling BS on O'Reilly to his face is viewed as pettiness. Is this a result of (to paraphrase Jon) our politicians being primarily fund-raisers who only govern part-time?
I loved Barbara Lee's answers about terrorism.
-
2
-
-
If the Democrats had any sense, they would run Jordan's bit as a post-election PSA to the general public. Of course, if they had any sense, they would have been campaigning in such a way as to make that bit irrelevant.
I so love John Cleese. Who wouldn't want to watch a silent theater of the Pythons dining?
-
All I can think is YES PLEASE. Give it to me. All of it.
Sounds like just what he might need, too: comfort, friendship, personal heroes, and awesomeness.
-
I'm not sure it matters now if this or that story is discredited because it won't come from one of their* trusted sources (Fox, talk radio, Drudge, etc.). And they're never going to let it go; they'll just keep right on poking the amygdalae of their base. The rest of the media's complete failure in exposing this has turned political dialogue into an echo chamber.
*And by "their," I unfortunately mean independents, as well, because research indicates that many trust Fox.
-
I'm worried that Clinton just has so much baggage. People who love her really love her, but can she sway independents? The one solace is that, if she gets in, I doubt that she will tolerate Republican BS. Whether or not other Democrats and the media will follow her example is another matter entirely, of course. So much corruption and manipulation would be rooted out of this system if only the media did their job and exposed it rigorously and unapologetically. It's no wonder they've made Jon age fifty years in fifteen.
-
2
-
-
If any scholar has ever written definitively about what is happening psychologically and/or ideologically to make generation after generation vote against their own best interests, I'd love to read it.
-
4
-
-
On the plus side: my search for graduate programs just narrowed down nicely. (Although I'm still hoping for Canada or the UK, finances allowing...)
-
I agree. (It makes me think of Jon interviewing David Barton, who just created lie after lie on the spot. Or anyone debating intelligent design and climate science deniers.) The only way to win might be to deny the battle. Specifically: to deny that false debate. I hope Jon doesn't invite Barton back on, and I wish scientists would just shut off any public indulgence of science deniers. For the same reason, I wish that the Democrats would just focus on reality and, if the Republicans won't meet them there, then let the Republicans spiral off into their absurd cult of fear. But that would take the joint, honest effort of the media in holding political debates to actual issues rather than indulging fantasies. Instead, we have a country where Sarah Palin is seen and treated in the mainstream as a viable vice presidential candidate.
So, we're fucked.
-
2
-
-
Everything else is too fucking depressing, so I'll just focus on three nonsense things:
1) I can't believe that he felt he had to apologize, in addition to just clarifying the facts. People who can't be bothered to watch the video or to read the full story instead of just the headline and then immediately rush to demonize a person and attribute all manner of moral failures onto them without considering the specific historical, political, and philosophical context of that person are idiots if not assholes. I hate this culture of picking one quote to say a person is now dead to you or is somehow revealed to be a hypocrite, especially when it's not representative of everything they've done and/or said in the past. Maybe I'm just tired of seeing people apologize for non-issues that others have readily and/or willfully misunderstood and misrepresented, so that it becomes the new narrative that is passed around by everyone as fact, instead of it being stopping in its tracks by simply stating: "I don't owe you an apology for your outrage over this story about me that you yourselves have fabricated." (See: Democrats and Obama regarding this mire of Tea Party/GOP bullshit that we seem ever more deeply immersed in.)
2) Rob Riggle, welcome back.
3) TOSS! Oh, you guys knew we'd need that. Thank you.
-
3
-
-
I keep hoping, with things like advancements in human rights for LGBT individuals, that we are headed towards a more progressive era, but I think it's much more likely that we're headed towards a reactionary, fundamentalist era that will only continue to set us back until we have another wave of enlightenment to strongly counter this current culture of fear-mongering. The Republicans are completely controlling the dialogue about politics in this country; that's what I think the Democrats' biggest failure was. Since 2009, they've let year after year go by where they allow bullshit to go unchallenged and instead try each of them to defend themselves against association with that bs. So, the bigger narrative snowballs into this alternate reality where everyone from the politicians to the media are invested in a demonstrably false narrative instead of the reality of successes and progress.
In any case, some people think these two shows are stale now, but moments like these make me particularly grateful for Stephen and Jon slogging away at the GOP machine. The Democrats and the mainstream media certainly aren't challenging that machine in any concentrated, purposeful fashion. Leave it to two comedians.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, I took his being unable to find the polling site as a joke. He likes to tell the truth in jest and ascribe it to silly things, so I was still wondering if he actually didn't vote for whatever reason. I'd find it pretty hard to believe that he wouldn't vote in any sort of close race, unless there was a major obstacle that he's downplaying, but maybe the race wasn't close or maybe he voted early. In any case, the pitchforks are out, as usual.
(Damn, it looks like there won't be a runoff. Georgia is just adamantly red.)
-
I couldn't tell if Jon was joking or not when he said he didn't vote in the midterms. Amanpour's body language made it seem like a rehearsed bit rather than an actual question. (The full interview airs tomorrow, I think.) The reason he gave is that he just relocated to another state; I wonder what that means for the show. Could he be retiring even earlier than next September, if he was already planning against renewing his contract?
Anyway, I hope he clarifies it on the show because people are taking it seriously, but I doubt that he will.
-
Was Jon a little baked last night? But seriously.
And no one will ever call them out on it. Especially the liberal (HA!) media.
"Liberal media" has to be one of the most successful alternate realities ever invented by a political party.
-
2
-
-
The Chuck Todd interview was far more entertaining than I anticipated, and Todd sadly made a great point about Democrats. I think the last time I felt inspired to vote for them instead of against the Republicans was back when Obama was running the first time. Now, they're running on not being as bad as the other guy, whether that other guy is Obama or the GOP. Ugh. Still, I'm ready for the runoff in Georgia! (Why do I feel like quoting Papa Bear? Fuck it! We'll do it live!)
Stephen's Ebola joke at the end of the interview was the best moment of all.
-
I don't know his public record, but I kind of feel for that state representative. What in the world is he up against to come to that point, or is that his default setting? It's hard to tell, from that little bit shown, if he's having a legitimate mad as hell moment or if he's a Glenn Beck impressionist.
(Nice video, Victor the Crab!)
-
I know it's almost inevitable, but I still hope they discuss Stephen, if only because at this point I have an embarrassingly obvious affection for Jon and Stephen's affection for each other, and I want to savor every last drop before their partnership on Comedy Central officially comes to an end.
EDIT: Jon will be on CBS Sunday Morning; the preview is here. (Isn't that Mo Rocca?)
-
Unfortunately, very little of this was new information. At least it was hilariously delivered. Thank you, John.
Its amazing that they are so brazen about how identical these bills are in all the states and that this is so not reported by the news media. So bravo to John for his reporting. Unfortunately, too little too late for this election season, most likely.
Outside of the comfortably bedded fuckery of organizations like ALEC, this is what really infuriates me: that the media should be complicit and just keep on asking about campaign strategies and who's ahead of whom, rather than tearing this whole corrupt system apart and holding politicians and their donors alike to account. Instead, we have three comedy shows (maybe four, with Maher?) to depend on for political transparency.
-
1
-
-
You're probably right. I was thinking that there's something about his expression that reminded me of a particular actor from that era, but it's probably the background and B/W photography that is messing with my mind.
I didn't realize that there was another new (old) article out, also in New York magazine but from 1994.Here in the '90s, when everybody except Chevy Chase has a talk show, Jon Stewart brings three all-important qualities to MTV’s entry in the chat wars: He’s funny. He’s not afraid tackle tough issues with guests like the 7-year-old Olsen twins from Full House. And he has an abundance of body hair. “They have to shave my neck during the hour between taping,” Stewart says. “Is that something I shouldn’t have shared?”
This is the man who should have been Conan. In fact, Stewart made it to the finals of NBC’s Replace Dave Sweepstakes, only to have Lorne Michaels choose O’Brien, who’d spent as much time in front of a television camera as Doris Duke.
“And what do we have for the losers?” Stewart intones in his most unctuous game-show-host voice. “A week at Giggles Comedy Club in Rochester!” Stewart’s consolation prize turned out to be more valuable: MTV launched The Jon Stewart Show.
All the standard talk-show elements are present in Stewart’s speedy half-hour, but they’re slightly skewed: Announcer Howard Feller looks heavily sedated (he played an inmate in Awakenings). The musical guests (the Breeders; 4 Non Blondes; Gin Blossoms) are loud and quirky. Then there’s the host, a boyish, smartly sarcastic comic who’s a regular guy — quick-witted, but not overpowering like Robin Williams; ironic, but not smug like Dennis Miller.
Stewart is also doing his best to be perky. “Jon’s shown more of his nice-guy side so far,” says pal Denis Leary. “As this show continues, it will get uglier; eventually it will just be this raging little Jewish man screaming into the camera.” -
A new (and very long) interview with Jon by New York Magazine. It covers quite a lot of ground, so I'm putting it here rather than in the Rosewater thread. It's hard to pick out a few quotes because it's full of his humor and honesty, but this part stood out to me because of what they have covered recently on the show.
You’ve consciously diversified The Daily Show’s staff over the years. Why has that been important to you?
I was defensive at first about our writing staff being all white and male, and then I had to examine what were the structural issues, and what’s my own ignorance of some of this. It’s been a long process, and that’s just one metric, but I wanted a wider and deeper pool of people to draw from. Hopefully, I’ve grown and learned as I’ve gotten older. I’ve had some very frank conversations with women on the staff and minorities on the staff about the inherent difficulties, the fact that in their lives they have to make decisions and strategize in a way that I take for granted. I don’t think people recognize how exhausting it is sometimes to be black.
You were pretty worked up trying to get Bill O’Reilly to acknowledge “white privilege” the other day.
He’s six-five! You know, if I want him to hear me, I’ve got to climb the mountain.
The show also did a controversial segment recently about the racism of the name “Washington Redskins.” Were you wrong to ambush those fans who were defending the team name?
I wouldn’t call it an ambush. We don’t lie to people and say we’re not The Daily Show or “This won’t happen” or things like that. I even said on the show if we found out that these people had been intentionally misled, that segment wouldn’t have aired. That’s not the case. I’ll tell you where there was a real ambush—when the Native Americans went to the stadium and people said the most vile shit to them. The ugliness that arose was mind-numbing. So for the story to be these poor people, the Redskins fans, who sat in a room and had to then talk to the Native Americans … I don’t understand the weird defensiveness. We all live in a country built on this very devastating scenario with the people who were already living here. That’s our original Manifest Destiny sin. In some ways, by accepting the flaws, the progress that we’ve made is more impressive.
That first image is great, but it's bugging me because he looks like some "golden age" actor, but I can't think of who it is. -
I've had to show ID in Georgia. I don't know if those are relatively new laws (since 1999, when I moved here from Japan) or not.
Maryland's system sounds great.
-
A university seems like a reasonable source of acceptable ID, although it might become problematic regarding private vs. state institutions. Not to mention the issue of people who don't have resources or opportunities to attend a university. I do find it absurd that some states allow gun permits to count as ID while simultaneously working to weaken the requirements for such permits. I meant to add: some other states will allow voters to use utility bills, bank statements, paycheck, university ID, etc. Anyway, I don't see anything inherently wrong with needing to prove citizenship and age to vote, since any election should ideally be a reflection of its citizens' and only its citizens' votes, but that assumes an equal playing field for everyone, instead of a country where the playing field is deliberately and now legally made as uneven as possible. The standard for ID, if required, should be a federal one that accounts for all socioeconomic realities.
Because the people it benefits are the ones writing and passing the laws?
Sigh. You're right; there is always that. Like Romney and his "I'll pay as many taxes as I'm required" while working to fix that system to his benefit.
Damn it, US. -
Stephen had such great energy last night. Fantastic show, and I loved the bit with George Takei and Star Trek.
"The Daily Show": Week of 11/3/14
in The Daily Show With Jon Stewart [V]
· Edited by Fremde Frau
In other news: Chris Cuomo likes him some Jon Stewart voting controversy, and Reza Aslan thinks that's gross.
I needed a laugh.