Fremde Frau

Oh, she is one of my idols. I admire her work so much.

@maculae, thank you for those links. I could hardly believe that Jon associated himself with deep dish pizza. Why, Jon? What's happened to you? (But, seriously, I loved that WGN interview. Maziar and Jon show their great chemistry, and it ends on a Lindsey Graham impression. When Jon mentioned Sunday morning talk shows, though, I couldn't stop thinking two things: why won't this interviewer ask him about Meet The Press, and how hilariously wrong would it have been for MTP-Jon to interview Graham in that voice?) That Fox32 interview raises a good question. What would a movie about Jon focus on? Also, would the soundtrack be composed by the Boss? Would Jon be played by Tom Cruise or Ben Stiller, or would it be a muppet movie? Would Shia LaBeouf be cast as Tucker Carlson? And would it even be possible for a movie or documentary to be made about him that wasn't hopelessly romanticized, politicized, or both?

I'd love to see some Tosses before his character signs off forever. And I hope he brings back Hans at least one more time.

There's a new study by Pew Research Center on political polarization and media habits. On the one hand, more people trust Jon than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. On the other hand, their regular audience is much larger individually as well as collectively, so I'm not sure that this is a very representative sample. And Fox still dominates the ideological right. EDIT: TDS and TCR are having live midterm election coverage on November 4th. Not a joint show, alas!

I think The Daily Show has consistently insisted that they are absolutely not anyone's champion. Jon always gets singled out for shirking some presumed social or political responsibility, but he isn't alone in saying this; writers, producers, correspondents, etc., have said the same thing. John Oliver is saying it now, about himself and his new show. Sometimes, I definitely wish TDS had done a more serious take on this or had covered that, but what is that to them? They aren't responsible for what people want out of them in excess of their profession and intent. Jon seems to be a kind of quiet activist as a private citizen, using his fame and fortune for causes that he cares about (moderating a panel of Arab Spring activists for the Women in the World summit, for example), but, as far as I've seen, he's never directly asked his Daily Show audience to take specific political action. Not with the rally or even with the 9/11 first responders episode, the way Shep Smith did. The show is still built on what he cares about, but there is a separation of church and state, so to speak, that appears to be very deliberate on his part. Crossing that would be a pretty major step for him, I think. In any case, I don't know why he should be held to account for supposedly breaking a contract that he never entered into. His contract with us is to entertain; if he makes a wrong-headed joke or starts repeating old field pieces in place of new content, those would be legitimate criticisms. But too often, you read an article like that and the reason he's being criticized is that he's had a failure of integrity as a journalist, a political activist, or both. That's just a false premise from the start. That TDS is a generally hilarious show while also offering sharp, insightful commentary on politics and society is like discovering that the apartment you've leased, sight unseen, turns out to have a fantastic skyline view that contextualizes everything your city is doing wrong. You are still going to face that city every morning and try to make a difference in whatever way you can, but that unexpected, cathartic view at night is really nice to have. At least, that's how I watch the show.

From Salon: an excerpt from the new book #Newsfail: Climate Change, Feminism, Gun Control, and Other Fun Stuff We Talk About Because Nobody Else Will, by Jamie Kilstein and Allison Kilkenny. And here is a brief interview with the authors by HuffPo. The good news is that they're rooting for LWT, so we haven't lost our progressive messiah in the counterculture revolution. Because what else could possibly motivate us to be proactive citizens, if not satirical comedy? And I'm so glad they're talking about climate change, feminism, gun control, and that other fun stuff, because goodness knows TDS never does. Slackers.

I was half wondering if there weren't a better route to the same end, but there doesn't seem to be a good choice at all, outside of being someone's new pet donkey, dog, or cat. The process for political asylum is possibly even worse--with precious little transparency, no cultural expertise or education required for individuals who make these life-or-death decisions, and seemingly undefined, arbitrary standards for determining the validity of claims. (That's what I've learned about it, anyway. I hope I'm wrong, or that there has been major reform.) Forgot to mention it before, but it was surprising that John used Vietnam as a success story for safely and quickly extracting refugees, with no mention of how many people who fought alongside the US forces and otherwise helped us or were sympathetic to us were placed in "re-education camps." That seemed like a more relevant comparison to the Afghan translators in this segment. It didn't detract from his overall point, but it seemed rather like comparing tangerines to navel oranges, and not the whole tangerine, at that. Anyway. Our record for helping individuals who've helped us is truly a clusterfuck. That's the headline, and rightly so.

Well, but that was sort of my point, what with them fucking with the Voting Rights Act and so forth.

What was the second part of the episode, as it aired? All I saw online was the segment on translators and the 10 min Supreme Court video for fans to play with. That Afghanistan translator segment was probably their most serious one yet. The only jokes, such as they were, seemed to be when he broke away to curse for a few seconds at whomever (or whatever) was on the screen.

If only the Supreme Court did not have utter contempt for the voting rights of citizens, true reform might be possible.

D: That is almost as bad as Jon's goatee monstrosity.

Google has responded: Poor Jon gets the, er, short end of the stick.

It just seems like reddit has generally hated his recent stuff on white privilege, racism, feminism, income inequality, etc. That said, I don't think it would end up like the Ann Coulter AMA or anything. (Yikes.) I'm kind of looking forward to the chaos of Twitter. Hee. EDIT: Twitter HQ is getting excited to see Jon and Maziar. (The chat is in one hour.)

From the Daily Show twitter: Wait, does that mean Jon will be directly interacting with Twitter? Oh, my. The only thing more potentially disastrous might be an AMA on reddit.

Poor, working class people believe it, though, and continue to vote them in. The Democratic Party really needs to use their campaign money more effectively to show what they've done about jobs, the economy, etc., rather than framing their ads with the same "us vs. them" appeal to emotion that the GOP uses. I was out voting early today, and it can honestly get extremely disheartening when you live in a state where seemingly every incumbent is Republican. Part of me was thinking, Fuck it, what is it even worth? But the other part of me was playing the Chariots of Fire theme in my head and thinking, If you don't run, you can't win. *sigh*

Saw this on Twitter. It's too bad that Jon never invites onto the show people with whom he disagrees. I'm sure Yelton would put him in his place. Here's the original segment. Poor guy's still feeling it. Heh. (Damn, I miss Aasif. He was on the same tier as John, Stephen, and Steve were and as Jessica is now. Perfect in almost every segment, whether in studio or in the field.)

Damn, has another week already gone by? This year is winding down way too quickly on this show. I feel a little like Sam watching Frodo's ship sail away. Same here. It was just the right amount of the absurd without belaboring the joke.

I wasn't really feeling the fangate coverage; it was too crude and about a story that had already outlived my interest. But Jessica was as sublime as ever. I hope Kansas is a wake-up call for conservatives and libertarians still pushing that kind of system, but I doubt that it will be. The interview with Stevenson was very nicely done, I thought. That became a wonderful follow-up to the O'Reilly interview, exposing precisely what O'Reilly was too obstinate to accept or Jon too inarticulate to convey in the heat of that moment. I'm looking forward to seeing the extended version.

I was thinking of Coates' article, too, @peeayebee. It was clear that Jon had read it (or was otherwise familiar with the information it contained) and that O'Reilly hadn't. He was so obtuse with his "They're forced to live there? They have to live there?" He must have immediately realized he was in over his head on that point because as soon as Jon's demeanor changed and he said, "You're getting into a bad place, my friend," O'Reilly changed the subject by joking about white guilt. O'Reilly being the guest makes this particular conversation a pointless dead end, but from the standpoint of the overall dialogue about privilege gaining traction in mainstream media, I think it's a good thing for a popular host like Jon to discuss the topic as directly as possible on his tv show. And, although it ends up being yet another instance of white guys discussing race, if there's one thing someone with privilege and a platform (Jon) can do, it's to educate others who share that privilege but fail to realize it (O'Reilly and--more importantly--the general white audience out there who will see this interview). That said, there is this perfect layer of insulation that too many white people have built up to prevent honest, problem-solving dialogue: they don't have to listen to someone like Jon (because he's white, and what does he know about it?), and they don't have to listen to people of color (because they're too close to the issue and are "professional victims"/"racists" who are irresponsible and incapable of being objective about race). So, their own lack of being directly affected by a systemic problem becomes confused for objectivity, and the only perspectives of merit are their own. The same thing happens with feminism, LGBT rights, disability rights, etc. Then they shift the topic to another systemic problem, real (income inequality) or bullshit (white genocide), and away they go... In any case, I appreciated that Jon acknowledged before the MOZ that he isn't the perfect spokesperson for this issue. The show has a pretty good track record of providing people of color the opportunity to represent themselves, rather than Jon just speaking for everyone, so I don't think it's insignificant that they are trying to address this directly with someone who is essentially the face of white privilege denial.

Rory Albanese posted a cute picture of the three of them.

I really hope that HBO releases a DVD of this show. It sucks not having an HBO subscription and getting only partial episodes on YouTube. EDIT: Stumbled across this, from Tumblr:

Jon tossing the book was perfect. I think they've been on each other's shows so often that there's sort of an etiquette shorthand. Jon was in debate mode, and he was taking O'Reilly there whether or not O'Reilly was comfortable with that topic. Of course, it ended as amiably as always. I wonder what it would take for Jon to throw up his hands and just declare a guest dead to him. EDIT: Here is the extended interview. They definitely cut out some fluff, especially at the beginning and end, but I wish they hadn't also cut out Jon's point about women and minorities having to make calculations in their daily lives that white men in this country needn't worry about.

The interview on YouTube is all that I've seen so far. I'll say this, for those who haven't seen it: they talked about white privilege, and Jon was in his no-bullshit mode. Twitter lit up, and O'Reilly was trending for a while. Basically, if it had to be an O'Reilly interview, it was exactly what I was hoping for. It's as intense an interview as I've ever seen between them. I'm actually looking forward to the extended version.

Yes! Oh, god, I'd love to go to a taping. I'll never make it up there in time to see Stephen at TCR, but maybe I could visit sometime next year for a TDS taping. If only I could get a ticket for Late Show, as well; that would be amazing. And Oliver and Wilmore, too! Argh, there are too many of them now! But if I could only attend one, it would be TDS. (On second thought, I'd probably write the most embarrassing, gushing taping report, especially if I managed to ask Jon a question. It's just as well that this is an impossible dream!)

So, New York it is, then. Damn, I need to at least visit the city, even if I can't afford to live there. I drove through once about six years ago on my way from Georgia to Boston, but all I remember is seeing the beautiful skyline all lit up in the night and reflected on the water. On the drive back, we passed by at dawn. So gorgeous and so emotional. I grew up in Hiroshima, Japan, and haven't often felt particularly patriotic as an American, but it was quite a feeling to pass through NYC.