Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
trow125

"The Daily Show": Week of 9/22/14

Recommended Posts

9/22: Jenny Nordberg (author – promoting book “The Underground Girls of Kabul: In Search of a Hidden Resistance in Afghanistan”)
9/23: General Tony Zinni (former Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) & author – promoting book “Before the First Shots Are Fired: How America Can Win Or Lose Off The Battlefield”)
9/24: Tia Torres (pit bull advocate – promoting show “Pit Bulls & Parolees”)
9/25: TBD

 

Since Bill Clinton was last week's TBD, who will next week's be?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody this side of President Obama or the Queen of England could top Bill Clinton.

 

That said, if Donald Trump ever showed up for an interview, it might top everything ever on television.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Not a super-famous TBD this week...

9/25: Steven Johnson (author – promoting book “How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World”)

Share this post


Link to post

That scientist had the patience of Job to deal with the dumbasses on that House committee on global warming. It would be fun to see Jon sit in that chair and rip them a new one like that.

 

Things I never wish to see again: Jason in a dress.

 

Thanks to the fucking dickhole brainiacs at Comedy/Bell, they've decided to stretch TDS with commercials and promos past 1130PM in order to accommodate Kimmel. They need to be flamed with e-hatemails.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

God save us from the idiots in the House.  Even though I'm Canadian, I'm still affected by these morons.  I think you should have to have at least a B+ in science and have graduated from a secular university to sit on that committee. 

 

Mind you, our government is just as embarrassing.  The PM (he's not my PM; i didn't vote for the SOB) is in New York but as per usual, will not attend the climate summit.  Instead, he's going to some damn dinner.  Just stay at home, Steve.  You've humiliated our country enough, OK?

 

By the time they decide to do something, we'll all be paddling to work anyhow. Idiots.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd read those exchanges betw the committee members and the scientist, but it was so much better to actually see it. That was awesome.

 

Jason's segment did nothing for me.

 

The tag was head-shaking. It's laughable how transparently the Right Wing stretches to connect everything to Benghazi.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
That scientist had the patience of Job to deal with the dumbasses on that House committee on global warming.

 

I died laughing when he said, "Senator, I always enjoy my exchanges with you." He might as well have said, "Bless your heart."

 

I'm as exasperated as Jon is with these clowns.

 

The tag was head-shaking. It's laughable how transparently the Right Wing stretches to connect everything to Benghazi.

 

The sniff is what really sold it. Good lord.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

So that FB meme of It's a Wonderful Life that said "Every time a bell rings, A Republican says 'Benghazi'" is true. Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
That scientist had the patience of Job to deal with the dumbasses on that House committee on global warming. It would be fun to see Jon sit in that chair and rip them a new one like that.

 

The only thing I didn't like was when he snipped, "you should read the scientific literature instead of public comments." I actually don't expect congressmen to read all the latest scientific literature on everything because there is a lot of it. He should have said, "I'd be happy to talk to you about where the literature is on climate change." Clearly, the committee was just there to lop pot shots and not be serious. To say, "well, I don't believe the literature," is just ignorant. 

 

What it boils down to, is the committee needs to understand how science is done [and engineering ahem], and they don't nor to they want to. That's ignorant, and detrimental to solving any of these problems. 

 

It's not like anyone can just publish a paper. The peer review process is pretty awful, so if you; e.g., me, get something published, you can be assured that it's been vetted thoroughly. If they don't know that, they should ask. That doesn't mean they can't ask questions about it: Why did they make this assumption? For example. Do results vary widely if you change the input data. 

 

It's high time to vote scientists into office.

 

They're too busy solving actual problems. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

"SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY!" Yea, Jonny-bun nailed that first segment. If people want to enlist scientists into the committee, my vote's on Bill Nye, cuz why not.

 

And yea, Jason's segment may have been pointless, but I do give credit for him making the dress work. I think he's been losing weight or the dress is hiding the extra weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Clearly, the committee was just there to lop pot shots and not be serious. To say, "well, I don't believe the literature," is just ignorant.

 

 

The whole right wing meme that scientists are only writing about global warming to make big $$$ is so tiresome. I'm glad Jon took that on, pointing out that there would be WAY more cash to be made by getting in bed with the Koch Brothers and Big Oil.

Edited by trow125
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing I didn't like was when he snipped, "you should read the scientific literature instead of public comments." I actually don't expect congressmen to read all the latest scientific literature on everything because there is a lot of it. He should have said, "I'd be happy to talk to you about where the literature is on climate change." Clearly, the committee was just there to lop pot shots and not be serious. To say, "well, I don't believe the literature," is just ignorant.

I agree with you on the committee's attitude, but as to his response, I think it was perfectly reasonable. I think the point he was making was that they should argue from an informed position, rather than using whatever hyperbole or misinformation is buzzing around lately. If they are on that committee to make decisions regarding science, space, and technology, then they should be expected to rely on scientific, peer-reviewed literature rather than public opinion and talking points. I don't think it's too much to ask elected leaders who are placed in positions of responsibility in scientific fields to have enough of a grasp of those fields to read peer-reviewed literature and keep abreast of the main issues and trends. What else are they doing with their time? Planning their next campaign, probably, and finding big money to lobby for in the future. How else can they make informed decisions? We see what happens when they don't care about being informed.

 

That said, I still like my idea of voting in scientists, instead. Then we can get rid of that ignorance altogether.

 

They're too busy solving actual problems.

Yes. Happily for us, and sadly for us.

 

The whole right wing meme that scientists are only writing about global warming to make big $$$ is so tiresome. I'm glad Jon took that on, pointing out that there would be WAY more cash to be made by getting in bed with the Koch Brothers and Big Oil.

It is seriously annoying but rather hilarious when, as a graduating scientist who will soon rely on grants myself and am relying on grants for my education now, I get people asking me why the hell I chose this profession since all of the money is in private industry and then hear the same people bitching about those scheming, anti-capitalist scientists with their billion-dollar grants and luxurious lifestyles.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I actually don't expect congressmen to read all the latest scientific literature on everything because there is a lot of it.

 

I expect a House committee on Science, Space and Technology to have more than a passing familiarity with those subjects though. Otherwise how did they get on that committee? Yes, that was rhetorical, I know it's all political cronyism. It makes me fear for our country.

 

What I want to know from these people who think global warming is a hoax is, what exactly do they think is the purpose for said "hoax?" So scientists can eventually go "Gotcha!"? Do they think it's some kind of conspiracy dreamed up by tree-hugging, liberal environmentalists who want to thrust us back into the stone age?  Do they actually believe there's nothing wrong with pumping as much pollution into the air and water as we want? Can they really be that ignorant or are they just that disingenuous?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I was lucky enough to be enrolled in a government course called "Science, Technology and Policy" when Paul Tsongas decided to spend some time on campus and dropped in.  Politicians can be intelligent about science issues, but it requires skills beyond coming up with sound bites.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in love with the segment on the Science, Space and Technology committee hearing.  The willful ignorance has reached a point where all I can do in response is sputter, "Are you fucking kidding me?" and "I don't even know what to do with that,"  so to see Jon go off with the same exact words is ridiculously comforting.

 

I will find a way to work "pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain" into my vernacular.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
I expect a House committee on Science, Space and Technology to have more than a passing familiarity with those subjects though.

 

That's why I said they should know how science is "done." Because they can ask informed questions: What's the science on this? How did we get here? What's the major assumptions? Who contends this? etc. 

 

I don't think they even realize that you don't get paid to publish papers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is cracking me up: Don't Ever Appear on 'The Daily Show' (in reference to the plight of the Washington fans). In other news, it bugs me when people can't or won't differentiate between an improv bit (the correspondent field interviews) and an actual interview (Jon's). The differences in intent and tone are like night and day.

 

I think the segment is supposed to air tonight.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, that's Megan McArdle. Back when she was a blogger, she used to call herself Jane Galt, because Ayn Rand is awesome. Her niche is wilfully ignorant corporate talking points dressed up as libertarianism. Nobody believes that she even believes what she's saying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is what happens when science and science education  are demonized.  Are we really at the point where politicians don't understand the difference between the Arctic and Antarctica?  Ice in the ocean is different than ice on land.  I feel like a demo of someone putting ice cubes in a glass of water shouldn't be necessary for adults.

 

Ironic bit.  The first commercial after the climate segment was from Koch Industries talking about how good they are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

When they're all bitching about why the growth in the country isn't as rapid as it should be, this is why. There's no investment in STEM because they don't know how science works and don't think these problems are real. They've flat out failed in their oath of office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Jon was losing it a little, I know, but how did they get through those "names" so many times without it falling apart? Reminds me of that video I saw of Stephen Colbert from years ago, where he had to repeat several purposefully difficult-for-English-speakers names over and over and did so flawlessly, only to trip over some easy word. "Urn," I think? I forget exactly. It was hilarious, not only for the moment itself but for how both Jon and Stephen reacted to it.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed that interview. I'm glad Jon gave it two segments on air, since it is so timely and their conversation was worth spending time with.

Share this post


Link to post

Megan McArdle would mortgage her pink Himalayan salt for a TDS interview; don't let her fool you.

 

I giggled like a twelve year old at 'al-khill ye'all'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
There's no investment in STEM because they don't know how science works

 

It's also they don't care how science works, and I also think science scares them. They might actually have to stop and think about how things work. They feel safer wrapped in ignorance.

 

Nothing General Tony Zinni said I disagree with.

 

Ditto. It's really depressing that the U.S. keeps disregarding the layers of discontent in the Middle East. I don't think international borders can be redrawn at this point—though maybe (semi-?)autonomous regions could be created—but the conflicts are never going to end until you include all the major players in the discussions.

 

Aw, ISIS, why you be hatin' the French so much? They make such delicious cheese!

Edited by dubbel zout
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing General Tony Zinni said I disagree with.

 

He made a big oops at the beginning when he said that Kerry and Obama had no idea who the moderate Syrians were and hadn't ever talked to them. Both the State Dept and the Military and then the executive branch have been involved in identifying them and supplying them with arms and carrying on many discussions with them. Of course, those talks and arms haven't yielded much productive action and turned bad in many ways which makes me and most reasonably intelligent people awfully nervous about how this new initiative could possibly work out. But I cringed when Zinni made the comment and feared for how the rest of the interview was going to go but overall it was pretty interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel Maddow explained what's up with the French-hate. They always refer to ISIS as 'Daesh', which they pronounce "Desh", which is a mortal insult in the language that those guys speak. Men. So emotional over the silliest things...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nothing General Tony Zinni said I disagree with.

 

I was surprised by the interview.  I almost did not watch it because I thought it would be the usual pro-military talking points.  I was especially delighted when he said going into Iraq had been a mistake.  I never hear military people talk about Bush's Blunder.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think he said much of anything new though, nor nothing without the benefit of hindsight. What I got was: the typical cold war methodology won't work here, which it won't; this is fundamentally a religious war, which it is; these people are still stuck in the past; they are.

 

I think even though Obama has moved slowish on this, he will be proved right because we do need new approaches when engaging with subnational entities. "There is going to be a need for troops to go in, and it might as well be US troops," isn't going to happen because he's trying to change the calculus of this. 

 

I will give him credit for saying that the US shouldn't be the world police. McCain and his gf obviously disagree with this, but that's not going to work anymore, especially against subnationals. It's almost like this coalition needs to seal off the region and let them all fight it out for themselves. 

 

I'm not a fan of just giving people weapons either, just because today we have a common enemy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Fuck Brent Bozell with a prickly cactus up his asshole.

 

Didn't like the opening segment where Samantha was an alien as a human. But the second segment, where Jon went spazzy over missing out ion the Alibaba.com OP I found very funny.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Samantha's alien piece was a big nothing.

 

 

It used to be that when I would google something I wanted to buy, Alibaba would be in my search results, but I never ordered from them.

 

I loved the interview. I've never watched the show, but I might check it out. I rarely watch reality shows, but this one sounds tolerable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That was the first interview I've watched all the way through for a couple of weeks. I have to block Animal Planet except for the Puppy Bowl because I get so fucking mad at the people who mistreat animals that I can't function. Thank god for the humans who rescue the four-footed animals from the two-footed ones.

Edited by ABay
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I used to volunteer at the local animal shelter (which was not a no-kill shelter). The guys doing community service there would be really hard to talk with, but they would just soften and laugh with the dogs and cats and take such precise, gentle care of them. Sweeping the floor and other boring, mechanical work like that was one thing, but it was an utterly different tone when they were filling a rough-looking dog's bowl of water, letting the puppies outside on the grass, or coaxing that old black cat that nobody ever looked at, that's on edge and had been abused and only had a week, at most, to live caged and in fear before being put down. So many of those guys seemed to have such empathy for them and would know just how to get past their defenses, unlike a lot of the people who came in looking for a cute, cheap pet to adopt. I always thought, "This should be a thing that people know about and support. Why is this an invisible thing?"

 

Anyway, long story short: I'm so grateful for what Tia Torres does, and I wish it was a nation-wide, standard approach to rehabilitation. It makes a real, positive difference in both directions.

 

Forgot to add: I'm beyond tired of both Sam and Jason. How did it come to this?

Edited by Fremde Frau
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Bozell doesn't want Stewart off the air. Bozell is a hanger-on/family connection of William F. Buckley who fundraises to pay his own salary by high-volume direct mail outrage bombs aimed at conservative social security checks. He wouldn't be capable of supporting himself and the rest of his expensively useless family if the people he organized against went off the air. He also, humorously, has ties to Rupert Mudoch, whose tasteful Fox programming generally fails to offend him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I wish it was a nation-wide, standard approach to rehabilitation. It makes a real, positive difference in both directions.

It's not quite the same thing, but there are a growing number of programs that have inmates train service dogs.

 

Sam's alien piece was such filler. Is the world too ugly a place at the moment for TDS's writing staff?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Jon Stewart, FUCK YEAH!!! This is why I love the guy. First, he flays Fox News for their hypocritical rant about Obama's so-called latte salute. while they said fuck all about Bush's dog salute, then he lets everyone know the thought process of Washington Redskins fans who want to keep their racist nickname. Brett Bozell and the rest of the whinny right are gonna scream like a bratty child over this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Damn, I just want to hand out violent high-fives. First, Jon sets fire to double-standard-havers, then Jason Jones lights up some Redskins fans worse than South Park did last night. "FUCK YEAH!!!!" indeed, Victor the Crab.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The "Scotty salute" -- I love being spit-take surprised.  And Jon looked truly pissed. 

 

How is someone one-twelfth Cherokee?  1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Do they actually believe there's nothing wrong with pumping as much pollution into the air and water as we want? Can they really be that ignorant or are they just that disingenuous?

 

A lot of them actually believe that it doesn't matter how much damage we do to the planet because God is going to come along and fix it. I mean, he wouldn't let his own creation go down the tubes, would he?

And then there's probably an equal number that thinks it doesn't matter because we living in the end times and when Jesus returns and the Rapture takes place the world will be destroyed anyway.

 

Which is why religionists should be disqualified from serving in public office and making policy.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

If one parent were 1/8 Cherokee and the other was 1/16, together they would be 2/24 or 1/12. (Someone check my math - it's never been my strong suit). That Washington Football Team (I refuse to say it) segment was great, I thought. It was sharp and specific and got at the truth. And Jon's smackdown of Fox News and that absolutely bullshit "boobs on the ground" comment was positively cathartic. It's been a week of so-so shows, but they hit tonight out of the park.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

After tonight's episode, I think Jason Jones' biggest strength comes from his field pieces. After barrages of so-so attempts of showing his junk and wearing Michelle's dress, I can mostly expect a strong interview segment from him is direct, relevant, and beyond the capability of the typical correspondent. Next to Olly-Scone, I'm hoping the segments like this and others he had in Iran, Russia, India, and Denmark (from so long ago) will be enough to earn him a show. Brilliant timing and editing, and much respect to him and Mr. Brennan Shroff!

Edited by The Luvly Junkie

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent show. And yes, cathartic. I didn't know about Bush saluting while holding the scottie, and it was fantastic seeing the show put up that photo. Jon's "FUCK YOU!", even bleeped, was perfect and well-deserved. 

 

The Redskins piece was also fantastic. Well done, Jason.

 

I enjoyed the interview and will definitely watch the PBS show.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

If one parent were 1/8 Cherokee and the other was 1/16, together they would be 2/24 or 1/12. (Someone check my math - it's never been my strong suit). That Washington Football Team (I refuse to say it) segment was great, I thought. It was sharp and specific and got at the truth. And Jon's smackdown of Fox News and that absolutely bullshit "boobs on the ground" comment was positively cathartic. It's been a week of so-so shows, but they hit tonight out of the park.

You can't add denominators. Adding fractions would require finding the LCD or least common denominator before addition. For lineage you add the two parts and divide by 2.

Since I'm Chinese and my husband isn't, our children will be half chinese [(1+0)/2 = 1/2]. 1/2 of my child's parents are Chinese (me) or 2/4 of their grandparents (both my parents)

 

If our child marries someone who is not Chinese at all it'd be [(1/2+0)/2]--> [(1/2+0/2)/2]-->[(1/2)/2]=1/4 Chinese for their child. Meaning only 1/4 of that child's grandparents is Chinese (me) or 2/8 of their grandparents are Chinese (my parents).

 

If my grandchild marries a halfie their children will be 3/8th Chinese [(1/2+1/4)/2]-->[(2/4+1/4)/2] --> [(3/4)/2] --> 3/8. etc etc. Which it makes sense, it means that 3 out of 8 great grandparents were Chinese. That would be me and a set of parents from the in-law side be it married or not for them. That would also mean 6/16 of their great great grandparents would be Chinese meaning my parents and 2 sets of great great grandparents from the inlaw side. You can continue to extrapolate from that.

 

Haven't spent much time thinking about it, but I can't really think of a 1/12 situation. Unless we're disregarding a large portion of the person's lineage map for some reason or we have to go far enough back to find a multiple of 12 within the 2 (total # parents), 4 (total #grandparents), 8 (total #great grandparents), 16 (total #great great grandparents), 32 (total # great great great grandparents), 64,etc... pattern and work from there. I'm sure someone can use an equation or write a program to figure out which is the earliest number that can be divisible by 12. I can assure you it's not within the first 17 generations.

 

Anyways, I feel that Jessica is the best studio correspondent while Jason is their best field correspondent and seems to be their go to international correspondent. I actually don't see why those 4 people were upset at all. Honestly, they didn't come off looking that bad. Had they not gone to the press and complained, I wouldn't have thought much about them. The people who didn't want their faces shown looked more moronic.

 

Loved the first segment, coffeegate? Please. Boobs on the ground? STFU. The best thing about the female pilot and the female Peshmerga soldiers, ISIS is terrified of them. To be killed by a woman means they can't go to heaven and be with their virgins and they've actually had a problem with some of the ISIS soldiers running away as a result of that. So I am insanely grateful that she and the rest of those brave women exist.

Edited by maculae
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Jon's intro was a spot-on way to address the problems that had arisen.

 

That intro was interesting. I never thought the show set out to deliberately make people look like jerks or idiots—people do just fine with that all by themselves—but I was also kind of amazed there are people who want to come on the show knowing they'll probably get made fun of. I guess being famous for three minutes really does trump everything. Yikes.

 

The belt that guy had over his shoulder was ridiculously hideous. And of course all those fans have some Native American blood in them. *rme* And LOL that they all happen to be part Cherokee, too. You know they wouldn't have been able to name any other tribe if asked. Numbskulls.

 

I actually don't see why those 4 people were upset at all.

 

I think what upset them was when the Native Americans came in at the end. When Jon talked about not wanting participants to be unhappy with the piece, I think the debate part was what got edited out. At least that's how I understood it.

 

Boobs on the ground?

 

Fox News is just THE WORST. Utterly bankrupt in every way (except financially, alas).

Edited by dubbel zout
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size