"The Daily Show": Week of 12/8/14

[trow125]

12/8: Norman Lear (promoting book “Even This I Get To Experience”)
12/9: Kathryn Bigelow & Juan Zarate (director & terrorism expert – promoting PSA “Last Days”)
12/10: Suki Kim (author – promoting book “Without You, There Is No Us”)
12/11: Mick Foley (promoting documentary “I Am Santa Claus”)

[dubbel zout]

Mick Foley! Awesome.

[Victor the Crab]

I understand there's no chance of it happening, and that there are very good reasons why. But I'd love to see Jon ask Kathryn Bigelow (jokingly, of course) why she wouldn't take his calls for directing his movie Rosewater.

[marceline]

Norman Lear? How old is he now? That man, along with Gene Roddenberry, pretty much built my entire pop culture consciousness.

[dubbel zout]

Lear is 91 or 92.

[Victor the Crab]

So you say Jon made one factual error on his piece last week, and you want to condemn him for what you perceive as a complete slander and attack at the entire U.S. police system? Go and fuck yourself hard Michael Ramos, you smug, arrogant attention whore. You and your new friends at Fox News like Brian Killmeade and Peter Johnson.

 

If, God forbid, I live to be in my nineties, I hope I can be as alert and active as Norman Lear.

[Lantern7]

Insult I Need To Use After Saying "Fuck You": "Ears, eyes, nose and throat." Thanks, Jon! You guys ever think that if we lived in less-civilized times, there would be a lot of pundits with black eyes, and Jon would have his hands bandaged all the time?

[peeayebee]

If, God forbid, I live to be in my nineties, I hope I can be as alert and active as Norman Lear.

Indeed. I was wondering before the segment started if Lear would already be sitting there. It's always great to see someone up there in years who is sharp as ever.

 

It was nice seeing Lear being so complimentary to Jon, and it was funny how Jon kept trying to turn the conversation back to Lear. 

 

As for the "fuck you" segment, it was great. I also loved the term "media counter-errorism."

 

Cash for Klinkers! 

[Jediknight]

Jon should have shown the ACORN controversy and how Fox loves James O'Keefe, as response to their shots at Jon's error.

 

I bet that first segment made Jon sick.  We were knowingly giving Social Security to Nazis.  Props once again have to go to Jordan Klepper for making his part of that segment be hilarious.  If he's still on the show when Jon retires, the show's got to go to him or Jessica Williams.

[StatMom]

I wonder if Norman Lear liked the segment before his interview...

[dubbel zout]

It was nice seeing Lear being so complimentary to Jon, and it was funny how Jon kept trying to turn the conversation back to Lear.

 

I would have liked less gushing from Lear.

 

It must be so aggravating for Jon to, as he said, have to be right 100 percent of the time so that any mistakes he might make aren't used to derail the conversation. Of course Fox News is going to jump on his mistakes, but knowing that can't make it any less annoying.

[ganesh]

The "fuck you" was totally deserved, but I think it would have been more condemning if they put together a piece using FN's own lack of being factual against them. 

[Fremde Frau]

Isn't that about 90% of what they already do to Fox, though? It never sticks, except sometimes with O'Reilly, who seems to relent for a while when TDS breaks down his logic in a particularly devastating fashion.

 

Jon is terrible at receiving compliments. Sometimes, it's endearing, and other times, it's just awkward.

[ruby24]

I saw Jon on Rachel Maddow a few years ago say that calling George Bush a war criminal is a conversation stopper and though it might be "technically true," it's partisan and bad to say it, because it's the same as the names those on the right say about Obama.

 

But after the reveleations in today's Senate torture report, I don't know what else you can possibly call the people who worked in the Bush administration. The only reason they won't be prosecuted for war crimes is because Obama doesn't want to do it. Under any other measure, they all qualify. It's horrifying.

[Apathy]

Does anyone know where I can get a transcript of the second segment? Much of what Jon said in this episode I've been trying to explain to people (holding police accountable ≠ anti-police) but couldn't find the right words.

[purist]

I don't know about a full transcript, Apathy, but someone posted this crucial bit in my FB feed.

 

Edited December 10, 2014 by purist

[Apathy]

Thanks!

[Victor the Crab]

How'd they get the cheese in the crust? Probably the same way they got the hummus up the ass. Yup, Jon was straight on outraged over the torture report released today. Nothing cutsey about it.

 

So, if we were to walk into Mary's restaurant and thank the Klingon war god or whatever it is for the nutrient replenishment we were given, we'd get a 15% discount? Cool! Perhaps atheist douche can pull the needle out of his ass and have some lighthearted fun with it.

[Toaster Strudel]

Mary's Diner is shoving religion down people's throat along with the brunches and I suspect the people saying that a "moment of silence" got you the discount might have been plants.  It's still shoving religion down people's throats.

[Jediknight]

There were 2 great reaction shots in this episode.  The first being Jon's reaction to the guy having his food shoved up his ass, not the puking reaction, the complete disbelief look on his face.  Hell, it was my reaction when it was mentioned.  The second being Jordan's reaction to the Atheist guy bringing up genocide.

[giovannif7]

Mary's Diner is shoving religion down people's throat along with the brunches and I suspect the people saying that a "moment of silence" got you the discount might have been plants.  It's still shoving religion down people's throats.

Yeah, the Mary's Gourmet Diner woman might have had me if the receipt that was shown hadn't specified "-15% Praying In Public." That's far more specific and exclusionary than the "Moment Of Silent Thanks" or "Expressing Gratitude" that she is now contending was the intention. It seemed to me that the focus probably shifted to the more inclusive interpretation once the atheist group started voicing their objections.

[peeayebee]

Great piece by Jordan. That guy gives atheists a bad name.

[Toaster Strudel]

I fail to see the purpose of Klepper making this effort to give atheists a bad name, and some church-lady pushing public prayer in a restaurant a good name.  He's right, she's wrong, so Klepper made an ass of himself making an ass of the atheist.  A moment of silence to express gratitude is still a mimic of praying in public.  If you refuse to give the impression that you are praying, you get charged 15% more.  There is no shortage of people that think nonbelievers are assholes, I don't think atheists needed this kick in the nuts to make religious people look better.

 

I think they should have passed on this sketch.

 

If this was a Muslim restaurant encouraging people to bend silently in Mecca's direction or be charged extra... what would the piece been like?  The answer is: NOT making fun of whoever objected to the practice.

[ganesh]

I was confused about that piece too. I don't think the atheist guy was that much of a dick, and Jordan kind of pushed him into making (kind of) bloated analogies. They were in violation of the civil rights act, no? Typically, the segments work when they give the subjects enough rope to hang themselves, like the fracking guy, but I felt like Jordan was quasi-bullying to get him to say something outrageous. 

 

The killing of these elephants is a global tragedy. These people need to be put down. 

Edited December 10, 2014 by ganesh

[alexvillage]

I have not seen the show yet but I am an atheist and I can tell you that I do not do anything that is related to, disguised as religious under pressure. 

I do one thing that might seem like religious to some but are just words with a totally different meaning to me.

For the same reason I don't pledge allegiance to the flag (I don't believe there is "justice for all" and I don't agree with "under god")

[Victor the Crab]

This isn't a civil rights issue, because the people there aren't being denied service. So unless anybody has any kind of proof otherwise, then they're just being whinny douches, like that atheist ass was.

[bluepiano]

Where does Jordan Klepper get off calling that Freedom from Religion spokeperson a "dick" to his face? I have seen white supremacists treated with more respect and civility by this show.

 

The premise of the piece was apparently that it was stupid to make an issue of what some little mom-and-pop diner was doing, especially as the owner was such a "nice lady."  But let's say that this nice lady was offering a 15% discount only to white people, and the NAACP protested this. Would Jordan Klepper call the NAACP spokeperson a "dick" for caring about what amounted to, in his words,  "just a few cents off your BLT"? Or what about a discount only for restaurant patrons who affirm they are heterosexual?  Would a gay rights organization be mocked for protesting this?  According to the segment's logic, the prayer discount was no big deal, and not really discriminatory, because a non-religious person could simply just pretend to pray. I doubt that Klepper would've so blithely advised gay people to avoid discrimination by pretending to be straight. And portrayed them as a bunch of humorless, self-important killjoys if they chose on principle not to do so.

 

One thing I hate about liberals (and I'm one myself) is the smug satisfaction they get from attacking their own kind. As if to say to the right wing, "see, we're better than you. We don't play favorites." But scoring points off of atheists smacks of bullying the defenseless, and in my book shows a complete lack of guts. It's like the comedians who make jokes about Arabs or Asians, or other "safe" ethnic groups.  In this country there is  no group safer to attack than atheists, and it made me sick to see the Daily Show doing a piece that in its message, if not in its style of humor, would've been right at home on Fox. (With their constant whining about the "War on Christmas.")

 

As for Mary, it would've been interesting if Jordan Klepper asked her about some of her other views connected with religion, such as if she was in favor of mandatory prayer or teaching evolution in public school. My guess is that she would've said yes to both. And would she then have seemed so sweet and benign?  I'm old enough to have travelled in the south during the days of widespread segregation, and I can tell you that many of the business owners who refused to serve blacks were similarly "nice" people if you interacted with them on a one-on-one personal basis. And didn't discuss race. (and of course weren't black).

 

This morning while shopping in a Barnes and Noble I was treated to a recording of "Oh Little Star in Bethlehem," and not just an instrumental version, but one with all the lyrics about the birth of the Christ Child. And this was in a blue state, in an urban neighborhood with large numbers of Asian, Indian, Jewish, and I would bet atheist, residents. So Jordan Klepper can rest assured that those nasty Freedom from Religion folks are as ineffectual as they are ridiculous and worthy of contempt. (And the War on Christmas has apparently been lost.)

Edited December 11, 2014 by bluepiano

[Hooper]

 

This isn't a civil rights issue, because the people there aren't being denied service. So unless anybody has any kind of proof otherwise, then they're just being whinny douches, like that atheist ass was.

Oh I dunno.  As someone erroneously posted on TCR thread, if the woman had been offering a 15 % discount to people who professed their heterosexuality, or who openly carried a gun (which is essentially the same as adding a 15 % surcharge to people who are openly gay, or who don't carry guns), I don't think Jordan would have done a piece, and Jon would not have aired a piece in which the folks objecting to that were portrayed as "assholes".

[alexvillage]

 

This isn't a civil rights issue, because the people there aren't being denied service. So unless anybody has any kind of proof otherwise, then they're just being whinny douches, like that atheist ass was.

It is not a civil rights violation. But it is discrimination. I disagree that people who complain against discrimination is whining. It can be a justified complaint, if the discrimination is rampant and ongoing.

[Latverian Diplomat]

It is not a civil rights violation. But it is discrimination. I disagree that people who complain against discrimination is whining. It can be a justified complaint, if the discrimination is rampant and ongoing.

It actually is a civil rights issue, in that it's covered by Civil Rights law. It's important to remember that a restaurant is a public accommodation which under civil rights law must provide equal service in all respects (including price) to its customers without respect to religion, among other criteria.

 

The FFRF has a whole run of successes against a related issue of restaurants giving Sunday brunch discounts to people who come in with a church bulletin.

 

http://ffrf.org/legal/item/14010-church-bulletin-discounts

 

The idea that standing up for your rights makes you a dick, especially if it doesn't meet the "important enough" criteria as judged by some smug, comfortable white male asshole, is odious in the extreme.

 

Going back to Monday's episode, I understand that Jon wanted to take his "mistake" off the table and not turn it into a distraction. But, it's unfortunate that he did so. Because tasers have also caused a lot of fatalities under dubious circumstances where the authorities refused to look into it or claimed other causes (like PCP overdose) and the abusive or incompetent cop walked away free. It is in fact, part of the pattern.

[Victor the Crab]

It would be discrimination if the restaurant charged people 15% MORE for NOT displaying any expression - religious or otherwise - for their meal. As it stands, it seems the only objection to all this is coming from that atheist dick.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

It would be discrimination if the restaurant charged people 15% MORE for NOT displaying any expression - religious or otherwise - for their meal.

I don't see a difference. Either way they're charging two different prices based on whether somebody "prays" or not.

[Victor the Crab]

Well then, at the end of the day, if you don't like how they conduct their business, then you're free to not go there. They're not telling you to stay away from their place because they feel they don't like you.

 

If only the royal couple were spotted eating pizza in New York with a knife and fork. And yes, it does say a lot when someone like John McCain stands out as the voice of reason, in regards to the debate on torture. But when someone like McCain was on the receiving end of torture, it's rather difficult to dispute him.

 

Hasan was definitely awesome in his second appearance as a TDS contributor. And Andrea Tantaros is most definitely not for saying America is awesome after the report on torture came out.

 

Wow. North Korea doesn't know the joy of internet porn. I feel for them.

 

Actually, Ms Feinstein, Wolf Blitzer is incapable of thinking

Edited December 11, 2014 by Victor the Crab

[Bastet]

It would be discrimination if the restaurant charged people 15% MORE for NOT displaying any expression - religious or otherwise - for their meal.

 

By charging 15% less to those who do, that's exactly what is happening.  And that someone objecting to that discriminatory practice, rather than the one engaging in it, was the target of the piece is disgusting.  And I don't like to play the Oppression Olympics, but there are several groups of people other than atheists who would almost certainly not have been subjected to such a thing by this show or who, if they were, would have rightly engendered outrage.   

Edited December 11, 2014 by Bastet

[Jediknight]

Guys, let's think about this, the national anthem may win an Oscar this year.  That is awesome.

[Wax Lion]

My husband's reaction to the Jordan piece was that even though the FFRF guy came off as a jerk, he replied "So Mary would be find with a Muslim bringing his prayer rug to get the discount or a diner making a pentacle out of salt for their prayers?"

 

I appreciated that Jon brought up the torture memo to Kathryn Bigelow, who pretty much dodged the question. That was probably for the best considering how Zero Dark Thirty was accused about misrepresenting the role of torture in finding OBL.

[shok]

I wasn't impressed with Jon's swooning over McCain. The guy has been a complete jerk for quite a number of years and he says one good thing and he gets that kind of over the top overreaction? Give me a break. The ones who should be getting praise and kudos are Diane Feinstein and several other Democratic senators who fought for years to get this report out and inform American of what Cheney and his fellow evildoers were up to.

[alexvillage]

 

It actually is a civil rights issue, in that it's covered by Civil Rights law. It's important to remember that a restaurant is a public accommodation which under civil rights law must provide equal service in all respects (including price) to its customers without respect to religion, among other criteria.

I am still not convinced, reading all I read (not that much) about Civil Rights Violation. The thing is, any business can give discounts for whatever reason and they would not be violating the law. While I think this case walks a very fine line - I do believe the intent is the same as of someone who more explicitly violates the law - there is nothing in the laws that says that "if a fellow patron has a discount, I want one too" or my rights are being violated. I do understand the implications of using religion/prayer=discount, but I don't see how a case could be made when the ones who don't get the discount are getting exactly what the business promised - meaning the service announced.

Having said that, I wish there is a way to make this a real violation just because I hate when any religion is used for any coercive purpose

[peeayebee]

Can someone explain the difference betw the Mary Diner's discount and, say, a bar offering a Ladies Night or a restaurant giving free meals to kids?

 

Re last night's show -- I loved Hasan Minhaj's piece. That was … what's the word? Great. I can't remember his previous appearance.

 

The book about North Korea sounds very interesting.

[atir]

Good question about ladies' night drinks & kids. Is there some difference between 'choice' and 'born that way?"

Faith is a choice while being a kid or a female (using the above freebies as examples).

So could a discount be ok for non choice, but against the civil rights for choice?

[attica]

Neither Ladies' Nights nor the Kids thing is discriminatory: they're Loss Leaders. The first, to attract women customers so men will have someone to hit on (ladies' nights aren't often offered in venues where women are already a significant clientele) and thereby spend more. The second to attract parents/minders as customers and (loyal ones), which is where the real money is.  A child-free patron isn't penalized in such a place -- s/he pays what the parent pays.

 

I continue to think the McCain puppet looks more like Bernie Sanders than McCain.

[ChelseaNH]

any business can give discounts for whatever reason and they would not be violating the law

 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php: "Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment."

 

A diner giving a 15% discount to white people would, in fact, be violating the law.

[ganesh]

For the same reason I don't pledge allegiance to the flag (I don't believe there is "justice for all" and I don't agree with "under god")

 

I think the pledge is actually kind of stupid and borderline unconstitutional. They only added under god in the 50s because of the Soviets anyway. Of course, Obama would be impeached immediately if he proposed to remove it. 

 

I think they framed the whole diner piece completely wrong. Because we all know Mary meant anyone christian gets a discount. I would have liked to see Jordan go in there with a muslim prayer rug and have everyone flip the fuck out. 

 

What was the point anyway? 

Edited December 11, 2014 by ganesh

[alexvillage]

 

 

http://www.justice.g...sing_title2.php: "Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment."

A diner giving a 15% discount to white people would, in fact, be violating the law.

 

I really don't understand laws well enough to go into the nuances. So maybe I am wrong and this story does constitute in a violation of civil rights. I have two points though:

First, the details. The owner was offering the discount for people who prayed (am I correct?). So it could be considered a "special offer", a raffle type of thing. Not against a group, but as a "treat" to another. If a muslim had prayed and been discriminated (as speculated here) then the violation would have been clear.

 

Then there is this, to make things even more blurred:

"Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others."

The business owner did not say people could not pray, or had to pray, did they?  

Second, even if there is a clear violation, it would go nowhere. Disabled people are denied access and accommodations all the time, 25 years after the ADA. A minority of people are successful in suing some businesses but governments get away with it all the time. And most businesses don't even need to worry because they will not be forced to comply

[attica]

So it could be considered a "special offer", a raffle type of thing. Not against a group, but as a "treat" to another.

 

In the eyes of the law, there's no difference between 'a treat' for one group and being against another, at least as it comes to religion. You wanna discount people who wear red shirts? Go ahead. You wanna discount the public prayers? Lawyer up.

[alexvillage]

Agree, but then we go to the last part of my post and the owner in this case did not interfered with the religious rights of others. They could have done what I do when jehovah witnesses come to may door. I say I am a satanist. People could have prayed to the devil. 

[Hooper]

 

I would have liked to see Jordan go in there with a muslim prayer rug and have everyone flip the fuck out.

 

 

People could have prayed to the devil.

 

I would have liked Sam to show up and perform some sort of Wiccan ritual.  

Where I think TDS really blew it on this piece was that instead of having one of their correspondents show up and actually test what would happen if they offered something other than a christian prayer, they just asked the nice lady, who had consented to be filmed, what would happen.  And unlike many of the buffoons that TDS interviews in field pieces, this nice lady was savvy enough to be a nice lady on camera, and assure the world that OF COURSE she wouldn't discriminate on the basis of the type of prayer.  

 

My theory is that TDS sent Jordan and a camera person down to Mississippi with the intent of lampooning the crazy christian fanatic, and then it turned out that oops, at least while the cameras were rolling the crazy christian fanatic was just as sweet and inclusive as anyone could possibly be.  So, rather than waste the time and money that had been invested in the piece, they decided to flip it around and make the freedom from religion guy the villain, and he obliged by being sufficiently easy to goad into saying some sufficiently abrasive things, that they were able to portray him as the asshole.  That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it. 

 

On another topic:

 

I wasn't impressed with Jon's swooning over McCain. The guy has been a complete jerk for quite a number of years and he says one good thing and he gets that kind of over the top overreaction? Give me a break. The ones who should be getting praise and kudos are Diane Feinstein and several other Democratic senators who fought for years to get this report out and inform American of what Cheney and his fellow evildoers were up to.

 

I certainly agree that Feinstein and her colleagues who persisted in bringing this to light should be given accolades.  But I think Jon's gushing over McCain was meant to be a joke at least on some level.  The two of them have a history that adds some nuance to the gushing.  Once upon a time, Jon actually did hold McCain in pretty high regard.  And then McCain either sold his soul to the right wing fringe to win the nomination, or enough plaques and tau filaments have accumulated in McCain's brain that he is no longer capable of rational thought on a consistent basis.  At any rate, McCain went from being a frequent guest whom Jon treated cordially to the object of much TDS scorn and ridicule.   So,  I think the gushing and references to the return of  "Good McCain" were meant to be an acknowledgment of that history, rather than that Jon has suddenly (re)become a genuine fan of the person who unleashed Sarah Palin on an innocent civilization.

[trow125]

The Mary's Diner report made the front page of the Winston-Salem Journal.

I visited a friend who lived in the area a few years ago, and while we didn't go to Mary's, we did visit a couple restaurants that offered Bible tracts, religious books for sale, etc. You weren't forced to take them or look at them, but they were located prominently. It made me pretty uncomfortable. If I lived there I'd probably shun places like that, since it's the equivalent of a neon sign announcing "You don't belong here."

[ChelseaNH]

From the article:

"After the uproar, co-owner Mary Haglund discontinued that particular discount."

 

I don't remember hearing that in the segment.

[ganesh]

That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

 

That's funny, but I think we all know when they say pray the 'christian only plz' is implied. I'd go in there, order my food, then strip down to starkers, and tell everyone I'm doing a wiccan nature ritual of harmony. How ya like me now, *Mary*?

 

I think TDS just wanted to troll the atheist guy because he was so super serious about it. Yes, it's only a buck off your blt so who cares, but I still think the guy was right, even though the holocaust analogy was ill advised.

 

I'm just really sick and tired of all the religious bullshit everywhere in this country. It's why gay people can be fired for no reason, women are slut shamed into the stratosphere, and why we're falling behind as technical and scientific leaders. The civilized world has largely moved on from this garbage, and it's time for us to do so too. It's so self righteous and condescending it makes me gag.

Edited December 12, 2014 by ganesh