"The Daily Show": Week of 1/12/15

[ABay]

<<hugs>>, peeayebee. My mother also had Alzheimer's and everytime I forget anything--a word, why I entered a room, whether I locked the door or took a pill--a spark of panic shoots through me.

Edited January 15, 2015 by ABay

[attica]

I don't plan on seeing Moore's movie (my own moral failing), but I gotta say I liked the clip they used here. EOA or not, how common is it for women's perceptions of what's going on with themselves to be dismissed? Rage-making!  

[Kaoteek]

  On 1/15/2015 at 4:34 AM, Victor the Crab said:

You had to think the gang in the booth showed a pull away version of Jon playing with his stationary for laughs. Or that they needed Jon to explain the pen. Either way, French expression films is what Americans shouldn't attempt. That French "comedian" sure sounds like an asshole. But banning him was a big mistake in light of what just happened. Way to set the example, French dumbasses.

 

The problem with Dieudonné is a tough one, with hypocrisy on both sides. First and foremost, he's not, per se, an antisemitic comedian : he's, basically, a troll.

 

(warning, long comment about french media, politics & lobbies inside)

 

  Reveal spoiler

He used to be a very talented comedian, who worked in a duo with Elie Seimoun (a jewish comedian), and they used to mock all religions, ethnicities, and so on. Back then, Dieudonné was strongly anti-racist, he campaigned against our Front National, and his message was clear : we're all the same, and there shouldn't be religious or ethnic fighting, but rather peace, love, and understanding.

 

And then, sometimes along the way, he ended up radicalizing himself, for legit & stupid reasons alike. Amongst those, there's the fact that, France having the third largest jewish population in the world, the pro-Israel/jewish lobby tends to have a weight that other ethnicities & religions don't necessarily have in our public debate. In other words, you can mock the muslims, the black, the asians, the christians, and get away with a slight slap on your hand ; whereas if you do the same with Israel, the jewish faith, and what not, you're likely to end up in court for the next year of your life, all the while getting publicly (and on tv) branded "antisemitic". In France, short of publicly defecating on our president, saying something vaguely negative towards the jewish community on tv is the next worse thing you could do.

 

And that's roughly what happend to Dieudonné : he was invited to go on tv while his buddy Elie was on to do a sketch, and he chose to mock Israel's far-right politics, finishing his sketch by yelling "Isra-heil !". Instantly, he got branded "antisemitic" by the media, condamned by the jewish lobby, and that was the start of everything.

 

Because instead of trying to change the public's perception of his work, Dieudonné decided that it was funnier to troll those who condamned him, and to make his entire carreer a giant happening : he noticed that in the french media, there was barely any talk about France's colonial past (he's from that ethnic background), whereas the Shoah got all the media's attention, and he denounced it publicly. Of course, it didn't go well, but controversy = cash, and despite being deemed a pariah by the media, his shows were still packed full, so he went on.

 

He met with Iran's president ; he invited negationnists to his shows, to give them the award of "the most pariah of all pariahs" ; he went to visit Auschwitz, knowing wery well that people would see that as another antisemitic provocation ; he met with his former ennemies of the far-right ; and so on. In short, he did everything he could to get a reaction from the french media, short of really being overtly antisemitic, all the while laughing to himself about how people from both sides were morons. Every now and then, he'd get summoned in court, where he'd get sued for alleged antisemitic remarks, but he didn't seem to care, and then went even further down the slope of provocation.

 

And it all led to last year : Dieudonné's show was held in the theater he rents year-long, in Paris. In that show, there were a couple of digs at the jewish/zionist community, as usual with Dieudonné. Nothing new, really, but somehow, the media started picking up on it. On it, and on a gesture Dieudonné used to do during his shows : la quenelle, which is roughly a fist-fucking anti-authoritarian symbol meaning "they won't get us, we'll bury it deep into their rear-ends". Jewish commentators & lobbyists started claiming it was a reverse nazi salute, it picked up steam, Dieudonné's name was all over the media for a few months, and some cities tried to ban his show. Dieudonné went to court, agreed to remove the offending jokes, and won... until, suddenly, the prime minister - who was far from friendly with Dieudonné -  summoned an emergency session of the Conseil d'état (roughly our supreme court) and had them forcefully ban Dieudonné's show after a couple of hours of deliberation (which was unheard of in the history of our state).

 

From there, it only went worse for Dieudonné : this past year, his popular v-logs on Youtube got banned, time and time again, he got multi-audited by the IRS, he had to get two lawyers to fend off the dozens of court trials from the government, lobbiyist & other personnalities, and so on. Meanwhile, as trolls do, he kept on trolling, becoming buddies with controversial french thinkers, writing borderline songs mocking what he perceives as the exploitation of the memory of the Shoah by some jewish people in order to get a privileged status, pursuing his v-logs on rutube... 

 

But suddenly, late 2014/early 2015, he seemed to get tired of it. After his rough year, he extended a peace offering to the french jewish lobby, and agreed to pay them the fines he got charged with by the law ; he explained that he wanted to make up with his old friends (Eli included), and that it was a sincere offer, and not another trolling tactic. But then, the troll woke up again, with that "I am Charlie Coubaly" message.

 

Dieudonné was close to some of the Charlie people. They shared a common past, a few years back, when he wasn't trolling that much. He went to the Paris march. Back from it, he posted that that March, which was presented as a great, democratic feat of France united, and was praised non-stop by all media, left him bitter. Bitter for the people who lost their lives stupidly, but also bitter for the hypocrisy of some of the heads of state that marched in the streets for Charlie, yet used to hate the mag, and the people who wrote in it ; and finally bitter for himself, since that huge celebration of free speech didn't seem to matter a year earlier when he was concerned. From that message, only the "tonight, I feel like Charlie Coubaly" made the news. And the page long explanation he gave the following day ("I am Charlie, but in the eyes of the french government, I am just like Coubaly", amongst other things) never got any airtime in the news. Because "he's antisemitic, and he can't have a good point, ever".

 

TL;DR : Dieudonné is an annoying troll who doesn't know when to shut the hell up, and that causes his already controversial views & acts to be instantly dismissed as the views & acts of an awful antisemitic comedian ; meanwhile, our government & media really is playing fast & loose with the concept of "freedom of speech", and nobody's calling them on it, which made that "I Am Charlie" march something of an hypocritical event, as far as most politicians present were concerned.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Kaoteek

[LoveIsJoy]

  On 1/15/2015 at 3:17 PM, attica said:

Perhaps, mon ami, you do not know of Henri, le chat noir!

 

Another Henri fan here!  Never thought the thieving filmmaker's cat would get a mention on a TDS forum, but it is fitting.

[monakane]

  On 1/15/2015 at 3:17 PM, attica said:

Perhaps, mon ami, you do not know of Henri, le chat noir!

 

In other news, I'm finding increasing use for "Shut up, Le Pen!" on my desk today.

 

It used to be Ed Helms's job to go pantsless for bits; Jason has ably taken up the standard.

 

I love me some Henri.

[dubbel zout]

  Quote

EOA or not, how common is it for women's perceptions of what's going on with themselves to be dismissed? Rage-making!

 

I know! "Oh, it's just the wimmins being hysterical again." UGH.

Edited January 15, 2015 by dubbel zout

[iMonrey]

For Pete's sake, enough with Charlie Hebdo already. Geez the way this story has dominated the news for the last week you'd think thousands were killed 9/11 style. I get the relevance to The Daily Show but give me a break. People walk into offices and shoot people every day in America and it never gets this much coverage. I don't understand why the media is so obsessed with this story; if the victims had not been satirical journalists, or journalists at all, would we even be hearing about it? Just because the perpetrators are Muslim extremists doesn't make their motives any more compelling than any other nutjob who walks into a place of business and starts shooting up the place.

 

Give it a rest.

[possibilities]

Not a fan of Jason without pants on.

 

I like Julianne Moore. I want to see the film, despite my loathing for Alec Baldwin.

 

Kaoteek, that is an interesting background on Dieudonne under that spoiler warning. I have been perplexed by the level of solidarity that CH is getting. I agree with the freedom of speech principle and that the murders are a terrible thing, but why has this particular event has taken on such momentum-- and it is very hypocritical for quite a few of its supporters-- when other equally bad or possibly worse recent events get much less response? I don't know. Do we value cartoons more than children? On Daily Kos, I read some articles comparing the relatively weak response to Boko Haram. There have been larger massacres, against more innocent targets, so why is CH the one people react to? Is it because the media sets the agenda and they care more about other media than about anything else?

 

I loved the LePen joke-- loved it!

 

Working back through the week, I think Jon regards Rubio the way he regards Huckabee, in that they're trying to wear a veneer of civility (unlike, say, Ted Cruz), so he invites them on to prove his "fairness" but I think it just rewards people for being more sneaky, when they are basically just more slick in their marketing, i.e. they support the same crap but smile and joke while doing so, instead of shouting. I prefer an honest enemy to a backstabber, but I am more cynical than Jon, I think. I think he may really believe that engaging in dialogue might make a difference, where I have given up on certain people.

 

Carter told people to put on a sweater and turn down the heat because of the energy crisis. He admitted to lustful thoughts while having the maturity not to actually be unfaithful to his spouse. He was never going to capture the imagination of the general population with that kind of morality. People want a president who will make them feel okay about sinning, not hold them accountable, not worry them, and make them feel good about everything while never asking anything of them. I love how he practices what he preaches and has spent decades working for poor people's causes. He had solar panels put on the White House and Reagan actually had them removed! Why would you REMOVE them?? It just illustrates how stupid we are in the good old USofA.

 

I saw Ed Helms interviewed on "On Camera with Sam Jones" the other day. He talked for a while about his time at TDS. He had been hoping to get on SNL but when TDS offered him a job he jumped at it, saying it was "the other show I was obsessed with." He said that he was on the road doing field pieces a lot, and didn't know Carrell before "The Office." He seemed to have some issues with 'the vibe" at TDS, but didn't elaborate. He did say that the "correspondents" didn't get writing credit for field pieces back then (except for Colbert), despite doing a lot of the actual work, and that they do get credit now. He also talked about the challenges in interviewing different types of subjects, when the goal is to make fun of them, and how different interviewees handle the situation in different ways, and which were easier or harder for him to make funny.

[ChelseaNH]

  Quote

why has this particular event has taken on such momentum

 

The issue of free speech clearly has a strong appeal for people who work in media, and they make decisions about content.

[peeayebee]

  Quote

 

Perhaps, mon ami, you do not know of Henri, le chat noir!

I hadn't heard of that before! Fantastic! Or I guess I should say, fantastique! I'm going to watch more.

[heebiejeebie]

  On 1/15/2015 at 6:52 PM, ChelseaNH said:

The issue of free speech clearly has a strong appeal for people who work in media, and they make decisions about content.

 

Also the determination by one religious group to try and make the rest of the world act according to that group's beliefs is ludicrous.  using violence or the threat of it should make millions march in my view.

 

Damn I miss Stephen.  I think we would get way more from him and his writers on various hypocrisies as well as the true (already done on his show more than once) issue of free speech and expression versus the advocating of hate and violence which is something even here in the states we find a crime.  Land o' Liberty and all.  Instead we have mostly unfunny silliness (why not just have Jon fart La Marseillaise) and two segments devoted to nothing more than a Presidential hopeful (doubtful) with copies of books to sell and a bolstering of false moderatism that an appearance on the show lets him pretend to.  I wish Jon's movie had done better so he would move on as much as I do love and appreciate what he has done with this show or it had done much much worse and he could settle back down since the election cycle is beginning already.  Maybe that will give him more focus and resolve.  Because so far in 2015, I find the show pretty much a huge miss.

 

That or Larry's show might rustle up something on tDS.  Maybe some good old fashioned in house friendly rivalry.  Something.  Please?  Something?

[caprice]

  On 1/15/2015 at 3:17 PM, attica said:

Perhaps, mon ami, you do not know of

!

 

In other news, I'm finding increasing use for "Shut up, Le Pen!" on my desk today.

 

It used to be Ed Helms's job to go pantsless for bits; Jason has ably taken up the standard.

I've been using, "Shut up, Le Pen!" for years and nearly fell off the sofa laughing at it.

It might help that m. caprice is French....

[alias1]

  On 1/15/2015 at 6:14 PM, possibilities said:

Carter told people to put on a sweater and turn down the heat because of the energy crisis. He admitted to lustful thoughts while having the maturity not to actually be unfaithful to his spouse. He was never going to capture the imagination of the general population with that kind of morality. People want a president who will make them feel okay about sinning, not hold them accountable, not worry them, and make them feel good about everything while never asking anything of them. I love how he practices what he preaches and has spent decades working for poor people's causes. He had solar panels put on the White House and Reagan actually had them removed! Why would you REMOVE them?? It just illustrates how stupid we are in the good old USofA.

I don't think enough good things can ever be said about President Carter.  The guy just doesn't stop trying to make the world a better place.  He has done more in his post presidency than any other president, I think.  George Bush on the other hand does self portraits of himself in the shower. 

[Victor the Crab]

Dude, theatre of the absurd?!! Like your plan to give fetuses legal representation is perfectly normal? You are one fucked up male who's blitheringly unaware of how horrible your idea is.

[futurechemist]

So um Comedy Central screwed up and the first 5 minutes of tonight's show didn't have any sound (other channels were working fine).  Did I miss any good jokes?  

 

I thought the Daily Show did a good job of threading the balance between unlimited free speech and hate speech.  This is 1 of the few areas that I think Europe is more conservative than the US.  European countries tend to have more strict hate crime laws and much of Western Europe has laws against Holocaust denial.

[sadiegirl]

Just watched last night's episode and I just want to say - what the fuck is wrong with people? The state is broke, actual people can't get an attorney, but money is set aside to pretty much traumatize some poor girl who is probably going through hell as it is? This country isn't anti-women, no siree.

[attica]

I gotta say Jessica hit it out of the park on that piece. Even Lawyer Dude's condescending 'don't find humor in this, missy' attitude didn't land. She's all awesome.

[walnutqueen]

Jessica continues to rock my world.  She OWNED lawyer dude last night.

 

On a totally shallow note, I was ever so delighted to see that the subject of much snark over on the Shopping Channels forum made it to the Moment of Zen.  :-)

[attica]

walnutqueen, Rachel Maddow dedicated her Best New Thing in the World to that bit last night. 4 minutes of glee.

Edited January 16, 2015 by attica

[ganesh]

I have to disagree about Keystone. If there is an accident, that type of oil could do real environmental damage. The quote about "energy independence" is misleading. It's not helping the USA at all for energy independence.

 

Wow, American Sniper, looks *awful*.

[dubbel zout]

  Quote

I gotta say Jessica hit it out of the park on that piece. Even Lawyer Dude's condescending 'don't find humor in this, missy' attitude didn't land. She's all awesome.

 

Jessica is a goddess. I also cracked up at the ACLU lawyer's expressions. She didn't know whether to laugh along or stay serious.

 

Another depressing thing about this is that a broke state is going to spend money to defend money trying to defend its reprehensible policies. Le sigh.

Edited January 16, 2015 by dubbel zout

[ganesh]

There's no "apparent" in the Ventura case either. Ventura sued for defamation and won. She doesn't have to believe it, or think the case is bs, but it still happened. 

[peeayebee]

I'm an ignorant American. What is the difference betw the Keystone pipeline and all the other pipelines coming from Canada? I didn't know there were so many.

[attica]

The other ones are already built. The proposed one runs across a major aquifer that if damaged fucks up the fresh water supply to most of the central US. That just because we've built so many we don't have to build them all. That this massive public project profits private industry to the exclusion of the inhabitants of the affected areas. Just a few.

[iMonrey]

I have to say I found the Keystone pipeline piece informative and admit I had no idea we already had so many pipelines criss-crossing America from Canada, even one that already delivers tar sands oil. And that this particular pipeline has just been picked up as a pet cause by environmentalists. It almost makes me think "Oh hell, just go ahead and build the damn thing already, and move on to something else."

 

  Quote

I have to disagree about Keystone. If there is an accident, that type of oil could do real environmental damage.

 

The point is that if the pipeline isn't built the tar sands oil will still traverse thru the US, just by other means like tankers or train, which is potentially far more dangerous.

 

Big picture though, that's still my sticking point. I don't see any merit to the argument that since we are addicted to oil we should just go ahead and pursue more oil. Oil is not only a dirty energy source it is also a finite resource. Eventually, we are going to run out of it. Not today, not next year, but some day we will. When exactly do we start investing in alternative energy sources? Do we wait until we've drained the very last drop of oil out of the earth? Until we've completely destroyed the environment by fracking and drilling?

 

Jon seemed to be trying to demonstrate that this Keystone issue is just silly but the conversation has to start somewhere, and this is as good a place as any to finally put our collective foot down.

[gesundheit]

This was one of those rare occasions that I saved the episode to rewatch. I want to watch Jessica's field piece again and again. I honestly almost burst into tears the first time through because the situation is awful, but now that I've worked through my fragile ladyfeelings I want a chance to see her be awesome again. She really is their best hire in so long, I'm always shocked when I'm reminded how young she is. She is on the ball.

Edited January 16, 2015 by gesundheit

[ganesh]

I don't have a problem with the "putting the foot down" concept of opposing the the pipeline. 

 

  Quote

The point is that if the pipeline isn't built the tar sands oil will still traverse thru the US, just by other means like tankers or train, which is potentially far more dangerous.

 

It's bad communication of risk, however, because transport via train isn't going over the major aquifer. In this case, one can argue that the status quo option (no pipeline) is less risky.

 

The problem with the piece is that the pro-arguments are strawmen and weren't being refuted. It's not going to contribute to energy independence because the oil wouldn't be used by the USA. It's creating a handful of permanent new jobs and taking away far more. I know nuclear power is controversial (and it shouldn't be nearly as much as it is), but you invest in nuclear and you're creating 1000s of permanent jobs for decades and you get the independence. 

[ChelseaNH]

  Quote

other means like tankers or train, which is potentially far more dangerous

 

If there's a problem with a tanker or train, the spill is limited to that one load of oil.  If there's an issue with the pipeline, how much oil would be spilled before the problem could be dealt with?

 

Of the other existing pipelines, are there any which are about as long as the proposed Keystone pipeline?  I didn't study the graphic, but they all looked more regional than national in scope.

[ganesh]

Using the "environmentalists decided to pick this fight" is just poor research and TDS is usually better. They didn't suddenly "pick it." There are legit concerns and I've yet to see any pro-arguments that hold water. 

 

If anyone's picking a fight; it's congress because they know Obama will veto it. Then they can say "Obama doesn't care about jobs". But no one's going to say, 'for what? 32 of them? Really?'

[Hanahope]

  Quote

Of the other existing pipelines, are there any which are about as long as the proposed Keystone pipeline?  I didn't study the graphic, but they all looked more regional than national in scope.

 

The main thing I saw was that the other pipelines all avoided going through the central part of the US where the big aquifer is located.

 

The "shut up La Pen" joke was great.  Unfortunately, in light of recent events, the La Pen views are gaining more traction.

[Mars477]

  On 1/16/2015 at 10:01 PM, ChelseaNH said:

If there's a problem with a tanker or train, the spill is limited to that one load of oil.  If there's an issue with the pipeline, how much oil would be spilled before the problem could be dealt with?

 

Of the other existing pipelines, are there any which are about as long as the proposed Keystone pipeline?  I didn't study the graphic, but they all looked more regional than national in scope.

There's also the problem of having multiple small leaks in many places up and down the pipeline, which could be just as dangerous (and more difficult to detect).  Plus there's the fact that we would be spending billions of dollars to create, ultimately, 35 permanent jobs.  The cost/benefit ratio is a little lopsided.

[ganesh]

What's the actual benefits anyway? America isn't going to be using the oil. It's Canada's, right?

 

Why aren't congressional democrats pointing this stuff out? I don't necessarily think every legislative decision needs to be on Obama.