"The Daily Show": Week of 3/31/14

[trow125]

One of the things I have done over at TWoP is post the following week's guest lineups as soon as they become available (I'm on the CC mailing list, so I usually get them on Wed. or Thurs.). Here are the guests scheduled to appear during the week of 3/31/14:

3/31: Peter Dinklage (actor – promoting show “Game of Thrones”)
4/1: Michael Lewis (author – promoting book “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt”)
4/2: Samuel L. Jackson (actor – promoting movie “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”)
4/3: Pelé (former professional soccer player & author – promoting book “Why Soccer Matters”)

[Skyfall]

Loud fan (not going to change me that fast!) think we should use these threads as the discussion thread for that week?

[jjj]

Thank you -- and I'm glad to see someone from TWoP help guide us through this shift!

[trow125]

One of the things I liked about TWoP was that it was one big thread, not lots of tiny threads. I thought (a bit presumptuously, but since this forum hasn't really taken off, why not...) that I could start a thread for each week by posting the guests, to limit the number of threads. So we'll see how it goes. However, I do plan to stay at TWoP until they turn off the lights!

[snowcrash]

Hi loudfan, thanks for this. You were one of the major reasons I started regularly visiting the TDS forums back at TwoP. Will you be doing the same for the Colbert thread here as well, or do you want to give the transition some time?

[Gulftastic]

I like the idea of a weekly thread. It'll make things nice and easy. I'll miss TWOP, but this site seems OK.

[Gemma Violet]

A weekly thread sounds good to me.  

[Lisin]

Weekly thread makes sense. We're trying to avoid forums with just one long thread as it makes it hard for new people coming into a forum after it's been up for a while. Also feel free to start threads for "characters" etc.

[trow125]

snowcrash, I will start a similar weekly thread over at the Colbert Report.

Funnily enough, just before the announcement of TWoP's demise, I was planning to set up a thread for John Oliver's new show, "Last Week Tonight." I'm sure a lot of us TDS fans will be eager to watch/discuss it as well. It debuts in late April.

[Hanahope]

I too like the idea of a weekly thread, rather than one big long one.  Glad there's another site to keep up with the shows.

[Victor the Crab]

One of the things I liked about TWoP was that it was one big thread, not lots of tiny threads. I thought (a bit presumptuously, but since this forum hasn't really taken off, why not...) that I could start a thread for each week by posting the guests, to limit the number of threads. So we'll see how it goes. However, I do plan to stay at TWoP until they turn off the lights!

I like that idea. I think it would be a lot easier to create weekly threads to discuss the shows of that week. That way, we could track down any posts we made, rather than spend an inordinate amount of time looking through one long thread trying to find out what we said and where we posted it. That was always my complaint about the TDS and TCR threads over at TWoP.

[attica]

I love Peter Dinklage. He has this taciturn sardonic affect that just sends me. I'm not a GoT person, but whenever I see a clip of him in it, well, I'm tempted.

[TooMuchCoffee]

Dinklage is outstanding in Game of Thrones. It's definitely worth watching a few Tyrion-centric episodes to see him work.  

Loved Jon's subtle nod to the Colbert "controversy"....  Bitches Be Crazy, Right?   Hey! How did that hashtag get on there?

[StatMom]

I heard Michael Lewis (Wall St book guy) on the radio earlier today, and he was a bit smoother and clearer in explaining things. I don't know if he was more nervous tonight, or Jon didn't give him as much of a chance to get rolling, but Jon must have been impressed with him, given the amount of airtime.

[stillshimpy]

Michael Lewis is the closest thing we have to an actual financial journalist reporting with (close to ) an unbiased eye and without his own financial agenda.  That said, that was not his strongest interview.   

I don't know precisely what happened.  Jon often tends to interrupt far too much when he's really passionate about a subject.  He sometimes wants to direct an interview in a manner that just doesn't quite fit with what the guest is there to talk about -- case in point would be that near-disaster with Kathleen Sebelius where Jon was essentially demanding that she justify why we didn't get a single-payer system (which I would have preferred too, but it shouldn't have been the focus of an interview about the problems facing the ACA rollout).  

Oddly enough, that wasn't what made Michael Lewis's interview take a rather fuzzy and easily distracted trajectory.  For once Jon seemed to be really trying to let Lewis set the stage, but Lewis was struggling so much that Jon was only interjecting at points where he was trying to guide Lewis to something resembling a concise point.  I think Michael Lewis was sort of assuming that The Daily Show audience might have trouble grasping what this particular computer program did and why a fraction of a second actually really mattered and constituted -- in essence -- a form of fraud, bad faith, unfair advantage.    

So I think that's where it went wrong, but the poor guy really did seem like he was trying to explain how the bumper got scratched on the car to his silently staring dad, or something. 

As for CNN's glib coverage of the Malaysian plane, at first I thought "What the hell?  They would NEVER be this callous and cavalier about an American plane.  Just because it's another country's tragedy doesn't make it funny or entertaining."  A report on the guy in the simulator?  What the hell was that? 

Almost immediately I had to concede that I was dead wrong.  They would be that distastefully glib about possible death and mayhem in the U.S.  "Pop Los Angeles like a champagne cork".  Sorry to have underestimated how much you suck CNN.  

Edited April 3, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Zalyn]

Oof.  Last night's coverage of the GM ignition problem was amazing (and terrifying/infuriating).  I am so tempted to cancel my Friday class topic and just let them watch that ep.  It's hard to top Jon when he's on his game pointing out the problems with corporate personhood and responsibility.

Also, does anyone else think that GM put Mary Barra in as CEO so she could be the "throwaway" scapegoat exec?  I'm currently teaching on gender inclusion in workplaces and STEM, so that's the first thing that came to mind watching that segment (including the timing on them informing her of this "little" problem).

[Hanahope]

I have no doubt that the appointment of Barra was made in order to put someone before Congress who could say in truth she had no knowledge of this problem and certainly being female was intended to make her appear more sympathetic.

And while GM did go bankrupt, if any lawsuit was filed before the bankruptcy (and potentially even those filed after), presumably there was still GM's insurance policy to go after, so hopefully the victims won't/weren't completely shut out.  Victims could even include in any litigation claims against all distributors of the cars, such as dealers, under products liability laws.

I guess tomorrow we'll get coverage of the latest blow to campaign finance laws, sortof as an add-on to John Hodgeman's piece.  The rich can now buy many politicians and soon those pesky banking laws will be no more.

[iMonrey]

I was expecting the top story to be the Supreme Court's decision to let billionaires throw as much money into political campaigns as they want. I wonder what happened.

[Bastet]

They probably just wanted to take the time to cover that travesty of justice the best way possible rather than weaving it in to what they already had.  I'm figuring it will be a big story on tonight's episode, and I'm hoping TDS can do what it so often does: give me a few shining minutes to laugh about something that absolutely turns my stomach.

[fastiller]

Also, does anyone else think that GM put Mary Barra in as CEO so she could be the "throwaway" scapegoat exec?

~ ~ Zalyn

 

I've heard that more than once these past few days.  People have said it's so that it won't be another old white guy we're all yelling about.

And while GM did go bankrupt, if any lawsuit was filed before the bankruptcy (and potentially even those filed after), presumably there was still GM's insurance policy to go after, so hopefully the victims won't/weren't completely shut out.

~ ~ Hanahope

 

I recall hearing that any and all liability for the accidents that are in question here (or all but one of them) will fall under an old company name, so that the current company named GM won't see any liability or have to pay out damages.  I may need to check my facts on that, but I'm fairly certain I've got it right.

Here's something:  GM liability in fatal crash faces key test.  From the article:

...GM has been absolved of all responsibility for crashes before the automaker's 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

 

[attica]

I say this as not a 'car-gal' (ugh), but I think the bit about the 57¢ cost of the part might have been incomplete. If you have to dismantle and rebuild an entire section of the engine in order to replace a defective part, that the defective part is cheap is beside the point. Plus, I'd wonder if doing so would be the cause of other problems popping up in the life of the car. Again, I stress that I don't actually know what-all's involved in the particulars of this recall; I'm perfectly happy to heap scorn on the GM bean-counters.

And yeah, they totally brought in Mom so she could clean up the mess all the boys made. Because you know wimminfolk just love to clean, amirite?

[Zalyn]

It looked like it was in the ignition, so I'm pretty sure the most they'd have to do would be to work on the steering column.  Not a mechanic, but that's what it looked like.  Good point though on the cost of parts vs. cost of labor.  Regardless, should it matter how much it costs to fix what is wrong?  Even if it's just issuing a notice and allowing a recall (which if not legally required is certainly morally required), something substantive should have been done to address their mistake so more people wouldn't have to die.

I guess I'm more cynical and saw "car-gal" as being the "Here, we'll hire a woman exec... for 3 months to be legally clueless, after which she can take the fall for us" spite-move.  *waves cane*

[LJonEarth]

Bless Jon's little heart. It's always so strange to see an grown person lose it with their idols. I'd forgotten that Jon was a college athlete, and apparently a decent one at that.

[solotrek]

Is anyone trying to watch the Extended Interview with Pele online (Firefox) and getting a video playing somewhere you can't find? I hear two Pele interviews, one with the video and one somewhere I can't find. It's driving me crazy.

[walnutqueen]

Also, does anyone else think that GM put Mary Barra in as CEO so she could be the "throwaway" scapegoat exec?

 

I was thinking staked goat.

 

I learned all about how car companies allowed known defects to endanger their customers over half a century ago when my step dad worked on some big case (details escape me); things haven't changed much, except it's getting harder to sue corporations.  Now get off my property!

[stillshimpy]

It was staked goat, I believe.  Like in Jurassic Park to feed the T-Rex.  Something to feed to the wolves, presumably while all the "car-guys" run swiftly away to their bank accounts in the Cook Islands.  Rat Bastards, the lot of them.  

I'm not sure Car-Gal is any better with that idiotic tap dance she did talking about the lawyers reviewing the cases, so she couldn't comment on what they would do. 

Edited April 4, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Zalyn]

Interesting.  I'm not familiar with the term "staked goat"; is that a contrasting idiom to "scapegoat" that's in usage?  (Google failed me - only gave the the title of some novel)

[lucindabelle]

I think the GM scandal is so outrageous I can't believe it isn't ginger news. The analogy with Ajeffrey Dahmer and real people neve reign able to absolve themselves of manslaughter was good.

It made me think of the Arthur Miller play "All My Sons," in which a man is responsible for the death of pilots because of a defect that he knew about and didnt fix due to cost. That GM KNEW and people died is outrageous. And without Ahe Daily Show I wouldn't have realize this because its not being reported as fully as it shld be, I.e., you have to look and the outrage doesn't seem to be there.

I totally agree that Barra is there to take the fall and thought Jon demonstrated that well.

[RedZoneTuba]

I didn't care much for the Pele on-air interview.  Two major problems: 1) Pele's obvious trouble with spoken English, and 2) Too much fawning idol-worship from Jon (I don't expect a hard-hitting political interview with a sports icon, but a couple serious questions about Brazil's spending and security issues with the upcoming World Cup would have added some "meat").

[Victor the Crab]

I didn't care much for the Pele on-air interview.  Two major problems: 1) Pele's obvious trouble with spoken English, and 2) Too much fawning idol-worship from Jon (I don't expect a hard-hitting political interview with a sports icon, but a couple serious questions about Brazil's spending and security issues with the upcoming World Cup would have added some "meat").

Do you expect Jon to know what's going on down in Brazil as their country is getting ready for the World Cup? And does anyone believe Pele has all the answers?

[RedZoneTuba]

Do you expect Jon to know what's going on down in Brazil as their country is getting ready for the World Cup?

Um, yes.  It's been a fairly well reported issue in US newspapers/web sites.  Hell, even I know about it and I'm hardly a news junkie.

And does anyone believe Pele has all the answers?

No.  But the opinion of one of the most revered and influential sports figures in that country would be interesting.

[stillshimpy]

Weirdly, I had popped over here to comment that Kathleen Sebelius has resigned.  Whenever I hear or see her name, I always think about that nearly disastrous interview with Jon, in which he just couldn't let go of the "Why didn't we get a single-payer option?" question.  

That pertains to Pele too, I think.  He is from Brazil and arguably the most famous soccer player of all time, but he can't answer for the spending and security issues.  He did raise some concerns about the airports in the press, but he was there to promote his book.  I don't think it would have been appropriate under those circumstances. 

I didn't mind Jon's being so clearly starstruck.  Also, Pele's command of the English language certainly exceeds my Portuguese, so I can't cast aspersions on his language acquisition skills.  I thought he was delightful and I teared up when he gave Jon that jersey.  

Edited April 11, 2014 by stillshimpy

[RedZoneTuba]

Also, Pele's command of the English language certainly exceeds my Portuguese, so I can't cast aspersions on his language acquisition skills.

Just to be clear: I'm not casting asperations either.  It's not Pele's fault and he's certainly under no obligation to learn to speak English at all.  All I was saying is that it made for a difficult and uncomfortable interview.

[Captanne]

Personally, I thought the Pele interview was just fabulous all the way around.*  (Anyone else having problems accessing the extended interviews online?)  

As for Secretary Sebelius' resignation:  I love Jon Stewart dearly and watch his show every single night.  However, I'm not sure he has the clout to bring down a sitting Secretary with one bad interview.  

Ms. Sebelius' fate was sealed by the "disastrous rollout".  She was the MFWC and took the hit.  Her resignation was just a matter of time: "pro forma".  

I think it was handled beautifully.  She stayed until the deadline expired and left on a high note of 7.1M subscribers.  She wasn't fired; she resigned.

That was very gracious timing on the part of the administration and tells me they respect her.

(The other clue is that they had the new Secretary already vetted, selected and literally waiting in the wings.  This was a done deal a long time ago.)

 

*My examples of awkward interviews on TDS include the Sibelius Single Payer Option interview and Senator Elisabeth Warren's first interview as the head of the TARP committee.  The first half was a disaster.  The second half was nothing short of miraculous.  I fell in love with her in that very moment.  (Liz, call me.  You had me at "we have to save the middle class".  It's okay, Mr. Captanne knows.)

Edited April 13, 2014 by Captanne

[stillshimpy]

As for Secretary Sebelius' resignation:  I love Jon Stewart dearly and watch his show every single night.  However, I'm not sure he has the clout to bring down a sitting Secretary with one bad interview.

I don't think so either, I just can't hear the woman's name without thinking of that interview and I was wondering what he might have to say about her resignation.  Actually, I think Kathleen Sebelius has been a class act throughout, but she absolutely was going to have go following the botched rollout.  

There have been a few interviews that I though were a little awkward, from time-to-time, but for full-on "Oh that went very, very, very badly indeed" it's hard to beat that Sebelius interview.  

[sadiegirl]

Help me out.  What is MFWC?  Thanks.

[Captanne]

MFWIC is "Mother Fucker Who's In Charge".  Pronounced, "miff-wick".  I think it's an old military term -- at least that's where I picked it up from.  It's completely neutral as far as terminology implying either good or bad leadership.  Saying someone is the MFWIC merely means they are the boss.  As a matter of fact, it kind of implies respect by acknowledging power -- in a George Patton sort of way, iow:  "George Patton was a hell of a MFWIC."

 

ETA:  It looks like I forgot the "I" in my original post.  Lo siento mucho.

ETA2:  stillshimpy Did you see the first half of Warren's first interview?  It was painful.  He asked her point blank where the money for the TARP was going (as in, to what chequing account, specifically) and she said, "I don't know."  The laughs started earnestly and then, suddenly, faded into horror.  They cut to commercial.  The second half was so utterly different, it's like Stewart took her and said, "Look, you have to act like you know where the billions of tax dollars are going to save these people's 401Ks and IRAs.  You can't just say, 'I don't know'."  The second half was when she seriously hit her stride and suddenly was brilliant and bright and Here to Save the Day, a la Superman.  

But the beginning of it was painfully awkward.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Captanne

[stillshimpy]

I haven't seen it, and am a little afraid to look it up.  

Should I be prepared to lie down with a cold compress afterward? 

[stillshimpy]

*facepalm* Okay, so I watched Warren's first interview linked to here.

Adequate words to describe that escape me.  That was a deep-fried-debacle. 

[Captanne]

Yeah.  I know.  Ouch.

But, honest and true, the second half is as awesome as the first half is tragic.

[Captanne]

YOU GUYS!  Our discussion of the first half of Senator Warren's interview and the fact that it is suddenly "news" (she has a book coming out) is a total coincidence.  

I remember that interview -- and the difference between the first part and the second -- so, so vividly.

Like Stewart, it was the second part that I found so captivating.

But look what's an AOL (and, therefore, presumably a Huffington Post) headline today:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/elizabeth-warren-jon-stewart_n_5170325.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&icid=maing-grid7%7Cipad%7Cdl16%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D466435

(Sorry for the long url.)

Edited April 18, 2014 by Captanne