"The Daily Show": Week of 6/2/14

[Tara Ariano]

I wrote about how annoying it is when a correspondent's first segment is all about itself.

[possibilities]

The "mentally ill" are not the cause of massacres. In reality, people labeled mentally ill are FAR more likely to be targets of violence than perpetrators of it. Our resignation about gun control being impossible does not make targeting "the mentally ill" a solution to the problem of massacres.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/04/1300329/-Jeez-I-hope-those-10-guys-with-AR-15s-in-this-restaurant-don-t-have-keychains-GunFAIL-LXXI?detail=email

 

Every time something happens, the same arguments about "the mentally ill" are trotted out, and I get tired of debunking them every time. But trust me-- if you do the research, any way we tinker with the mental illness system (of labeling, treatment, regulation, or what have you) is not going to solve the problem of violence. We'd get more mileage out of regulating video games, and I am not advocating that, either. We could also have an outcry against middle class white males age 14 to 35. The "mentally ill" population is vulnerable, and thus an easy place to lay blame. You can even seem compassionate while doing so. But it's just a stereotype. It's harmful to the vulnerable population and does not protect anyone else.

 

There are many things we should do differently about "mental illness" but it's a red herring when the issue is massacres.

Edited June 5, 2014 by possibilities

[Fremde Frau]

You bring up a great point, Tara. I liked the opening of Michael's segment and the interruption by Aasif, but it did sort of end on a whimper as the joke that he was showing them up didn't work as well. I hope that doesn't become a regular theme of his pieces. I remember having mixed feelings about Jordan's introduction; it was cute when he walked over to Jon's desk and called him "dad," but I didn't like it overall as well as the usual correspondent bit (say, any bit by Jessica).

[alexvillage]

Blaming "the mentally ill" is a way of saying "not like me! I am normal!". Or a way of finding reason on unreasonable acts. And this happens overwhelmingly more when the mass murderer is white and middle class male. Because such guys can never commit acts of evil unless they are "mentally ill". I know many Autistics and some of them also have mental illness. They work, they go to college, they have families and they do have periods of their lives when they need more help. This whole conversation is making them even more afraid of disclosing the mental illness and be totally open, be activists for the community, because the retaliation is fast and ruthless. They might lose their kids, even though the kids were never in jeopardy; they do lose their jobs; they distrust doctors and avoid emergency rooms. 

All this because we (general we) are too afraid of admitting that evil happens and fixated on our "freedom". Besides, Congress is moved by money, not personal stories, and the NRA has tons of money. 

The solution becomes stripping all the rights disabled people have fought for, still fight for, and simply institutionalize everyone someone deems "dangerous". Owning a gun becomes more important than being able to walk free from place to place. And this thought is more mainstream than you think

[The Luvly Junkie]

While I do see your point, Tara, I've seen them attempt to do first impression jokes and not the typical "New Guy+Warm Welcome" formula. Even though it only happened once, which I think was Al Madrigal, I think the joke formula barely set the impression the audience expects the first day (IMO: Nothing against Al, I still luv his work). And let's face it, there are some people who can't afford Internet or have social media accounts and still watch the show, so how can the show be sure this correspondent will receive the same warm welcome from the audience?

 

I feel like they had to resort to the formula since they want every correspondent to be accessible to every story covered everyday instead of constraining them based on their race or gender. I really don't wanna bring any controversy on the case, but I really want perspectives of a story from all sides. 

 

Finally, I guess the reason they pull the same formula is for the sake of the correspondent's first day. If I was in their position, I would be grateful but nervous, but if I had to lay down my first impression, I'd start with a joke that shows I got "business" to do regardless of the warm welcome. Maybe a little roasting on Jonny-bun followed by an over-exaggerated apology?

 

I'm just being honest, please don't smite me!  @_@

[stillshimpy]

The "mentally ill" are not the cause of massacres. In reality, people labeled mentally ill are FAR more likely to be targets of violence than perpetrators of it. Our resignation about gun control being impossible does not make targeting "the mentally ill" a solution to the problem of massacres.

 

Actually, if you listened to the piece, that's not what that was about.  I don't blame you if you didn't, it's a long segment.  One of the things It was about the Youtube videos of the shooter in California not being enough to act upon, or a couple of calls from his family and the piece was discussing help for families with severely mentally ill members.  

 

So the only positive thing being that it opened up a discussion and will possibly provide some relief for people who have severely mentally ill members of their family, who aren't prone to shooting massacres, but are prone to suicide.  The piece was also talking about making more beds available in mental health facilities.  It was not seeking to explain mass shootings.   

 

So it is a positive thing that the bill under consideration got some publicity and exposure, at least to my mind, but then I have a sister-in-law who is delusional.  We've managed to have her forcibly committed once, but another thing that piece was addressing was that people who are exceptionally ill often don't know it.  So it's more of a springboard action than a cause and effect for the California shootings. The one good thing to come out of the most recent shootings, is that it opened a discussion about why the family of the killer was unable to get help for him, despite the fact that he was threatening prior to the killings.  

 

 

 

Blaming "the mentally ill" is a way of saying "not like me! I am normal!".

 

Again, to be clear, that was not my point, or the point the piece I linked to was making.  

 

I personally blame the fucking guns, but I was pleased to see some progress in helping people who are sick.  I should have been clearer in my original post, both about my point and what the piece contains.  Also, why it is a positive thing. 

Edited June 5, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Fremde Frau]

I finally got a chance to watch the extended interview with Gigi Ibrahim, and it was just heartbreaking. Their conversation really pushes home the fact that stability, as viewed from the outside, is not the same as peace. Poverty is such a powerful tool of oppression and censorship. Like Jon said, it was very humbling to hear what she and other revolutionaries are faced with.

[Victor the Crab]

Michael Che looked very good last night, in an understated, new guy kind of way. I'm so much looking forward to seeing what else he can bring to TDS's table. And it was nice to see Aasif make an appearance as well. If he is indeed on hiatus to do his HBO show, then I can't wait for his return, whenever it is.

[Fremde Frau]

Michael Che may be on again tonight. On his twitter account, he's been telling people to watch the show.

[dubbel zout]

And let's face it, there are some people who can't afford Internet or have social media accounts and still watch the show

 

There are also people who don't keep track of the show's comings and goings regardless of medium. 

 

Che’s flat affect

 

I thought he deliberately chose this approach because he was pretending to be a "real" correspondent, not a fake one. I don't think he'll continue using that. We'll see tonight, if he's on, I guess.

 

ETA: Wyatt's on Maron right now.

Edited June 6, 2014 by dubbel zout

[Victor the Crab]

Chili's. The new Arby's on TDS.

 

Michael had me laughing because his points were spot on. What would happen if a group of African American males were to openly carry firearms in public? And then to walk into establishments like a restaurant with said firearms? Would the same gun rights groups (who are mostly white) agree they have a right to do so under the Second Amendment? Or would they consider them a threat that need to be locked up for the safety of (white) American citizens? I think we all know the answer to that!

 

And Jon's final answer in the first segment is the very reason why the NRA exists as they do. Not to defend Americans right to protect themselves. But to see to it gun manufacturers make shitloads of money.

[peeayebee]

I loved when Michael Che first said, "When you bring your gun to a restaurant, don't be black." But I got kind of tired of the segment. I also didn't think the other guy was very good. I don't know if I'll warm to him. 

 

I liked Jon's "realization" that this whole thing is just a business plan for arms dealers, but it was also a DUH moment. After all, gun manufacturers and dealers have been ecstatic about the fear that Obama is going to take away people's guns because that prompted massive gun sales.

 

Not a fan of Tom Cruise, but this new movie looks great, and I've only heard raves about it.

[solotrek]

I don't get these open carry people. With all the shootings that are taking place, do they think it's the smartest of ideas to bring their freaking AK's or AR's or whatever it's called all over the place? It's not just infuriating, it's terrifying. Does Texas have an equivalent to Florida's Stand Your Ground laws? Do other states have Texas' open carry law? Here in New York, it would not end well.

 

The stand off at the Golden Corral idea sounds entirely plausible under the wrong conditions. And yeah, what if it were a group of black men? Part of me wants to see what would happen because it'll be really controversial, the other part knows that it'll just end so poorly.

 

I'm really liking Jordan, I think he's getting into the flow of things. Michael is really stiffly reading the teleprompter. I can't tell if this is a character choice or if he's just naturally awkward in front of the camera. But I felt that way for his first episode as well, so we'll see. But he's not grating or horrific like Munn or Gad so I'll give him a pass for now.

 

I'm glad that was the clip of the movie they showed, because it captured it perfectly. Went to a showing of Edge of Tomorrow after being dragged out of bed last night and loved it. Fun scifi action movie that is really funny (not even over the top dumb funny, just little things they put in or little acting choices that are great). Jon was right about the video game feel to it. It premiered on the anniversary of D-Day for a reason and I'm sure there will be a sequel be a movie or video game because the ending has a really great unintentional throwaway line. Even if you hate Tom Cruise, watch all the inventive and hilarious ways they kill him off.

Edited June 6, 2014 by maculae

[stillshimpy]

I liked Michael Che's second segment, but found his first segment to be a bit of a snore.  
 
 
 

I wrote about how annoying it is when a correspondent's first segment is all about itself.

 
I read your piece, Tara, and whereas I agree that the segment didn't work, I don't think it's because of the formula they have settled on for introducing new correspondents or that TDS has become overly impressed with itself and tries to turn every "here's a new correspondent!" into a momentous occasion.  I watch the show, god and almost everyone else around here, knows I'm on the internet frequently, but I had no idea Michael Che was the new correspondent.  That's because I sort of resoundingly don't care about press releases for new correspondents.  
 
The new people either work, or don't and it's never obvious until well after they are introduced.  Besides, about half of media pieces about TDS new hires are produced as scolding pieces, or that one woman still talking about how Jon Stewart threw a newspaper over a decade ago.  Don't get me wrong, I bet I'd hate it if my boss started tossing things around in a meeting, but it's more that they just trot that out as evidence of some sort of evil, joyless monstrous overlord stuff.  One newspaper toss doesn't quite turn someone into Idi Amin for me.  
 
Anyway, so I mainly ignore that stuff, but I also remember when Josh Gad was introduced and man alive, he tanked.  I mean, there were fake wigs and a general feeling of "Oh my god, what in the world is wrong with that man?"  So there are pitfalls to just allowing somebody to come out and jump right into doing their thing.  Plus, back to that "Oh save us from more Jezebel mentions of the newspaper incident" when Olivia Munn was introduced, there was a flurry of articles about how they hired such a pretty woman and it can turn into a big ass deal when a correspondent is hired, to the extent that they end up leaving partially because of it.  Plus, several of the TDS correspondents have gone on to kind of high profile stuff.   
 
Just saying, I agree, they handled that poorly and tried to overplay the joke of Che's "Look, a serious, thoughtful piece!"  I do think Jordan Sparks' (actually Klepper, oops)introduction was really pretty "Oh dear, cut that out" with the stuff about his parents being so proud, but Che's just wasn't very interesting.  They've done both kinds, trying to let people come on and just do their thing right away, no acknowledgment of "Look! The new kid!" and it didn't work out so well.  At least from my perspective.  When I started hearing about Gad being the toast of Broadway, I was stumped as hell, because I thought he was terrible on TDS.   John Oliver's guet hosting spot which was so good also started out shakily, pretty much literally, because was visibly shaking while holding up a teacup prop.  
 
Basically I think a lot of the new correspondents have a terrible case of nerves (in Gad it was screamingly obvious, Munn also seemed to suffer from sheer terror. Schaal also took a while to tone it down).  Stand-ups can have a bit of trouble not trying to hit the back rows at all times.  
 
I liked Sparks(Klepper, because I apparently hit my head a lot as a child)  and Che in the gun bit, but it was Che who was killing me.  "Black people, just stay home! Make it a Digornio night."  "Handcuff yourselves!"  Funny, because it is painfully and awfully based in an amount of truth that actually lends itself to some satire. 
 
I don't know.  I liked that piece, but the entire concept of people walking the hell around with AK47s is just...what the hell is wrong with us at this juncture that anyone is touting that as a reasonable course of action?  Let's reenact the Wild-Wild-West...with semi-automatics!  So bad that I was actually a tiny bit afraid for the woman with the iphone calling that guy a "dumbass".....not because she was anything other than right on the money, but because I was afraid that the gun nuts seeing her face and knowing what town she is in could end badly for her.  When faced with wackjobs who think a grossly disproportionate response is warranted, that's the kind of thought that now just romps around in my brain.  
 
I liked Sparks [still Klepper, apparently always Klepper!]in the "everyone dance to Happy" segment at the beginning of the week.  So he may just be taking some time to find his feet.  I thought after a bad start this week, Che did great in his second appearance.

Edited June 6, 2014 by stillshimpy

[solotrek]

I do think Jordan Sparks' introduction was really pretty "Oh dear, cut that out" with the stuff about his parents being so proud, but Che's just wasn't very interesting.  They've done both kinds, trying to let people come on and just do their thing right away, no acknowledgment of "Look! The new kid!" and it didn't work out so well.  At least from my perspective.  When I started hearing about Gad being the toast of Broadway, I was stumped as hell, because I thought he was terrible on TDS.   John Oliver's guet hosting spot which was so good also started out shakily, pretty much literally, because was visibly shaking while holding up a teacup prop.

stillshrimpy, is Sparks a nickname we've given him? Like, he's sparkling because he's new? His name is Jordan Klepper?

[attica]

What would happen if a group of African American males were to openly carry firearms in public?

 

I like to imagine what would happen to the 2nd Amendment if Hillary and Michelle Obama strode down Pennsylvania avenue brandishing gatling guns and nice sharp swords. The implicit danger to the penes of America would not be borne!

[possibilities]

I enjoyed both of Che's appearances. his deadpan Serious Journalist affect in his debut, and the "Don't try this if you're Black!" message both worked for me.

 

RE what if Black people really did try open carrying: the Black Panthers actually did this and the reaction was what you'd expect. I remember hearing an interview in the 1990s, with someone who'd been part of one of those "tests" in the 1960s ("the cops do not defend our communities, so we will do t ourselves/and we will also defend ourselves against the cops"), and he talked about how they would show up when a cop stopped a motorist for DWB. They'd just kind of amble over with their weapons showing, and stand around watching the proceedings. Scared the pants off the cops, and stopped a lot of unwarranted searches and other harrassment. At one point in the interview, the interviewee admitted he hardly even knew how to use the gun, and halfway through one of these observations he accidentally made a move that clicked and sounded like he was preparing to shoot. He said he hadn't done it on purpose but the cop tore out of there mid-sentence. I suspect, in the 2014, the cops would just shoot the bystanders and call for back-up the moment they showed up.

 

Though I admit I do like the image of Hillary and Michelle starting a revolution of sorts. If women started carrying assault weapons, it might make a difference in some other types of crime statistics, or lead to an immediate about face on the issue of gun control. It's only a good idea if white guys do it. Once the uppity women get the idea, it looks silly now, doesn't it? We can't have "people" arming themselves all willy nilly!

[iMonrey]

 

but the entire concept of people walking the hell around with AK47s is just...what the hell is wrong with us at this juncture that anyone is touting that as a reasonable course of action?  Let's reenact the Wild-Wild-West...with semi-automatics!

 

The gun nuts drive me crazy. What the hell do they want? Do they really want everyone walking around with AK 47s trapped to their backs, and side arms in their holsters? Where the hell are we living, Syria? These are the people who use "freedoms" as their justification to walk around packing heat like they live in a video game and trumpet how America is the greatest nation on earth because of these very "freedoms." But how great is this country when it's more dangerous to live here than it is in Syria, or Libya, or the Gaza Strip? You're 30 times more likely to be shot to death in this country than you are in most of the terrorist controlled middle eastern states. What does that say about how "great" our country is?

[ChelseaNH]

Once after one of those mass shootings, someone was saying how an armed person could have prevented deaths by taking out the shooter.  I observed that the military spent weeks putting people through basic training with the goal of getting them to react appropriately in a combat situation, and even then they were never sure of the results until actual combat.  The guy just bleated that self-defense was a right, which in no way addressed my point.

 

So, yeah, if we're going to resign ourselves to periodic bloodshed, then I'd really like for the armed populace scenario to play out, finally.  Perhaps after a few dozen cluster****s, people would get the idea that it wasn't working.

[ganesh]

If I was in a restaurant, and someone came in with guns, I'd just get up and walk out. (I'd throw some money down on the table.) I don't know if I'd go through the trouble of posting it on FB and telling people not to go to that restaurant, but I'd think about it. Screw bad guys and good guys with guns, the only way I'm sure I won't be shot is to just not be around anyone with a gun. It's kind of laughable if we haven't had 100s of shootings because of this garbage already. 

 

JS was correct on both counts. How do we know if the person carrying the gun is a good guy or a bad guy? And really, the NRA is a shill for the gun industry.

 

What this boils down to is a bunch of scared, white guys clinging to their version of some idealized past that never existed. Society is changing pretty fast nowadays and they just can't deal. I almost want there to be some big shoot out at a restaurant or bar as a result of all these people carrying guns, over something really, really stupid

[trow125]

is Sparks a nickname we've given him? Like, he's sparkling because he's new? His name is Jordan Klepper?

 

 

Wasn't Jordin Sparks an American Idol contestant? I think stillshimpy was mixing up two different Jordans!

I fell asleep during the Tom Cruise interview. First, however, I did make note of the fact that Jon and Tom are the same age. Must admit that Tom is doing a pretty good job of staying young looking.

[peeayebee]

JS was correct on both counts. How do we know if the person carrying the gun is a good guy or a bad guy?

 

Along the lines of asking how pro-Open Carry people would react if it was a black man with a gun, imagine if the people were tough-looking, tattoo-covered young men who would be scary even without guns. Except for fearing someone would get shot, I wonder about an experiment where guys who really look threatening carry guns into Texas establishments, guys who look like gangbangers, and how pro-gun groups would react.

 

And what is the practical point of Open Carry? I assume part of it is to show your pride in gun ownership, but is it also to show "the bad guys" that "the good guys" are armed and will defend themselves and society? So, if a armed guy comes into Chipotle to rob it, will all the Open Carry people point their guns at him? Will everyone fire? Will every bullet, coming from both "good" and "bad" guns, magically hit its intended target and not an innocent bystander? It's the OK corral. Oh, and btw, I loved Jon's line about Gunfight at the Golden Corral. Sadly, it's funny 'cause it's true.

Edited June 6, 2014 by peeayebee

[possibilities]

This is funny to me. Apparently, the "Wild West" had our first gun control laws?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/05/1304765/-The-Mild-Mild-West?detail=email#

 

But this stuff is never about reality. We don't make policy based on results and facts, but based on theater and myth. Gun policy is just one of the many symbolic issues being run around the national id without supervision.

Edited June 6, 2014 by possibilities

[ganesh]

 

And what is the practical point of Open Carry?

This is strictly a 'throw your dicks on the table' move. That's all it is. 

[attica]

I fell asleep during the Tom Cruise interview.

 

They spent the whole time actually talking about the freaking popcorner he was promoting! If that's not an indication of Jon's lack of interest in his guest, I don't know what.

[stillshimpy]

I'm so sorry! I've literally never seen American Idol, so god knows how I got the name Jordan Spark stuck in my head. That was my mistake! His name is Klepper!

[Dagny]

Along the lines of asking how pro-Open Carry people would react if it was a black man with a gun, imagine if the people were tough-looking, tattoo-covered young men who would be scary even without guns. Except for fearing someone would get shot, I wonder about an experiment where guys who really look threatening carry guns into Texas establishments, guys who look like gangbangers, and how pro-gun groups would react.

 

I started thinking about how they would react if a Sikh walked in strapping a long gun. Would they shoot first? Privilege. 

[ABay]

I've gone back to fast-forwarding through the interviews, both on TDS and TCR. They're either depressing or mind-numbing, and it gives me more time to watch @midnight and not be late for work.

[The Luvly Junkie]

Tut-tut-tut, stillshimpy, you don't need to be sorry for mistaking Jordan for Sparks and not Klepper. In fact, I've taken a personal joy in finding nicknames for all the correspondents. Although my nickname for Jordan, which is Snowshake, fits with his Northern Kalamazoo roots and the emphasis of being a new caucasian correspondent his first day, Sparks actually works even better than that. Even if you haven't seen Idol, I think fate propelled you to mistake someone already famous from someone who's just got his break. 

 

Like what maculae said, Sparks can annotate a double-meaning or good-luck nickname; just Jordin Sparks who made a singing career through a TV singing competition, Jordan "Sparks" Klepper is setting his own career as a correspondent. Coincidence, no? So yeah, I really like that nickname so don't be hard on yourself, stillshimpy! I Luv it!

[Fremde Frau]

Now I'll forever think of him as Sparky.

 

I actually enjoyed the Tom Cruise interview, despite the presence of Cruise, because Jon was so into it.

 

The first two segments were spot on. At first, I thought that the magazine falling out of Sparky's gun sort of deflated the bit, but then I realized that, however inadvertently, it perfectly represented the likely panic and brash incompetence that these Open Carry bozos would reveal if they ever felt threatened and acted on their SYG "right," let alone if they were ever faced with actual, deadly fire.

[CaughtOnTape]

The segment between Michael and Jordan had me crying.  "Don't talk to the police...."  

[alexvillage]

 

Must admit that Tom is doing a pretty good job of staying young looking

 

Maybe it is all the alien work, his superior wisdom and superpowers. 

[Fremde Frau]

I hate when Twitter tricks me into clicking the link for a rightwing blog. In this instance, it was NewsBusters, whose commentators conveniently ignore the logic of Jon's segment, as well as the message of the second bit with Sparky and Michael. It's all fun and games until someone who doesn't look like you decides to exercise their open carry and SYG rights, as well. We know how well that works. Like bleach.

[Victor the Crab]

I hate when Twitter tricks me into clicking the link for a rightwing blog. In this instance, it was NewsBusters, whose commentators conveniently ignore the logic of Jon's segment, as well as the message of the second bit with Sparky and Michael. It's all fun and games until someone who doesn't look like you decides to exercise their open carry and SYG rights, as well. We know how well that works. Like bleach.

Sites like NewsBusters conveniently ignore logic, period.

[Fremde Frau]

Sites like NewsBusters conveniently ignore logic, period.

 

It seems to be an epidemic of illogic. I knew of Drudge, but I hadn't encountered sites quite like NewsBusters and Breitbart or people like Alex Jones before I began watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Just one visit was enough to make me wish I'd never seen them. It's incredible how full of hatred, ignorance, and misinformation the posters there are, like a forum full of YouTube trolls.

 

I hope Jon and Stephen (and John Oliver, from now on) don't google themselves. The level of vitriol directed at Jon, in particular, is sickening, and it also doesn't seem to take much of a scratch on the surface to reveal anti-semitic bile. Maybe, given stand-up and hecklers and how long he's been doing political satire in a very public sphere, he's used to it, but still. It makes me feel sick for him. And it makes me want to kick O'Reilly in the nuts when he implied in one interview that he would have to protect Jon from "real America." That ignorant hatred isn't real America, Bill. That America is dying, and its only strength is its fear of that death.

[iMonrey]

 

Once after one of those mass shootings, someone was saying how an armed person could have prevented deaths by taking out the shooter.

 

That's what they always say. It's a big Catch-22; every time there's some mass shooting incident, the NRA pushes for more guns. As if cross-fire is going to improve the situation.

[attica]

Well, if by 'crossfire' you mean 'increased gun sales', I'm thinking the NRA (a manufacturers' lobbying co disguised as a club for aficionados) does indeed count that as an improved situation.

[ALenore]

I've noticed for years that the NRA does everything it can to scare gun owners into thinking their guns are going to be taken away, mostly just so they can increase gun sales.  Both times Obama was electted there was a spike in gun sales because the NRA had everyone worried that some sort of new laws would be passed.  The media is definitely complicit in this.  I remember a few years ago there was a spate of stories about shortage of ammunition, which of course made everyone go out and stock up on ammuinition, which of course led to more stories about ammunition shortages.   I'm positive that there never really was an ammunition shortage (after all, as far as I know there's no shortage of the raw materials needed to make bullets) at most there was a temporary shortage which could be alleviated by the ammunition manufacturers hiring more people, doing extra shifts whatever.   I wanted to scream at my television screen whenever the reporters did a story on gun or ammunition shortages, since they never seemed to do even a cursory amount of fact-checking, they just went by the press releases coming from gun rights groups and manufacturers.  

[heebiejeebie]

 

Must admit that Tom is doing a pretty good job of staying young looking.

 

 

Well his plastic surgeon would be happy to hear that on his way to the bank to cash those checks.  Myself, the over filled cheeks and botoxed scalp make him look too much like Putin to offer any congrats in a constant white knuckled attempt to stay "fresh".  It is nice he makes more effort than most looks obsessed women and has a little over an inch of his forehead left untouch to let a few furrows offer a false hint of being "natural".  The fact his eyes are being squeezed out the side of his head is an unfortunate giveaway.

[A Boston Gal]

heebiejeebie, as my plastic surgeon says, it's alway prefereable to avoid the "windswept" look. ;)

Edited June 9, 2014 by A Boston Gal

[Fremde Frau]

Looking at them side-by-side, it's hard to believe they're the same age (Cruise being a few months older).

[dubbel zout]

Tom isn't letting his hair go gray, and that makes a difference, too.

[Fremde Frau]

Yeah, I appreciate that Jon is embracing the gray. It suits him, too.

[WhatDoYouKnow]

I think Jon's better looking, but I may be (am) biased.

[purist]

Very late, but I have to respond to these two comments by peaayebee and cattykit regarding Ricky Gervais' show Derek.

 

Derek looks awful.

 

there was absolutely nothing in that clip that would make me want to watch Derek

I was wary, too, but I gave it a chance because the original version of The Office is one of my favourite shows of all time. Derek turned out to be another. It is a beautiful, tender look at old age and, most of all, about KINDNESS. There is one recurring character who isn't funny at all and could easily have been left out, but otherwise, the show is a joy. It is wonderful to see so many elderly actors on screen, and the music is beautiful. Almost every episode of the first season made me cry bitter, happy tears. I haven't seen the second season, but am looking forward to it very much. I honestly don't know how Gervais does what he does. He is some kind of genius.