The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[Kromm]

Wow, only just now saw the episode from the 11th.  Had no idea Nick DiPaolo was such a shitbag.

 

I know the show probably benefits from having conservative voices to have a counterpoint, but DiPaolo isn't smart enough to provide any real worth.

[scarynikki12]

I think the show having conservative panelists isn't inherently a bad idea.  Where they're missing the mark is having conservatives who are well versed in the Fox News talking points.  I actually liked that one college student from a couple weeks ago for the very reason that she wasn't shouting above everyone else (SE Cupp) and wasn't repeating the same point over and over (every other conservative panelist).  I didn't agree with her position on the guns on campus debate but I think that she represented herself and her side far better than any other conservative would have on that same panel. 

 

I know the show wants to be funny.  I actually encourage this but I think that the panel isn't the place.  If they're going to continue to have panels, fine, but leave the jokes out of it.  Let the opening segment be full to brimming with jokes if they want, but the panel needs to focus on the different views surrounding the topic at hand.  I also agree that Keep It 100 isn't working, in part because it just isn't funny and in part because the "rules" aren't consistent.  Taking a moment to think about an answer doesn't result in lying and answering without thinking doesn't equal truth.  I remember one of the conservative panelists was asked something about choosing a racist candidate who was tough on terror versus a non-racist who wasn't and she chose the racist without any hesitation.  I still call BS on that one, because a racist who is tough on terror is going to go after every non-white country he can, even if they have nothing to do with any terrorist act, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that.  Yet the panelists who take a moment to think about their answers, to weigh the pros and cons if they're given an either/or scenario, are "lying"?  No way.

 

I know they don't want to be like Colbert, as it would invite too many unfair comparisons, but one thing that made Stephen so successful was his willingness to try all sorts of different segments as the show was finding its voice.  The ones that lasted were the ones that people responded to.  If the Word had been a dud, they would have dropped it not kept it going throughout the show's run.  Larry and his team really need to do this.  I actually really liked the role play they did of what the Ferguson cops actually say in the line of duty so I'd keep that.  It was informative in a quick way as to the severity of the Ferguson racism and it could be expanded to include police harassment in general.  I also was pleasantly surprised by the DeBlasio show, as Larry clearly did his homework and gave the interview the time and attention it deserved.  I think it would be great if the show mixed things up a bit rather than stubbornly sticking to the current format.  If they want consistency, keep the opening segment about current events so Larry can get some jokes in, but then the rest of the show should be focused on a presenting a topic in an informative way.  They can do a panel if they want, but bring in the truly underrepresented voices rather than cable news usual suspects.  Do the role plays, show the correspondents out on the street asking questions of the masses, do one on one interviews with influential figures like DeBlasio, but keep it different while figuring out what truly works and what doesn't.  If they love Keep It 100 as much as they seem to, then make it Larry's version of the Moment of Zen, place it at the close of the show, make the question challenging and don't worry about it being connected to the rest of that specific show. 

 

I think the show has all the pieces and potential it needs to be a worthy successor to Colbert but they need to keep working to figure out where everything goes rather than fall into a rut.

[ganesh]

I still call BS on that one, because a racist who is tough on terror is going to go after every non-white country he can, even if they have nothing to do with any terrorist act, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that.

 

As well as the woman who said she wouldn't clap for Obama if he was proposing something for equal pay for women. 

 

And the people giving up these BS answers are the professional pundit/talking point people. They shouldn't be on the show unless to be mocked. Similarly, comedians don't really need to be on the panel. This show doesn't need to be another stop on the circuit. I'm not interested in seeing you try out new material. When they were talking about obesity, the one guy lapsed into a 3 minute set. That's pretty much 1/3 of the panel time. 

 

Having on the college women re: the guns are the type of people they should have. 

[gesundheit]

I, too, turned off the last episode as soon as Mike Tyson appeared. He served his time and I would be courteous to him in public were we to have to interact. Still not going to watch him on TV and clap for him.

 

I've got tickets for an upcoming taping and I'm really interested to see what the energy is like in the room. 

 

He definitely needs to drop Keep It 100. Firstly, he just rewards the people who give answers he likes and accuses the others of lying. Secondly, the vast majority of the time when he gets his own question, he sidesteps it completely. So what's the point?

[Hooper]

 

I, too, turned off the last episode as soon as Mike Tyson appeared. He served his time and I would be courteous to him in public were we to have to interact.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure I'd be courteous to any former heavy weight boxing champion.  I do have some self preservation instincts.

 

I've been plugging along trying to like this show because I totally loved Larry as a correspondent/contributer/whatever on TDS.  An occasional episode gives me hope that the show will evolve into something I actually enjoy, rather than a chore I do out of some weird sense of loyalty to a total stranger who has no idea whether I'm watching or not.  But yeesh.  The back to back "are women uppity, er, I mean bossy?", and the who gives a fuck boxing episode are sorely testing my loyalty vs thinking an extra half hour of sleep would be a nice thing.

[jbrecken]

I wonder what the staff's reactions were when they saw John Oliver's topic on Sunday was the same as theirs for Monday.

Oliver did it better - they should have used him as the punch line of the HBO joke instead of Arli$$.

[attica]

Poor Barney Frank looked like he didn't know what the hell he was doing there. And what were they doing wasting his appearance by shoe horning him into that panel? Swing and a miss.

[ganesh]

I didn't think Frank was being overly obtuse, so I don't know why they weren't able to grasp what he was saying. If you know anything about college sports, which these people do then it's obvious that basketball and football in the power conferences are basically semi-pro feeder leagues for the NFL and NBA. The problem is imo that if they admit that, then the players will be allowed to unionize and be eligible for a host of legal protections, and possibly cut into these obscene profits. 

 

There's going to be changes eventually. They all bitched that a college football playoff would 'tarnish the student athlete', which was proven to be the farce it was. The playoff raked in the cash. The basketball tournament does the same thing. 

[futurechemist]

I agree Last Week Tonight did the NCAA coverage better.  I liked Barney Frank, he made a valid point.  Paying college athletes might be a good thing, but it's only a tiny bandage on the a huge wound.  I thought he should have gone even further.  If a school like Michigan separated their academics and athletics, but then paid athletes as employees, wouldn't that just be like the school buying the Detroit Pistons?  Or a Pistons farm team?  It kind of seems like it's against the university's mission statement...

[DXD526]

That was a pretty good panel, but what's the point of putting together a good panel and then giving the four people five minutes to talk? 

[Kromm]

It's a shame there isn't a "Comedy Central 2" channel (the way the same owners made an MTV2 and VH1-Classic, as well as a few more Nick channels), because the way this show is going it seems to me that the panel MIGHT not be useless if they had at least another 20 minutes to devote to it, but the only way to do that is to have an hour long format.  Which is never going to happen (and honestly SHOULDN'T) on the main CC channel.

[jbrecken]

Colin Quinn's presence on the panel made me remember that Tough Crowd gave its panel more time than this show does.

[stillshimpy]

Poor Barney Frank looked like he didn't know what the hell he was doing there. And what were they doing wasting his appearance by shoe horning him into that panel? Swing and a miss.

 

Seriously, I even got the impression that he truly didn't know beforehand that he was going to be part of a panel, vs. interviewed to push a book.  Poor guy. 

 

However, I can't entirely support his point on multiple levels.  For starters, a college education does have worth for the majority of people obtaining legitimate ones.  The vast majority -- and I do mean vast -- of college level players will not go onto the pros.  They will not ever have the ability to make tru-pro-salaries and actually do need to have a college education (or it certainly helps) to forge their own futures.  Plus, one of the main issues with athletic scholarships is that an injury that ends a career then removes the promised free education.  It's more like a work (your damned tail off) study program from hell.   

 

So if nothing else was changed, giving the scholarship recipients that right -- that their education was guaranteed to be paid for in its entirety regardless of injury (so a form of worker's compensation) -- would greatly improve the present problems. 

 

People LOVE those institutions sports teams.  I think the biggest stumbling block for fans getting behind the "Yes, they should have guaranteed rights!" is that when being paid is put on the table, people are envisioning Pro Salaries instead of "$15 bucks an hour, with guarantees about paid education not solely attached to a players ability to play."   A lot of students outside of athletic programs end up working in on-campus jobs.  A lot of students work for their universities.  

 

Frank's suggestion actually plays into the "give them pro salaries? That is madness!" perceptions and it sort of irked me, because it's the same thing that the greedy institutions are trying to flog as the sole possibility for the proposal that players be paid and given rights.   Being a professional athlete vs. working for your school.  

 

Every time I see one those freaking coaches giving lip-service to the majestic nature of the amateur sport and the noble intent behind it, I want to someone to walk up and smash a pie into their faces.  It is so insincere.  They are purposely misleading people into believing that the sole option on the table is paying student athletes a pro-salary, when in reality guarantees about workplace safety and the ability to make some money to help support themselves in addition to their scholarships.  

 

Even full ride scholarship students frequently have a part-time job to help with expenses not covered by "room and board" (there's clothing, there's the need for freaking shampoo and deodorant there....jeez, everything that goes into being able to walk out a door clothed) .  Not everyone's family can bridge that gap for a student.  

 

Anyway, whereas I felt for Frank, because he really just had such an air of "I have no idea why I'm even here" I desperately wanted him to stop talking, because the argument he was making is the very fear that coaches everywhere are trying to manipulate fans into believing: that there's no room between "paid like the pros" and "not allowed to accept so much as a lunch because of the amateur status".  

 

Young people, primarily young people of color, are horrifically exploited by universities for that university's financial gain and given no real ability to secure a future that doesn't involve being made rich by the pro salary that percentages make clear, most won't get.   

 

I'm sure Frank meant well enough, but man, way to be part of the problem there, dude.  

Edited March 18, 2015 by stillshimpy

[ChelseaNH]

My understanding is that many college athletes wind up with a degree rather than an education.  Not that a degree isn't valuable, but an actual education is better.

[HelenBaby]

Colin Quinn's presence on the panel made me remember that Tough Crowd gave its panel more time than this show does.

But Quinn's panels were made up of comedians trying to get their jokes in. And Quinn's a mush mouth. He talks fast and with such a thick accent that it's hard to watch him.

Edited March 20, 2015 by HelenBaby

[attica]

Why doesn't Kathleen Madigan have her own show? She seems sit-com-able to me.

 

It was good that Larry explained that Bradley Whitford (whom I've seen naked) was a friend of his, because there didn't seem much other reason for him to make an appearance. Not that I mind any excuse to send Rob Lowe to hell, let's just be clear. :)

Edited March 20, 2015 by attica

[gesundheit]

I always get confused about why student athletes can't just get a stipend on top of their scholarships the way teaching assistants do. A tuition waiver + a small living stipend is pretty standard, and I don't know much about college athletics but I don't understand why that can't be done.

 

I definitely think the idea of making them non-students is a bad idea. And frankly I don't lose too much sleep over their getting a degree that wasn't exactly grueling. I'd say about 1% of Americans with bachelor's degrees actually do work that requires anything they learned at college, but the reality is that there are a ton of jobs out there that will not hire you for an entry-level position without a college degree. They don't care what it's in, and you don't apply any of that knowledge, but it is the baseline for a jillion jobs. And most of those student athletes won't go on to the pros, so they do need that degree.

 

Last night's episode was a whole lot of nothing. Basically nobody had a single point to make about superheroes. (Although that Michelle Rodriguez thing was news to me... yikes.)

Edited March 20, 2015 by gesundheit

[Milburn Stone]

Watched the beginning five or ten minutes last night. I think a key problem is that Wilmore doesn't articulate his speech very well. Mushmouth is one word to describe his way of speaking. 

 

Let me hasten to add, before you jump to conclusions, that I'm not saying Wilmore speaks too "black" for me as a white guy to understand. No matter what race someone is, if he or she mumbles and doesn't have good enough diction to enunciate words so that I can understand those words, I'm going to have a problem. Mushmouth knows no racial or ethnic boundaries.

 

Punchlines kept getting lost in the mush. Maybe because Wilmore isn't confident of how funny they are? (He may not be wrong.)

 

I have no problem in general understanding the speech of African Americans. It's Wilmore.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[gesundheit]

Punchlines kept getting lost in the mush. Maybe because Wilmore isn't confident of how funny they are? (He may not be wrong.)

He seems to seriously lack confidence here. Which never happened on his Daily Show segments, so either he had more faith in the writers there (don't blame him) or he gets nervous when he's meant to be more off-the-cuff and does better when things are scripted down to the letter.

[Kaoteek]

Man, that "nerd" edition of the Nightly Show was such a drag... no points made, indeed, strawman arguments everywhere, nerd clichés at every corner, pointless panel... ugh.

 

Also, the Michelle Rodriguez thing ? She was friggin drunk when TMZ got her at night, outside of a club/bar/whatever. Did anyone really expect words of wisdom from drunk, tired Michelle Rodriguez !?

[ganesh]

I think the panel was ok, but the beginning segment was disorganized again. On the panel, the woman who actually created a new superhero didn't talk much at all. Which was the whole point of the topic. I don't get why the Jane Grey woman was there except for naming herself after a superhero, which, please? Or the bearded guy who basically said things aren't actually as good as we remembered them as kids. Well, no shit. 

 

This is actually a good topic but handled poorly. 

 

Wasn't drunk MR basically saying, "quit bitching about why Spiderman can't be black and put in some work in making your own superheroes." I mean, harsh, but wasn't that the point? Isn't that why the panelist was there? 

[iMonrey]

I skipped this show the first three days of this week, last night's was the first I've seen since last week, and it's not improving. The whole theme of the night was pointless, and OMG the Super Hero segment was a big fat waste of time and stupid. I'm embarrassed for all involved.

 

Watched the beginning five or ten minutes last night. I think a key problem is that Wilmore doesn't articulate his speech very well. Mushmouth is one word to describe his way of speaking.

 

That's the same point I've tried to make as delicately as possible. My own description would be "mealy-mouthed." He has sort of a nasally voice to being with and tends to have such an impromptu way of speaking it's a little too casual for a host. This is someone you need to want to watch for a half hour four days a week, and Wilmore just isn't appealing enough for that. Obviously, that's just my opinion, but there is definitely something off-putting about his presentation. It's not as bad in the opening "news" segment but when he's running the panel unscripted it's much more noticeable.

 

Ratings aren't very good either, they're losing more than 400K viewers from their lead-in. I suspect they will continue to sink; I wonder how much time Comedy Central is willing to give this show. 

[ruby24]

God, that superhero panel was so pointless. What a waste of time.

[DXD526]

This show isn't getting any better with time, it just keeps getting worse. Not a single good episode this week, IMO.

 

When Larry interviewed "Jesus", was it supposed to be a joke when, just before leaving, he threw out "Nix on the abortion and gay marriage"? The audience actually gasped, so they took it seriously. I'm not sure if it was meant seriously or not, but if not, it went over like a lead balloon. That's what happens when a show with no discernible sense of humor tries to make a joke.

 

I gave TNS a good amount of time to establish itself, but I'm tired of waiting. It's been kicked off my DVR.

[attica]

God, that superhero panel was so pointless. What a waste of time.

I was totally distracted by Larry petting that stuffed cat in the wrong direction. Which says quite a bit more about me than it does about Larry, frankly.

[ganesh]

I thought nix on the abortion and gay marriage meant Jesus was basically saying 'get over it,' like it wasn't and issue with him. 

[attica]

You're probably right, ganesh, but I don't think the joke was written well enough (or delivered right) to make that clear.

[Wax Lion]

I think I've switched from watching and trying to figure out how it could be improved to actively hatewatching it. These panels are just infuriating if you've discussed the topic on the internet more than once. At this point, I wasn't even yelling at the screen that the problem with "just coming up with your own characters" is that new concepts don't sell. Kamala Harris 95% would have been at the bottom of sales charts if she were called, say Freedom Ring, but as the new Ms Marvel there was a chance enough people would give it a chance.

 

Worse, I keep getting the feeling that Larry isn't very interested in examining his privileges while calling out white privilege. It's good to call out white privilege but it feels a little off when you're doing panels whining about political correctness and making excuses to people freaking out about diversity.

[Kromm]

I think I've switched from watching and trying to figure out how it could be improved to actively hatewatching it. These panels are just infuriating if you've discussed the topic on the internet more than once. At this point, I wasn't even yelling at the screen that the problem with "just coming up with your own characters" is that new concepts don't sell. Kamala Harris 95% would have been at the bottom of sales charts if she were called, say Freedom Ring, but as the new Ms Marvel there was a chance enough people would give it a chance.

 

Worse, I keep getting the feeling that Larry isn't very interested in examining his privileges while calling out white privilege. It's good to call out white privilege but it feels a little off when you're doing panels whining about political correctness and making excuses to people freaking out about diversity.

Just out of curiosity, what would you rate as Larry's individual privileges (using the definition of SOCIETAL privileges, vs. "advantages" people have earned, so... "being rich" for example, wouldn't be one)?

 

Me, I'd say he's mainly limited to two.  Being male. And being a light-skinned African-American (which isn't nearly the same as white privilege, but has it's own supposed inherent set of unearned societal advantages in contrast to darker-skinned people). 

Edited March 23, 2015 by Kromm

[attica]

Kamala Harris 95% would have been at the bottom of sales charts if she were called, say Freedom Ring, but as the new Ms Marvel there was a chance enough people would give it a chance.

 

Wait: the California Attorney General is Ms Marvel?!  And she still has time to run for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat?! I do not read nearly enough comics, I guess. :)

 

Kromm, I'd throw in 'being on teevee/ being a showbiz 'suit'' as adding to Wilmore's personal privilege. Fame and power do a lot to override, with or without money. 

[Wax Lion]

I think he's had moments of coming off ableist, the political correctness episode didn't focus on it as much as "crazy" but it include other terms including (IIRC) "illegal" as a slur against undocumented immigrants (though I'm not sure if being able to avoid another racial minority's struggle would be called privilege) and I recall thinking he's had a time when he was dismissive of homophobia concerns.

 

ETA: Whoops, I mixed up Kamala Harris with Kamala Kahn .

Edited March 23, 2015 by Wax Lion

[ganesh]

Well, I'm certainly glad I voted for Kamala Harris.

[Kromm]

Kromm, I'd throw in 'being on teevee/ being a showbiz 'suit'' as adding to Wilmore's personal privilege. Fame and power do a lot to override, with or without money. 

Only if you use a non-sociological definition of privilege.

 

Being on TV, or being rich, grant you advantages, often immeasurable ones.  But the point of the sociological definition of privilege is that it's about the assumptions people make about you without knowing anything else about you other than what they see (and ideally only what they see in equal circumstances, so it's not about if they spot you on a TV or notice you are driving an expensive car or wearing expensive clothes).  The idea goes back to W. E. B. Du Bois, if you've ever heard of him.  There are big problems with the theory, but the important aspect is that it's about things you have no control over.

[ChelseaNH]

Me, I'd say he's mainly limited to two.  Being male. And being a light-skinned African-American

 

You're not on the cutting edge of social evolution -- he's also cis and not disabled.  I admit, it was a little jarring when I found out I had to think about people possibly being transgender, but my response did not consist of whining about how people were overreacting.

Edited March 24, 2015 by maraleia
removed the ed from transgender per standards

[possibilities]

30 years ago when I was in college, every sociology course I took acknowledged class privilege. If that's not common practice, or academic definitions have changed, it still remains a fact that class and economic advantages exist, and make a huge difference in ones experience in the world. I don't really care if academe ignores it, it's real for anyone actually living in the world, and that includes people living on college campuses. I definitely think Wilmore's position gives him class privilege along with the others enumerated upthread.

 

I hate to say it, but I can't wait for this show to be cancelled and replaced by something else.

[ruby24]

How likely is it to be canceled? Are the ratings bad?

 

If they are, I can't imagine it's going to be able to hold its own once Jon Stewart leaves The Daily Show

[nicolin]

I was thinking they wouldn't cancel it until TDS had a proven new host.

One thing I've resented the studio audience for is the way they chant "Larry" at the beginning of the show a la Stephen Colbert's audience. They've done it since the show started and IMO that's something a proven host deserves. That is not yet what we have here.

[LJonEarth]

The more I watch this, the more I think that the template for the show is great as-is. Larry and his writers are the problem. They aren't digging deep with the topics and the Larry drives the conversations to silly and sometimes offensive places. And he doesn't even own his political incorrectness. Most panels are just wasted potential. The superhero thing was a complete train wreck. I don't know if it's time constraints or the need to keep things funny even for serious topics.

 

If CC needs to keep the show, would there be any way to replace Larry?

[ruby24]

I think I agree- I was thinking recently that the writers just aren't very good.

[Milburn Stone]

It's no doubt because I'm Jewish, but I found the question "Are Jews whiny?" offensive. As, thankfully, did most of the panel.

 

(Or they found it too hot to touch. Which I'll also settle for.)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[attica]

I could listen to Rosie Perez pronounce "coffee" on a non-stop loop, I'm not even kidding.

[ganesh]

They should do more in the street pieces. So far, those have all seemed to work well. 

 

I don't know what Larry is talking about with the Asians. I know plenty. Koreans can *drink* let me tell you. They put it down. Plus, Asians hate being called Asians since there are Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc. 

 

Stuff like "white men can't jump" or talking in the movie theater are funnier jokes.

[Kromm]

Haven't seen the episode yet, but not only Koreans, but also Japanese, are MAJOR boozehounds.  There may be a total mass issues (since most Asians mass less than other races) but if you go "per pound" I'm sure they (as you say ganesh) "put it down" quite seriously in comparison.

[ganesh]

Their faces do get red though. That's a real thing. But neither Koreans nor Japanese would prefer to be lumped together as Asian.

[wknt3]

The more I watch this, the more I think that the template for the show is great as-is. Larry and his writers are the problem. They aren't digging deep with the topics and the Larry drives the conversations to silly and sometimes offensive places. And he doesn't even own his political incorrectness. Most panels are just wasted potential. The superhero thing was a complete train wreck. I don't know if it's time constraints or the need to keep things funny even for serious topics.

I have to disagree at least in part. There is a problem with the format. And you just put your finger on part of it with the issues about time and tone. If you've ever watched Bill Maher's shows you know that finding 4 people who can be both funny and insightful on a given topic is a challenge. And the time issue was a problem on his half hour show as well. It's really pronounced here because of so much time spent on "Keeping it 100". The other major structural problem is that someone is obviously telling them that they have to focus on social media even if they don't have a good idea or a point. With Colbert it wasn't constant and the internet stunts always felt more organic and more importantly they had a point to make.  If it was up to me I'd drop the last segments and vary the number of guests per show as well as give up on the hashtags.

I have to agree that the writing is inconsistent and needs to improve. But that doesn't mean that if you replaced everyone tomorrow you wouldn't see a lot of the same problems.

[solotrek]

Haven't seen the episode yet, but not only Koreans, but also Japanese, are MAJOR boozehounds.  There may be a total mass issues (since most Asians mass less than other races) but if you go "per pound" I'm sure they (as you say ganesh) "put it down" quite seriously in comparison.

Chinese are too fyi. I can't recall a meal during any of my visits to relatives in China that my uncles/family (guy) friends didn't get completely wasted on baijiu. But Korea definitely has more of a drinking culture,  it's pretty normal to go out and drink with co-workers. Japan apparently has really nice craft beers.

[LJonEarth]

I have to disagree at least in part. There is a problem with the format. And you just put your finger on part of it with the issues about time and tone. If you've ever watched Bill Maher's shows you know that finding 4 people who can be both funny and insightful on a given topic is a challenge. And the time issue was a problem on his half hour show as well.

 

I grew up watching Politically Incorrect. Perhaps that's why I think the show can work. And I thought it was 30 minutes too. But I was a child/teenager, so my memories may be too rosy. When I watch Real Time, I think the panel (if you strip away his stupid forced sketches), works well for the short amount of time that they really go at it.

 

I just worry that too many people have had enough with this show, and Larry specifically, or are just watching to give it a chance. I'm going to give it at least until Colbert takes over Late Night.

 

I definitely agree that the panel is hit or miss, but if Larry were stronger, he could manage the conversation better.

 

Perhaps panel only on Thursdays?

Edited March 25, 2015 by JinNashville

[Kromm]

Hmm.  If audience could accept it, then yes, segregating panel shows and non-panel shows might be a good idea.  I think I tossed that one around a few weeks ago.  Based on the topic, either make it a panel episode or not a panel episode (and then just go with either interviews, or longer monologue, skits, and the occasional video remote).  

 

But you could do it by day of the week too, instead of just randomly day by day based on topic.  Maybe... a news roundup (so no panel) every Monday.  Then a panel show on Tuesday.  An interview show (after a monologue) every Wednesday.  Then another panel show every Thursday.

[dusang]

Haven't seen the episode yet, but not only Koreans, but also Japanese, are MAJOR boozehounds.  There may be a total mass issues (since most Asians mass less than other races) but if you go "per pound" I'm sure they (as you say ganesh) "put it down" quite seriously in comparison.

 

I haven't seen the episode either, so I don't know what the hell was said about "Asians drinking" but reading the varied comments about "drinking cultures" (and seriously, if you can identify one country on Earth that has never been associated with some form of social drinking, I"d be super surprised) I do find it interesting that quite a few of my (female) Chinese, Japanese, and Pilipino friends have expressed an aversion to drinking because they are embarrassed to turn red.  So maybe it has more to do with being outside your culture??

 

Anyhoodle, I"m surprised to hear about craft beers in Japan.  A friend who lived there a few years ago came home and marveled at our extensive beer lists -- he was like, "in Japan, it's just 'beer'."  Of course, he also lived in a fairly remote area, so maybe it hadn't developed the sophisticated palate of other areas.

[ganesh]

I found plenty of craft beers in Tokyo. You just have to find the right shops. 

 

Seriously, the Yobama jokes were funny. 

 

I thought this was a good topic for the show. I even didn't think the republican poll woman was that bad. 

If they're going to have the professional pundits on the show, then they need people like Lewis Black to call her on her bs.

 

I do not have respect for people who believe in creationism. They're wrong and shouldn't be in charge of nuclear weapons. That shit gets shut down in my class.

Edited March 25, 2015 by ganesh