"The Daily Show": Week of 6/23/14

[trow125]

6/23: Bill Maher (host of “Real Time with Bill Maher”)
6/24: Jennifer Esposito (actress & author – promoting book “Jennifer's Way: My Journey with Celiac Disease--What Doctors Don’t Tell You and How You Can Learn to Live Again”)
6/25: Keira Knightly (actress – promoting movie “Begin Again”)
6/26: Melissa McCarthy (actress – promoting movie “Tammy”)

Weeks of 6/30 & 7/7:  DARK!

[Hanahope]

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.  That will be interesting.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Hanahope

[Fremde Frau]

You took the text right out of my keyboard, Hanahope. They seem to have a bit of an antagonistic relationship (at least, Maher seems a bit antagonistic towards Jon).

 

I'm glad that there will be three women, although I wish they weren't all actresses.

[ruby24]

i think the last time bill mentioned him it was on Real Time when he was pissy about the whole Rally to Restore Sanity thing. he was annoyed at the false equivalence argument

 

the last time he was actually on was i think when Religulous came out about 6 years ago. so yeah, this should be interesting. i wouldn't mind if Bill did challenge him on the false equivalence thing- that's bugged me so hard for the last few years that i don't even watch the daily show regularly anymore, i just stick with Colbert.

[solotrek]

Ugh Bill Maher.  But the other guests seem alright, 75% women! So Jennifer Esposito was scheduled for this week and then bumped to next week, does that mean some poor person was bumped from next week?

[Victor the Crab]

It would be far more interesting if Bill appeared on TCR and he and Stephen went toe to toe on religion. Still, seeing Jon and Bill square off will be interesting enough, for many reasons. I find Bill to be a very petulant, bratty person who takes himself far too seriously, while Jon is more measured and far more likeable, IMHO.

[Fremde Frau]

Thank you, ruby24! I have read about the Rally and watched Jon's speech from it and Maher's response, but I'm not a regular viewer of Real Time, so I didn't know if that was an isolated event that had since been set aside or if it was a constant tension between them. 

 

I wasn't watching any of these shows in 2010, so it's hard to go back now and understand what Jon intended or what people were seeing and expecting from the rally. Just from a belated, outsider perspective, it seems like there were two conversations happening and that the point as Jon saw it and criticisms of the point as others saw it weren't connecting on the same ground. And I am always curious why Jon is criticized but Stephen is not. Wasn't it a joint rally (Sanity/Fear)? Is it because Stephen didn't give that final speech, or did he denounce the rally afterward? Or is it about a style in their shows or interviews? (I'm especially curious because there was this piece in The Guardian recently, praising John Oliver's show specifically for being more activist in contrast to Jon and Stephen's rally.)

[Julia]

A lot of people were upset with Jon Stewart after the election when he called out the left because he thought seeking accountability was a symptom of the left being as oppositional as the right (happily, Congress seems to have cured him of that, but not before we made some really damaging "compromises" on healthcare and the banking scandals, JMO).

Bill Maher, who privileged his glibertarian posturing and clever indignation over pretty much every issue of substance, is really in no position to talk (again, JMO).

[GHScorpiosRule]

Here's the thing I've discovered with Maher. While he can be a petulant asshole on his own show, when he appears on other shows, or is interviewed on other shows, he really is likeable and not as angry or petulant.

 

I'm actually looking forward to this one, actually.

[The Luvly Junkie]

Rally to Restore Sanity: come on, guys! It's been four years since that happened! I'm hoping that's enough time for Maher to blow off steam before his interview. Just as long as there is no blood after the show. I'm taking everyone's word that Maher will be nice.

 

I still wonder aside from the Rally, did Jonny-bun and Maher have any other opposing views that turned to bloodwater? In other words, do they share a love-hate relationship longer than 4 years?

[solotrek]

I find Bill to be a very petulant, bratty person who takes himself far too seriously, while Jon is more measured and far more likeable, IMHO.

 

You could also say he's smug, misogynistic, and racist. But whatever.

 

Rally to Restore Sanity: come on, guys! It's been four years since that happened!

 

Didn't he just tell everyone in the media to just grow the fuck up and stop being petulant children? I mean the name of the rally was "the rally to restore sanity", not "liberals unite". I don't see how calling out a shit ton of people on one side and maybe...2 on another is wrong. Not the same level of wrong doing for sure, but really what they're doing in the end adds nothing to the dialogue that should be happening and is pretty much reminiscent of a kindergarten class room.

 

Anyways, I'm sure the interview will be fine. He probably hasn't been on in awhile since he's based in LA and TDS is based in NYC.

[Fremde Frau]

I admit that I watched Jon's speech nearly 4 years after it happened, so I didn't see it in context, but I really appreciated the point he was making. At the same time, I agree with Maher that one side is fact-based and the other side thrives on willful ignorance, but I didn't get the sense that Jon was arguing for equivalency in that aspect. He points out rightwing lies all the time on his show. It seemed like he was speaking about tone, whereas Maher (and others) responded as though he were speaking about content. As a student of language listening to Jon's speech, I kept thinking of prosody and a Benjamin Bailey study of how the demeanor that accompanies a message may be taken as the message itself. Not that Jon was getting very anthropological about it, but I was kind of geeking out about that, in addition to appreciating the sentiment behind his speech. (Disclaimer: I grew up in Japan where the delivery of news was pretty dry, so American news was a huge culture shock for me. I don't know what Japanese news up to now, though. It may have become Americanized.)

 

It would be far more interesting if Bill appeared on TCR and he and Stephen went toe to toe on religion. 

 

That would be fantastic! Isn't Stephen Catholic? And Maher is dogmatically atheist? While I appreciate the points that atheists bring up (and agree with many of them; I was raised in a Christian home, but I'm agnostic), I've always found it too simplistic and dismissive to paint all religious people as ignorant or delusional. It seems like it should go without saying that there are a multitude of interpretations of faith. There are many religious people, like Stephen, who are as excited about science as scientists are and who are able to critically analyze their own religion and its effect on society. So it pains me whenever Maher or someone will express a blanket disdain for religious people, however much I agree with the point they're making on something like the separation of church and state.

[Victor the Crab]

Kind of an underwhelming interview. At least Jon and Bill were able to talk about the insanity that is Dick Cheney, and a couple of hobby horses of Bill's. But all that seemed to matter was the Mets. I'm thinking there were a lot more things that were left out.

[dubbel zout]

Darth Vader's theme music is too good for Cheney.

[attica]

I hope Jon never gets depressed enough to bring his jar of tears to the stadium. If he salts the outfield, nothing will grow for generations! (I can't imagine being a team owner. I can imagine being good at the managerial stuff, at running the stadium and the like, but the winning and losing stuff would kill me. Kill me dead. As a fan, I console myself that my team doesn't love me back and that's why they play for shit, but as an owner, the dynamic is totally different. Couldn't do it. Luckily for me, I don't have that kind of scratch, and failing the powerball, I never will. End tangent.)

 

I'm going to start wearing WWCD t-shirts. That's 'Why Won't Cheney Die?', one of the great existential queries of our age. 

[ABay]

Darth music but no Penguin bwak? Disappointed.

[ganesh]

I wanted to see Cheney's response when the Fox news woman grilled him on being wrong about going into Iraq, but they just stopped it there. 

[ABay]

There's an embedded video in this Daily Kos story. Start around the 1:50 mark.

 

ETA: Showing the Megyn Kelly/Cheney interview.

Edited June 24, 2014 by ABay

[StatMom]

I was overall pleased with their pleasant tone towards each other, but Bill and Jon didn't discuss too much of substance. I wasn't sure if, when Bill kept referring to Jon's Cheney imitation, he was mocking Jon or if he was actually tickled by it.

[DXD526]

Just when you were least expecting it, a mention of "Lidsville"!

 

Bill seemed genuinely pissed when Jon was elaborating on how bad the Mets are (and I say that as a fellow fan. They're very hard to watch this season). I guess it's not as much fun to bitch about a team's futility when you're an owner.

[solotrek]

I still don't really know how I feel about Michael Che.  I kind of felt the Cheney segment fizzled with him. 

 

Well the crowd was struggling with Bill Maher in the extended interview, but he and Jon seemed to have fun until Jon started making fun of the Mets.  Isn't Citi Field a jar of tears in itself? Most my friends are Mets fans and they're just sad all the time about it.

[Julia]

Well, there's "Citi Field." It must be kind of awkward for militant libertarian Bill Maher that he has an ownership stake in an epic transfer of funds between the public and, well, rich guys like Bill Maher. Add in the naming grant paid for by money skimmed from the mortgage crisis which destroyed the world thing, and if I were him I'd want very badly never, ever to bring it up.

[cattykit]

 

I still don't really know how I feel about Michael Che.  I kind of felt the Cheney segment fizzled with him.

I know how I feel.  Wasn't funny at all.

 

 

You could also say he's smug, misogynistic, and racist. 

100% agree.  I FFd past the interview.

[A Boston Gal]

I'm not feeling Michael Che as a performer....perhaps his written stuff was better, but I'm not quite sure what he was responsible for on SNL. So far, I can't see the appeal.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I was overall pleased with their pleasant tone towards each other, but Bill and Jon didn't discuss too much of substance. I wasn't sure if, when Bill kept referring to Jon's Cheney imitation, he was mocking Jon or if he was actually tickled by it.

 

I think he (Bill) actually found it funny.  And I can take or leave Bill, but I didn't find him obnoxious, and he didn't appear to be pissed off to me, either. I watch his show regularly, and there have been times when he's pissed, and I just didn't see it here.  But I agree, nothing of substance was discussed, which, frankly, I was looking forward to.

[peeayebee]

I thought it was mocking Jon's "impression." IMO Bill thought Jon did too much of the coughing, gagging bit. Or maybe I'm projecting, because I thought it was too much and too juvenile.

[ganesh]

I watch Real Time all the time too, and I think Bill was genuine and not mocking. 

[Fremde Frau]

I loved that bit with the Imperial March. The thing about Darth Vader, though, is that he's ultimately a sympathetic figure, no? Cheney is more of a Palpatine to me. Darth Vader is an iconic film villain with a tragic background who achieved some measure of personal redemption in the end. That's way too generous a narrative for Cheney. (Disclaimer: I've only seen the first installment of the prequel trilogy because one was enough, so I might be missing something.)

Michael Che fizzled for me, too, maculae. He was so good in his first two segments (particularly the second one), but last night didn't quite work. Maybe he wasn't feeling the material. Jon tried to help generate some energy, but it was such a long segment that it became almost painful to watch.

The Maher interview was odd. Both men seemed to have made a decision to discuss whatever came up in the fluffiest manner possible and then ended up enjoying the interview almost despite themselves. It was interesting to watch. I've read the Pew Research study they referenced (this one, I believe, and here is a summary of the part on religion), and I don't intend to argue with the Pew Research Center, but I think this particular study left unaddressed the particularly negative reaction that too many Americans (religious and atheist alike) have to Islam as a whole. The social and political climate in America is such that I'm not sure that, if it came down to it, the majority of Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist presidential candidate over a Muslim, no matter how important a general belief in god appears to be. Look at the ridiculous reaction with one half of the country just wondering if our president is secretly Muslim.
 
I mentioned this last week, but, speaking as an agnostic, Maher's insistence that a rational person cannot also be a religious person, and vice versa, is really annoying. From an anthropological standpoint, evidence certainly suggests that practicing religion is as much a social behavior as a personal choice, but, for instance, practicing a religion is not the same as being spiritual. So maybe Obama is bullshitting for politics when it comes to attending church but not when it comes to his personal spirituality. There's no rule that all rational people are religious only as a social courtesy or in order to gain something. Among other factors, it is possible to compartmentalize, and since religion and science are two vastly different things, they do not automatically cancel each other out. I like how Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it, in his interview with Bill Moyers. (Here is a summary of his points on religion. The headline is somewhat hyperbolic and not representative of the distinctions he makes between fundamentalists and "enlightened religious people.")

[Julia]

I know how I feel. Wasn't funny at all.

I thought Jon Stewart kind of tanked that bit. If he'd responded with cynicism or disbelief instead of OOT amazeballs it would have been funner. I guess he was being supportive, but I thought it deflated the humor of the piece.

religion and science are two vastly different things, they do not automatically cancel each other out.

I respect atheism as much as I do any gnostic belief system, but I can't make sense of a world view based on the idea that claiming to know for a fact how the universe works is a scientific stance. Agnosticism is compatible with science, JMO. Atheism assumes facts not in evidence.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Julia

[ganesh]

Cheney is more of a Palpatine to me. Darth Vader is an iconic film villain with a tragic background who achieved some measure of personal redemption in the end. That's way too generous a narrative for Cheney.

 

Cheney can't be Palpatine because Cheney was only VP and Palaptine was really in charge. At the time of ESB, Cheney would be Vader because that's back when he was an actual badass and not the dainty emo bitch we know him as know. If anything, Cheney is Tarkin, who was an actual badass who had a lot of leeway to Get Shit Done. Even he gave Vader shit. 

I'd be really surprised if a Muslim got more than 25% of the popular vote v an atheist. 

[Fremde Frau]

That's a good point, ganesh, but then who would be Palpatine? There's no way Bush could pull that off.

[The Luvly Junkie]

I loved that bit with the Imperial March. The thing about Darth Vader, though, is that he's ultimately a sympathetic figure, no? Cheney is more of a Palpatine to me. Darth Vader is an iconic film villain with a tragic background who achieved some measure of personal redemption in the end. That's way too generous a narrative for Cheney.

Michael Che fizzled for me, too, maculae. He was so good in his first two segments (particularly the second one), but last night didn't quite work. Maybe he wasn't feeling the material. Jon tried to help generate some energy, but it was such a long segment that it became almost painful to watch.

 

 

Cheney's imperial march theme: magnifique, if I spelled that right. Reminds me of the "Star Wars" joke from Obama's first inauguration.

 

As for Che, I thought he did fine. He just needs to work more on the delivery. Perhaps he's broadening his range of topics, which is normal for the accessibility of wider topics. Technically the segment lasted three less than four minutes, which is a plausible amount of time for Che. The segment as a whole kinda felt longer than it needed.

[ganesh]

As a pop culture joke, Vader and the imperial march is a much easier go-to than using Palpatine for anything. There really isn't a Palpatine analogy. 

[Victor the Crab]

Actually Jon, the IRS didn't deny any tea party group tax exempt status, while they denied one left leaning liberal group theirs. So to say the IRS was more difficult on conservatives than liberals is bullshit on your part.

 

Sorry congressdopes. Nobody's buying your joining hands, singing "We Shall Overcome".

[brgjoe]

Not to mention, those 501C groups are supposed to be NON PROFIT and supposed to be doing primarily (and when the law was written EXCLUSIVELY) charitable work.  So any of those Tea Party groups who are pretty much only engaging in political activity SHOULD NOT get tax  And you're right, VtC, they in the end they were just as hard (if not harder) on liberal groups   This is where both the MSM and Jon had a big swing and a miss on this topic.  This is one of the biggest non-scandals brought to national attention in decades.

 

But since basically nobody likes the IRS, they make an easy target for such things. 

 

I really thought by this time Jon would have had a bigger grasp on the (non) issue.

[Wax Lion]

 

Darth Vader's theme music is too good for Cheney.

 

Jokes like that always make me think of comedian John Fugelsang's objection, 'Stop comparing Dick Cheney to Darth Vader! It's not a fair comparison! Darth Vader is a war veteran!'

 

The thing that frustrates me about the IRS "scandal" is that the media got it right for a moment but then when it came time to report on it again, they went back to repeating Republican's shouting. It's a real case of a lie traveling around the world before the truth can get its pants on. It's sad when Jon falls for that, too.

[VCRTracking]

Did not know about Jon's son's problems with gluten allergies. Glad he's doing better.

[alexvillage]

 

I respect atheism as much as I do any gnostic belief system, but I can't make sense of a world view based on the idea that claiming to know for a fact how the universe works is a scientific stance. Agnosticism is compatible with science, JMO. Atheism assumes facts not in evidence.

I am not sure of what other atheists call atheism. I am an atheist and to me it is just: I do not believe in any of it. I can try to believe in god, creation, whatever, but I don't. I have had pretty scary moments this first half of the year, like I am going to lose people I love the most, yet not for a moment the thought of "ask" god, pray, or things people would "normally" do, according to some things I've read, crossed my mind.

 

I do have a problem with Bill Maher and his generalization about religious people. I would agree with him if he were talking about proselytizing, about religious people who think everyone should b religious too. And, in general, I think religion is what messes up with most everything in the world.

As a personal, private thing, it does not bother me a bit.

 

 

The thing that frustrates me about the IRS "scandal" is that the media got it right for a moment but then when it came time to report on it again, they went back to repeating Republican's shouting. It's a real case of a lie traveling around the world before the truth can get its pants on. It's sad when Jon falls for that, too.

I agree with you but I would just stop at "the media". The media frustrates me a lot, in almost everything and the bar for what they call "reporting" is so low it is already sinking

[heebiejeebie]

Cheney can't be Palpatine because Cheney was only VP and Palaptine was really in charge. 

 

Sarcasm?   'Cause I think you just disproved your own thesis right out the gate.  Not in charge....*chortle*

[dubbel zout]

Did not know about Jon's son's problems with gluten allergies. Glad he's doing better.

 

That explains why Jennifer Esposito was on the show; Jon doesn't usually do those kinds of interviews.

[StatMom]

Sorry congressdopes. Nobody's buying your joining hands, singing "We Shall Overcome".

 

Ohhhhh, that clip was so cringeworthy!

[attica]

But didn't Boehner look reassured that his swaying was on purpose -- this time? (I bet he spends way more time hammered than we'll ever know.)

[iMonrey]

 

Not to mention, those 501C groups are supposed to be NON PROFIT and supposed to be doing primarily (and when the law was written EXCLUSIVELY) charitable work.  So any of those Tea Party groups who are pretty much only engaging in political activity SHOULD NOT get tax

 

Ugh, this issue drives me nuts, and it drove me nuts that Jon repeated the mantra that conservative groups were "unfairly" targeted by the IRS. Uh, no they were not unfairly targeted. They were targeted fair and square. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. They are supposed to investigate whether a group seeking a tax exempt status deserves/merits it. And groups calling themselves Tea Party This or Family Focus That should be singled out because their very names are a red flag that they are not a charitable group but some kind of political action group. And just imagine the howling Republicans would be doing if the IRS were giving tax-exempt status to Liberal political groups without any investigating. I just don't understand where the scandal is.

 

 

Atheism assumes facts not in evidence.

 

By its very definition, atheism assumes nothing. It is not a belief system, it represents lack of belief. 

[Julia]

By its very definition, atheism assumes nothing. It is not a belief system, it represents lack of belief. 

 

There's a difference between not believing in God and asserting as a fact that God doesn't exist. JMO, that's a belief too.

[alexvillage]

 

Not to mention, those 501C groups are supposed to be NON PROFIT and supposed to be doing primarily (and when the law was written EXCLUSIVELY) charitable work.

There are so many "charities" that only collect money to distribute among its founders.

Seriously, it is so easy to do this kind of charity - not easy to get the status, too much bureaucracy - but after you do, anything goes. There is very little accountability and many, many charities pay huge salaries to their executives and spend very little of the money donated in actually helping whoever they claim to help. They also spend an enormous amount of money in advertisement and fundraising, so they can raise more money that will never reach the people they claim to help. That's one reason I stop donating, unless I know the organization

[ganesh]

 

And groups calling themselves Tea Party This or Family Focus That should be singled out because their very names are a red flag that they are not a charitable group but some kind of political action group.

Additionally, don't some of the way out there groups say taxation is unconstitutional and things like that? I would think that this kind of rhetoric would put a target on one's back.

 

You know what? Screw tax exempt status. Everyone has to pay something, even if it's a little. 

[Victor the Crab]

I believe it's safe to say that Charlie Rangel has entered the senile zone.

[shok]

 

The thing that frustrates me about the IRS "scandal" is that the media got it right for a moment but then when it came time to report on it again, they went back to repeating Republican's shouting. It's a real case of a lie traveling around the world before the truth can get its pants on. It's sad when Jon falls for that, too.

I agree with you but I would just stop at "the media". The media frustrates me a lot, in almost everything and the bar for what they call "reporting" is so low it is already sinking

 

Lawrence ODonnell had a good segment on the IRS 'scandal' tonight and it really reinforced how reprehensible the reporting has been. He showed several clips from Jon's rant (and went on a bit too much IMO about how brilliant Jon had been) but pointed out that the Lois Lerner email scandal as reported by virtually all the media is just out and out bullshit as, of course, is the Republican's feigned outrage and their lies about it all. They HAVE Lerner's emails for the period they wanted, and the month before and the month after. She turned over 67,000 emails to them. What people should be concerned about is how underfunded the IRS (and virtually every other government department) is when it comes to their tech systems and how inadequate all their computer systems are and yet the Republicans refuse to fund upgrades and are calling for even more slashes to their budget. That's the real scandal at the IRS and the VA and even the Obamacare rollout.

[peeayebee]

That really was a strange interview with Keira Knightley. Lots of edits. But she handled it really well and was charming and funny.

[attica]

If I were Jon and was intending to give KK some shit over Team England, I'd havetohavetohaveto work in a reference to Bend it Like Beckham. To fail would make me lose all self-respect.

 

I like her. I think she's sunny and self-effacing in a nice way. I wouldn't mind getting stuck in an elevator with her. I don't hold Love, Actually against her.

 

Oh, and Yay (with a side of Sing it! and a helping of OMFG, right?!??) to Jessica's exhausted (and yet not exhaustive, more's the pity) rant.

Edited June 26, 2014 by attica