If special elections have a low turnout, it just makes sense that this is the time we can be heard.
September 1 -- next Tuesday -- is primary day for the special election for SC State Senator for District 45. This is the seat that was vacated with the murder of Senator Clementa Pinckney. There are eleven Democratic candidates and two republican candidates. We need to 1) learn about who is running, 2) spread the word and 3) get out and vote.
But even before we do that, we need to find out if we live in Senate #45 and if we are registered to vote. Not as hard as you might think. Go to scvotes.org, plug in your name, county and date of birth, and voila! you will get all the info you need. This site will tell you not only whether you are registered, but what legislative districts you are in, and your polling location.
That out of the way, good luck learning about all eleven Democratic candidates. To that end, a couple of weeks ago I did some research and wrote a blog. Not to blow my own horn, let me just say that this is the most minimal information you would want to use to make a decision. But it is a start.
Go to Facebook and look up candidates, do a google search. When you get a campaign call from an actual human, ask about the issues most important to you. I have had a couple of callers talk to me about my most important issue, women's reproductive rights, and actually had a caller hang up on me when I asked my question. This is THE time to let a candidate know what they need to do to represent you by telling THEM what they can do for you instead of listening to them roll out their talking points.
By the way, women's reproductive rights is my litmus test. If in South Carolina a candidate can say outright that they support a woman's right to contraception and ABORTION (yes, say the word), I expect they will pretty much support voting rights, LGBT rights and workers rights.
After you have done a little research, I'm going to ask you all to spread the word. Make people aware that this important election is going on. Email, Facebook, text, telephone and bring it up when you see your friends, neighbors, co-workers. It's our chance to talk about the issues.
This is why this election is so important:
In the upcoming legislative year, there will be bills promoting the freedom to carry guns everywhere. On the program are bills allowing guns in colleges and universities, as well as public schools. There are bills that would welcome those who carry guns in other states to come on in and bring your ammo. There is an actual bill that would require schools to have a "2nd Amendment Week" celebrating our right to wave our guns around and ending in an essay competition on how carrying guns has guaranteed us our rights.
There will be about a zillion bills prohibiting women from exercising their right to contraceptive care and to decide to have an abortion, free of government interference. The first effort will be to pass the ridiculous twenty week abortion ban. That's the one that claims that at twenty weeks a fetus can feel pain, despite all medical and scientific evidence. When that one gets through (and we do have some strong women's rights legislators that are fighting it, but only a few, and they need all the help and support they can get), it opens the door to bills that would ban abortions earlier, all the way to conception. I guarantee there will be bills to defund Planned Parenthood, denying those of low income the gynecological care that they would otherwise be unable to afford.
On the other side are bills that would ensure voting rights, equality in employment and marriage rights, raise the gasoline tax to pay for improved roads and bridges, and improve our schools throughout the state. We need voices to get expanded federal Medicaid dollars, and we need to make sure that no one in need is denied food and housing.
I will be writing again about a few of the candidates before I vote, but please mark your calendars, and spread the word about this critical special election primary. With so few voting and so many candidates, we need to make the right choice.
I will end with the words that strike fear into the hearts of South Carolina Democrats:
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Trying to Be CNN
If you'd like to know, the only important thing that has gone on this week is the tragic derailment of the Amtrak train between New York and Pennsylvania.
I know because I get my news from MSNBC, and the best and brightest on their evening lineup have been filling their entire broadcast with that event. Either it is the only news worth covering, or MSNBC has changed their format from covering several important and newsworthy events per one hour news show to wall-to-wall coverage of one single event.
I don't intend to seem callous. The derailment is important news, and not just for the tragic deaths. The day after the accident Congress, not to be "derailed" by reality, cut funding for Amtrak. You can't make this stuff up. And, to be fair, MSNBC covered the budget cut. But you can only get away with calling their coverage of one event over the course of one hour, much less several hours running, "breaking news" for so long. Jon Stewart has had many hours of fun (not consecutively however) mocking CNN for doing exactly that.
I'm not sure when this nonsense began, but after the shooting in Ferguson, Chris Hayes was out there night after night interviewing people on the street. He did the same thing after the shooting in North Charleston and ditto in Baltimore. He tends to get excited over these admittedly horrendous events, and it seemed at times that he was actually enflaming the crowd. A newsworthy event, but it stopped being news after the first fifteen minutes of each broadcast.
Anyway, I had assumed this was because of the importance of the gun issue, and the point was in fact that police violence toward African Americans was a constant presence in America, one we had been ignoring throughout our history.
But two nights after the Amtrak crash, there was Chris Hayes, interviewing, well, anyone that was there.
I've gotten to the point where I can tell in minutes whether MSNBC has got their teeth into a news story that is going to go 24/7, and of course, after a short time, it is no longer news. And then I wonder, what about all the other important things that are going on in the country? Do people really want to hear from every single person on the street, and how many times can you re-air somebody-or-other's official statement, and how many different ways can you analyze it? Larry Wilmore interviewed gang members in a Baltimore diner and was able to be more relevant and newsworthy in eight minutes than MSNBC had been throughout their whole coverage.
During those entire weeks of wasted airtime, I hunger for other news. For that matter, I also get impatient when Rachel Maddow takes twenty minutes repeating the same comment over and over to make one important point. If she only said the same thing once or twice, her program would be fifteen minutes long. But boy would it be powerful. Or, she could cover that many more stories.
I hate that MSNBC has dulled their news reporting, made it as trite as that of CNN. Their repetitions and redundancies, their hundreds of on-the-street interviews, have watered down the important headlines and analyses that I had come to expect from them. While we heard over and over and over again that the engineer on the Amtrak train was in the hospital and had amnesia for the crash, Congress was voting on important budget matters, attempting once again to prohibit the right of women to seek abortions, fighting over Obama's fast-track trade deal, and who only knows what else, because it wasn't being covered on MSNBC.
This is what I would like. I would like, in the first segment on each show, an update on any major event. And then I would like to hear what else is going on in the country and in the world. If you asked, you might find that I am not the only one that after the first few minutes of the same reprocessed news about the important event turns off the TV or walks out of the room.
So please, MSNBC, take a look at what you're doing. Would YOU watch your show night after night to see the same piece of information presented over and over again? Really, you are far, far better than that.
Thank you, and good night.
I know because I get my news from MSNBC, and the best and brightest on their evening lineup have been filling their entire broadcast with that event. Either it is the only news worth covering, or MSNBC has changed their format from covering several important and newsworthy events per one hour news show to wall-to-wall coverage of one single event.
I don't intend to seem callous. The derailment is important news, and not just for the tragic deaths. The day after the accident Congress, not to be "derailed" by reality, cut funding for Amtrak. You can't make this stuff up. And, to be fair, MSNBC covered the budget cut. But you can only get away with calling their coverage of one event over the course of one hour, much less several hours running, "breaking news" for so long. Jon Stewart has had many hours of fun (not consecutively however) mocking CNN for doing exactly that.
I'm not sure when this nonsense began, but after the shooting in Ferguson, Chris Hayes was out there night after night interviewing people on the street. He did the same thing after the shooting in North Charleston and ditto in Baltimore. He tends to get excited over these admittedly horrendous events, and it seemed at times that he was actually enflaming the crowd. A newsworthy event, but it stopped being news after the first fifteen minutes of each broadcast.
Anyway, I had assumed this was because of the importance of the gun issue, and the point was in fact that police violence toward African Americans was a constant presence in America, one we had been ignoring throughout our history.
But two nights after the Amtrak crash, there was Chris Hayes, interviewing, well, anyone that was there.
I've gotten to the point where I can tell in minutes whether MSNBC has got their teeth into a news story that is going to go 24/7, and of course, after a short time, it is no longer news. And then I wonder, what about all the other important things that are going on in the country? Do people really want to hear from every single person on the street, and how many times can you re-air somebody-or-other's official statement, and how many different ways can you analyze it? Larry Wilmore interviewed gang members in a Baltimore diner and was able to be more relevant and newsworthy in eight minutes than MSNBC had been throughout their whole coverage.
During those entire weeks of wasted airtime, I hunger for other news. For that matter, I also get impatient when Rachel Maddow takes twenty minutes repeating the same comment over and over to make one important point. If she only said the same thing once or twice, her program would be fifteen minutes long. But boy would it be powerful. Or, she could cover that many more stories.
I hate that MSNBC has dulled their news reporting, made it as trite as that of CNN. Their repetitions and redundancies, their hundreds of on-the-street interviews, have watered down the important headlines and analyses that I had come to expect from them. While we heard over and over and over again that the engineer on the Amtrak train was in the hospital and had amnesia for the crash, Congress was voting on important budget matters, attempting once again to prohibit the right of women to seek abortions, fighting over Obama's fast-track trade deal, and who only knows what else, because it wasn't being covered on MSNBC.
This is what I would like. I would like, in the first segment on each show, an update on any major event. And then I would like to hear what else is going on in the country and in the world. If you asked, you might find that I am not the only one that after the first few minutes of the same reprocessed news about the important event turns off the TV or walks out of the room.
So please, MSNBC, take a look at what you're doing. Would YOU watch your show night after night to see the same piece of information presented over and over again? Really, you are far, far better than that.
Thank you, and good night.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Rambling Thoughts about Republican Bullies
I have been somewhat reluctant to write about the criminal idiocy that is controlling our Congress since the shutdown. There are so many out there who are speaking out far more eloquently than I might. Turn on C-Span and listen to the testimony about all the government services lost and all the individuals being hurt by the narcissistic cowards in charge. Or listen to Jon Stewart's nightly rants on the absurdity.
Unfortunately, the media continues to give legitimacy to this asinine process. I heard someone on a panel ruminate that Obama would have to give something in return for getting something, that something being the end to the government shutdown and raising of the debt ceiling. You know, in order for the House republicans to be able to save face.
Basically, this is like handing the school bully a couple of dollars if he agrees not to steal lunch money for a couple of weeks. In fact, the behavior we have witnessed since John Boehner's first "Hell, no!" is no better than middle school tantrums.
And we -- the administration, the American people, the media -- have been treating this bad behavior in a way that has perpetuated it. We have first of all paid attention to it, with media focusing on every brat-attack by the Tea Party since their bizarre inception. Then we have rewarded them by voting their loudest and stupidest into office. And then our ostensible leaders have all been cowed by the idiots, from Boehner fearing for his Speakership to Obama's early attempts to compromise, to Mitch McConnell's recent comical avoidance of expressing an opinion and our own Lindsey Graham's waving his guns around in attempts to ward off that fearsome "challenge from the right."
Meanwhile, the media appears to not have noticed that the tide is turning. Big business has noted that shutting down the government in order to kill Obamacare has not been good for their health. Wall Street has woken up to the fact that government spending is an essential force for the good in our economy and their continuing accumulation of riches. Even the Democrats are aware that the party of greed and fools has gone too far.
And nearly last on the train is the Americans who cheered on the Tea Party, who have finally noticed that cutting all that wasteful government spending could actually affect them as well.
Typically looking backwards, and fearing that oh-so-2010 challenge from the right, the radical wing-nuts of the republican party haven't noticed, or have no idea what to do with the fact of their increasing unpopularity. Like the bully, the only possible response in their limited repertoire is to hit harder.
I imagine they might be surprised to find that the challengers that take them down in 2014 are going to be the moderates, you know, the ones that sound like they want to try to make government work.
And the media will probably realize this just about the same time.
Unfortunately, the media continues to give legitimacy to this asinine process. I heard someone on a panel ruminate that Obama would have to give something in return for getting something, that something being the end to the government shutdown and raising of the debt ceiling. You know, in order for the House republicans to be able to save face.
Basically, this is like handing the school bully a couple of dollars if he agrees not to steal lunch money for a couple of weeks. In fact, the behavior we have witnessed since John Boehner's first "Hell, no!" is no better than middle school tantrums.
And we -- the administration, the American people, the media -- have been treating this bad behavior in a way that has perpetuated it. We have first of all paid attention to it, with media focusing on every brat-attack by the Tea Party since their bizarre inception. Then we have rewarded them by voting their loudest and stupidest into office. And then our ostensible leaders have all been cowed by the idiots, from Boehner fearing for his Speakership to Obama's early attempts to compromise, to Mitch McConnell's recent comical avoidance of expressing an opinion and our own Lindsey Graham's waving his guns around in attempts to ward off that fearsome "challenge from the right."
Meanwhile, the media appears to not have noticed that the tide is turning. Big business has noted that shutting down the government in order to kill Obamacare has not been good for their health. Wall Street has woken up to the fact that government spending is an essential force for the good in our economy and their continuing accumulation of riches. Even the Democrats are aware that the party of greed and fools has gone too far.
And nearly last on the train is the Americans who cheered on the Tea Party, who have finally noticed that cutting all that wasteful government spending could actually affect them as well.
Typically looking backwards, and fearing that oh-so-2010 challenge from the right, the radical wing-nuts of the republican party haven't noticed, or have no idea what to do with the fact of their increasing unpopularity. Like the bully, the only possible response in their limited repertoire is to hit harder.
I imagine they might be surprised to find that the challengers that take them down in 2014 are going to be the moderates, you know, the ones that sound like they want to try to make government work.
And the media will probably realize this just about the same time.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Who IS Lindsey Graham?
I think it's safe to say you can't pin him down. I remember when he used to be the sane and reasonable of South Carolina's two senators. Admittedly, it's a low bar, but still.
During the bashing of Sonia Sotomayor during the Supreme Court justice's confirmation hearings, Graham indicated that, while she may not have been his choice, it was the president's prerogative to choose a nominee that reflected his values. Why then, has he been first in line to beat up on Obama's cabinet picks, even before he has picked them?
Hand in hand with best buddy John McCain, Graham attacked Susan Rice over her Sunday talk show comments regarding the causes of the attacks in Benghazi. As though she were on the intelligence front lines. His goal may have been payback for John Bolton, but the intensity and inappropriate timing of the Rice attacks are more reminiscent of Graham's June, 2012, assault on Eric Holder, who was left holding the bag for a secret Bush gun program that backfired. Interesting that after the outing of Valeria Plame during the Bush years, Graham could get so incensed over White House leaks.
But that Susan Rice deal made Graham look pretty tough, so much so that he went after Chuck Hagel, disappointed that Hagel wasn't the vicious defender of freedom that he would have liked.
On the other hand, as long as we're talking strange inconsistencies, Graham has just gone to bat for our President in the matter of drone attacks. The man should be able to kill whoever he wants, he's the President, Graham contends.
And then we have Lindsey Graham on gun control:
He impressed no less than Jon Stewart with his argument against restricting weapon capacity: "Changing the magazine -- I can do that pretty quick." And seeking to top his own self in the crazy category: "We need high capacity magazines so moms won't run out of bullets defending their kids."
I think I have the answer, though, to this conundrum that is Lindsey Graham. It came to me as I was reading Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics. During the interminable and unproductive fiscal wrangling last year, Joe Biden accuses Graham of messing with him on the payroll tax extension. According to Woodward, Graham replies,
When I read that quote, I got it. Our Lindsey Graham's number 1 job is Lindsey Graham. And that means speaking to his constituency: those overly-trusting yet paranoid, Fox informed, equal parts American patriot and confederate that have kept him in office all these long years.
And those comments about a President's right to nominate whatever left wing justice he chooses just did not set as well with those constituents as supporting Obama's right to fire them drones. Votes like those supporting the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor just plain old got his base riled up enough to wander off the base, if you know what I mean.
Those murmurs about a challenge from the right just might be happening. But have no fear. Lindsey Graham can "change that magazine pretty quick." He's proven that he can fight, on any side he needs to be. He's not worried about sounding crazy, just soft. And when he says things that don't seem to make sense, that too may be part of the plan. He may just be "fucking with you."
During the bashing of Sonia Sotomayor during the Supreme Court justice's confirmation hearings, Graham indicated that, while she may not have been his choice, it was the president's prerogative to choose a nominee that reflected his values. Why then, has he been first in line to beat up on Obama's cabinet picks, even before he has picked them?
Hand in hand with best buddy John McCain, Graham attacked Susan Rice over her Sunday talk show comments regarding the causes of the attacks in Benghazi. As though she were on the intelligence front lines. His goal may have been payback for John Bolton, but the intensity and inappropriate timing of the Rice attacks are more reminiscent of Graham's June, 2012, assault on Eric Holder, who was left holding the bag for a secret Bush gun program that backfired. Interesting that after the outing of Valeria Plame during the Bush years, Graham could get so incensed over White House leaks.
But that Susan Rice deal made Graham look pretty tough, so much so that he went after Chuck Hagel, disappointed that Hagel wasn't the vicious defender of freedom that he would have liked.
On the other hand, as long as we're talking strange inconsistencies, Graham has just gone to bat for our President in the matter of drone attacks. The man should be able to kill whoever he wants, he's the President, Graham contends.
And then we have Lindsey Graham on gun control:
I think I have the answer, though, to this conundrum that is Lindsey Graham. It came to me as I was reading Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics. During the interminable and unproductive fiscal wrangling last year, Joe Biden accuses Graham of messing with him on the payroll tax extension. According to Woodward, Graham replies,
I'm not fucking with you. I mean, it's not that I'm beyond fucking with you. I'm just not fucking with you here.
And those comments about a President's right to nominate whatever left wing justice he chooses just did not set as well with those constituents as supporting Obama's right to fire them drones. Votes like those supporting the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor just plain old got his base riled up enough to wander off the base, if you know what I mean.
Those murmurs about a challenge from the right just might be happening. But have no fear. Lindsey Graham can "change that magazine pretty quick." He's proven that he can fight, on any side he needs to be. He's not worried about sounding crazy, just soft. And when he says things that don't seem to make sense, that too may be part of the plan. He may just be "fucking with you."
Friday, January 18, 2013
Too Much Moderation
Over the past weeks since the killing of twenty children in Newtown, I have heard crazy people demand and threaten over their right to bear arms. Talk show host Alex Jones yelled, "1776 will commence again." While he was raging against attempts to legislate his right to bear arms, he was also organizing a petition to have Piers Morgan deported because he spoke in favor of strict gun control laws. So apparently freedom to carry weapons trumps freedom of speech. Unless it's the guy with the guns who's speaking.
Wayne LaPierre, NRA crazy man with the inoffensive name, will brook absolutely no compromise, under any circumstance. Rather, he proposes armed guards and watch lists of the mentally ill, whose freedom also appears not to matter. If you drive a car you need a driver's license, but it is an act against freedom to require a gun owner to be licensed and on record.
According to a blistering Daily Show report, in 2007 Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt declared that we don't need any more protection from guns because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was on it 24/7. That's the Todd Tiahrt who rammed through measures preventing ATF from monitoring or enforcing gun laws. Oh, and the bill had the stamp of approval from the NRA.
While the anti-gun-control nuts are writhing and screeching, the parents of the murdered children are "urging" discussions about gun safety.
This may seem to be deja vu all over again, what with the right-wing-nuts driving the health care debate, making truly sensible, affordable health care impossible in this country.
And it would be hard not to point out that the side that is screaming about losing the freedom to carry a gun any-damn-where it wants is pretty often the side that feels the need to protect a women's fertilized egg from the women carrying it.
My point is that it is disheartening that the two most powerful components of the gun debate are the monied and the crazy. With the NRA -- the lobby of the arms industry -- fueling the paranoid, it becomes ever harder for the reasoned and moderate voices to weigh in. Leaving us with inadequate legislation and enforcement, and more deaths ready to be toted up.
Wayne LaPierre, NRA crazy man with the inoffensive name, will brook absolutely no compromise, under any circumstance. Rather, he proposes armed guards and watch lists of the mentally ill, whose freedom also appears not to matter. If you drive a car you need a driver's license, but it is an act against freedom to require a gun owner to be licensed and on record.
According to a blistering Daily Show report, in 2007 Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt declared that we don't need any more protection from guns because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was on it 24/7. That's the Todd Tiahrt who rammed through measures preventing ATF from monitoring or enforcing gun laws. Oh, and the bill had the stamp of approval from the NRA.
While the anti-gun-control nuts are writhing and screeching, the parents of the murdered children are "urging" discussions about gun safety.
This may seem to be deja vu all over again, what with the right-wing-nuts driving the health care debate, making truly sensible, affordable health care impossible in this country.
And it would be hard not to point out that the side that is screaming about losing the freedom to carry a gun any-damn-where it wants is pretty often the side that feels the need to protect a women's fertilized egg from the women carrying it.
My point is that it is disheartening that the two most powerful components of the gun debate are the monied and the crazy. With the NRA -- the lobby of the arms industry -- fueling the paranoid, it becomes ever harder for the reasoned and moderate voices to weigh in. Leaving us with inadequate legislation and enforcement, and more deaths ready to be toted up.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Keeping Whom Honest?
I've been wondering what's been going on with Jim DeMint. Sure he sends us "Freedom alerts" to let us know what he is voting no on in order to make sure his constituents, i.e., Christians and Corporations, continue to be free to stomp on the rest of us. But here it is, election season, and I haven't heard him referred to as a kingmaker, not once. Not like Mr. D to keep his cards close; he's more the kind that thinks it's important to share his wealth (of knowledge) with the common folk.
So I was tickled to hear that Senator DeMint was on the panel questioning JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon about the loss of 2 billion dollars. I was not disappointed.
Dimon was no doubt anticipating a dressing down, much like the 2008 scolding of the auto industry CEO's who flew in on separate jets to tell Congress they were broke. Or maybe the kind of all-out vitriolic attack like that directed at Attorney General Eric Holder just days earlier.
Was he in for a surprise.
Our own Jim DeMint pretty much apologized to Dimon, put his arm around him and comforted him, basically saying, "It could have happened to anyone." In fact, he and the other Class Clowns on the republican side appear to have strategized that this was the perfect time to point out just how much more incompetent was the U.S. Government.
The result should have been embarrassing, except for the fact that these men know no shame.
Wouldn't it be great, though, if DeMint et al were forced to appear before Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, who would hold them accountable?
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bank Yankers - Jamie Dimon on Capitol Hill | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Colbert Fails -- Or Does He?
It turns out that Stephen Colbert, who was not on the South Carolina Republican Primary ballot, was able to get more votes, in the guise of Herman Cain, than either Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. Politico reports this as a failure, but aren't we really missing the big picture here?
I believe this was one of the more brilliant pieces of performance art I have ever seen. Colbert and Stewart are in it to show just how big money, as in Citizens' United, can throw a race. Maybe they didn't actually throw this one, but one percent of the vote for someone who is no longer running (Cain) and who is not on the ballot and insists that he is merely exploring the possibility of running for the "United States of South Carolina" (Colbert) indicates that some of us are paying attention.
Sad about those who can't see the point, like those students mentioned in the Politico piece who thought that it was just a gag. Not just a gag. And the superpac money is still flowing.
Silly? Yes. But also an important protest of the less-than-supreme court's pro-corporate ruling. So let's get with the spirit of this protest. If we can move the numbers, we can get those who think they are now controlling the country's elections quaking in their designer shoes.
And Stephen Colbert, in his typical silly and touching (and talented) way, sends his love to South Carolina:
I believe this was one of the more brilliant pieces of performance art I have ever seen. Colbert and Stewart are in it to show just how big money, as in Citizens' United, can throw a race. Maybe they didn't actually throw this one, but one percent of the vote for someone who is no longer running (Cain) and who is not on the ballot and insists that he is merely exploring the possibility of running for the "United States of South Carolina" (Colbert) indicates that some of us are paying attention.
Sad about those who can't see the point, like those students mentioned in the Politico piece who thought that it was just a gag. Not just a gag. And the superpac money is still flowing.
Silly? Yes. But also an important protest of the less-than-supreme court's pro-corporate ruling. So let's get with the spirit of this protest. If we can move the numbers, we can get those who think they are now controlling the country's elections quaking in their designer shoes.
And Stephen Colbert, in his typical silly and touching (and talented) way, sends his love to South Carolina:
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Saturday, January 14, 2012
DeMint Does Daily
You have to see Jon Stewart interview our own Jim DeMint on The Daily Show. I was so excited at the thought that Jon Stewart was going to make DeMint eat every one of his convoluted thoughts.
Things started well. DeMint showed up in his rumpled, too-large, Sunday go-to-meeting suit, and I noted that he was the one with the blue tie, Stewart with the red. Also, Mr. Stewart's chair appeared to be slightly highly than Senator DeMint, so that he appeared to tower over him physically as well as intellectually.
But the part that aired on television was a disappointment. To see the real interview you need to get past part 1, where Stewart is being attentive and way too agreeable. I actually worried that Stewart had met his match in DeMint, that even this brilliant interviewer couldn't figure out how to cut through the nonsense.
But parts 2 and 3, on the internets, is where Stewart gets his stride. By the time he has confronted the senator with DeMint's enflamed rhetoric, the accusations that anyone who is liberal does not love his country, or is not patriotic, and before he gets to the damage being done by the right's unwillingness to compromise, he actually has DeMint stammering. It is a beautiful thing to see.
Even better though, is that Stewart restates for us what it is that makes America great. He channels Elizabeth Warren when he says "...no one makes it here by themselves". Because we are all in this together, and when the powerful corporations are not held in check with regulation, and are not made to contribute an adequate amount of their profits to allow the rest of the country to grow, we all fail. Eventually.
On the other hand, looking again at the video, Jim ends the interview as smug as ever, and I don't believe he ever had an idea that he had been bested. It will surely take more than reason to bring down.
But I'm glad Jon Stewart was able to shine a little light on the idiocy that is Jim DeMint
Things started well. DeMint showed up in his rumpled, too-large, Sunday go-to-meeting suit, and I noted that he was the one with the blue tie, Stewart with the red. Also, Mr. Stewart's chair appeared to be slightly highly than Senator DeMint, so that he appeared to tower over him physically as well as intellectually.
But the part that aired on television was a disappointment. To see the real interview you need to get past part 1, where Stewart is being attentive and way too agreeable. I actually worried that Stewart had met his match in DeMint, that even this brilliant interviewer couldn't figure out how to cut through the nonsense.
But parts 2 and 3, on the internets, is where Stewart gets his stride. By the time he has confronted the senator with DeMint's enflamed rhetoric, the accusations that anyone who is liberal does not love his country, or is not patriotic, and before he gets to the damage being done by the right's unwillingness to compromise, he actually has DeMint stammering. It is a beautiful thing to see.
Even better though, is that Stewart restates for us what it is that makes America great. He channels Elizabeth Warren when he says "...no one makes it here by themselves". Because we are all in this together, and when the powerful corporations are not held in check with regulation, and are not made to contribute an adequate amount of their profits to allow the rest of the country to grow, we all fail. Eventually.
On the other hand, looking again at the video, Jim ends the interview as smug as ever, and I don't believe he ever had an idea that he had been bested. It will surely take more than reason to bring down.
But I'm glad Jon Stewart was able to shine a little light on the idiocy that is Jim DeMint
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wow, They Did It Again
I have nothing but admiration for Anthony Weiner, one of the Congressional representatives (which I can count using the fingers of one hand) that will always speak honestly, regardless of hounding by the media, and regardless of popular opinion.
Hah, you thought I was talking about the Twitter thing that is the media's obsession of the week.
What I am referring to, however, is Weiner's letter requesting that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the Obama Health Care Act. It appears that Ginny Thomas has her hands in all kinds of lobbying against ObamaCare, and that, although Thomas is typically steamed about having to admit to this source of income, he indeed benefits financially from his wife's political activities.
I quite accidentally learned of this as I caught up on my week's worth of The Rachel Maddow Show, working backwards, nearly missing the Friday interview with Anthony Weiner before the Twitter business hit. On that show, Weiner appeared and explained his House petition asking Thomas to recuse himself.
The thing is, not having time during the week to catch much news, what I heard ad nauseum was about Weiner's hacked Twitter account. I saw the lewd photo, heard all the bad jokes, and the back and forth about why Weiner wasn't giving the drooling media the meat (no pun intended, really) it was craving. The last straw was Luke Russert insisting on finding out whether the picture was really of Anthony Weiner.
This is absurd and tragic for us Americans. We are so easily led by a shallow and lazy media, which we have allowed to exercise this dirty journalism. It is upsetting to think that we are being denied, in this time of failing schools and health, lost jobs and homes, and neverending war, accurate representation of the real issues.
So let me just thank Rachel Maddow for committing real journalism.
Oh, I would also like to thank Jon Stewart for his astute journalistic observations on whether the photo could really have been Anthony Weiner. Good to have a laugh at all this nonsense.
Hah, you thought I was talking about the Twitter thing that is the media's obsession of the week.
What I am referring to, however, is Weiner's letter requesting that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the Obama Health Care Act. It appears that Ginny Thomas has her hands in all kinds of lobbying against ObamaCare, and that, although Thomas is typically steamed about having to admit to this source of income, he indeed benefits financially from his wife's political activities.
I quite accidentally learned of this as I caught up on my week's worth of The Rachel Maddow Show, working backwards, nearly missing the Friday interview with Anthony Weiner before the Twitter business hit. On that show, Weiner appeared and explained his House petition asking Thomas to recuse himself.
The thing is, not having time during the week to catch much news, what I heard ad nauseum was about Weiner's hacked Twitter account. I saw the lewd photo, heard all the bad jokes, and the back and forth about why Weiner wasn't giving the drooling media the meat (no pun intended, really) it was craving. The last straw was Luke Russert insisting on finding out whether the picture was really of Anthony Weiner.
This is absurd and tragic for us Americans. We are so easily led by a shallow and lazy media, which we have allowed to exercise this dirty journalism. It is upsetting to think that we are being denied, in this time of failing schools and health, lost jobs and homes, and neverending war, accurate representation of the real issues.
So let me just thank Rachel Maddow for committing real journalism.
Oh, I would also like to thank Jon Stewart for his astute journalistic observations on whether the photo could really have been Anthony Weiner. Good to have a laugh at all this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)