23 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

There's no doubt the Daily show leans a bit to the left, but it is one of the more watchable and newsworthy shows out there. And if you have the least bit of cognitive abilities to sort the jokes from the meat, it's quite the informative show as well.

At the very least, it's nice to see a news show being succesful through humour rather than the fearmongering/gossipmongering local news. "The new death trap in your very own home...plus, the weather! Tonight at 11!"

23 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

"The new death trap in your very own home...plus, the weather! Tonight at 11!"

I think that was an actual tagline for the nightly news here in The Bay, CA about 2 months back. Heard just the other night (wed. or thurs) "Did you know that you could lose your house... and there's nothing you can do about it. Find out more, tonight at 11." It was about houses built on or near faultlines that have greater likelyhood to sink were an earthquake to happen.

Mmmmmm, truth in advertising. Gotta love it.

23 Aug 2004 | indi said...

I like Will Farrell, but the Bush bit described just sounds like more of the old "Gee look how stupid George Bush is" type jokes. He can do better.

I agree the teasers for local news are an art form in themselves. Even though I know they are trying to sucker me in I still fall for them at times.

The Daily Show bit is good because it's true. Politicos harp on the same theme over and over often missing the point of the question that was asked. And both sides live by the old adage, "Repeat a lie often enough and it will be perceived as the truth."

24 Aug 2004 | CM Harrington said...

Yes, I'd say The Daily Show is a bit left leaning, but I'd also say it does a good job of calling bullshit on both sides of the fence.

And yes, it is sad that the only "hard hitting" questions come from a "fake" news source, and has for quite some time. Long gone are the days when a politician could speak to a question. Now everything must be a scripted, "on message" (even if that message has nothing to do with what was asked) speech, just so it will look "good" for television/radio sound bites

24 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Yeah, I gotta say, the politician on television isn't very interesting. I just can't wait... years from now elections will be like some bad VH1 reality series. Cynical, I know.

As for Stewart and The Daily Show... Sad that the hardest questions come from "fake" news shows, but Stewart has always been a shinning example of a thoughtful, no nonsense, down and to the point kinda guy (At least if you forget about his MTV show and his sitting in William Shatners lap) :-)

24 Aug 2004 | ~bc said...

Guess it's official: no one here reads my blog. I linked White House West weeks ago. Well, I guess its good... don't want to become too popular, then the cool kids won't like it.

24 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Ok, now that I've had a chance, I've gone to the linked site and watched the Will Ferrell film. Man, sorry, but that was beyond lame. I'd rather listen to a Howard Stern anti-bush rant, at least he's entertaining. And to think, with Elf he showed such promise. Well, OK, maybe I'd have to actually see one of the Bush ads to see what a clever parody it was.

The real comedy on that site was ACT's "petition" for the FCC to require political ads to prove their truthfulness before being allowed to be aired. I realize that is aimed at the Swift Boat Vet's ads, but how do you prove one groups recollection of past events over another? How do you prove or disprove someone's opinion? Seeing as more than 80% of the soft money spent on advertisements have been anti-Bush (sorry can't find the link anymore ... just remember moveon.org and all of George Soros' money), the Dems have much more to lose if the FCC actually did crack down.

I think Kerry should join Bush in calling for a halt to all soft money ads, not just the Swifty's ads. That way you don't have to decide if they are truthful or not .... on the other hand there is free speech ... oh what a tangled web we weave ...

24 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

You know how sick I am, already, of all the BS?

Maybe I will vote for memebers of 37signals. I voted for my dad once as a write in... Maybe, if Nader doesn't make it, I will do the same again.

Ponderence: Why is it that we allow this 2 party bs system? We complain about taxes, certain words in certain songs/anthems, but we don't recognize a true 3rd party! Nader isn't trying to "steal" votes, he wants to win and in loo of that, he wants to send a message that politicians in this country need to start being more hounest with the folken voting for them. A Nader vote is NOT a wasted vote, it is a vote to tell the powers that be that we're not going to go softly into the night; that we are not going to take their shit any longer and we want a change.

Rant: A true democracy votes 3rd party for no other reason that it can. A true Democracy wants/accpets/embraces a 3rd party for the honesty it can bring to an election.

Thought: Would have GWB won the Republican nomination in 2000 if he would have had to go out and beat Gore ANDNader? Honestly, if 3rd parties were ever given a REAL and HOUNEST shot at elections (ei. Ad money, place in debates, being on ballots) do we see the likes of GWB on certain tickets? Would have Bush Sr. won that being the case. 3rd parties are for the good of us all. Let a 3rd party get 15% of the vote one time and see the change in the formats for years to come... I promise you that it is true, not hope. Think about it.

24 Aug 2004 | MrBlank said...

That was a little dull. The funniest part of that vid was that whiny, dorky voice at the end.

24 Aug 2004 | ar said...

If rank order voting was in place, I believe we would see more 3rd party candidates make it to Washington.

24 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

So the musicians and comedians are for Kerry ... and the serious people are for Bush?

24 Aug 2004 | Joseph said...

You're all nuts, that video was hilarious.

It showed how great of a comedian Ferrell can be when he's not doing some lame SNL offshoot film.

I wish there were move videos to come.

24 Aug 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

A true democracy votes 3rd party for no other reason that it can

Nonsense -- "because you can" is lame warrent for anything. I read a book recently [Wisdom of Crowds] and this is what it seemed to suggest would be a good way to approach voting decisions (to me -- my reading compression is a little iffy):

.Set aside ideology to whatever extent youre able (avoid group think).

.Honestly assess what you really need to make YOUR life better (but please consider that other peoples happiness and unhappiness can be a really put serious limits on yours even when you have the biggest gun and like to use it a lot).

.Consider YOUR first hand information and do YOUR own analysis rather than being cowed by athorities and experts (being true to your own stupid self actually turns out to be a good thing when all truly independent guesses are summed).

Now, if many people did this, I think things would be better than they are now (really, I think Im pretty fortunate, and my complaints are mostly ideological drum-beating, but there surely are others that could be better off if the government was run one way or the other). Unfortunately for the points Im relaying, loyalty to ideologic labels is a huge factor in life, and so I think you might want to consider being strategic in your voting decisions (or maybe not I really hope you vote how you want). But dont be too strategic (I think that you think that I think that you think and so I'll do this so you'll think...what was I thinking again?)

24 Aug 2004 | Unearthed Ruminator said...

A real good political site is http://www.vote-smart.org/ - non-partisan; just the facts.

24 Aug 2004 | jm said...

I've been a huge fan of Vote Smart since they've been online. They get huge kudos from me for providing an excellent service. You are able to check out past votes as WELL as the real content of those bills in Congress. On the surface, it's easy to claim that someone voted against this or that, but you look at what is buried in the bill--a rider or an ammendment--and all of a sudden it becomes clear what a complicated mess we have when we allow bills to become ammended in Congress.

I'm also a huge fan of Stewart and I do believe that he is independent. The show focuses on whomever is in power at the time because they get more "play" in the media. Right now, that is a Republican Administration. They took shots when the Democrats were in office too. Stewart skewers the media as often as the subjects that the media portrays. And I think that is why he is so appealing. He said it himself best on Larry King...he laughed off Larry's portrayal of him as a news anchor and said (I'm paraphrasing), honestly, "Look...I'm a COMEDIAN. We do fake news. But we'd like real news to do their jobs better because they have become celebrities who are afraid to offend and lose their connections and their ratings. Larry, will you help us?!" Larry, clearly uncomfortable, reluctantly agreed to do his part.

It was a GREAT interview.

24 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Why is it that we allow this 2 party bs system?

Because we keep voting for dems and reps who have nothing to gain by changing the system to be more accomodating of 3rd parties. (Actually, the dems have something to gain...but only short term).

There's talk of ventura running for '08. I'm still not sure what to make of it, but I think there's some potential for something there.

So the musicians and comedians are for Kerry ... and the serious people are for Bush?

Musicians and comedians aren't serious?

you might want to consider being strategic in your voting decisions

That's the problem. We shouldn't have to be 'strategic' in our voting. We should simply be able to pick the folks we want in and not fear that too much diversity on one side leads to a victory on the other...which was the case in '04. I'm sure Nader fans would have chosen Gore second and Gore fans Naser second, but we all lost and got Bush.

24 Aug 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

So the musicians and comedians are for Kerry ... and the serious people are for Bush?

Some people are serious. (OK, noted)
Musicians and comedians are not serious. (If you say so)
Musicians and comedians are some of the people (Of course)
Some Musicians and comedians would vote for Kerry (Yeah, go on)
All serious people would vote for Bush? (This is a trick question, right Aristotle?)

24 Aug 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Oh, I've cracked it some of the serious people might vote Bush, or might not. Just like some /musicians might vote for Bush, but some comedians/musicians will definitely vote Kerry (I feel better after cracking that nut).

You know, Comedians against Bush is kind of misleading as it could lead many to mistaking think that it means all comedians are against Bush.

24 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

that it means all comedians are against Bush.

You'd even think Will Ferrell would be FOR Bush...he's such a great president to impersonate.

24 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

You know, Comedians against Bush is kind of misleading as it could lead many to mistaking think that it means all comedians are against Bush.

Not to mention that it might give the impression that all taxi drivers are for Bush as well...CAB...sorry...that was silly.

24 Aug 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

The whole names-that-provoke-syllogistic-slips thing has got me thinking.

Im going to start a group called People for Truth, Justice and All Around Good Stuff (with me being the titular head). That way when anybody disagrees with me, it will seem like theyre for lies, inequity and everything bad.

24 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Let a 3rd party get 15% of the vote one time and see the change in the formats for years to come... I promise you that it is true, not hope.

Hey, Perot got a large slice in '92 thereby defeating Bush Sr. How much did the format change? Actually we do have a multi-party system, you just have to qualify with enough votes or signatures to get on each states ballot by a certain date. The Dems and the Republicans always qualify because of the large existing base. I seem to see the Green party and the Peace and Freedom party on the ballot every four years as well. What really drives the elections is campaign financing. The parties with the large bases will always have a shot. Yet there is still nothing preventing a billionaire from trying to get himself elected as a third party candidate a la Perot.

25 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

Come on Ferrell is very funny in that skit. I wish he would do 20 more.

Good news site for checking facts: Fast Check

Good site to see all the medals G.W. won G.W. Medals

25 Aug 2004 | Unearthed Ruminator said...

I think you wanted to link to Fact Check and not Fast Check.

25 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Arne, that's a GREAT idea!

It's like my idea. If I ever run for public office, I'm going to hold a press conference and announce "I'm totally against child abuse and selling women into prostitution. I don't know why my opponent hasn't come out against those things."

*giggle*

25 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Yet there is still nothing preventing a billionaire from trying to get himself elected as a third party candidate a la Perot.

Nothing stopping anyone from trying, but there's plenty that hinder any chance of them getting elected.

25 Aug 2004 | brian said...

Yeah - I did... No idea what fastcheck is and cannot believe I typed it wrong twice.

25 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Nothing stopping anyone from trying, but there's plenty that hinder any chance of them getting elected.

Yeah, simple things like being a total unknown with no establishment support. You'd have to spend a lot of money just to be heard thrugh paid ads - no unlike what Perot did with his half-hour infomercials. Another way would to be some sort of national hero ... but how many of those do we have? Or you can be someone with already established notoriety outside of the political arena - Like Nader, Schwartenegger or Ventura. So see, it's difficult but not impossible.

25 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Good points all, but my saying, "Let 3rd party 15%..." well, it changes things. The small % picked up by Perot did swing the vote, but it didn't SCARE Dems and Reps. In 92, Perot got 12%? but no one took him seriously (In or out Ross, make up your mind). IMHO, if Perot would have come out strong, and not crazy, things may have started there.

As for Ventura... I don't see him running in 2008. He was burnt out and frustrated when he was running a STATE, for that reason, I can't see him running a COUNTRY. I'm all for Ventura, love to see him in, just don't see it happening.

I do like Arne's suggestion, although, I think it needs a bit more zest on it. "Rightous People for Truth, Justice and All Around Good Stuff... all while wearing Smocks". Something like that. :-D

25 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Regarding third parties, my point is you'd have to become well known to the general populace before you'd stand a chance of being elected. But yeah I agree that if a third party starting getting consistently high returns you'd see more interesting elections. The major parties couldn't take their base for granted, for example. I think it's a shame the Democratic party's strategy concerning Nader is to legally challenge his place on the ballot in many states. He doesn't have the deep pockets to defend the challenge and to campaign.

25 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

LNJ, you just described The Polyphonic Spree !!

26 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Man, did I describe The Polyphonic Spree? I was unaware... OK, so, remove smock, replace with Bowler Hat. What would that describe? Naked Torso Peoples With Hats? Curiouser and curiouser. HEHE

26 Aug 2004 | indi said...

ok, now we're talking Magritte :-)

26 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

OK, what if we lost the hats and painted ourselves blue... Yeah! That's the Ticket. A bunch o' blue guys.

Ummmm, hold on a sec....

Damned Blue Man Group stealing my thunder.

OK, let's just stick with the original plan, Arne gave us.

Oh, and do you think Nader would fair better if he got all the 'cool' kids to put up his poster in the hallway?

26 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

That's it. Darn it ... all the good ideas are taken. Blue Man Group, Magritte, Benny Hill ... sheesh.

(Benny Hill?)

26 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Well, now that Benny Hill has passed on to that great whoopie cushion in the sky, I suppose somebody has to take his place ...

27 Aug 2004 | kev said...

from kottke.org, a comedian's take on the rnc ...

how to score at the republican convention

30 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't see him running in 2008. He was burnt out and frustrated when he was running a STATE, for that reason, I can't see him running a COUNTRY.

The one thing Ventura does have, though, is a gigantic ego. That may outweigh any logic in his decision to run or not. ;o)

30 Aug 2004 | Phil said...

indi, regarding the Swit Boat Vets you said "but how do you prove one groups recollection of past events over another?". You look at who is saying what and for what reason. The official Navy records and everyone who served on Kerry's boat supports his outstanding record. The people who renounce his record have a political agenda and had no first-hand experience serving along side Kerry in Viet Nam. So I'll put my brain to work and ask myself who is more credible, the Navy and his shipmates or some grudge holding conservatives who weren't even present for the events in question. I choose the official record.

03 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Phil, many of the swift boat vets served in the same company as Kerry and were there in their boats near by when some of the disputed events took place. I agree that some of these guys are making assumptions abouts events they weren't there for. But their agenda isn't political as much as they don't like how Kerry stabbed them in the back when he came back from Viet Nam. They haven't felt the need to speak out until now since now Kerry wants to lead the whole country and not just be the junior senator from his state.

Add to that the fact that Kerry is trying to paint himself as a leader based on 4 1/2 months in Viet Nam and doesn't mention his 20 years in the senate says something about him.