Truthiness

[jillian]

Come on, you can't really believe this. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert religiously. Not to get my news, but because they are funny as hell. Colbert's "Know Your District" bit is hilarious. Hell, Colbert got Gov. Rod Blagojevich on and made him look like an ass. These are comedians people. Jackass meets CNN. Just laugh at it and move on.

Oh...absolutely they're funny. I laugh my butt off when I watch them. But all good comedy is funny because it has its underpinning in truth.

I'm not saying I get my news from them...I get my news from lots of places. I just think most media has abdicated its responsibility to do more than bring infotainment to our screens. But these guys raise issues and are pointed in their barbs (aimed at both sides, I might add).

Oh...and John McCain is one of my favorite guests on Stewart's show. I loved when the torture debate was going on and Stewart just looked at McCain and said (of Cheney) "is this guy nuts?" McCain's response, an impish grin and shrug, was priceless. :cof:

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm shocked. :teeth:

I'm sure as shocked as we all are that you found it so hysterical.

 

[jillian]

I'm sure as shocked as we all are that you found it so hysterical.

Fair enough.

But some of us like truthiness. :rotflmao:

 

[Gunny]

Fair enough.

But some of us like truthiness. :rotflmao:

And some of us like the truth backed with fact, not some political idealogue's rambling imagination.

 

[jillian]

And some of us like the truth backed with fact, not some political idealogue's rambling imagination.

Idealogue? And Bush isn't one?

What did he lampoon that wasn't dead on?

BTW, today's poll on aol...

The debate has erupted both online and off: Was Stephen Colbert funny in his performance at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner? Did the fake newsman go too far in skewering President Bush? And did the media ignore his performance? Watch it for yourself, or read excerpts below, and then weigh in.

The poll on aol (not scientific...just for fun)

How funny was Colbert?
Very 50%
Not at all 27%
Somewhat 23%
Total Votes: 101,001

Were his jokes appropriate?
Yes 65%
No 35%
Total Votes: 100,071

Kind of interesting that the people who thought the jokes were appropriate versus those who thought they weren't mirrors Bush's poll numbers almost exactly.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Idealogue? And Bush isn't one?

What did he lampoon that wasn't dead on?

BTW, today's poll on aol...

The debate has erupted both online and off: Was Stephen Colbert funny in his performance at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner? Did the fake newsman go too far in skewering President Bush? And did the media ignore his performance? Watch it for yourself, or read excerpts below, and then weigh in.

The poll on aol (not scientific...just for fun)

How funny was Colbert?
Very 50%
Not at all 27%
Somewhat 23%
Total Votes: 101,001

Were his jokes appropriate?
Yes 65%
No 35%
Total Votes: 100,071

Kind of interesting that the people who thought the jokes were appropriate versus those who thought they weren't mirrors Bush's poll numbers almost exactly.

I love the President, but still thought Colbert was funny as hell. This is what the Correspondance dinner is all about. Som laughed some didn't, oh well. Lets move on fellas.

 

[jillian]

I love the President, but still thought Colbert was funny as hell. This is what the Correspondance dinner is all about. Som laughed some didn't, oh well. Lets move on fellas.

Yeah...topic's probably played out.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah...topic's probably played out.

Yeah .... on tot he next Bush-bash ....

 

[musicman]

Which has what to do with Colbert? Did he say "all media are gutless except for Comedy Central?"

Nope...thought not.

Comedy Central will be only too glad to reap the benefits of, A) hyping this non-event, and, B) deflecting well-deserved scrutiny of its OWN hypocritical gutlessness in the South Park matter. So, you see, this has EVERYTHING to do with Colbert - acting under the auspices of Comedy Central.

At least Comedy Central has the "guts" to air The Daily Show and Colbert Report....

Wow - the entertainment industry going after George Bush. How fresh. How daring. How "cutting edge".

Daily Show alone is probably has more "real news" than the *real news* does (unless, of course, I want to know about Natalie Holloway.

There it is again! I don't know if I've ever seen as much derision heaped upon an innocent victim of foul play as the left have on this poor girl. What is it y'all hate so much about her?

Oh...and just for clarification. This White House tends to deny access to people who write unflattering things. And no access for a reporter means no job. And for the corporations that keep on the people who write unflattering things, the admin's FCC has refused to approve sales and purchases of outlets.

Just for the record...

I suspect there's more to this than you're telling. Could I see a link, please?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yeah .... on tot he next Bush-bash ....

Perfect observation and infallible prediction.

I love it when someone sees the big picture and states it so succinctly.

 

[jillian]

Cheney, Cohen and Colbert: The rhetoric and the reality of free speech
Vice President Dick Cheney and Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen are both arguing today that retaliation for free speech is something that happens in some other place or at some other time.

Cheney, lecturing Russia from Lithuania, says that men and women "must be free to speak their minds," and he repeats the "simple test" posed by Natan Sharansky: "Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?" "If he can," Cheney says, "then that person is living in a free society. If not, it's a fear society."

Cohen, lecturing Stephen Colbert from his home on the Post's Op-Ed page, says speaking "truth to power" is a "tired phrase" that doesn't mean much in America today. When it was "fresh and meaningful," he says, "it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office."

Maybe they've got a point. George W. Bush isn't Joseph Stalin, and Stephen Colbert hasn't been subjected to any smitings, at least not of the biblical sort. Still, it's hard to make the case that the United States is the national free debate society that Cheney and Cohen apparently imagine it to be.

Shortly after 9/11, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warned "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." When Gen. Eric Shinseki warned that several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld responded by pushing him aside into premature "lame duck" status. When Joseph Wilson raised questions about the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, the White House responded with what Patrick Fitzgerald has called a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge" against him.

Cindy Sheehan is arrested for wearing an antiwar T-shirt to Bush's State of the Union address. A college student is arrested by police who claimed that his invocation of an iconic image from Abu Ghraib somehow amounted to a bomb threat. The Pentagon monitors the "threats" presented by Quaker meetings in Florida and an antiwar march at NYU and a campus protest at Southern Connecticut State University. The FBI monitors the Web sites of groups planning to protest at political conventions, takes note of the license plates on cars near an antiwar rally and gathers information about "antiwar and environmental protesters" and "activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless."

The CIA fires a career analyst for having what it calls undisclosed conversations with journalists, and the Bush administration explores the possibility of criminal prosecutions for journalists who pass along leaks of classified information.

Cohen says that "anyone can insult the president of the United States" without fear of any consequences. Tell it to the Dixie Chicks, who were subjected to a nationwide radio boycott after singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas. Tell it to anyone whose criticism of the Bush administration has been equated to comforting the enemy or undermining the troops or siding with Osama bin Laden. Cheney is the king of that sort of repression through marginalization: In a speech last fall, the vice president said that political "opportunists" who dare to question the president's justification for war are undermining "American soldiers and Marines ... out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures."

In his speech today, Cheney talked of the problems facing a country that "has compromised the rule of law "and has "little official respect for human rights, a corrupt bureaucracy, and an intimidated press corps. " He meant Russia, and we suppose that we ought to be thankful for this: We're still free enough to say that his words had us thinking about someplace closer to home.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/04/speech/index.html

 

[Annie]

Cheney, Cohen and Colbert: The rhetoric and the reality of free speech
Vice President Dick Cheney and Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen are both arguing today that retaliation for free speech is something that happens in some other place or at some other time.

Cheney, lecturing Russia from Lithuania, says that men and women "must be free to speak their minds," and he repeats the "simple test" posed by Natan Sharansky: "Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?" "If he can," Cheney says, "then that person is living in a free society. If not, it's a fear society."

Cohen, lecturing Stephen Colbert from his home on the Post's Op-Ed page, says speaking "truth to power" is a "tired phrase" that doesn't mean much in America today. When it was "fresh and meaningful," he says, "it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office."

Maybe they've got a point. George W. Bush isn't Joseph Stalin, and Stephen Colbert hasn't been subjected to any smitings, at least not of the biblical sort. Still, it's hard to make the case that the United States is the national free debate society that Cheney and Cohen apparently imagine it to be.

Shortly after 9/11, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warned "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." When Gen. Eric Shinseki warned that several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld responded by pushing him aside into premature "lame duck" status. When Joseph Wilson raised questions about the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, the White House responded with what Patrick Fitzgerald has called a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge" against him.

Cindy Sheehan is arrested for wearing an antiwar T-shirt to Bush's State of the Union address. A college student is arrested by police who claimed that his invocation of an iconic image from Abu Ghraib somehow amounted to a bomb threat. The Pentagon monitors the "threats" presented by Quaker meetings in Florida and an antiwar march at NYU and a campus protest at Southern Connecticut State University. The FBI monitors the Web sites of groups planning to protest at political conventions, takes note of the license plates on cars near an antiwar rally and gathers information about "antiwar and environmental protesters" and "activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless."

The CIA fires a career analyst for having what it calls undisclosed conversations with journalists, and the Bush administration explores the possibility of criminal prosecutions for journalists who pass along leaks of classified information.

Cohen says that "anyone can insult the president of the United States" without fear of any consequences. Tell it to the Dixie Chicks, who were subjected to a nationwide radio boycott after singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas. Tell it to anyone whose criticism of the Bush administration has been equated to comforting the enemy or undermining the troops or siding with Osama bin Laden. Cheney is the king of that sort of repression through marginalization: In a speech last fall, the vice president said that political "opportunists" who dare to question the president's justification for war are undermining "American soldiers and Marines ... out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures."

In his speech today, Cheney talked of the problems facing a country that "has compromised the rule of law "and has "little official respect for human rights, a corrupt bureaucracy, and an intimidated press corps. " He meant Russia, and we suppose that we ought to be thankful for this: We're still free enough to say that his words had us thinking about someplace closer to home.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/04/speech/index.html

Wow, speaking of throwing all one has and seeing what might stick,

The only lawmaker that has recently advocated abridging our first amendment rights, was John McCain:

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-says-clean-government-more.html

As for the Sheehan t-shirt brouhaha, the capitol officer was wrong and it was admitted. She also wasn't the only one removed, as a wife of a Republican representative was as well:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217

As for a general making an observation, well he has that right, under the First Amendment, ya know?

As for the CIA, press, and leaks; there are laws relating to the behavior, which are enforceable, though rarely followed up on.

Dixie Chicks, you've got to be kidding? :shocked: Poor writer indeed that cannot tell the difference between government silencing and public choosing not to support a group.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow, speaking of throwing all one has and seeing what might stick

That seems to be what passes for public discourse in a lot of places nowadays, I join in your condemnation of the tactic. I much prefer the forensic approach

 

[Annie]

That seems to be what passes for public discourse in a lot of places nowadays, I join in your condemnation of the tactic. I much prefer the forensic approach

Well we find common ground. :shocked:

 

[Diuretic]

Strange feeling isn't it? :teeth:

It's okay, I won't tell (if you don't)

 

[jillian]

Wow, speaking of throwing all one has and seeing what might stick,

The only lawmaker that has recently advocated abridging our first amendment rights, was John McCain:

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-says-clean-government-more.html

As for the Sheehan t-shirt brouhaha, the capitol officer was wrong and it was admitted. She also wasn't the only one removed, as a wife of a Republican representative was as well:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217

As for a general making an observation, well he has that right, under the First Amendment, ya know?

As for the CIA, press, and leaks; there are laws relating to the behavior, which are enforceable, though rarely followed up on.

Dixie Chicks, you've got to be kidding? :shocked: Poor writer indeed that cannot tell the difference between government silencing and public choosing not to support a group.

I just thought the article had an interesting perspective. Doesn't mean I agree with every aspect of it.

A couple of points....first, I think the author is talking about a "tone" and one can't deny that everytime there has been criticism of this administration or vital information has been brought to the attention of the public, there have been cries about "it's wartime!", "it undermines the moral of the troops" or blah blah, the left is unpatriotic.

In the case of Colbert...he was, as one of our friends on this thread said, "funny as hell". One can think his satire went a bit far.....although I don't see how it was any different from Clinton having to sit at this dinner while they talked about blue dresses and blow jobs....And while it was commented on another thread that this is supposed to be a nicey-nice type of gathering, the truth is that the president ALWAYS gets skewered. And the guys who ripped Clinton were criticized much more quietly. Frankly, I don't remember it, though I remember watching the dinner..or at least clips from it. I'm not saying there weren't some who had issues with it. I might not have followed the story much at the time.

On the CIA issues....the information released had nothing to do with our security interests and everything to do with inappropriate conduct by our government, hence the movement by government to prosecute. Yet, that same government selectively disclosed classified information to embarrass and discredit someone who was inconvenient. (BTW, if it turns out that its true that Valerie Plame was working on information gathering about Irani weapons systems when they outed her... then what they did wasn't just unethical, it was blatantly illegal).

The woman who was removed from the SOTU address with Sheehan said it was done because they THOUGHT she was a protester because she wore a T-Shirt saying "Support our troops". They didn't realize til after that she wasn't protesting.

As for the Chicks...I'm not going to go through that whole thing again. We've been there, done that, and we don't agree. But that's cool.

You're right, though, he hit a lot of points. And I don't want to get too off-tracked from the subject. So I'll try to bring it around to the topic again...

Seems to me that the writer was making an observation about the "tone" of things right now. And he sees the response to Colbert's bit as a symptom of that tone.

The thing that I think is kind of funny is that what he did at the dinner is pretty much what he does every night....pointed satire in the guise of this right-wing O'Reilly-esque personna.

Did they not know who they were asking to keynote? Seems the person who booked him had to know what they'd be getting.

 

[Annie]

I just thought the article had an interesting perspective. Doesn't mean I agree with every aspect of it.

A couple of points....first, I think the author is talking about a "tone" and one can't deny that everytime there has been criticism of this administration or vital information has been brought to the attention of the public, there have been cries about "it's wartime!", "it undermines the moral of the troops" or blah blah, the left is unpatriotic.

In the case of Colbert...he was, as one of our friends on this thread said, "funny as hell". One can think his satire went a bit far.....although I don't see how it was any different from Clinton having to sit at this dinner while they talked about blue dresses and blow jobs....And while it was commented on another thread that this is supposed to be a nicey-nice type of gathering, the truth is that the president ALWAYS gets skewered. And the guys who ripped Clinton were criticized much more quietly. Frankly, I don't remember it, though I remember watching the dinner..or at least clips from it. I'm not saying there weren't some who had issues with it. I might not have followed the story much at the time.

On the CIA issues....the information released had nothing to do with our security interests and everything to do with inappropriate conduct by our government, hence the movement by government to prosecute. Yet, that same government selectively disclosed (BTW, if it turns out that its true that Valerie Plame was working on information gathering about Irani weapons systems when they outed her... then what they did wasn't just unethical, it was blatantly illegal).

As for the Chicks...I'm not going to go through that whole thing again. We've been there, done that, and we don't agree. But that's cool.

You're right, though, he hit a lot of points. And I don't want to get too off-tracked from the subject. So I'll try to bring it around to the topic again...

Seems to me that the writer was making an observation about the "tone" of things right now. And he sees the response to Colbert's bit as a symptom of that tone.

The thing that I think is kind of funny is that what he did at the dinner is pretty much what he does every night....pointed satire in the guise of this right-wing O'Reilly-esque personna.

Did they not know who they were asking to keynote? Seems the person who booked him had to know what they'd be getting.

False argument. No one suggested that Colbert once hired, didn't have the 'right' to do his choice of humor. He did. Others have a right to say they found him rude and lacking judgement in THAT venue. Not once have I heard anything to do with 'state secrets', silencing, etc., all of which was what that column was about. Notice Colbert really only shows up in the title.

 

[jillian]

False argument. No one suggested that Colbert once hired, didn't have the 'right' to do his choice of humor. He did. Others have a right to say they found him rude and lacking judgement in THAT venue. Not once have I heard anything to do with 'state secrets', silencing, etc., all of which was what that column was about. Notice Colbert really only shows up in the title.

Like I said, the author is talking more about a tonal thing. He sees the RESPONSE to Colbert as being part of that tone. Otherwise why would so many people take the time to say he "wasn't appropriate" or "went over the line" or "wasn't funny". Seems they made the story much larger than it otherwise would have been, though.

Oh...for your amusement .... an acquaintence of mine did this poem after the whole Colbert to-do... If I'd have been asked to edit, I'd have probably suggested that he not use the word "criminals" in the last sentence and some of the other language...but I wasn't asked to edit. :

George Bush came out of his bubble
And did a humorous bit with a double.
Which got me to thinking.
If George's double was drinking
And took over, could we be in more trouble?

"Colbert wasn't funny! He's mean!"
Says the right-wing spin-slander machine.
"But two thousand die
And we laugh till we cry!
Now THAT's a good stand-up routine!"

"Colbert was a bully!" cry all
Right wingers and press corps, appalled.
"He dared tell the truth!
He's a new John Wilkes Booth!
He didn't stroke our egos at all!"

Steve Colbert went out to provoke
And cut through the usual smoke.
You woulda thought he had struck 'em.
Well, I say just **** 'em,
If those criminals can't take a joke.

 

[Diuretic]

So how is Tom these days? Just kidding. But it does have that feel about it :halo:

 

[jillian]

So how is Tom these days? Just kidding. But it does have that feel about it :halo:

Sorry...not making the connection this a.m.

Tom?