(Friday 10/15/04) And he's not going to take it any more!"* Jon Stewart's exchange on Friday with CNN Crossfire Hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson could fairly be described as an intellectual, moral, and political pundit smackdown. Actually, these words don't do justice to Jon Stewart's brutal but accurate critique. You must see it to believe it. Although I think the extended rant is a little odd in its one-sided relentlessness and hostility, Stewart delivers an important indictment of what passes for political communication today.
As Charles Taylor notes on slate.com, these are just a few of the highlights:
"I think you're a lot more fun on your show,' said Tucker Carlson to 'Crossfire' guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. 'And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other,' Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on 'The Daily Show' but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it. "
More highlights:
He told Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala that their show is "bad," that they are lowering public discourse, and that they are "partisan hacks". Stewart said that Carlson was a 35 year old man with a bowtie, and that he is a joke.
*Apologies to screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky for the blatant appropriation, but Stewart's righteous (and well-deserved) tirade echoes fictional television anchor Howard Beale's in Network. Unnlike Beale's disparate litany of societal woes, however, Stewart's is laserlike in focus. It's the pundits and spin doctors, stupid. Check out the original speech.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
IFILM - Short Films: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host
IFILM - Short Films: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host
Words don't do this justice. It's a Jon Stewart Crossfire Smackdown. But he does deliver an incredibly honest and important critique of what passes for political communication today. Must see it to believe.
Words don't do this justice. It's a Jon Stewart Crossfire Smackdown. But he does deliver an incredibly honest and important critique of what passes for political communication today. Must see it to believe.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Roll Call - Who are novelists voting for?
Roll Call - Who are novelists voting for?:
Kerry by a landslide!
Great article reveals who some of the greatest contemporary American novelists are suppporting in the presidential election and lets them explain why in their own words. "Thirty-one novelists participated, with four for Bush, 24 for Kerry, and three in a category of their own. "
This is fabulous and heartening. This is a margin I can deal with. I say artists get to run the world from now on.
Kerry by a landslide!
Great article reveals who some of the greatest contemporary American novelists are suppporting in the presidential election and lets them explain why in their own words. "Thirty-one novelists participated, with four for Bush, 24 for Kerry, and three in a category of their own. "
This is fabulous and heartening. This is a margin I can deal with. I say artists get to run the world from now on.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The New York Times > Opinion > Making Votes Count: Be Part of the Solution
The New York Times > Opinion > Making Votes Count: Be Part of the Solution
The most imminent threat:
A New York Times editorial warns that the 2004 federal electoral process may be even more problematic than 2000.
The most imminent threat:
A New York Times editorial warns that the 2004 federal electoral process may be even more problematic than 2000.
Hunting for Republicans in Paris - Registering voters on the Champs Elysees. By Elisabeth Eaves
By Elisabeth Eaves:
This brief, insightful article brings much needed news from overseas. Americans abroad are not only politically activated and overwhelmingly for Kerry in this election, they also understand the unintended, tragic consequences of American foreign policy under the Bush administration:
"What ordinary Americans living overseas want to get across is not simply that the United States is running out of allies. (If you counted allies based on majority opinion, rather than government policy, it would have almost none.) What they're also trying to say is that this steady erosion matters." It matters on a practical level, of course, because the citizens of those nominal allies may throw out their pro-U.S. governments, as Spain did earlier this year before abruptly walking out of Iraq. But it also matters on a philosophical level: When you lead the most powerful country in the world, foreigners are to some extent your constituents, whether you like it or not."
Hell, yes! It does matter, the President's tirades against "popularity" notwithstanding. Now if we could only get Americans stateside to come to the same realization, we would have real hope.
This brief, insightful article brings much needed news from overseas. Americans abroad are not only politically activated and overwhelmingly for Kerry in this election, they also understand the unintended, tragic consequences of American foreign policy under the Bush administration:
"What ordinary Americans living overseas want to get across is not simply that the United States is running out of allies. (If you counted allies based on majority opinion, rather than government policy, it would have almost none.) What they're also trying to say is that this steady erosion matters." It matters on a practical level, of course, because the citizens of those nominal allies may throw out their pro-U.S. governments, as Spain did earlier this year before abruptly walking out of Iraq. But it also matters on a philosophical level: When you lead the most powerful country in the world, foreigners are to some extent your constituents, whether you like it or not."
Hell, yes! It does matter, the President's tirades against "popularity" notwithstanding. Now if we could only get Americans stateside to come to the same realization, we would have real hope.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Economist J Bradford Delong on why economists are better than other social scientists
Delong is a great thinker and prodigious blogger. This is one of his funniest, most notable non-political posts: "as I watched this sequence of events, it struck me that I should be very, very glad that I was an economist: that our instinctive reaction was to think of how we could make the alternative we sought more attractive so that people wouldn't be tempted to vote-with-their-feet and exercise their right to do other things; by contrast, the sociologists' instinctive reaction was to think of how they could punish their graduate students and so effectively deprive them of the ability to vote-with-their-feet to do other things."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The New Republic Online: Middle Management
The New Republic Online: Middle Management
I don't often agree with Andrew Sullivan, but this time I think he's insightful and on right on target. The initial post-debate analysis was all over the map, tended toward the extremes, and is mostly likely irrelevant. Polls indicate a basically split decision on the debate with undecideds giving the edge to Edwards.
I don't often agree with Andrew Sullivan, but this time I think he's insightful and on right on target. The initial post-debate analysis was all over the map, tended toward the extremes, and is mostly likely irrelevant. Polls indicate a basically split decision on the debate with undecideds giving the edge to Edwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)