Slashdot Mirror
Colbert New Comic-in-Chief
scottzak writes "Hail to the Chief! Stephen Colbert addressed the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday (attended by the President, the elite of Washington politics, and the White House Press Corps) and told the truth. Jaws dropped. Eyes popped. The live audience gasped. Scalia laughed his ass off. You want to see a brilliant comic display some real courage? Look no further. Enjoy the reaction shots, and Colbert's audition for Press Secretary job." The BBC covers the act just prior to Mr. Colbert's, where the President and a look-alike took turns making fun of his speaking skills.
What's sad is, once he does say it how it is, he loses the room...
Funnypics
Here is the torrent link:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/296239
Registered Linux user #421033
Crooks and Liars doesn't have the full footage. Instead, check out the 3 segments on youtube:
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II
The transcript is also available here:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/5981
He accurately predicted the Oscars using his Da Colbert Code. Watch him celebrate.
WTF? That BBC article was not only pointless, but about three paragraphs long. At least post an article that discusses the topic, like maybe... E&P story
All I could think watching this, with Colbert never wavering, never holding back, never hurrying his words, was this man has balls.
Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.
And kudos for being kinda funny too.
For the love of God, save this guy's poor server, and use a torrent instead. Remember to seed after you're done downloading. there's a pretty big demand for this clip.
Be forewarned however... the torrent contains the entire C-Span broadcast of the event. Colbert's speech starts around the 54 minute mark. Some of the other bits are pretty funny, including bush playing along with an impersonator, although absolutely nothing can beat Colbert's speech. Watch it. It's funny on so many levels. I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.
I think this one's going to go down in the history books, and is by far the funniest thing ever broadcated on C-Span's airspace.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Unfortunately, for most people, a source isn't biased if you agree with it.
End transmission.
http://www.demonoid.com/files/download/HTTP/333327 /
I gotta give him credit. He stood up there and pointed out failures not just with the administration, but with the Media as a whole.
Well done.
http://isohunt.com/btDetails.php?id=11023245
I just checked, the tracker is up for me. (demonoid.com's tracker)
Registered Linux user #421033
Ain't it funny how Colbert is being ignored? This happened on Saturday. It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment. Did it make the major news sites? Type "Colbert" into google news and see what pops up first thing.
Yeah, but wouldn't you be nervous doing that act ten feet from Bush? I thought he came across as quite cool and collected, given the situation.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
It is really worth the watch. Colbert starts about 40 minutes into the video. Get the torrent or watch it on youtube (part 1, part 2, and part 3). If you haven't seen the Colbert report - it is quite good. Comedy central has a bunch of videos up - my favorite is the "know a district" ones.
The Colbert Report is really high quality political humor, like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart - it is funny because so often it is true.
If I were ever to meet him myself, I would probably be confirmed in my opinion of him as an idiot, but I think his armed guards would keep my smart mouth in line.
Oh he didn't entirely lose the room. Far from it, considering the exceptionally dry speakers preceding the Bushes and Colbert. (All praise the invention of fast forward). Colbert's greeting of Scalia, comments regarding Fox, boxing a glacier, DC the mallowmar city, Plame, and Helen-Thomas-the-stalker were all priceless. The interviews of the press corps in their little caves and 'presidential humor - cspan style' segments were great too. By all means watch it if you haven't.
Actually, no, I think you've nailed it already.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
"I just read it for the videos."
Since I don't often read the non-video posts, I use Crooks and Liars mainly as a source for keeping up on the news, because they cherry pick the most telling videos of the day.
Or, are you trying to say that they are a "far left smear website"? Well, in the words of the great Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Andrew
Is that the mainstream press coverage has mostly covered the Bush lookalike and not the pure political embrassment Bush suffered at the hands of Colbert. Perhaps the educated guess for this strange disconnect would be that the press hosts the event and it would be less noteworthy if the President stopped attending.
Bush violates the law and constitution. OH SNAP! I'm a "Bush Basher".
Ignore the fact that Bush violates the law and constitution.
Kill the messenger, ignore the message. I'm sure those are tomorrows talking points.
The best part about this is that the funnier and more incisive he gets, the quieter and quietier and quieter the laughter gets.
Too bad that nobody will hear about this except the people who read Slashdot, the people who watch Comedy Central, and the people who watch C-SPAN on saturday night. In other words, the exact people who are most likely to already agree with what Colbert is saying. Everybody else, well, everybody else will just hear about that part the BBC covered-- you know, the bit where Bush demonstrated what a down-to-earth, wouldn't-you-just-love-to-have-a-beer-with-me kind of guy he was by getting up on stage with a body double and deliberately mispronouncing words.
Which means Colbert's little song and dance here doesn't really matter. All right, so somebody criticized the president to his face for the first time in four years. (No, Kerry at the 2004 debates doesn't particularly count.) Okay, so what? The 32% who still approve of Bush's job-- who are, after all, the only people who matter-- won't hear about this, and if they hear about it, they won't listen. The 2006 elections still will go to the Republicans, because even if everyone gets pissed off at Mr. Bush, they still won't like the incompetent, spineless democrats any better.
The Republicans will continue to hold congress after 2006; nobody will ever investigate any of the laws Bush has broken; Bush will quietly leave office in 2008, Iraq will someday eventually get electricity and running water, and talk show hosts and revisionists will nostalgically talk about what a great leader Bush was until nobody remembers him as anything other than a second Reagan. (And how well do you remember the Reagan administration? Yup, that's what I thought.) Nobody will remember that freakish, depressing third half of the Bush presidency where major american cities were destroyed and the President was admitting to impeachable offenses on national television and nobody did anything about it. Everyone will just remember that first, inspiring part of the Bush presidency after september 11, when Bush said that God told him how to lead the country, and everyone believed him.
If you don't like the politics on Slashdot, then why not use the freaking built-in filters to keep political stories from showing up?
"People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." --Will Rogers. Seems oddly appropriate.
I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.
This is exactly the role that court jesters used to play. The only way for bureaucrats and lesser functionaries to get bad news and criticism to the King without losing their heads was to do the job with humor.
Just yet another step down the slippery slope to a Constitutional monarchy.
Colbert skewered the press pretty strongly too. I'm thinking the news blackout has more to do with the mainstream media's own shame than any courtesy to the President.
Stephen was in great form with such lines as:
"Wow, what an honor...to sit here, at the same table as my hero, George W Bush. To be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face...is he really not here tonight?" (in reference to the Vice President) "The one guy that could have helped."
That killed me. Later:
"I believe in democracy. I believe that democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, uh welcome. You're great country makes our Happy Meals possible."
Huge groan from the crowd on that one.
He got some huge laughs, but some got no reaction and I can only assume that either those in attendance were brain dead and didn't get it or offended by his frankness. Either way, he was dead on and hilarious.
I'm all for a skewering of authority, whoever happens to be at the helm. But, after viewing the whole video, while some of it has got to make some of the audience decidedly uncomfortable (note the camera cutting to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame!) I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else.
So, how accurate is that perception?
Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run? Or Nixon's?
That's what the 'net is so great for... putting something like this into a very broad context, not just believing that Steven Colbert doing a bang up job here is the first and last time it's ever happened.
Unless you like the idea of someone pissing off the president on stage, the content wasn't humorous IMHO.
That was just the icing on the cake.
"Good Grief. Has it come to this that a smarmy comic is getting accolades for his great courage?"
in case you haven't been keeping tabs on the "news", as it's so quaintly and nostalgially called, yes it has!.. doesnt that suck?
i mean if we had real news not only would this story not be in its current place, but neither would bush, our troops, or the DMCA be in their current place.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
For us deaf peeps... http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811 /
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
I take it you really don't understand what you saw...? The lack of response in the audience is the important part - it isn't indicative of him "bombing" in this case.
I'd be nervous too.
I want Bush gone as much as the next guy, but after reading the transcript it comes off disrespectful more than humourous, especially in front of that audience. I don't like Bush, but I still respect the power he holds...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
This wasn't about being funny - it was about being, uh, truthinessful.
He made some brilliant remarks up there - and he held no punches. The "Scott McClellan can say nothing like nobody else" was terrific.
I hope this inspires more people to have the balls to say what they feel and know about the tyranny that has strangled this nation.
I could give or take the humor, but the fact that it was a solid HALF HOUR of sticking it to the preseident's face in that manner was unprecedented. The humour depends on your politics; the balls to carry out an aggressive 30 minute assault on the president to his face is admirable. Make no mistake, this was not done out of comic pursuit; this was a statement. Not what he said, but the context in which it was delivered and for how freakin' long!
The difference between this and traditional presidential roasts (and I've seen more than a few - CSAN nerd here) is that this did not lampoon one or two or ten aspects of the Bush administration, but mocked it's very existence and legitimacy. To his face. In front of the Washington elite. For 30 solid uniterrupted minutes. Think about it: it's the difference between "Slick Willy got a BJ! Ha ha!" and "Monica knows the Clinton administration as well as everybody else - it leaves a bad taste in your mouth!"
and I distinctly heard a snap.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Ever watched the Colbert report? He trips over his own words almost nightly, no matter what the subject matter or context. It's just part of the Colbert charm by now. During 'The Word' segment earlier in the week he stopped to curse and laugh at himself over it. It's been hit or miss, when for a while it seemed he had gotten over it. Granted he did seem a tad nervous in this video, that's my take.
I don't need this, I've got a Master's Degree in folklore and mythology!
You shouldn't respect power, rather, you should respect the virtue of one's actions.
God Bless George W. Bush. God Bless America.
Hey, fuckwit, who are YOU to tell God what to do? DEMANDING of God something? The PROPER phrase is, "MAY God bless XXX".
That is key. Anyone who demands things of God is a shithead. Whenever you see someone saying "God bless" without the proper qualification... well, you can safely discard anything else they have to say, for they are truly spiritually retarded, and are probably nothing more than a drone.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
I watched the video and this comment cracked me up: "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personel changes. SO, the White house has personel changes. And then you write "oh, they're just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic." First of all, that's a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. if anything, they are re-arranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Stephen was on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Link to video. And the CBS text.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Normally I like Colbert's stuff. Most of the time he's witty, intelligent, and makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
medioc
I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).
As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.
Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
>It was a GWB bash-o-thon disguised as humor. Even if it was Bill Clinton, I still wouldn't have found it funny.
Right on man. If he had lampooned Clinton for screwing up the war in Iraq, having a low approval rating, or generally being incompetent, no one would have found it funny. It's such a total double standard that it doesn't apply the other way around.
Seriously though, you don't need to *disguise* a GWB bash-o-thon as humor. It *is* humor.
Really! I've been saying that one thing that sets Canada apart from our important southern neighbOUrs is that we regularly have our leaders immolate themselves on the pyre of national comedy television, and you'll not see something like that in the land of the brave. I mean, it isn't entirely a hair shirt kind of penance that GW did, since it was an elite gathering for the Gang, and not explicitly a guest appearance at one's own national skewering, like Chretien letting Rick Mercer put extra pepper on his burger (Jean once commented on the pepper sprayings at APEC that he just liked it on his steak).
Giving Colbert the lectern without a trap door, and doing the mumbling chimp routine with his doppleganger, that really took cojones. I haven't had that much political fun since Mary Walsh got Chretien to whack her with a golf club, in his own office.
"By the way Mr. President, thanks for agreeing to be on my show" --one of the jokes. I mean why not? It's not like he doesn't have time. The guy gets more holidays than a perfesser.
Damn those pesky terrorists
The President broke the law. AT&T gave customer data on millions of people to the feds and allowed them to tap all their pipes to data mine Americans' private phone calls. EFF sued them for violating FISA, the 4th Amendment, and for the AT&T customers whose private data was handed.
One witness, one expert, and a few internal documents filed, and Bush asserts a State Secrets Privilege; the lawsuit cannot continue. What did he not want us to know?
I don't know how to connect the dots any more obviously. If you don't smell a rat, I suggest you update your BS detector.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
... as evidenced by the reaction here on /.
I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.
Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.
Actually, I watch The Colbert Report fairly regularly, and I don't think he was as funny in this as he is on the show. The audience was laughing (the C-Span audio does not provide the audience at fairly high volume) though I would agree it probably wasn't as strong as the time I went to the correspondent's dinner during the Clinton years when Al Franken roasted Clinton. Franken dug pretty hard at Clinton for a democratic comic. ("You're going to take some hits," I remember him saying to the President.)
This seems to happen a lot. You get somebody who has to be funny every night and does a good job, and then you give a big job, like this dinner or the Oscars with lots of time to prepare, and it doesn't seem like they do as well. Happened to Jon Stewart, to David Letterman and many others. Is it because of expectations? Or pressure?
Anyway, watch the show for the real Colbert. The main thing that's interesting about this routine is that Bush is there taking it in, not entirely happy. But as I said, the time I got to go there were icy stares from Hilary at Franken's Whitewater jokes.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Colbert's routine reminded me a lot of Jon Stewart's performance at the Oscars (one of the only times I've ever even watched). What I saw that night was a decent and funny performance delivered to a crowd that was so full of itself that it could not emit a laugh. They were present for awards sans comedy.
In Colbert's case, though, the crowd was most certainly attending for comedy. However, I think their blank stares were the result of hearing something they'd rather not. The dinner is always a roast and fun is always "poked." But... I think perhaps this went to a new level.
I see one of two possibilities. One is that Colbert misjudged his audience and that's why his routine did not do well. Or, Colbert recognized that he was given a rare opportunity to speak directly to the President, in a public setting, and in a place where the President could not simply leave. *If* that is the case, then yes, it did take balls. Huge balls.
Of course, unless Colbert actually comes out at some point in the future and makes known what his intentions were that night, we may never really know.
I have to wonder what I might do in such a situation. Like many Americans, I do hold a certain respect for the office of the President, or for any elected office, I suppose. It's that respect which keeps most (though it seems less so lately) political discourse civil. But surely there comes a time when transgressions like Bush's reach a point where you need to take a stand, respectable office or no.
Maybe this dinner was one of those times.
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
It seems like a standard dilemma to me. Comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have nothing to lose. They're certainly not going to lose popularity with their audience, and if anything will gain more followers. They'll probably never have another chance to do what they've done, but they probably wouldn't have anyway.
For journalists and news networks on the other hand, the nature of how the competition works means they have everything to lose. If a journalist steps too far outside the bounds of what the government considers "acceptable" for a journalist, they probably won't be allowed in again... unless everyone does the same thing at once making it impossible for the press secretaries to ignore, which seems unlikely. Access to high government officials is everything to many news networks, especially the larger ones, so getting the network rejected could spell a big demotion if not the end of a journalist's career.
Surprisingly enough, the article, which appears on the font of the NY Times website, doesn't even mention Colbert's name or make any reference to his performance. Instead it rambles about the Bush impersonator bit for the entire article.
The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy - so one must conclude that Colbert has pissed off the media establishment, rather than the conservative political establishment. Wait, I mean "as well as" the conservative political establishment.
When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.
Read Pynchon.
I'm seeing a lot of courage.
The story's premise was that it's possible to measure the percentage of truth in a statement.
Physical science papers and textbooks were only in the 90-95% range. If you said the age of the Eath was 4,388,765,309 years, for example, that might be 100% true but you'd never get published. In other fields, the socially tolerable level of truth was far lower.
The story's punch line was that only two groups of people were socially permitted to make 100% truthful statements: research mathematicians, and comedians.
(Also look up the history of "court fools").
Actually no, the event is not a roast. Yes there's usually a handful of jokes at the government's expense, but no more than any other awards show. The only difference is that the President and heads of state attend this one. Check out the DVD they're releasing of Clinton's performance at one of these things. He really needs to do a SNL gig.
No one has EVER stuck it to the President and the rest of the government this seriously at this event. EVER. Not even close. Not to say no one would, but has a comedian ever had THIS much material? And considering how aggressive the material was, I doubt many would have the guts.
Cheers to Stephen Colbert for not pulling any punches, which no one has ever done at this event.
signed - mindless sycophant that actually has some perspective on the event.
On some topics, like social security, then yes I do feel they are left wing. However, I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, so I do agree with some of their politics. Like I said, though, I mainly go there to get video clips and to stay current on current news and scandals (in addition to Google News and Findory). Of course, I do realize that by only presenting some of the video clips, they are acting as a filter.
Well, at least I know how to use a comma.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
"What's next, the NY Times not agreeing with the president on Iraq?"
Unless that was an attempt at irony, you really should pay closer attention to current events. The New York Times was pro-war from the beginning. Remember Judith Miller, the NY Times reporter who ended up in jail for contempt during Scooter Libby's grand jury hearing? She wrote one article after another for the Times backing up the Bush Administration's false claims of WMD. She was their star reporter, their headlining act, the woman with the (erroneous) inside information. When Joseph Wilson wrote his op-ed piece calling out Bush on his State of the Union lie, Scooter Libby leaked information to Judith Miller that he hoped would discredit Wilson. That's how she ended up in jail, because she refused to reveal Libby as her source. There's lots more to the story, but the crux of the matter is that the only difference between the New York Times and the New York Post as regards the war in Iraq is that the Times uses a classier typeface.
i thought, therefore i was...
When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized. When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth. It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership. Hopefully the rise of indy media, blogs, and being humiliated by "fake news," etc will shake them from their complacency in the long run, and they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news. One can always dream and in the meanwhile their is the internet and the comedy channel.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
It wasn't that funny, although it attracted headlines for saying rather vulgar things about the president [which later turned out to be true].
Who care if the Republican are voted in again. Your answer seems to be the Democrats.
c /49.htm
Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.
In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democra
Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.
Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?
Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.
Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.
Why can't we vote more people like him in?
Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.
Agreed! I think the problem is that some people don't know the difference between fear and respect. Power earns one, virtue the other.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
http://thankyoustephencolbert.org
For serving as an example, telling it like it is, I've thrown together a site to collect thank yous for Mr. Colbert.
Hopefully this site will help boost awareness of this story, which is already being distorted in the mainstream press.
Go over and say thanks.
This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs. How I wish that fake news organizations that push the Government's agenda only existed in dystopian futurstic worlds in sci-fi novels. Fox news uses logical fallacies to justify Republican led efforts and demonize Democrats in general. Fox news is unofficially the Republican news channel. I stress that this wouldn't be as big an issue if they weren't dishonest in the way that they present their arguments. There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, but convincing others of such opinions via malicious distortions of the truth is insidious. It should be called out with the full ferocity and scandal the press is capable of. This is dangerous for a "news channel" to do because some people don't even know what a logical fallacy is (maybe like 32% of people?).
"People should not fear their gouvernments, gouvernments should fear their people"
- V for vendetta
There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.
Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
It's not that they didn't want to laugh, it's that they didn't want to be made fun of. If you look at most Oscar host speeches they are light, general humour. The jabs at Hollywood are mild, if there are any at all. Stewart went after Hollywood pretty mercessily, as one would expect, he's a satrist, that's kinda what he does, you know? However they didn't want to be on the recieving end of jokes. They probably thought he'd come and make fun of the president, since political humour is frequent on his show and that's something almost all of them like. No supprise to me he pocked something different (why go and do your show in another setting?) and that the audience couldn't handle it.
As for Colbert, I think they just didn't know what they were getting in to. To me, he seemd right in character. Ok, so maybe it was a little more biting than his normal show, but not much. I can't believe the Whitehouse was stupid enough to invite him. Have you seen the man's show? He is not kind to this administration. If they didn't like it, too bad, it needed to be said and they should have known what they were getting. Get a standup comic if you want someone to come play the fool for the event, but stay away from Comedy Central's satirists.
Thou shant quote from comic books and expect to be taken seriously anywhere other than /. (Put that one in your pocket and take it with you young man).
In this case Bush is unable to wield his power because that would backfire on him. He could not even walk out. What he will do instead is to release the dogs of war on him and let the talk radio/fox news wage war on him. Lucky for Colbert he can win that fight with one hand behind his back.
The nightmare scenario for colbert is that a few freepers will take the fatwah declared against him seriously and put a bullet in his head. All it takes is one freeper with a gun and the dogs of war know how to push their buttons.
evil is as evil does
Have you watched the Colbert Report? Ok this is what he does, this is his shtick. He pretends to be a super patriotic to the point of stupidity pundent that supports the administration (Bill O'Reilly would be the closest analogue) but it's actually biting satire that's criticising it. Whatever he's pretending to make look good, he's actually ripping on, and masterfully so I might add. Since he's playing the government loving windbag, they are the most frequent target. The media is another frequent target.
Well, you ought to know this when you book him. This is what he does, so this is what you are going to get. Getting pissed that he ripped on the administration and the media is like getting pissed becuase you book Carlos Mencia and get racial humour. Of COURSE that's what you get, that's what he does! If that's not what you want, book someone else.
This was Colbert doing what he does best. That it fell flat on the audience because they don't like being made fun of is of no concern. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't hire a satirist because they are likely to pick on you. This goes double if you are already a favourite subject for them. I have no idea what the Whitehouse was thinking booking him. It's not like it's hard to find out what he's about. He's on national TV 5 nights a week for you to see.
You guessed it (or not), Fox News. Not CNN, MSNBC or Bloomberg (yeah, I watch all of them). All of them except Fox News just mention Bush duble and that's it. Only Fox News had a take on Colbert's rip on Bush and Administration. Although the take was pretty much saying Colbert went overboard and bombed, but at least Fox News mentioned it in the news.
Yeah, Fox News.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Parent poster is absolutely correct -- it just wasn't that funny. At times it was almost painful to watch -- reminded me a bit of when Don Imus was at the same event ten years ago while Clinton was in office.
Watch the whole routine -- he basically bombed.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
I saw it live, and when Colbert came on I said to myself "are they fucking stupid?!" Stephen Colbert is of course no fan of the president and I was suprised to see him hold his own up there as the audience refused to really laugh. Stephen bombed, not because he wasnt funny, or truthfull but because the audience seemed affraid to laugh.
:)
:)
:)
The whitehouse bit with Helen Thomas stalking him wasnt that funny. Stephen was funny overall though. It was interesting to see him be polite towards the president after having just said "the country doesnt like you and this whole thing is a mess"
Stephen did well considering the audience...
And thats what i'm really insulted by... (I'm not insulted by Stephen, i loved it) but the audience, the members of the press, the celebrities, the politicians, lawyers, judges, lobbiests...
Something just feels off when the press has a dinner with the whitehouse administration, plus celebrities. It just seems like a big get together of the wealthy and powerful for no reason.
For example, anyone that watched it on C-span, you would have seen George Clooney surrounded by 10 or more girls at a time after the dinner. There were no guys around Clonney, and i just found it histerical because they let 30minutes pass before showing clooney on tv again, and there he was with another 10 girls surrounding him wanting pictures
OK Clooney has political motives, but what about Phil Simms? Tiki Barber? Ludicris?... What could they possibly have to do with the whitehouse reporters?
It just seems like a slap in the face to the public. I dont think the Press should be "hanging" with the press. And i certainly dont think it should be a big celebrity dog and pony show.
What i found histerical is the number of old white men with young hot dates
The whole thing is rather phoney, and by that i mean the government, and the press
In Shakespeare's King Lear, it is the jester who, through his jokes and impersonations, proves to be the wisest character in the play, the best of the king's advisors, and the only one who can tell the King what he really thinks of his actions. Colbert should be named Bush's court jester.
I really enjoyed Colberts routine, but what is this couragous act you speak of? This isn't the Soviet Union and Colbert wasn't in the prescence of Stalin insulting him. This is America, where insulting the president is tolerated. I promise you, Colbert won't dissappear to some secret European prison or be sent to Guantonimo Bay.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Yes, it is brave and courageous to do what our troops are doing, but that is because their jobs require that of them. They signed on for this.
It is the lies and deceit of our current administration that has put them in harms way. Which has forced our military into a situation where we can't simply pull out, because it would make matters worse then BEFORE we went into Iraq? Duhbyah's father KNEW this. He even wrote a paper or two on it. One of which was published in Time Magazine.
It ALSO takes bravery and courage to speak out in the current climate of this country and government. To point out the lies and deceit of this current administration spurn hatred and argument. If this continues and the laws that continue to be put forth (some pass) which deny civil liberties it is only a matter of time before speaking out WILL be a crime.
I think lines have been drawn and at this point and no one wants to concede. The facts point out everything, but a vast section of this country doesn't want to admit they are wrong.
Which shows how economic statistics are disconnected from the reality of working class life. To all except the ruling class, the peformance of the stock market matters much less than the size of one's weekly paycheck.
Unemployment may be low but underemployment is tremendous; it is not economic progress when after a factory closes, a skilled worker can only find a job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart with the very Chinese-prison-made goods that put his old employer out of business. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and you can't conveniently exclude the gas pump (and heating fuel). More and more people can't afford health insurance, and real estate prices are so high that new home buyers are saddled with enormous mortgage payments.
Economically these aren't the worst of times, but they sure as hell aren't the best either.
Meanwhile the Bush administrations kills tens of thousands, engages in torture, violates civil liberties, and treats the Constitution with even more contempt than the past few presidents, essentially asserting that "Commander in Chief" means "Emperor". In any sane society, it would be recognized that this man (who believes, you'll recall, that God speaks through him) would be institutionalized for his on protection and that of others.
ITMFA.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...that this article was featured on digg, got like 1900 diggs and then mysteriously vanished in just a few minutes. They had a link to a torrent with the entire c-span show, which I happened to be able to get before losing the link. But I was wondering how a story with so many diggs got lost so quickly.
I watched the whole thing and let me tell you, you could almost sense that he was really trying to make a point when saying things like "guys like us, we get it, right Mr. President?"
To see a person stand there and do an ironic inpersonation of one of the president's supporters so obvious so poignently while the President was in the same room was almost overpowering. My question is: did the administration think that he was going to tone his act down, or did they really not get the joke of the show to begin with? I couldn't help but think someone was going to catch hell for letting Colbert host the show.
This performance coupled with the one from Jon Stewart on Crossfire make up the two best live TV moments I've seen in the last few years.
I'm becoming convinced that Jon Stewart and associates are the last people remaining with balls in the TV/media realm.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
This one talks about Colbert's performance
why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.
"Wow, thanks for providing yourself as proof of my claim."
I didn't. I never said Colbert wasn't biased, clearly he has a bias in that he'll make more fans if he embarasses the President with the truth. The difference is that he is a reliable source of information about what's happening in the world, and Fox News is not giving anything but the "conservative perspective" which may or may not be how things are.
Oh You POS
I watched the show live.
Bush and Bush were hilarious.
Colbert was stunning the audience into silence. The audience was composed of White House Correspondents, hardly a conservative group. They didn't think he was funny. Everyone there politely tolerated Colbert's show because that's what is expected.
I watch The Colbert Report regularly and love his send up of O'Rielly. The problem was, he didn't make a good enough attempt to establish any credibility for his 'Pro-Bush' facade. By blowing that off and concentrating the entire show on anti-Bush rhetoric, he came off as a mean-spirited, crack-pot comedian with mild schizophrenia as his only redeeming gimick.
Bush killed, Colbert shilled.
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
I disagree entirely. I thought it was very good -- and I am conservative, and Republican, and a journalist, and I've seen every episode of The Colbert Report -- and I think most people were not laughing because most of what he said was directed at the journalists themselves.
Actually I doubt that is the case either. What is it going to look like if Colbert dies or is seriously injured anytime soon? If I were Bush I would be praying that the man doesn't slip on a flight of stairs.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.
This is a troll, right? Please... please, let this be a troll. I mean, I've heard of people using the word "unpatriotic" when describing criticisms of the President, someone who is, to put it mildly, the most important person in the entirety of the United States to criticize. But I kinda hoped it didn't actually happen. But here you are, doing exactly that.
So I have a question. What the fuck is wrong with you? Your president isn't a superhero. He isn't infallible. He most certainly isn't above criticism. And he's the last person you should be trying to protect, because it's part of his *job* to be criticized, and it's the job of the electorate to criticize him, to ensure that he's doing the job he was elected to do. It is *not* the job of the electorate to wrap themselves in the flag, plug their ears, and sing the national anthem to themselves while simply trusting their elected representatives to do their jobs properly.
"Unpatriotic"... it makes me sick to see people using that word in order to shut down others. "Incorrect", "misinformed", those are good reasons, and very well maybe be a valid criticism of the GP. But "unpatriotic"? That's simply a fallback position... kinda like "communist".
Clinton specifically asked the judge to define 'sex',
the judge said 'mutual genital contact'
Clinton replied ' I did not have sex (as you defined it) with that woman'
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
I must be retarded because that sounds like the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You really thought his WMD slideshow was funny? You didn't think it was, at the very least, in poor taste? You didn't think it was disrespectful to the troops who have put their lives on the line in Iraq? If I were shipped to the other side of the world to fight a dictator because I had been told he had WMD and was a clear and present danger against my nation and then the next year I saw my commander at some fancy party joking about it I would not take that as an expression of his "confidence".