Slashdot Mirror
Stewart and Colbert Plan Competing D.C. Rallies
Lev13than writes "In a direct retort to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have announced competing rallies on October 30th. Stewart plans to host a 'Rally To Restore Sanity' on Oct. 30 on the National Mall in D.C. for the Americans he says are too busy living normal, rational lives to attend other political demonstrations. Colbert, meantime, will shepherd his fans in a 'March To Keep Fear Alive.' 'Damn your reasonableness!' Colbert said. 'Now is not the time to take it down a notch. Now is the time for all good men to freak out for freedom!' Stewart, meanwhile, has promised to provide attendees with signs featuring slogans such as 'I Disagree With You But I'm Pretty Sure You're Not Hitler' and 'I'm Afraid of Spiders.'"
No, they're not. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are satirizing Glen Beck. Glen Beck is serious. That's the difference. The point of this type of satire is to draw attention to the absurdity of the thing/person/event being made fun of by imitating its form and taking the ridiculous characteristics ad absurdam.
Also, Rally to Restore Sanity
Also, Keep Fear Alive
Also, I love you, Jon (with one H).
As I understand it, the permits aren't normally granted until just before the event anyway, no matter how far in advance you start setting it up. By the time you've jumped through the other hoops, the actual permit is more of a formality. It was the same way for Beck's rally.
Apparently you didn't see the signs in question.
For those who don't know our two national treasures:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
http://www.colbertnation.com/home?xrs=sem_g_col_colbert_report
You do know that Stewart and Colbert work together, right?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Love them for not doing the not-from-our-country crap. Probably the only newstertainment show I watch from the US for the same reason.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
To be more precise, Colbert always says they are the same show, split in two half-an-hour segments. Jon Stewart is the executive producer of The Colbert Report. While Stewart's character is actually Jon Stewart, Colbert's character is Colbert (with a silent "t"), the opposite of the artist, and almost all of his lines are full of sarcasm. If you agree with Colbert (silent "t") the joke is on you.
In 2009 the PEW research study asked individuals where they got their news then 23 factual questions about US politics and wold affairs. Below is the list of news sources, correlated with percentage of correct answers:
From this can we pretty definitively site that the fans of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are more likely to be knowledgeable about what's going on in the world than Glen Beck;s rally attendees?
My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed
Yes, yes, and demonstrably false. When polls were done a couple years ago, people that watched The Daily Show were more politically informed than people that got their news primarily from other cable channels. People who don't understand what Stewart and Colbert are making fun of probably won't find them funny and won't watch their shows.
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian
Jon Stewart's response when the first polls were done that showed how large and politically informed his audience is: "People, we make stuff up! We follow a show about puppets making prank phone calls."
Stewart can be serious too.
Check these out:
Stewart on Crossfire
Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
Obama lied, and people died!
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There's enough hypocrisy to go around, quit pretending it is only one sided.
People were opposed to the Iraq war (a war without a reason), not against the war in Afghanistan (a war justified by the events of 9/11.) People were opposed to the Iraq war because it prevented the US from completing the mission in Afghanistan. Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
For someone who complain about the war opponents, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the events they were opposing, do you?
You obviously don't watch the shows - Colbert is far more biting with his satire of the right wing than Stewart. Stewart maintains a veneer of objectivity in his political comedy - Colbert goes all out and makes Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly look bad by emulating them mercilessly. Don't know how you modded up - since your post is written by someone who does not understand the subject matter.
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
Are you referring to the Cindy Sheehan who protested at Martha's Vineyard when Obama was staying there in August of 2009? The same Cindy Sheehan who was arrested last October while protesting Obama's continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the White House? The very same person who went to Norway to protest Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, and who was arrested again this past March outside the White House?
Yeah, you're right. It's all about Bush, and has nothing to do with the war.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
... And unfortunately people take Colbert seriously far too often.
The Irony of Satire: "Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements."
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
.
. .
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
People were against the Iraq war. Many believed it was unnecessary and unjustified. They were not against the Afghan war. Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq during his campaign. The government has slowly pulled back from Iraq. Some people don't think it happened fast enough; some people think it's happening too fast. However people don't protest Obama as much because he didn't start the war; he got stuck with it and is trying to fulfill his campaign promise to end it.
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There are two main points for the war protest. The first point is the justification for war was misleading. The administration argued that Iraq had WMDs and were fully prepared to use them; this turned out to be highly exaggerated. I believed the administration so I was supportive of it. When it became clear that the administration was misleading about the WMDs, my opinion changed. Had the administration been right, I would not have changed my opinion. The second was the mishandling by the administration of the war. The administration did not adequately plan for occupation and it believed that occupation was going to be easy. Those who disagreed with administration were not heeded. So the Bush administration was wrong about why we needed war and what we needed for war. I think people have a right to protest any of those two reasons.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
THEIR
They know their relevance is ending when the 20 somethings that used to watch them while eating cheetos are now turning 30 and are bored with their childish humor.
Got a source for that? My Googling turned up this:
Vs. last summer, ratings for “The Daily Show” were up +10% among Adults 18-49, +22% among Adults 18-34, up +20% among Men 18-34 and up +15% among Men 18-24. Viewership grew +9% to 2.2 million Total Viewers (P2+)
Vs. last summer, ratings for “The Colbert Report” were up +9% among Adults 18-49, +18% among Adults 18-34, up +13% among Men 18-34 and up +12% among Men 18-24. Viewership grew +9% to 1.5 million Total Viewers (P2+)
Unless that's factually incorrect, it would appear that they're relevance is increasing rather than decreasing and these rallies may be an attempt to publicly show their relevance to a country that's gotten the impression that the tea party groups are much more relevant than they actually are.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Not even close. MSNBC has not directly contributed to the DNC, while Fox has given millions directly to the RNC. No Democratic former politicians work for MSNBC, while several Republican former politicians work for Fox.
There is nothing like Fox News on the left.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh please... cry me a river.
She runs around the country "endorsing" people she agrees with, most of whom are either completely uninformed, completely dishonest, or complete lunatics.
She along with Jim DeMint and a few others are co opting the Republican party to gain power for themselves. And like clockwork the masses are falling for it... YET AGAIN!!!
MOST (I almost want to say all at this point) of these people want more power, and YOUR money, and that's about it...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Nope. In every education catagory, Obama beat McCain.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
McCain did best in the categories in the college drop-out category ("some college") by only losing by 4 points, but got "pretty handily" beat in the college educated level by an 8 points.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures
Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error
The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax
and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman
Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house
This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.
And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c
It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Uh, it was. Frightened, angry people. Were they polite about it? Yes, and good for them. But their politics is a politics of fear, whether it be fear of the Big Bad Government, fear of muslims, fear of gays, fear of latinos...
Can't you say the same thing about the left? Angry, frightened people - angry and frightened about corporations and rich people?
Whether left or right, the question is, is their anger and fear justified? I think the anger and fear that govt. has grown is correct. The anger and fear of gays and immigrants is baseless. The anger and fear that corporations will take over is silly.
Uh, it was. Frightened, angry people. Were they polite about it? Yes, and good for them. But their politics is a politics of fear, whether it be fear of the Big Bad Government, fear of muslims, fear of gays, fear of latinos...
Can't you say the same thing about the left? Angry, frightened people - angry and frightened about corporations and rich people?
Whether left or right, the question is, is their anger and fear justified? I think the anger and fear that govt. has grown is correct. The anger and fear of gays and immigrants is baseless. The anger and fear that corporations will take over is silly.
Just silly?
The way I see it, government does a lot of things to protect the people from bad eggs, or unrighteous practices. But recently, Congress is just bending over and taking it. I'd say, fear the one with no reputation for ethics.
Microsoft evading state taxes, and then getting amnesty for it. (http://microsofttaxdodge.com/2010/04/microsoft-gets-nevada-royalty-tax-cut-and-tax-amnesty.html?all)
Artist's rights over his works taking second place to copyright. (http://boingboing.net/2010/09/15/10-years-ago-the-ana.html)
Gulf of Mexico oil spill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv0siXm2cpc)
Military industrial complex. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex)
How could anyone not believe that bears are the #1 threat facing the United States?? Stupid liberals.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I guess you didn't catch it the other day when he had on DNC chair Tim Kaine, Stewart was pretty harsh with him. The next day he had on Meghan McCain, and gave her a friendly fluff interview.
But we don't have to be screwed out of Social Security. And we almost certainly won't be, if we just make extremely minor changes.
And that's one of the worse effects of Fox's constant screaming truthiness: Social Security not only doesn't have to go "bankrupt" - even if nothing is done, it won't start costing more than it has available until 2041 **at the earliest** - at which point it will STILL be paying out. It'll just be at say 90% instead of 100%.
And again, that's without incredibly easy things to do like, say, increasing the amount businesses pay in by 1/2 of a percentage point.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.