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.'"

71 of 696 comments (clear)

  1. Kudos by Veggiesama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kudos to you, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

    You make my world seem slightly less irrational with each and every day.

    1. Re:Kudos by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of spending an hour joking about Sarah Palin and Rand Paul. How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama?

      Yeah, you're right... they never lampoon those guys... ::rollseyes::

      Hell, this rally has been specifically billed as non-partisan, with their message directed at anyone and everyone who would shriek and yell, frighten and intimidate in order to achieve their agenda, whether they be in the media or a politician, left-wing or right.

    2. Re:Kudos by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bahh.
      Actually I am glad to see this but Stewart never worried about being reasonable when Bush was in power.
      Frankly the hero worship I see for Stewart and Colbert are just a little bit less annoying than the hero worship of Glen Beck.
      Being the cynical centrist that I have become of late I think this is just their reaction to the counter swing in politics that they see coming.
      On a bright note even though I thing they are both self serving talking heads I do hope it does some good.
      A stabilization in the middle is better than the polarization that has been going on.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Kudos by jbeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly from your statements, you disagree with Jon Stewart and Colbert's politics. Which is your privilege. However it does seem clear to me that's what's driving you.

      But this statement is pretty ridiculous:

      "Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. "
      Got any demographics for that assumption?

      But let's say that's true. Do you know how *hard* this economy is hitting those just out of high school, or college? Do you think the younger *want* to have a hard future? This is possibly the worst job market in decades. If they thought Big Government was the problem, they'd be all about getting Small Government to happen.

      The people you are talking about may just have a better understanding of a) actual economics and b) history than you do - they know that:

      a) government can and should step in to help American citizens in a time of economic crisis, when banks and corporations won't and
      b) despite a lot of promises, no conservative President has **ever** brought America smaller government anyway

      But you know, that's just a bunch of facts-y, head-y stuff. Go with your gut.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    4. Re:Kudos by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do wonder how much acclaim and praise these two would get if they were constantly poking fun at the other side. Instead of spending an hour joking about Sarah Palin and Rand Paul. How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama? Do you think there might be some rich material there?

      If you did watch the shows more often, you'd be aware of the fact that they're both equal opportunity offenders.

      They routinely poke fun at both sides.

      Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!

      I'm middle aged. I pay taxes. My wife is disabled, so I work a crapton of hours to pay my mortgage (and my kid's tuition, and my wife's healthcare).

      I think they're both hilarious.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Kudos by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone else's solid rebuttals aside for the moment, I wanted to hit this one specific point:

      How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama? Do you think there might be some rich material there?

      No, I really don't.

      Obama, relative to pretty much any other president in my lifetime, does not make gaffes in public. He just doesn't. In response to that I guess you can say he's boring, but that's not exactly comedy gold.

      And what the fuck funny can you say about Henry Waxman?

      For bonus points, make it funnier than what you can come up with in five minutes about a man who writes conspiracy theories on a chalkboard and weeps about it.

    6. Re:Kudos by IICV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stewart never worried about being reasonable before the Tea Parties and the other wingnuts took control of one of our major political parties; during the Bush era, it was moderate Right vs extreme Right. Nowadays it's starting to look more like moderate Right vs batshit crazy.

      Now what's important is not so much to bring the discussion over to the left, but to bring the discussion back to reality.

    7. Re:Kudos by boxwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lately Stewart has been spending more and more time attacking Obama and democrats for not doing anything.

      Colbert satirizes right wing talk shows, but many times he makes better arguments that the real conservative talk shows and gets a laugh while doing it.

      Yeah when someone like Glean Beck says something completely stupid they mock him. Their primary goal is to get laughs, not be "fair and balanced" (as is such a thing exists).

      If you watch these shows as closely as I do you'll notice that for the most part they're trying to get laughs, but there's a few moments here and there where they try to get a serious message across. Lately that message has been the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are being bullied by batshit insane teabaggers, neither option is very good.

      This rally is an appeal to conservatives to start providing a real, sane, conservative opposition to the democrats. Even though these shows are liberal at heart, they know that if the opposition to the democrats is incompetent, then the democrats have no incentive to be anything other than incompetent themselves.

      Saying that the democrats are socialist-nazis and obama is a secret muslim isn't going to change anything. Burning Korans isn't going to change anything. Be reasonable. Be sane. People might listen to your ideas and agree with you. When that happens you'll get representation. When you have representation you'll have real opposition to the democrats.

    8. Re:Kudos by IICV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She's also a creationist. That's really all that needs to be said on that matter.

    9. Re:Kudos by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And for good measure they mock CNN for not being anything other than a retweet factory.

    10. Re:Kudos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is funny that you talk about being sane and reasonable while apparently you think that the conservatives are all about calling Obama socialist-nazi and burning Korans.

      If a republican didnt come out in support of these two activities in the past few months, they probably lost their primary to some crazy anti-masturbation homeless witch lady. You need to deal with the reality of the current situation in your preffered political party instead of attacking people who would comment honestly on it.

      These people dominate the discourse, in fact this is kind of what the entire rally is all about. The rosy vision of intellectual conservatives that you hold in your head does not match up with teabaggers and the ideas they are pushing or the vile, racist brutes most of us see when we dare click on any comment section for a news item that is vaguely political. If you actually had a point, then the rally would likely not even exist in the first place.

    11. Re:Kudos by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the response to Stewart's Crossfire interview - he embarrassed them enough that they cancelled the program soon thereafter - this could actually help restore a little rationality to the conversation. If nothing else, it should be entertaining for the tourists.

      This.

      If anyone doubts that Stewart was about "being reasonable" while Bush was in power his criticism of the 'left' and 'right' hosts of Crossfire as "partisan hacks" in 2004 should prove otherwise.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Kudos by boxwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh I'm well aware of conservative and libertarian values. The problem is thats not what we're seeing.

      What we're seeing is despite they fact that the democrats are incompetent idiots, they're still going to hold on to a majority because the GOP is being held hostage by the socialist-nazi fearing koran burners.

      This rally is called the "Rally to Restore Sanity" for a reason. The idea is to show that the koran burners aren't the majority, that the news media is giving way too much attention to the dregs of society because the more rational majority is busy having lives. This is not a rally to equate Conservatives with being koran burners. Jon Stewart has invited rational conservatives to be a part of this rally. The point is to restore civility to political debate instead of it staying how it is now, idiots doing the most outrageous things they can to create controversy. There's been too much "we'll show them!" and not enough, hey lets have a calm discussion and "we'll show them" our point of view, and if they still disagree, we'll just agree to disagree.

      This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. Its rational vs. irrational.

    13. Re:Kudos by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      USA has no left. If you want to see real left you should look at European social democratic parties.

    14. Re:Kudos by boxwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes, and thats wrong too.

      this rally is for everyone who is tired of the hyperbole, slippery slopes, name calling, mod slinging, that goes on in politics and the news media. No matter which side is doing it.

      Did you see the other night when Colbert had a liberal commentator from MSNBC as a guest and "congratulating" him on "keeping fear alive" by telling viewers to be afraid of conservatives?

      If you're tired of liberals using fear as a weapon, then you probably should attend this rally. If you have time. If you can't make it, its cool though.

      The point is, there is no us and them. We're all on the same side, just have different opinions on whats in our best interests. But if you can agree that this constant name calling ("You're Hitler", "NO YOU'RE HITLER") isn't in anyone's best interest, then this rally may be for you.

    15. Re:Kudos by boxwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes this one is partisan. Its for all those that are against the party that uses fear and petty name calling to put down our party.

      Its for those of us who are against that party that uses the media to brainwash people. You know the one I'm talking about.

    16. Re:Kudos by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree, it is frustrating to be represented by the minority party, you need to remember, you've been dealing with this for but a few short years.

      What's really frustrating is to not be represented by either party because they're both totalitarian and corrupt!

      That's the situation most Americans are in, although they may be too distracted by irrelevant "left vs. right" cheerleading to recognize it. (Don't believe me? Ask people about their politics and see how often the phrase "lesser of two evils" comes up!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Kudos by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't, at least not directly. It does imply, though, that she has a capacity to make judgments based on belief in something unproven. Translated into a position of power it might mean that she's willing to make decisions that aren't based on empirical fact, but rather based on some book that was written thousands of years ago and largely may not even apply to the subjects upon which she is placing her governance.

      This is all really very fundamental: People who believe outlandish things and try to get others to follow them are scary.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    18. Re:Kudos by Magius_AR · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Uhh, most true libertarians/fiscal conversatives _DO_ want to cut all those programs. Defense is more borderline, typically defended as a constitutional requirement of the federal government (unlike those others).

      In fact, I'm pretty sure the reason they call them "batshit crazies" is _because_ they want to cut all those programs.

    19. Re:Kudos by jbeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I completely agree that this is about rational vs. irrational.

      That said, I do think the GOP has encouraged irrationality among a large proportion of it's perceived base for years, with fearmongering, hatred and xenophobia, in order to get fired-up voters. And now they are justly suffering from the results of this cynical strategy. It's just a shame that the rest of the country is being hurt by this too.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  2. brilliant by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when you see the vicious, fear-addled, hysterical fearmongering and demagoguery going on in the usa, you can easily grow despondent and depressed about the future of this country

    and then you see that the antidote to this vile sleaze, the ray of sunshine, is simple humor, and irony, and sarcasm

    the antidote to the poisons of the lowest basest emotions and motivations from the human character are the fruits of the higher faculties, and simple cheerfulness and confidence

    if the drek you see being assembled into herds of mindlessly angry propagandized partisan sheep on the far right depresses you, do not give up heart, nor give up hope: just give a good laugh, and smile, and beat the zombie horde back into the dustbin of history where they belong

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:brilliant by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah cause the Glenn Beck rally was full of angry people

      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...

      And incidentally, its worth noting that Glenn and his cohorts actively discouraged inflammatory signs and so forth, for fear of the bad press they would generate... who knows what that rally would've been like if the organizers hadn't gone out of their way to temper the reaction of their followers.

      Just like a G-8 anarchist rally

      Yeah, those guys are enormous douchbags, too. What's your point?

    2. Re:brilliant by jbeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, those guys are enormous douchbags, too. What's your point? [snark]Don't you know that if someone does something awful and stupid you disagree with, that *automatically* means the awful, stupid behavior you agree with was okay? [/snark]

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    3. Re:brilliant by DarKnyht · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Beck told his listeners to not bring signs because that would be the only thing the media would focus on. They would paint the opinion of one or two as the opinion of all instead of listening to what was actually stated on the stage. Not to mention that the entire point of the rally was to be "NOT POLITICAL" in nature. (I know it is an odd idea to ban political signs at a non-political event, but hey lets focus on stuff around the event and not the words spoken at the event.) They were a group of people gathered together to reflect and be reminded of the values and principles that used to unite this country, and wanted to celebrate that fact.

      The media and politically motivated people would never understand this. The media only wants to manufacture division and controversy for the purpose of selling ad space. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS (Comedy Central) all are motivated by this goal. If there is nothing controversial then there is nothing to make you want to watch their shows, thus they must make controversy, strife, and division (even where there would be none otherwise) about everything. Politicians likewise only see things in black and white, them vs. us. If it doesn't help the party (either one) then it shouldn't be allowed, otherwise do whatever you want.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    4. Re:brilliant by homer_s · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:brilliant by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>The anger and fear that corporations will take over is silly.

      You've just not read enough. Like the 1970s manslaughter committed by Ford (using Pinto cars), or the blatant poisoning of water by various chemical corporations over the years. While they are not as dangerous as government (which sucks money direct from your wallet) (or drafts you to die in Nam), megacorps are still a danger to individual consumers and workers, and must be watched just like any other predator that is more powerful than you are.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:brilliant by jahudabudy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were a group of people gathered together to reflect and be reminded of the values and principles that used to unite this country, and wanted to celebrate that fact.

      See, that right there is what makes me very suspicious of these people. Maybe I am just bitter and cynical, but I sure as hell don't remember a time, nor can I find one in any history books, where this country was united by a shared set of principles and values. Attempting to "restore" something that never existed is either naive or disingenuous.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  3. Re:Probrem! by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but JS and SC are doing the EXACT same thing they're bitching about Glen Beck doing...

    Comedy often is about doing the exact same thing - just in a context or with a small twist that reveals how ridiculous it is.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  4. no permit yet by slshwtw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article doesn't mention the fact that the organizers have yet to be granted a permit for the joint rally. Also it should be noted that if granted (which is likely), the "million moderate march" will be limited to no more than 25,000 people, per the permit application.

    1. Re:no permit yet by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Limited? What, they're going to wall off the National Mall and block the 25,001st person to attempt to enter?

  5. Re:Probrem! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I think the point is also to get a bunch of people out to try and send a message to the politicians and the mainstream media to, as Jon put it, tone it down a notch for America.

  6. Re:Probrem! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No they're bitching that Glen Beck is doing it under the guise that his "truthful" *cough* news commentary is somehow helping America when really he's pulling all the tricks to raise his viewership. With Stewart and Colbert, they are comedians. Their shows are satire. This has never been muddled by them. What is sad is that their satire is often more informative than real news, but their intent has always been comedy.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Re:Probrem! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stewart is just as serious at GB, he just dresses it up as Satire. Colbert is just goofy, and much more enjoyable to watch. That's the difference.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Re:Not a single moderate will attend by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stewart never said that in context to the rally. He said a few days before about why there is a lack of opinion from the majority of Americans and how it is only a small percentage on both sides that are directing the tone of any debates. His entire quote was:

    But why don't we hear from the 70-80 percenters? Well, most likely, because you have shit to do. And quite frankly, even if you didn't have shit to do, you may lack the theatrical flair necessary for today's 24 hour a day, 7 day a week news media.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. Re:LOLZ by brusk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean just like a union rally where the sloganeering is handled not by the people attending but the people rallying them up....

    Yes. Also the way Tea Party rallies provide signs to attendees, and the way political party conferences provide signs .... pretty much the way all political rallies work in the US nowadays. What did you expect? if you're going to mock something this way, you'd better provide a reasonable facsimile.

    --
    .sig withheld by request
  10. Re:John Stewart rocks! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.

    If he hated his heritage, I doubt he'd refer to jews as 'my people' quite so often. It seems more likely that he has a realistic estimation of the great American public's ability to pronounce and spell Leibowitz. That, or he's worried about being confused with the guy with the canticle...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Re:LOLZ by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if you've seen some of the Tea Party protest signs but they were funny but in a sad sort of way. Half of them hinted their owners didn't use a dictionary.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. This sort of thing can backfire. by blcss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sometimes satire ends up revealing more about the satirist than the target. And if the public turns out to be on the target's side, then the satirist ends up being perceived as mean-spirited and out of touch. Satire always draws blood, it's just a question of whose.

    Never forget that Air America was a dismal failure.

    --
    We don't need yet another new programming language. Let's just pick an existing language and fix its flaws.
  13. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I dont have cable either, I live in New Zealand but i still know who these two men are. Maybe you need to learn how to use this thing called "The Internet".

  14. Re:Who? by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But you do apparently have the internet, through which one can view their shows.

    For someone who trots out his "I don't watch TV and therefore am better than you" sign as often as you do you either are very bad at doing feigned ignorance well or are doing willful ignorance very well.

  15. Re:Why? by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think not finding the Daily Show or Stephen Colbert funny says a lot more about the critic than it says about Stewert, Colbert, or their writers. I'm not saying what it says about the critic, but it sure says something. Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  16. Re:Probrem! by jbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).

    That's not a problem with him - that's a problem with the American news media.

    And then the Media wonders why they're losing to the Internet. Getting news from reliable sources on the Internet is like reading the news a day, a week or sometimes even years early. The trick is, reliable sources. But that's the trick with the mass media as well - and it is slippery to find a site that dispenses mostly facts, as opposed to mostly confirmation bias.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  17. Re:Probrem! by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  18. Re:Probrem! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why didn't he do this when there was a Million man march, or any of the other "rallies" that have taken place by well known left leaning organizations?

    Well for starters, the Million Man March was in 1995. The Daily Show didn't exist until 1996 and Jon Stewart didn't host it until 1998. So unless he has some sort of time machine, it was nigh impossible to do it at the time. As for other rallies, he's made fun of both "truther" and "tea party" rallies. Why hasn't he done an anti-rally rally? I suppose it has more to do that Glen Beck did one more than anything else.

    Stewarts just pissed because the Tea Party (and conservative libertarians) have taking the playbook from Leftwingers .THAT is why he's having the rally, it isn't about comedy at all for him. His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show. This rally only shows how petty he really is.

    From what I can tell he's making fun of the hypocrisy. When the liberals where having these rallies opposed to the Bush administration and the war, they were called "unpatriotic" and "un-American". Liberals were hurting America by opposing the President it was argued simply by exercising their right to free speech and protest. Now that the conservative party is no longer in power, these rallies are "expressing freedom" and "restoring honor". Problem is that they are doing the exact same things. And Stewart is making fun of that.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  19. Re:John Stewart rocks! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The guy hates his own name and his proud heritage.

    Where do you get that? Lots of showbiz people change their names to something they think will be easier to remember or increase their chances to be successful. In his case, the very entry you link suggests he probably did it because he doesn't get along with his father. He's never hidden his Jewish heritage and it features prominently in several bits I've seen him do (and I don't even watch the show much).

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  20. Credit where credit is due... by Simulant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can thank Reddit for this.

  21. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Take this as a critique: Mentioning cable is not a good way to pretend you don't know who these guys are.

  22. "Competing" like WWF by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both rallies are funded by Comedy Central (Viacom). They are only "competing" if you think organized wrestling is a competition.

    The sad thing is, Stewarts rally could have had a decent point to it, but when paired with the "Rally for Fear" how can you take either seriously? The whole thing as it is turns to a vapid joke, the intent simply to ridicule people they wish to brand as extremist even though most are the 70% Stewart spoke of.

    I admire Stewart for calling out Truthers and Birthers as equally ignorant, but he wants to paint the whole Tea Party movement with the brush of a few fringe members when it wouldn't make sense to claim the Democrats are all Truthers just because a few of them usually show up at democratic rallies.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"Competing" like WWF by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If we are going to be pedantic, the tea party movement and the general republican party are funded by the same people. Corporations like Koch industries fund both. Any competitions between the two are a dog and pony show. It is becoming unfashionable to be employed and intelligent, so the tea party is there to put nude models, unemployed carrer politicians, and sex deviants so that people can relate to their officials. I mean look at the half term governor who everyone loves. She allows us to live vicariously through her. Most can't afford to shop at neiman marcus, or wouldn't put the unwed daughter on TV, but we can live through her and hope that one day someone will reward us for our jackass like behavior.

      And it would be nice to know some rational Tea Part leaders. It is those that want to cut taxes, without a plan to fund the war and protect our citizens. Or is the one's that want to ban sharia law, but are happy to continue to force free enterprise to shut down on sundays. Is it those that waste tax payers money to see a birth certificate that is already on line, Or those that want to ban Mosques, but allow christian to gloat next to the centennial olympic park. Or perhaps it is palin and her death panels.

      Honestly, if the Tea Party would official expel Palin and Beck, most of my problems with them would evaporate. Most everyone else are mostly rational.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:"Competing" like WWF by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kooks like Christine O'Donnell don't get nominated by "a few fringe members".

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:"Competing" like WWF by LanMan04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he wants to paint the whole Tea Party movement with the brush of a few fringe members

      The tea party is composed of pretty much ALL fringe members. Otherwise they'd be Republicans.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  23. Re:Probrem! by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).

    Then explain why people who watch The Daily Show have been shown (via objective tests and surveys and the like) to know more about what's going on in the world than people who watch CNN. Jon would be the first to point out that there's something wrong with this picture, but that doesn't mean that he's doing a disservice to his audience.

    His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show.

    Most great comedy has a serious point wrapped inside of it. For instance, George Carlin did a spiel on rape, where he made quite offensive jokes ("Hey, she [a 90-year-old] was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.") as a way of pointing out that rapists are horrible scum and that "Hey, she was asking for it" is no excuse.

    Now Colbert, he's making fun of Stewart just as much as he's making fun of GB.

    And now we get to the real truth: You're not concerned about whether Jon is being serious or comic, or even providing useful news. You're just upset because he's targeting somebody you agree with, and by extension, you.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  24. Re:Let's get our political opinions from entertain by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do Beck, Stewart and Colbert have in common?

    They're entertainers, not political scientists.

    I don't want actors writing mission critical code for our spacecraft, and by the same token, we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.

    Labels labels labels... you hear that, NASA? If your coders are in a theater troop in their spare time, they shouldn't be allowed to write mission-critical code, because actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.

    And what you can accomplish in life is limited by the title that someone is willing to bestow you upon hiring, not by who you are and what you can do; your identity and your potential are defined by the title you hold. If your paycheck says "make jokes", then anything you do that isn't a joke should be ignored.

    So believes hessian, who is a slashdotter and therefore should not be allowed to have a girlfriend. Because labels define you and everything about you.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  25. Re:Probrem! by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).

    - no no no no no no no no no, the problem is not that Stewart is encroaching into the domain of news, the problem is that news as it is delivered by 'main stream news media' became indistinguishable from comedy.

  26. Re:Probrem! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the big problems with "The Media" (and benefits to getting your news via Stewart) is that they seem to have a short attention span.

    When a politician says one thing and then, a few months later, completely reverses course for no good reason, few news agencies will hold them to their past words. They will just take the new sound bites and play them over and over. Jon Stewart's team will unearth the old sound bites and play them along with the new ones showing the viewer the shift.

    It is one thing if new data/evidence/etc leads a politican to reverse course. I respect (and expect) this. All too often, though, it is just poll numbers, a big campaign contribution or an attempt to spin a bad situation that suddenly causes a shift in policies/words.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  27. Re:Probrem! by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dressing something up as satire leaves you holding all the cards. His agenda is advanced, and any shortcomings are glossed over with "this is satire". It removes any accountability or responsibility, or even any demand for consistency or explanation.

  28. Simple really. by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because there is heavy left lean amongst the boards operators, let alone some who feel threatened by people don't think like them.

    Just watch the moderation and see it in action. It is really humorous to see stories like this bring out the viciousness of some who go out of their way to put down those on the right - either by direct attack or inference.

    This country was made great because we are open to all ideas. We move left and right and try to maintain a balance.

    The animosity has always been there, but trying to attribute it to one side exclusively is very dishonest.

    Beck's gathering was impressive for a radio host, but he was capitalizing on something he did not generate, as such it had a great response.

    I really doubt either of the two comedians will do similar because they are not going to get people with the same level of emotional investment. Best of luck to them, but mocking rarely does anything but make you look weak. Air America failed because they mocked, they didn't originate. Hopefully these two can do better.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Simple really. by uniquename72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Air America did a lot less mocking than Limbaugh (unlike you, I often listened to both). Air America (at least the Franken show) was surprisingly balanced, often having conservatives and Republicans on to talk about their views. Yes, there was quite a bit of humor and certainly some mocking involved, but there was also thoughtful responses, and serious alternatives being suggested.

      Compare this to most right wing radio, which is entirely devoted to mocking and complaining. If anything, Air America failed because it took a (generally) positive position, rather than a generally mocking position.

      (Yes, I'm a conservative who realizes that the comedians like Limbaugh and the Fox "news" team have pretty much gutted the Republican party of any ideas it may have once had.)

    2. Re:Simple really. by ukyoCE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please - always trying to play the victim while on the attack at the same time. Just like the group of Digg gamers claimed a vast conspiracy against them and their beliefs, while they themselves were perpetrating by far the largest and worst conspiracy.

      Totally agreed on the animosity being on both sides though. We're in the "Bush is a nazi, anti-war protest, green party liberals" phase of the Obama administration. Where dems lost votes due to the green party extremists, republicans are going to lose votes due to the tea party extremists. They are both splitting the conservative vote, and alienating moderates with extremist rhetoric.

      Unfortunately they're also making a huge spectacle in the process, which is why the (zomg ultra-liberal!) media, who is actually just after eyeballs, keeps printing story after story about a small minority of extremists.

  29. Re:Probrem! by boxwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from your wikipedia link: "So far, however, the protests have not been as prominent as Protests against the Iraq War"

    protests against the Afghanistan war numbered in the tens of thousands. Protests against the Iraq War numbered in the millions.

    Yes there are some people against the war in Afghanistan, but there are a bout a hundred times as many against the war in Iraq.

    Obama is more or less keeping his promises of ending the Iraq War and is trying to find a peaceful way to manage the Iran situation. So many people like me are in "wait and see" mode right now.

    If Obama starts bombing Iran for no reason you can expect there to be some big protests.

  30. Re:Why? by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What makes you think Fox provides "news?" It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. no very familiar with american history huh? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkertons

    The Pinkerton National Detective Agency, usually shortened to the Pinkertons, was a private U.S. security guard and detective agency established by Allan Pinkerton in 1850. Pinkerton became famous when he claimed to have foiled a plot to assassinate president-elect Abraham Lincoln, who later hired Pinkerton agents for his personal security during the Civil War.[citation needed] Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired as a private army or militia.[citation needed] Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[1]

    blackwater anyone?

    i'm not a paranoid, but corporations have a lot of money, that can buy a lot of influence, and that's something reasonable to fear, because it is very genuinely pointed against the rights and desires of the general public. do you know what it took to win a 40 hour workweek in this country? vacations? outlaw indentured servitude? outlaw child labor? safe work conditions? these are not jokes, these were all about corporations who would be very happy we be uneducated machines without rights existing only to make them profit. just look at china, the suicides at foxconn

    and there are people who actively argue against government regulation of industry? they call themselves libertarians, they champion the rights of individuals, but the real world effect of their agenda is to merely unleash corporatism

    corporatism!=capitalism. i am NOT attacking capitalism. in fact, in all of economic history, socialism and communism are not the greatest enemies of capitalism, monopolies and oligopolies are: corporatism. the greatest enemy of small struggling businesses in this country are not government taxes or socialist healthcare: it is large entrenched businesses who don't want the competition and rig the market to work for them. it is perhaps the greatest trick of corporate propaganda that capitalism and corporatism has been conflated as the same thing in some minds, and socialism demonified as the enemy (because it might mean a corporation somewhere has to spend more on the well-being of their workers), when the truth is socialism is merely a few social safety nets, and corporatism sucks the life out of marketplaces and genuinely free and fair capitalist competition

    the freedoms and rights of corporations!=the freedoms and rights of individuals. except in all the speechifying and demonizing going on in the political right in this country about immigrants, the poor, homosexuals, etc., NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THE THREATS TO LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FROM CORPORATIONS

    why is that?

    i don't hate the right, i think some forces from the right, like religious organizations, have, in the past, spoken out and fought against corporatism, out of concern for the welfare of the people. but so many on the right i think are just duped into not seeing the real enemy of the american people: corporations that will ship your job to china and india in the name of the bottom line, and yet claim the mantle of patriotism

    corporations, hands down, are the greatest threat to the well-being of our democracy with their financial influence, and i really wish i saw more voices on the right see this to be the truth of the matter, and stop with the scapegoats and willfully know nothing simpleminded appeals to the government being the enemy, when there is an obvious puppeteer behind the government pulling the strings in their favor

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. Re:Why? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.

    I was with you up until this. What the fuck?

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  34. obamacare by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you don't have to like it, but you have to admit it is clearly positioned to deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper than the bullshit we have right now

    that's the thing that amazes me: so many people are angry about obamacare, but on every single criticism they have of it, the current healthcare system we have IS OBVIOUSLY WORSE. pricing: are you kidding? paperwork and bureaucracy? and most definitely: government (sic corporate) death panels?

    all of the critics of obamacare: its as if they have had a lobotomy and are unable to recognize the COMPLETELY broken reality of our OBVIOUSLY WORSE healthcare system we have right now when formulating an opinion on obamacare

    they look at obamacare, and its a house with boarded up windows and a hornets nest above the front door and they scream "hell no!"... when currently, they are living in a house sinking into a swamp

    obamacare critics: any of you want to defend our current health care system?

    (crickets)

    of course obamacare will have problems. it will have LESS problems than our current system. welcome to reality: the choice isn't black and white, don't let the corporate propaganda fool you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A large part of their popularity has nothing to do with the juvenile humor - it's because they're more accurate and honest when reporting on current events than the other news outlets, from the blatantly fictional reports of Fox news, to the subtly slanted reports CNN gives. The Daily Show and Colbert Report lay it out as it is, and most of their humor comes from pointing out the absurdity of the actual happenings.

    It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.

  36. Re:Who? by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you didn't know who they were but knew they were on cable and don't watch domestic TV but according to post (#33637932):

    "Now I substitute it with Chicago's Progressive Talk radio streamed over the net, plus MSNBC.com streams of Rachel Maddow"

    you watch MSNBC online?

    Stewart and Colbert are mentioned in foreign news, and I doubt MSNBC has neglected mentioning them.

  37. Re:PEW Research Study by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    Um, probably not since Beck's show isn't listed and there are several relatively high-scoring sources whose audiences might also have attended Beck's rally in high percentages (O'Reilly and Limbaugh). I would guess the difference between those sources and Colbert's show is not outside the margin of error.

    So you could try to use this as evidence supporting your claim (thus inferring that people at Beck's rally are morons), but I certainly don't see any "definitive" conclusions that can be drawn from this study. In fact, I was interested to see how high O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's audiences scored.

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  38. If Art is too accurate, does it become Real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Both rallies are funded by Comedy Central (Viacom). They are only "competing" if you think organized wrestling is a competition.

    In other words, they're too perfect a mirror of our politics?

  39. Re:Probrem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But he's on a *news* channel, not a comedy channel.

  40. Re:Who? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first web browser, Mosaic, was developed for Amiga

    The first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was developed for NeXTSTEP. The second web browser ran in a terminal and was developed for UNIX.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News