Stewart Smalley out of control

[Slim]

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm..._crop_100k.wmv

Ok, now lets take a look at this. Franken stereotypes a white guy from Colorado as the "right wing jerk", then proceeds to kick him in the groin, bust a stool over his back, then someone hits him in the head with a bottle.

Then he is on Letterman, describing how Rove, and Libby will be executed. And that, it might not be such a good thing to execute the president.

Now, I'm all for his right to do this. But could someone tell me who and where someone could get away with this if things were changed a bit and the person being assulted was say a stereotypical left winger (a non-white perhaps?), or Clinton and execution were mentioned in the same sentence. This isnt some wacky website, or obscure cable channel. This is on Amazon.com and National Broadcast TV.

I just dont see this type of stuff coming from the other direction.

[Inquartata]

Well, except for Pat Robertson and his ilk. ( And of course they aren't joking. )

[Slim]

Well, except for Pat Robertson and his ilk. ( And of course they aren't joking. )

Hmm..not really a good comparison I think. For one thing, I think the influence and audience of The Rev Pat is overhyped by the left.

I'd say Rush Limbaugh would be closer to the right wing analogy of Franken in terms of where they are on the political continuum.

[Philistine]

{snip} or Clinton and execution were mentioned in the same sentence.{snip}
I just dont see this type of stuff coming from the other direction.

Not to condone Franken's stuff--but you do remember Ann Coulter's statement about Clinton: "In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."

--Philistine

[Amadeus]

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm..._crop_100k.wmv

Ok, now lets take a look at this. Franken stereotypes a white guy from Colorado as the "right wing jerk", then proceeds to kick him in the groin, bust a stool over his back, then someone hits him in the head with a bottle.

Then he is on Letterman, describing how Rove, and Libby will be executed. And that, it might not be such a good thing to execute the president.

Now, I'm all for his right to do this. But could someone tell me who and where someone could get away with this if things were changed a bit and the person being assulted was say a stereotypical left winger (a non-white perhaps?), or Clinton and execution were mentioned in the same sentence. This isnt some wacky website, or obscure cable channel. This is on Amazon.com and National Broadcast TV.

I just dont see this type of stuff coming from the other direction.

i can't decide whether to reply "what a tightass" or "what a dumbass"

it was a joke. as in, he doesn't actually think that all republicans are like that. all liberals who watched that said "haha, that was funny." none said "wow, yeah, they're all like that." it has nothing to do with politics. it was a humorous ad for a humerous book.

and no, there is none of that coming from the right. all their books are angry and serious, rather than being angry and funny.

i can't say i've seen the other thing you mentioned, but i assume it was similar. this man is a comedian first, and a pundit second, and you have to take everything he says in that way.

[Slim]

i can't decide whether to reply "what a tightass" or "what a dumbass"

it was a joke. as in, he doesn't actually think that all republicans are like that. all liberals who watched that said "haha, that was funny." none said "wow, yeah, they're all like that." it has nothing to do with politics. it was a humorous ad for a humerous book.

and no, there is none of that coming from the right. all their books are angry and serious, rather than being angry and funny.

i can't say i've seen the other thing you mentioned, but i assume it was similar. this man is a comedian first, and a pundit second, and you have to take everything he says in that way.

This is the tact Air America has taken. "It's just comedy. It's just entertainment." Well, actually no, it's not. It's hardcore politics with some hardcore agendas. Do you really think Air America is about entertainment? Try to refrain from the laughter for a moment, and actually listen to what they are saying. You may agree, or disagree. The point is, there is a message there.

Have you ever read Franken's books, or been one of the 3 listeners he has on Air America? He DOES think they are all like that. It has EVERYTHING to do with politics. Fraken is seriously considering a run for the senate. No joke.

Back to the original question. If you had a video of "comedy skit" with Rush Limbaugh beating the crap out of a minority for dissing his book, how many people would be laughing? I know I wouldn't.

[ThatReallyHurt]

Wait a second. What if... none of it is funny, regardless of who puts it out?

Comedians and people who think they're funny do stupid things all the time. Unfortunately, some of those people manage to get airtime...

On the upside there are a lot of good comics out there, and even good ones who make good political comedy/satire.

[Inquartata]

Well, yes.

Franken's appeal has always been lost on me, even before I knew he was a liberal wanker. I didn't find him funny when he was on SNL, and I still don't.

Maybe people are just impressed with how impressed he is with himself...

[achilleus]

Back to the original question. If you had a video of "comedy skit" with Rush Limbaugh beating the crap out of a minority for dissing his book, how many people would be laughing? I know I wouldn't.

Ah, but that's the trick isn't it? Knowing who you can and can't use in particular skits or situations...

I mean, I saw this Home Depot commercial, and this worker is showing this amazing tool to this woman. The worker goes on to list all these great features of this tool, and finishes, with 'well, it can do just about everything!' and the woman, 'Oh, so you mean I don't need him?' with a smile, and the camera pans to this guy (her husband) trying to stick a plunger to his forehead (unsuccessfully I might add).

Now, if the roles were reversed, and the guy was at Bed, Bath, and Beyond looking at some kitchen or cleaning tool, and the camera panned to a woman doing something stupid, how long do you think that would last?

I mean take a look at a lot of the sitcoms out there and their portrayal of the father's or men in them. If the women were portrayed in an equal fashion to Homer Simpson, the shows wouldn't last long due to complaints...

[RITFencing]

Back to the original question. If you had a video of "comedy skit" with Rush Limbaugh beating the crap out of a minority for dissing his book, how many people would be laughing? I know I wouldn't.

I've got to say, I think that would be hilarious.

[jBirch]

Back to the original question. If you had a video of "comedy skit" with Rush Limbaugh beating the crap out of a minority for dissing his book, how many people would be laughing? I know I wouldn't.

They actually have that kind of stuff here in the frigid north: it's called This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

James.

[esskreemr]

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm..._crop_100k.wmv

Ok, now lets take a look at this. Franken stereotypes a white guy from Colorado as the "right wing jerk", then proceeds to kick him in the groin, bust a stool over his back, then someone hits him in the head with a bottle.

I'll have to view it later. My primary computer is without power, I'm posting on a computer with limited install and my other computer doesn't have sound yet.

Then he is on Letterman, describing how Rove, and Libby will be executed. And that, it might not be such a good thing to execute the president.

Do you seriously put this on the same level as Pat Robertson saying that we should assassinate Hugo Chavez? That's what you're alluding to, neh?

Franken apparently quipped "That Rove committed treason and will most likely be executed." Not "I would personally like to rip Carl Rove's heart out and feed it to my pit bull." He wasn't saying (based on the transcript I read) that Carl Rove, et al SHOULD be executed. You see, it was a humorous (or humorless depending on what side of the fence you lean) statement because, well, even though outing a covert US agent is, by many considered a treasonous act, ummm....it's... see, ok. Nevermind...

Now, I'm all for his right to do this. But could someone tell me who and where someone could get away with this if things were changed a bit and the person being assulted was say a stereotypical left winger (a non-white perhaps?), or Clinton and execution were mentioned in the same sentence. This isnt some wacky website, or obscure cable channel. This is on Amazon.com and National Broadcast TV.

You may have a hard time understanding the difference. It is indeed subtle. you see, there this, like, thing called, like, political satire. You know, when I say that I think that the government should ban 'The Bible' because it contains so much violence, profanity, sex, slavery, racism, murder, destruction, etc.

I just dont see this type of stuff coming from the other direction.

Really?! You should take your blinders off. They are limiting your view of the world around you.

[Fencing Jesus]

I had a talk with this mother.

She said she'll do what she can.

[Jason]

The rules for mockery are pretty straight forward: make fun of the empowered, leave the weak alone.

In fact, that's part of the point of mockery--it's an attempt to make the weak feel more powerful as it disempowers its target.
When someone who is already empowered tries to take away power from the weak, it's bullying.

When a lefty makes fun of the fat, rich, and/or retarded people who are the conservative movement, it's fair and balanced because the conservatives are the ones empowered.
One of the main reasons that so much leftist criticism of the right is in the form of comedy is that comedy is the tool of the disempowered (as an aside: this is surely why most of the best comedians are either black or jewish ).

If a fat righty decides to beat "the crap out of a minority" (it's interesting that the example to represent the left is a minority--the definitive disempowered person) as a "joke", it can only be funny to someone with a personality disorder, because the fatty is only trying to bring down someone who is already on the bottom.
If the minority beats the crap out of fatty--that's comedy gold.

[Maeve_Mari]

The rules for mockery are pretty straight forward: make fun of the empowered, leave the weak alone.

In fact, that's part of the point of mockery--it's an attempt to make the weak feel more powerful as it disempowers its target.
When someone who is already empowered tries to take away power from the weak, it's bullying.

When a lefty makes fun of the fat, rich, and/or retarded people who are the conservative movement, it's fair and balanced because the conservatives are the ones empowered.
One of the main reasons that so much leftist criticism of the right is in the form of comedy is that comedy is the tool of the disempowered (as an aside: this is surely why most of the best comedians are either black or jewish ).

If a fat righty decides to beat "the crap out of a minority" (it's interesting that the example to represent the left is a minority--the definitive disempowered person) as a "joke", it can only be funny to someone with a personality disorder, because the fatty is only trying to bring down someone who is already on the bottom.
If the minority beats the crap out of fatty--that's comedy gold.

Rich, Fatty and "Retarded" (your word, not mine) often set themselves up for mockery too, through their arrogance, delusions of invinceability, and good ole plain incompetence.

Afterall, the only thing Fatty was able to bash out of Clinton was that he REALLY liked sex. Hardly a huge revelation and political weapon considering he was male and breathing.

[Epee_Pox]

Afterall, the only thing Fatty was able to bash out of Clinton was that he REALLY liked sex.

Huh. I thought it was that Clinton was so craven that he would lie under oath, and urge others to lie under oath, and go on TV and lie to the American public, in a slimy attempt to weasel out of a civil lawsuit for sexual harassment.

The most powerful man in the nation, trying to subvert the laws and the courts for any reason, trying to put his own tawdry personal interests above the law -- that is utterly reprehensible no matter what the subject matter is.

It doesn't matter if the perjury is about a bj, or if it's about illegal campaign activities, or if it's about outing a secret agent, or even if it's about selling national secrets to the enemy in time of war. The underlying matter is a separate matter from the perjury. But the sheer arrogance of a President of the United States -- any President of the United States -- thinking he's above the law and lying under oath (something an ordinary citizen could well have been imprisoned for), well how is that not worthy of "bashing"? Does it not cry out for bashing, and censure, and loud accusation?

It wasn't about sex, it was about the baseness of the man's crime.

[Jason]

The most powerful man in the nation, trying to subvert the laws and the courts for any reason, trying to put his own tawdry personal interests above the law -- that is utterly reprehensible no matter what the subject matter is.

It may also be the definition of a politician.

There is a substantial difference, however, between lying about something that the public has arguably no right to know and lying about governmental activity.
While a bj may be America's sweetheart, it isn't America's business.
Distribution of campaign dollars, WMDs, revelations of covert operatives, and anything else done by public officials in the public sphere is America's business.

It's overly simplistic to equate all forms of lying. An act that affects two people is not morally equitable to an act that affects a country. Lying about those acts is similarly different ethically.

[Maeve_Mari]

Huh. I thought it was that Clinton was so craven that he would lie under oath, and urge others to lie under oath, and go on TV and lie to the American public, in a slimy attempt to weasel out of a civil lawsuit for sexual harassment.

The most powerful man in the nation, trying to subvert the laws and the courts for any reason, trying to put his own tawdry personal interests above the law -- that is utterly reprehensible no matter what the subject matter is.

It doesn't matter if the perjury is about a bj, or if it's about illegal campaign activities, or if it's about outing a secret agent, or even if it's about selling national secrets to the enemy in time of war. The underlying matter is a separate matter from the perjury. But the sheer arrogance of a President of the United States -- any President of the United States -- thinking he's above the law and lying under oath (something an ordinary citizen could well have been imprisoned for), well how is that not worthy of "bashing"? Does it not cry out for bashing, and censure, and loud accusation?

It wasn't about sex, it was about the baseness of the man's crime.

Oh it does too matter what the subject is! Geeze... have you never been caught with your hands in the cookie jar? Wasn't your first reaction a NO... it wasn't me?
It was truly unfortunate that Clinton's first reaction to deny was so captured on the television sets across America, and having to take the lumps for his predilection for the fancy pants was due and deserved, but it is in no way comparable to the divulgence of national secrets to the enemy nor the lying to the American people about the very reasons for entering an unprovoked war against a sovereign nation.

Holy Beans Batman... he's not in Gotham City anymore if he can't tell the difference between a schoolboy lie and a perjurious abuse of power.

[Epee_Pox]

Holy Beans Batman... he's not in Gotham City anymore if he can't tell the difference between a schoolboy lie and a perjurious abuse of power.

There is indeed a difference.

Telling Hillary "no way, it never happened" is not the same as testifying under oath during an ongoing court case, to which said testimony is clearly relevant, that it never happened and further urging an underling to also lie under oath and testify to the jury that it never happened.

What he did what NOT a schoolboy lie. He committed perjury, put his own personal interests ahead of those of society, subverted the legal process, and showed contempt for the law.

The fact that he did so over a stupid sex act does NOT mitigate his actions. On the contrary, it makes them much worse!

Imagine, he committed this crime over something so amazingly trivial. The President of the United States! I'd much better understand if he committed such a crime over something important, like national security.

But whether you commit perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, or in a government corruption investigation, perjury is perjury. What he did was a crime, crippled the dignity of his office, and demonstrated his utter lack of character. It was NOT about the bj.

[Jason]

What he did what NOT a schoolboy lie. He committed perjury, put his own personal interests ahead of those of society, subverted the legal process, and showed contempt for the law.

The fact that he did so over a stupid sex act does NOT mitigate his actions. On the contrary, it makes them much worse!

Imagine, he committed this crime over something so amazingly trivial. The President of the United States! I'd much better understand if he committed such a crime over something important, like national security.

But whether you commit perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, or in a government corruption investigation, perjury is perjury. What he did was a crime, crippled the dignity of his office, and demonstrated his utter lack of character. It was NOT about the bj.

The interests of society in the Clinton scandal are dubious. The interests of the media are unquestionable. The interests of the Republicans are obvious.

It's very dangerous to weigh all crimes equally. The reason mandatory sentences were such a huge failure in the US is because each crime must be viewed in its own context.

A lie, for example, that results in war and thousands of people dying (or one that results in the disenfranchisement of minorities, or one that results in a candidate for public office getting an illegal financial advantage over another) cannot be, in a reasonable society, viewed as a parallel to a lie told to protect one's infidelities from becoming public knowledge.

The "dignity" of the presidential office is a fairy tale. Public offices are never dignified. Public officials always lie--under oath or not. You will not, I think, be able to find an example of an official under oath who testified without some--usually large--amount of dissembling (Iran-Contra and the 9-11 Commission are two fine examples). It is, you might say, a necessity of their position. A politician who was unfalteringly honest would never be elected, because he would be crushed under the lies of his opponents. It is important to understand the nature of politics--and of human desire for power--to reasonably judge the acts of politicians. If the worst thing a president did in two terms--the thing that he's always remembered for--is sleeping with an intern and lying about it, then he did a pretty good job of keeping the office clean.

The biggest difference between the Clinton lies and those of his predecessors (and, of course, successor) is that his lies involved sex. Usually politicians lie about money and abuse of power. Clinton spiced it up, gave it a little hardcore touch. Sex is the only reason that people remember Clinton's lies and quickly forget the other ones--in spite of the death tolls the others may have brought.