Tuesday, June 9, 2009


Twitter. Where a 76 year old republican senator named Chuck Grassley writes the following:

Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tel us”time to deliver” on health care. We still on skedul/even workingWKEND.

You think he's done? GUESS AGAIN!

Pres Obama while U sightseeing in Paris u said 'time to delivr on healthcare' When you are a “hammer” u think evrything is NAIL I'm no nail

Now I'm not saying that politics is becoming more and more ridiculous. That it, in turn, becomes increasingly difficult to take these people even remotely seriously -- even as villains. I'm just saying that politics is becoming more and more ridiculous and that it is increasingly more difficult to take these villainous creatures seriously.

I mean seriously, dude, seriously. I looked you up, you got a Master's Degree in 1956. Come on...skedul? Really? skedul? WKEND? U not you? Delivr, you couldn't throw in that extra e? Too much? Honestly? Honestly?

Is this how congressmen talk on twitter? Because I've done some research into this twitter matter, and while it's ridiculous anyway you look at it, some people do write properly on it. As evidence, might I submit Stephen Fry? Or perhaps fellow Stephen, last name Colbert, when he writes: Racial tension is on the rise in Switzerland. Conditions have risen from neutral to ambivalent.

Nothing wrong with that twitter post, it's even somewhat amusing. Then again, I suppose if Mr. Grassley wrote semi-coherently, then that would take a few extra seconds and make him look like some kind of damn elitist. Because there is obviously nothing more contemptible than having fancy gramer and speling and punshuation.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Jon Stewart Performs Corporate Fellatio

Jon Stewart Performs Corporate Fellatio
On Tuesday's episode of the Daily Show, Cliff May, who has a case of batshititis, asked if Jon Stewart thought Harry Truman was a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan? Jon Stewart said yes. Thus showing that he agreed with many academics including Einstein and Szilard, who advised the U.S. to create the atomic bombs in case Hitler created them first.

Indeed according to John Bolton, George Bush's U.N. Ambassador, it would put John Stewart in line with the International Criminal Court. Who John Bolton said the U.S. couldn't join because:

A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable.

So basically Jon Stewart decided to agree with the International Criminal Court and radical member states like Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, South Africa, France, Denmark, Bolivia, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Brazil, South Korea, Norway, Italy, Ireland, etc.

Fast forward two days, and Jon Stewart says the following:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Harry Truman Was Not a War Criminal
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisFirst 100 Days

So now he's on the side of countries that refuse to be part of the International Criminal Court like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Russia Haiti, Zimbabwe, other fucked up places, and of course Israel and United States.

The question, I have, is why the change of heart Mr. Leibowitz?

Now I don't expect Jon Stewart to take such radical positions as calling past U.S. leaders war criminals. That would be to hold them to the standards that other countries have to abide by. Which, as Mr. Bolton said, is intolerable and unacceptable. It would also probably prevent Stewart from being on the air, Viacom would hardly tolerate that.

But when he brings up in a conversation that water boarding is illegal, and offers up the Japan War Trials after World War 2 as an example; then when asked if this would also make Harry Truman a war criminal for breaking similar international laws, and he says yes... one might expect him to stand by the comment. Maybe, just maybe. Of course, when he retracts the comment two days later, one has to ask, what the fuck?

So I offer up six various possibilities for the change of heart.

1)Viacom called him and asked him to retract his comment, otherwise his show would go the way of Politically Incorrect. He bowed his head to his corporate master, said yes, and asked if he might, as way of an apology, suck Sumner Redstone's pale wrinkled cock.

2)He doesn't want to seem too lefty and thus lose the democrat sector of his audience. Possibly the libertarian sector as well, though I don't know what their thoughts on war crimes are... probably deliciously mad.

3)He is struggling with patriotism and logic. In the heat of the moment, when faced with the Truman/Criminal question, he was stuck in logic land. After some reflection his patriotism kicked in.

4)Jon Stewart needs attention, because while Jon Stewart generally mocks the media's love for him, he actually likes it. If he started calling people like Harry S. Truman war criminals then he wouldn't get another chance to host the Oscars, or win another Peabody or an Emmy. Perhaps, oh my, he wouldn't be listed as one of Time's most powerful people. Respect is a dangerous thing, once you have it, it is difficult to give it up.

5) Jon Stewart is logical. He logically understands that by saying that Harry S. Truman is a war criminal, he would actually have start being consistent in his principles. He therefore had two choices, he would have to criticize Obama for bombing Pakistan, or apologize for his previous statement. Obviously criticizing Obama wasn't an option.

6)Jon Stewart merely lapsed into some temporary sanity. Similar to Shepard Smith on Fox News... except Stewart's sanity is a more severe case, so it shows up more often. This is makes many people think Stewart is actually sane. When in reality he's not.

Which is the most likely? It's hard to say, but Stewart performing fellatio on the 85 year old chairman of Viacom just seems right to me. It also seems sexy...no, wait, no...what's the opposite of sexy? Disturbing? Yeah that sounds better, Jon Stewart apologizing for calling the callous massacre of nearly a quarter million people a war crime... is kind of disturbing. Yuck.