You Know Who Is Really, Really Annoying...

By -
and not very funny? Jon Stewart. Just carefully study the contrived little hand-over-the-mouth gesture in this skit -- it's a classic example of the "Hey, I don't think it's funny, but it seems to work with these dopes I pander to" school of comedy.

Comments

  1. bobvis3:22 PM

    I can't agree more.

    At the same time, the very last joke in this was actually funny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:25 PM

    The Daily Show and Colbert Report are going to be much less funny during a Democratic administration. I'd like to think their sense of objectivity and their tendency to skewer not just politicians but the media will allow them to stay funny, but I don't really think it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woody6:58 PM

    His mannerisms may annoy me, but I think his presentations are important. I like him, and think he's one of the most objective voices out there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy11:47 PM

    I'm with Woody on this one. Basically, if Jon Stewart is ripping somebody who bugs you, then he's hilarious. If he's making fun of something you believe in, then he's an a-hole.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Silas Barta12:01 AM

    You Know Who Is Really, Really Annoying... and not very funny?

    Look, Gene, just because we disagree about...

    Jon Stewart.

    PHEW! Never mind...

    ReplyDelete
  6. bobvis11:38 AM

    Bob (Murphy, not me), to me what you describe is someone who is not funny. If someone is actually funny, he can get you to laugh at your own people too.

    If you point out little inconsistencies and ironies of a view, that is brilliant political humor. Everyone can laugh at that.

    If you just willfully misrepresent the other side to make it seem silly, of course you won't think it's funny if you are the one being misrepresented. If you have any comedic honesty yourself, you won't even think it's funny if you are on his side.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah4:28 PM

    I don't think Stewart is NEVER funny, but I'm with Bobvis.

    The Onion can make me laught at any viewopint -- much better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TokyoTom1:37 AM

    Dang; Hulu blocks access from foeign IP addresses.

    Stewart gets points in my book for being funny most of the time while making cogent observations. The rest of us have difficulty being funny ANY of time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. bobvis1:42 PM

    The rest of us have the courtesy to stay off tv though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TokyoTom11:31 PM

    Bob, are you forced at gunpoint to watch Jon Stewart?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob Murphy11:55 PM

    No Tom, why do you ask?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more