-
sponsorship
As Slate columnist John Dickerson pointed out late last week,
by saying that the CIA "misleads us all the time," Nancy Pelosi "put
the spotlight on herself and has given weakened Republicans a fight
they can enjoy, engage in, and possibly win." Newt Gingrich took to the
Daily Show last night to promote his new book, 5 Principles for a Successful Life, but before getting into the heart of his shill, he called for... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)
-
sponsorship
I love the fact that the word teabagging has dipped its way into the cable news lexicon. For those of you who are fortunate enough not to know the original meaning of teabagging, you won't find it in a regular dictionary, and I will not retype it here, but if you are curious, you can find several definitions at UrbanDictionary.com. Be forewarned: Make sure you are not eating or drinking when you read it.
The term fell into our mouths more than a month ago, when the Republicans decided they were going to protest Obama's tax policies by symbolically re-enacting events from the Boston Tea Party. Now there are several planned protests taking place across the country, and to report on them, newscasters, commentators, and cable show hosts have been forced to take in this mouthful of a word.
I've heard it from Jon Stewart, David Shuster (sitting in for Keith Olbermann), and a poor blushing Rachel Maddow.
Of course, this is how our language evolves, and in this case, how an "unacceptable" word becomes an "acceptable" one. But, in the meantime, we are allowed to giggle a little, aren't we?
And it gave me an idea. The Republican Party, which has been foundering since even before the election of President Barack Obama as it struggles to find new leadership, new direction, new ideas, a new identity, and new members, should maybe start with a new nickname. The could easily shed the "Party of No" label if they began to refer to themselves as "the U.S. Teabagging Party." Catchy, right? Sounds like a ball to me.
-
sponsorship
I've enjoyed Jon Stewart's skewering of Jim Cramer and CNBC. Up until last night, it had been dead on and hilarious. Last night, it was mostly just dead on. That said, I remain unconvinced that Jim Cramer is the guy, and CNBC the institution, that most needs public chastising at this particular juncture. Stewart himself probably agrees with that, but, nonetheless, here's Jim Cramer, a guy who literally wears a costume (those cuffs must have been cutting off his circulation), on the receiving end of the most unrelenting dressing-down we've had the satisfaction of witnessing. I'm sure Stewart vs. Cramer will be more entertaining than whatever painful courtroom proceedings are in store for Bernie Madoff, and, just by virtue of having taken place, will be more cathartic than cutthroat interrogations of, say, Alan Greenspan or Dick Fuld, but none of that changes the fact that Stewart's attack was basically a show trial, and a pretty meaningless show trial at that. (The Times compared it to a Senate hearing). When are some of the more serious culprits going to be forced, harassed, teased into explaining themselves? Or can we be sated with the sacrifice of a clown like Cramer?
-
sponsorship
This morning, everyone is talking about Jon Stewart's smackdown of CNBC talking head Jim Cramer. Stewart has been appropriately critical of Cramer and CNBC of late for peddling bum advice to the little guy while lobbing softballs at visiting CEOs. Cramer tries to defend himself in the Daily Show clip below, but Crooks and Liars description of Cramer as a "wounded puppy" is pretty spot-on. If this clip inspires you to play a computer game involving Cramer's disembodied head, click here for The Big Money's answer to your prayers.
-
sponsorship
Funniest thing on TV in days: The Daily Show's Hall and Oates tribute to Alan Colmes.
Least funny showcase of stereotypes that makes me want to rap someone's knuckles with my ruler: Jon Stewart and Philip Seymour Hoffman on same, discussing Catholicism and Hoffman's new movie Doubt, adapted from the great John Patrick Shanley play about a (potential) pedophile priest, which I saw twice (and liked Eileen Atkins even better in it than Cherry Jones, of The Heiress and 24).
Stewart: The idea of holy folks, the priests and the nuns, having an argument, it's just something that never occurred to me that they would have, like, an office argument.
Hoffman: I know, you kind of don't think they're real when you're a kid. You think they go behind closed doors and something strange happens but it's magical and you shouldn't know anything about it. It is kind of strange, because I didn't have a big connection to the Catholic Church—I mean I was, but when I was playing those scenes, I remember actually in the scene walking into the room and action, cameras rolling, and still having this odd feeling of "What do we do here?''
Stewart: There's a priestly or religious figure sort of countenance that you imagine that never turns out and you forget that oh, you're just like, you're just some schmuck that decided never to have sex again.
Hoffman: And also, "I'm a man, so therefore I have all the power." Which is something that I don't—I don't live in that world ...
Stewart: Right ... I wonder, it's probably almost harder to hold on to your bearings in that, because it's, the rules of engagement are so different I would imagine in the clergy in any religion, and you do have this, not only do you have the power over those that work for you but you also have this pipeline to God. People have to come to you and be like, "Do you think he's going to be mad at me about the whole ...''
Hoffman: I was told, which I didn't know, that before all the changes happened in the '60s with the Catholic Church, the whole service was done with the priest's back to the audience. ... Because they had to talk to God through the, everyone basically like poltergeist through the priest.
Stewart: He's like Dixie cups with the string; it's fascinating stuff.
Philip, babe, loved you in The Savages, Capote, even State and Main, but don't talk about what you don't know. Sister Mary Melinda has your penance now: Read a bleepin' book, for heaven's sake.
-
sponsorship
OK, I have to say this, though I'm guessing it will not make me XXer of the day or anything. (Ergh, that sounds like something John McCain would say, bragging for the 9 millionth time about not being named Miss Congeniality.) Anyway, though I happen to think the whole ‘Bama pals with terrorists' line is toxic as well as so misshapen as to qualify as an outright lie, I would not characterize what Michelle Bachmann said on "Hardball' as a rant; in all fairness, Chris Matthews saw his opening and maneuvered her into it. He took what she did say - "Most Americans, Chris, are wild about America'' - I think she means you, Dana - "and they're very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values.'' And then, he successfully pushed her to take that to its logical conclusion, that being critical of anything America does ever is the same as having anti-American views. That is an argument I disagree with, and one side of a conversation that's been going on at least since Vietnam. But it is still a mischaracterization to react as though she went on screaming that the FBI should forget Bin Laden and look into Nancy Pelosi. (What bothered me more was her assertion that, "It was Michelle Obama who said she's only recently proud of her country.'' No, she didn't.)
If negative campaigning really had finally found its floor, in any case, that would be the best thing since Caller ID. And whatever her motivations, I'm glad Sarah Palin has apologized for her comments dividing us into the "real America'' of small towns like the ones she and I grew up in and...not so real America, like New York and Washington, where lots of us small town natives wind up. As Jon Stewart said the other night, Bin Laden must feel like a real *&F@# after having realized he bombed the wrong America. Not to mention those from-the-wrong America firefighters who ran into the Twin Towers; gosh are they embarrassed.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?