Jon Stewart Reaction

[h]

ya i think birdy is talking about Camille.

hmm, she's tactful.

I have to say that I've also found Michael Moore to be increasingly "screachy" and reactive in his emails over time. However, apparently even with his influence on ~lazy money grabbing factory workers and single mothers ~ (?) They lost that freakin election to the Republicans...

so i dunno, i think i'll take his participation and appreciate that somebody is being that visual.

I like Jimmy Carter. I think he's a very nice liberally viewed spokesperson.

[Birdy]

michael moore is screachy.. over sensationalistic and reactionary.. i totally agree...

Coupled with coming off the clinton era, social security crises and some seriously shady election processes, i can see why bush was elected. time for a change. the american people, although closely resembling, are so fundamentally different than the Canadian people. they aren't afraid of change the way us Canadians fear it... where we welcome and coddle the status quo they throw pitch forks at it and quote robert e lee. it's in their blood... their history.. ours is a drunken john a mcdonald rowing down the st lawrence and fighting his every breath just to stay in the boat. no wonder why we're such a liberal country.

i boycott moore's films by choice and become overly outspoken whenever i see someone renting one. i can't help it.

and i was speaking of camille paglia... she has a way of cutting through the crap that is inspiring.

also, for the record, i should have clarified when speaking of liberal voices that are respectable.. i love farley mowat to death.. i meant more 'mainstream' in your face liberal representatives.. those that the average joe could recognize as a voice of the left. my bad.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

Personally i believe that the two party system does not in any way mean that the american people have any chance at changing the staus quo.

how are the democrats that different from the republicans? no matter which party gets elected how much really changes?

the lesser of two evils is the best that you can hope for in american presidents- it's the degree to which the commander in chief has the bollocks to manipulate the american public to his own ends that delineates any differences in leadership qualities in the US

and no matter who's in power it's still big business that pulls the strings- not that that isn't the case here as well but I for one would like to think that we're a little better off in thinking for ourselves and having more choice in truly differing political parties

[purple] to say otherwise is unCanadian [/purple]

[Patchoulia]

There are just as many belligerent, blind morons in the left as in the right. The power of the media in the U.S, and the perception thereof, shifts with who's in power.

The difference between Michael Moore and Jon Stewart is enormous--Michael Moore is a self-important, deluded purveyor of misinformation. And he has just as many idiot followers as Bush does. He's a disgrace.

Jon Stewart, on the other hand, is a commentator--he doesn't prosthelitize, he doesn't advocate, he comments. Sure, his opinions are generally liberal. But he's not telling people how to think--simply conveying how he does.

[MarcO]

Jon Stewart has been on fire the past two nights. It's the kind of TV watching that makes you laugh and squirm at the same time. How about that "Meet The Fuckers" segment?

last night's show was great until Samuel L Jackson had to come on and yuk it up about absoultely nothing for a few minutes before suggesting donating to the Red Cross is a bad idea. What a class act.

[Diggzz]

"Meet the Fuckers" was great, agreed Sam's Red Cross comments were a bit off the mark though...

[ge-off]

what did he say??

im at work so just a cut and paste would be good..

i cant watch all those purdy clips eveyone posts..

im cable-less until tonight (just moved)

Edited September 8, 2005 by Guest

[Birdy]

i too want to know what he said!

[MarcO]

Totally paraphrasing here, but he essentially said he wanted to do whatever he could do to help - but not by donating money to The Red Cross. By doing that, he said, his money would be wasted on administrative costs and beauracracy.

Apart from that he talked about his hat and Jon Stewart's acting talents. A useless interview.

[Birdy]

he's probably right.

same reason i won't donate to the christian children's fund. although i think their objectives are slighly more shady than say those of the red cross...

[Biggest Fan]

To Birdy:

I feel your pain. Is there another 'mainstream' liberal voice worth listening too.

I would say more but...

[MarcO]

he's probably right.

same reason i won't donate to the christian children's fund. although i think their objectives are slighly more shady than say those of the red cross...

give us some alternatives then.

[Steve from Cleveland]

The Red Cross, though helpful, does use a SIGNIFICANT portion of donations to pay salaries/cover bureaucratic (sp?) costs, etc... I forget what the ratio is per dollar of what actually goes where the donor intends... United Way is the same way (if not worse).

I don't think donating to Red Cross is necessarily BAD, but a lot of people don't realize that ALL their money isn't going to the victims... Salvation Army and America's Second Harvest are better options with respect to that issue... In my opinion, of course...

Some viable alternatives:

The Salvation Army

America's Second Harvest

Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation

Mississippi Hurricane Recover Fund

[Ms.Huxtable]

People seem surprised to hear that every dollar of their donations doesn't make it to the victims when donating through large charities.

Charities are businesses with operating costs (staffing, marketing, rent of properties, purchasing equipment and everything else). They are non-profit, but the cost of merely running a business of their size is enormous.

[Steve from Cleveland]

Very true... It DOES seem like common sense, however there ARE charities that give 100% of donations to where the donor intended them to go. Usually these charities have backers/donors who donate significant amounts of money earmarked SPECIFICALLY for the Admin/etc costs. That way they CAN use 100% of monies donated by citizens to help the intended recipients...

On the other hand, there are also Nonprofits/Charities such as United Way which are corrupt top to bottom, where employees and volunteers embezzle tens of millions of dollars, etc.

Steve

[Davey Boy 2.0]

This is delicious.

Q: What do these two *characters* have in common (aside from being devilishly handsome):

A: They've both claimed to be Assistant Managers...

"Brown's biography on the FEMA website said he had once served as an "assistant city manager with emergency services oversight". Time magazine quoted an official in Edmond, Oklahoma as saying the job was actually "assistant to the city manager" with little responsibility."

Snap!

Edited September 9, 2005 by Guest
flourish

[headymamamyrna]

Picture A

Andre Bouchard as a teenager.

Picture B

Dave Barrett as a senior wearing contacts.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

Myrna!

I guarantee I'll be far greyer by the time i hit his age in that picture

[Birdy]

the bigger the charity the more likely they're going to have a staff that needs to be supported.

but then again, the bigger the charity, the bigger reach they have at getting to the people. i would still donate to the red cross, or the salvation army. i'm a big fan of the salvation army... they're good for a garbage bag of clothes from me a few times a year.

[Biggest Fan]

Steve from Cleveland:

cheers

The best way to judge a charitable organization is to checkout the % of the donated $ that goes to admin. costs.

[Steve from Cleveland]

Steve from Cleveland:

cheers

The best way to judge a charitable organization is to checkout the % of the donated $ that goes to admin. costs.

I don't know that it's necessarily the best, or the only way to judge. But it certainly is a factor one should consider...

Steve

[bald guy in a blanket]

i feel like the left sucks in people who aren't really politically aware... like girls who think they're feminists without really knowing what feminism is... or single income families who think they're owed something by the government because their marriage failed... or union workers who vote liberal or ndp simply to continue receiving their obscene wage without having to do too much work... each group is plotted out in pre-election campaigns and becomes the primary focus of all these hard driving liberal nuts... none of these people actually have any idea of what they are voting for, or what policy stands for what.. they are voting for the ideal that people like michael moore paint for them...

I think the left are by and large idealists and not politicians. I don't think that's bad, they've just never been professional debate controllers. So the debate tends to be around how crazy LIBERALS are as opposed to what would make the world better. Most "Left-wing" politicians are really centrists who are afraid at being tagged "liberal". Moore is a great example of this. If he had a political operative on staff he would have never come off the way he does now--he could have protected from the right-wing onslaught that came with F911. We'd be talking about what he believes in instead of how bad a person he is.

I don't, however, know if I want idealists to get swamped up in politics--I'd rather see true idealists rise out of the collapse of the party system.

Jef

P.S.-Anyone who thinks that union workers recieve an "obscene wage" needs to seriously re-evaluate the value of their own labour. Just because a group of people have organized to control the terms of their own living conditions doesn't make them lazy or overpaid, and just because a person feels they themselves are underpaid doesn't make me lazy. Despite what the Toronto Sun might call an editorial, most people can't do my job and unions (with a very few notable exceptions) do a good job of making sure their workers are trained, safe and professional.

What is obscene? Just because someone would take the job for less doesn't make it right.

As Chris Rock said "You can drive a car with your feet if you want to-it doesn't make it a good fuckin idea!"

Edited September 10, 2005 by Guest
i'm a spelling tool.

[Birdy]

Jef

P.S.-Anyone who thinks that union workers recieve an "obscene wage" needs to seriously re-evaluate the value of their own labour. Just because a group of people have organized to control the terms of their own living conditions doesn't make them lazy or overpaid, and just because a person feels they themselves are underpaid doesn't make me lazy.

jef/baldguy... venture down to good old chatham, ontario and talk to the boys who work at navistar or those who did work at navistar and got laid off... they'll tell you just how many hours out of eight hour day they actually "worked" versus how many hours they got paid for. good old union. almost cost half the city their jobs.