The August 11th, 2010 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart surpassed my expectations. It was my first glimpse of actress Laura Linney, who gave a thoughtful meditation on the cultural and philosophical significance of humor. No Hollywood airhead there. She actually dominated the tone and substance of the conversation, which is rare on Jon's show. It is always refreshing to listen to someone intelligent speak on television.
I do agree with her thesis that Jon Stewart is indispensable to the American political scene. Nobody expresses the liberal and left-wing point of view better than he. I am not sure anyone could replace him at this time. His presence helps to counterbalance the pernicious influence of Faux News. Although he has less air time than the entire Faux News lineup, it is a case of quality versus quantity.
The only problem I see with his show is consistency. Some shows are better than others. The quality depends upon the material provided to him by right-wingers. If the opposition has done something particularly hypocritical or self-serving, then his show profits. If the Republicans have only committed minor transgressions, then his show suffers. Sometimes Jon is forced to look outside the political sphere, on occasions when the Republicans have not done anything particularly bad. Times were easier for his show when Bush was in the White House.
A key difference between Faux News and Jon Stewart is that Jon is willing to criticize Democrats, liberals, and the Obama Administration whenever warranted. He is not completely partisan. Faux News, however, is completely partisan.
Showing posts with label celebrities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrities. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Rosalyn Carter on "The Daily Show"
One of my favorite guests in recent memory on "The Daily Show" was Rosalyn Carter, who appeared in the May 4th, 2010 episode. She is a stalwart advocate of the mentally ill and tried to persuade Jon to become involved as an investigative journalist on behalf of mental health issues. Her biography on Wikipedia is impressive. She sat in on Cabinet Meetings in the White House.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Favorite Celebs
Among celebrities on television, I like Jon Stewart, Graham Norton, Kathy Griffin, and Catherine Tate. I cannot imagine how they do what they do. I don't envy them at all. I wouldn't want to do their jobs. But they are entertaining to watch.
The gay community is lucky that Graham Norton is around. He's an out gay man with his own talk show, which is rare to say the least and a refreshing change from the hetero-hosted talk shows, which used to have a monopoly. I like his hilarious, witty, vulgar, juvenile show, which definitely has a camp flavor. Graham gets great guests from all over the English-speaking world, including Catherine Tate, which I think was a pretty big "get". His guests are always entertainers--comedians, musicians, performers that pose as musicians, directors, and film stars.
Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (Comedy Central) has the best talk show on television, covering contemporary news from a humorous angle, often sarcastic and witty. I've never seen anyone as good as he is. His material is really the best. And he has a big heart as well. Jon is an inspiration to us all, on many levels: ethical, humorous, philosophical, political and strategic. Whenever he challenges the nitwits on FOX, he comes out on top every time, which isn't too surprising, all things considered.
Kathy Griffin is someone I never thought I would see on television: a declared atheist, moreover a female one, and a hilarious comedienne as well. She makes me laugh. I really like her. She works hard at annoying the rich and famous.
Catherine Tate is versatile as an actress. She has so much talent that it feels like a gift just to be able to watch her perform. My American friends like her. Television executives should sign her for an American television show. She makes me think as well as laugh. Her humor is universal in appeal, making commentary about the human condition. She appeared on season 6, episode 10 of the Graham Norton show, where she seemed by far the most likable of the three guests, which included 50 Cent and David Carr*.
I detected a subtext of tension between 50 Cent and Graham. I was not impressed by my first glimpse of the rapper. After listening to him perform, I do not see how it is possible that he should have sold so much music. It is a strange thing indeed. Consumers are paying for an image to which they aspire, which is often the case in the music biz.
The gay community is lucky that Graham Norton is around. He's an out gay man with his own talk show, which is rare to say the least and a refreshing change from the hetero-hosted talk shows, which used to have a monopoly. I like his hilarious, witty, vulgar, juvenile show, which definitely has a camp flavor. Graham gets great guests from all over the English-speaking world, including Catherine Tate, which I think was a pretty big "get". His guests are always entertainers--comedians, musicians, performers that pose as musicians, directors, and film stars.
Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (Comedy Central) has the best talk show on television, covering contemporary news from a humorous angle, often sarcastic and witty. I've never seen anyone as good as he is. His material is really the best. And he has a big heart as well. Jon is an inspiration to us all, on many levels: ethical, humorous, philosophical, political and strategic. Whenever he challenges the nitwits on FOX, he comes out on top every time, which isn't too surprising, all things considered.
Kathy Griffin is someone I never thought I would see on television: a declared atheist, moreover a female one, and a hilarious comedienne as well. She makes me laugh. I really like her. She works hard at annoying the rich and famous.
Catherine Tate is versatile as an actress. She has so much talent that it feels like a gift just to be able to watch her perform. My American friends like her. Television executives should sign her for an American television show. She makes me think as well as laugh. Her humor is universal in appeal, making commentary about the human condition. She appeared on season 6, episode 10 of the Graham Norton show, where she seemed by far the most likable of the three guests, which included 50 Cent and David Carr*.
I detected a subtext of tension between 50 Cent and Graham. I was not impressed by my first glimpse of the rapper. After listening to him perform, I do not see how it is possible that he should have sold so much music. It is a strange thing indeed. Consumers are paying for an image to which they aspire, which is often the case in the music biz.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
My Favorite Living Celebrity
There is at least one living celebrity that I would like to know, assuming I had a magic wish granted to me by a genii: Ian McKellen, the actor who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. I don't really know much about the Shakespearean actor, other than he is one of the few out gay men in Hollywood and has had a great career. That he played Macbeth implies depth and profundity, which no doubt came in useful during his LOTR gig.
Gandalf is one of my favorite characters of all time. I can't but think of him as a role model for what I would like to become, if I could. The magic helps, naturally, but he is always saying wise things that speak to the heart.
Tolkien was a great writer. I don't know why literary critics put him down, but perhaps it is because they come from an academic environment, where the analytical faculties are favored to the exclusion of all else. They judge literature using left-brain criteria. Such critics miss the point of art. They would be better off as proofreaders. Being a good critic means knowing the human animal--what he is and what he can be. There must be a bias favoring writers that really get it, whether or not their prose conforms in every respect to established conventions. An analyst concerns himself with details, but the details of the parts are inferior to the sum of the whole. Critics need to get off their high horse once in a while. Just because something is wildly popular does not make it bad.
Gandalf is one of my favorite characters of all time. I can't but think of him as a role model for what I would like to become, if I could. The magic helps, naturally, but he is always saying wise things that speak to the heart.
Tolkien was a great writer. I don't know why literary critics put him down, but perhaps it is because they come from an academic environment, where the analytical faculties are favored to the exclusion of all else. They judge literature using left-brain criteria. Such critics miss the point of art. They would be better off as proofreaders. Being a good critic means knowing the human animal--what he is and what he can be. There must be a bias favoring writers that really get it, whether or not their prose conforms in every respect to established conventions. An analyst concerns himself with details, but the details of the parts are inferior to the sum of the whole. Critics need to get off their high horse once in a while. Just because something is wildly popular does not make it bad.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
My Favorite Celebrity
If I could travel back in time and spend a year with any celebrity from any time in recorded history, it would be Oscar Wilde.
Wilde was a gifted storyteller. His contemporaries raved about him. He got himself invited to all the best parties just because he could hold a room spellbound with his stories, insights and wit.
I'd like to go back in time as a young man, in order to compete with and take the place of Bosie, the homme fatale that led Oscar to his financial and social ruin. I'd have been a better influence, I think. Not as reckless, but curious and eager to learn.
In many ways, I think of Oscar Wilde as the Christ-figure of the gay community. The impression is inescapable. Of course, Oscar's fate was milder by far, but he lived in better times. Had Jesus lived in the modern age, he would have survived to a ripe old age. I do wish Jesus came back today and ran for President. But I suspect few people would vote for him. He'd be far too liberal.
Another person I'd like to have known was Robert Ross, Oscar's best friend and the executor of his literary estate. In some ways, Ross is even more interesting than Oscar--more sensible in many ways, wise, good, and cautious. He came out in the 1800's, which boggles the mind a bit. Courage was not something he lacked.
Wilde was a gifted storyteller. His contemporaries raved about him. He got himself invited to all the best parties just because he could hold a room spellbound with his stories, insights and wit.
I'd like to go back in time as a young man, in order to compete with and take the place of Bosie, the homme fatale that led Oscar to his financial and social ruin. I'd have been a better influence, I think. Not as reckless, but curious and eager to learn.
In many ways, I think of Oscar Wilde as the Christ-figure of the gay community. The impression is inescapable. Of course, Oscar's fate was milder by far, but he lived in better times. Had Jesus lived in the modern age, he would have survived to a ripe old age. I do wish Jesus came back today and ran for President. But I suspect few people would vote for him. He'd be far too liberal.
Another person I'd like to have known was Robert Ross, Oscar's best friend and the executor of his literary estate. In some ways, Ross is even more interesting than Oscar--more sensible in many ways, wise, good, and cautious. He came out in the 1800's, which boggles the mind a bit. Courage was not something he lacked.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Mainstream Media's Contempt for the Daily Show
Katie Couric, interviewed on the June 11th episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," expressed the opinion that most viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" are young college students. The implication is that "Daily Show" viewers are naive, inexperienced, and not as well informed as their elders, who prefer traditional news shows. This idea has achieved considerable traction among commentators across the political spectrum. It represents a reflexive dismissal of upstart Jon Stewart, who often criticizes his colleagues in the media.
I don't believe Katie Couric, and I never liked her, either. I watched "The Today Show" while she was on it, and I thought it was vapid, like most television shows.
Old people like me, who already have multiple college degrees under our belt, watch "The Daily Show" in preference to all other television news programs because it summarizes, digests, and interprets complicated events in a sensible fashion. To match the information conveyed by a single episode of Jon Stewart's show, one would have to watch ten to twenty hours of regular news programs and also be an astute and alert observer. "The Daily Show" therefore represents a much more efficient manner of absorbing current events. Jon Stewart's interpretations are in most cases correct, whatever his political opponents might like to suppose. I don't always appreciate his buffoonery, but I do follow his reasoning, and so does the rest of his elderly, college-educated, professional audience.
I am afraid that the old fossils of television just don't get it when it comes to "The Daily Show." It will remain popular until Jon loses his mind, which I view as the biggest potential danger to the show. There just does not seem to be a replacement for Mr. Big Mouth. No one can do what he does. Steve Colbert? Please. Not funny. Jon is funny, an important component.
Welcome to the new paradigm, television news heads. We want our information now, we want it correct the first time, and we don't want fluff. We're tired of the conservative stick-in-the-muds who hide behind lies, misinformation, and obfuscation. Give the facts to us fast, get it right the first time, get to the point, hit hard, dig deep, go further, and tell it like it is. If you can't do that, then get out of the way for the person who can.
I don't believe Katie Couric, and I never liked her, either. I watched "The Today Show" while she was on it, and I thought it was vapid, like most television shows.
Old people like me, who already have multiple college degrees under our belt, watch "The Daily Show" in preference to all other television news programs because it summarizes, digests, and interprets complicated events in a sensible fashion. To match the information conveyed by a single episode of Jon Stewart's show, one would have to watch ten to twenty hours of regular news programs and also be an astute and alert observer. "The Daily Show" therefore represents a much more efficient manner of absorbing current events. Jon Stewart's interpretations are in most cases correct, whatever his political opponents might like to suppose. I don't always appreciate his buffoonery, but I do follow his reasoning, and so does the rest of his elderly, college-educated, professional audience.
I am afraid that the old fossils of television just don't get it when it comes to "The Daily Show." It will remain popular until Jon loses his mind, which I view as the biggest potential danger to the show. There just does not seem to be a replacement for Mr. Big Mouth. No one can do what he does. Steve Colbert? Please. Not funny. Jon is funny, an important component.
Welcome to the new paradigm, television news heads. We want our information now, we want it correct the first time, and we don't want fluff. We're tired of the conservative stick-in-the-muds who hide behind lies, misinformation, and obfuscation. Give the facts to us fast, get it right the first time, get to the point, hit hard, dig deep, go further, and tell it like it is. If you can't do that, then get out of the way for the person who can.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Avoid Prescription Drugs
There is speculation that Michael Jackson died of a prescription drug overdose.
If the pop star's death seems senseless, at least there is one positive note. Many people will receive the message that prescription pills are not safe.
Plenty of conservative, anti-drug types such as Rush Limbaugh get hooked on prescription drugs, thinking "these pills are okay, because my doctor prescribes them. They were tested by a major pharmaceutical company, and approved by the FDA. I know they won't harm me." In reality, you know nothing of the sort. Prescription drugs can and will harm you, sooner than you think.
Part of the philosophy expressed in my blog is to question authority, even medical authority. Doctors have been known to prescribe poison. Many of their potions are unnecessary and many have side effects. The entire list of prescription drugs implicated in Jackson's death has not been published yet, but three that were mentioned in the article above were Xanax, Zoloft and the painkiller Demerol. That sounds like a devil's brew to me.
Xanax is prescribed when people complain about trouble sleeping or anxiety. It is a subtle sedative. I am ignorant about this drug and am not sure of its safety, but feel skepticism, because Xanax has only been around for a generation, and was designed for one purpose: to enhance shareholder wealth for a pharmaceutical company. Prescription drugs have no other purpose.
On the other hand, passionflower and valerian root have been tried and tested for centuries, being herbal folk remedies for insomnia and anxiety. No one will be getting rich if you try these things, and therefore no one has an ulterior motive for suggesting that you try them. Therefore I suggest following in Grandfather's footsteps and brewing a nice hot cup of passionflower and valerian root tea instead, if you want to fall asleep and have pleasant dreams. It is less likely you will overdose if you are drinking something, and those herbs are mild and safer than Xanax. They are also ten times cheaper.
Zoloft is a remedy prescribed by psychiatrists for depression, even manic depression. I am not sure how effective it is, but I have heard complaints that it turns people into zombies, putting people into a stupor. There have even been reports of people committing suicide or experiencing what is known as "suicidal ideation," or thinking about suicide, while on Zoloft. I am not sure how common that is, or whether Zoloft is safe or risky, but once again, here we are dealing with a substance only tested for a single generation, and many questions remain. Meanwhile, someone is getting rich because of Zoloft. Remember, what pharmaceutical companies care about is enhancing shareholder wealth, not making people better.
Demerol is yet another derivative of opium, used as a painkiller. The first time you take it, a "high" may be felt, but the second and subsequent dosages produce diminished effects, because tolerance develops as is true with most opiates. In cases of overdose, the human body shuts down, as if going to sleep, except it is a sleep from which one does not awake. Combined with alcohol, this drug would be particularly dangerous. If someone requires a painkiller on an ongoing basis, it seems to me that the underlying physical problem needs to be addressed, rather than continuing with the painkiller. Pain is the body's way to tell you that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
People being only human, they mix and match pills without regard to the contraindications, as if the pills were candy.
In fact, prescription pills are ten times more dangerous than either marijuana or alcohol. Drinking liquor, you are unlikely to overdose--most people either know when to stop, or pass out before it kills them. Smoking pot, it is impossible to overdose. Marijuana is less toxic than any other substance ever ingested by humans, including caffeine or aspirin. Had Michael chosen marijuana, instead of prescription poisons, he would be performing today.
What makes the problem of prescription drugs more complicated is that the generic varieties sold over the Internet could contain literally any substance at all. They are not necessarily what they claim to be. Some prescription drugs that are sold on the street are counterfeits produced by criminal gangs. It is wise to stay away from these things.
I'm a bit put off by the extreme media attention that has been generated by Jackson's demise. I heard that the breaking news actually slowed down the Internet. Really? Is it really that big of a story? I liked his music myself, especially Human Nature and Do You Remember the Time, but I'm not thunderstruck in any way. Everyone is going to die. There's no escape. I guess it does make those of us who remember his music feel older, but he was only fifty, and if he had stayed away from the pills, he would probably still be alive.
An article in the New York Times picks apart an old skeleton, a testy exchange between one of Ronald Reagan's White House Staff and the entertainer's concert promoters. My reaction was, so what? In this particular case, I think I would side with the Reagan administration. Presidents should invite who they want to invite to perform, and should write letters of congratulation to whomever they please.
The media is really getting desperate for stories about Jackson. Suddenly any old yarn is publishable, as long as it includes the magic words Michael Jackson.
I don't think there will ever be as big a star as MJ was, though, in the current climate of the music industry. For my part, I could not name any of the top fifty performers right now--not a single one.
If the pop star's death seems senseless, at least there is one positive note. Many people will receive the message that prescription pills are not safe.
Plenty of conservative, anti-drug types such as Rush Limbaugh get hooked on prescription drugs, thinking "these pills are okay, because my doctor prescribes them. They were tested by a major pharmaceutical company, and approved by the FDA. I know they won't harm me." In reality, you know nothing of the sort. Prescription drugs can and will harm you, sooner than you think.
Part of the philosophy expressed in my blog is to question authority, even medical authority. Doctors have been known to prescribe poison. Many of their potions are unnecessary and many have side effects. The entire list of prescription drugs implicated in Jackson's death has not been published yet, but three that were mentioned in the article above were Xanax, Zoloft and the painkiller Demerol. That sounds like a devil's brew to me.
Xanax is prescribed when people complain about trouble sleeping or anxiety. It is a subtle sedative. I am ignorant about this drug and am not sure of its safety, but feel skepticism, because Xanax has only been around for a generation, and was designed for one purpose: to enhance shareholder wealth for a pharmaceutical company. Prescription drugs have no other purpose.
On the other hand, passionflower and valerian root have been tried and tested for centuries, being herbal folk remedies for insomnia and anxiety. No one will be getting rich if you try these things, and therefore no one has an ulterior motive for suggesting that you try them. Therefore I suggest following in Grandfather's footsteps and brewing a nice hot cup of passionflower and valerian root tea instead, if you want to fall asleep and have pleasant dreams. It is less likely you will overdose if you are drinking something, and those herbs are mild and safer than Xanax. They are also ten times cheaper.
Zoloft is a remedy prescribed by psychiatrists for depression, even manic depression. I am not sure how effective it is, but I have heard complaints that it turns people into zombies, putting people into a stupor. There have even been reports of people committing suicide or experiencing what is known as "suicidal ideation," or thinking about suicide, while on Zoloft. I am not sure how common that is, or whether Zoloft is safe or risky, but once again, here we are dealing with a substance only tested for a single generation, and many questions remain. Meanwhile, someone is getting rich because of Zoloft. Remember, what pharmaceutical companies care about is enhancing shareholder wealth, not making people better.
Demerol is yet another derivative of opium, used as a painkiller. The first time you take it, a "high" may be felt, but the second and subsequent dosages produce diminished effects, because tolerance develops as is true with most opiates. In cases of overdose, the human body shuts down, as if going to sleep, except it is a sleep from which one does not awake. Combined with alcohol, this drug would be particularly dangerous. If someone requires a painkiller on an ongoing basis, it seems to me that the underlying physical problem needs to be addressed, rather than continuing with the painkiller. Pain is the body's way to tell you that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
People being only human, they mix and match pills without regard to the contraindications, as if the pills were candy.
In fact, prescription pills are ten times more dangerous than either marijuana or alcohol. Drinking liquor, you are unlikely to overdose--most people either know when to stop, or pass out before it kills them. Smoking pot, it is impossible to overdose. Marijuana is less toxic than any other substance ever ingested by humans, including caffeine or aspirin. Had Michael chosen marijuana, instead of prescription poisons, he would be performing today.
What makes the problem of prescription drugs more complicated is that the generic varieties sold over the Internet could contain literally any substance at all. They are not necessarily what they claim to be. Some prescription drugs that are sold on the street are counterfeits produced by criminal gangs. It is wise to stay away from these things.
I'm a bit put off by the extreme media attention that has been generated by Jackson's demise. I heard that the breaking news actually slowed down the Internet. Really? Is it really that big of a story? I liked his music myself, especially Human Nature and Do You Remember the Time, but I'm not thunderstruck in any way. Everyone is going to die. There's no escape. I guess it does make those of us who remember his music feel older, but he was only fifty, and if he had stayed away from the pills, he would probably still be alive.
An article in the New York Times picks apart an old skeleton, a testy exchange between one of Ronald Reagan's White House Staff and the entertainer's concert promoters. My reaction was, so what? In this particular case, I think I would side with the Reagan administration. Presidents should invite who they want to invite to perform, and should write letters of congratulation to whomever they please.
The media is really getting desperate for stories about Jackson. Suddenly any old yarn is publishable, as long as it includes the magic words Michael Jackson.
I don't think there will ever be as big a star as MJ was, though, in the current climate of the music industry. For my part, I could not name any of the top fifty performers right now--not a single one.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Daily Show and Newt Gingrich
I'm an avid fan of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among the most interesting women in the U.S. I know, she is not one of the usual suspects from Hollywood or Youtube, and she is, well, over forty?
But she writes well and has a warm nature and even remarkable candor. Read this moving tribute she wrote to retiring justice David Souter. What makes it priceless is that she says in effect that David was better than all the other justices on the Supreme Court. The only reason I can think of somebody going out on a limb like that is genuine affection. I imagine the next meeting of the justices might be a bit awkward. Seldom do we see such an expression of genuine affection in the public circus. Usually people are tearing other people down or mixing sarcasm with their supposedly friendly jokes.
Although I'm not familiar with Ginsburg's judicial track record, I'm willing to bet I would agree with Ginsburg on 90% of all cases that passed the Supreme Court docket.
But she writes well and has a warm nature and even remarkable candor. Read this moving tribute she wrote to retiring justice David Souter. What makes it priceless is that she says in effect that David was better than all the other justices on the Supreme Court. The only reason I can think of somebody going out on a limb like that is genuine affection. I imagine the next meeting of the justices might be a bit awkward. Seldom do we see such an expression of genuine affection in the public circus. Usually people are tearing other people down or mixing sarcasm with their supposedly friendly jokes.
Although I'm not familiar with Ginsburg's judicial track record, I'm willing to bet I would agree with Ginsburg on 90% of all cases that passed the Supreme Court docket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)