Friday, October 15, 2004

Jon Stewart on Crossfire
Rips them a new asshole. As soon as the dude on Overspun gets it on his site, I'll link to it. It is AWESOME! I can't believe all the shit he said. He let loose. I know, horrible for me to write about this without something to show you, but I couldn't wait.
From my memory:

Tucker Carlson to Jon Stewart "I do think you're more funny on your show"

Jon Stewart: "You know what's interesting though, you're as big a dick on this show as you are on any show"

Update: Transcript here
Jon Stewart Bitchslaps CNN's 'Crossfire' Show
In what could well be the strangest and most refreshing media moment of the election season, "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart turned up on a live broadcast of CNN's "Crossfire" Friday and accused the mainstream media — and his hosts in particular — of being soft and failing to do their duty as journalists to keep politicians and the political process honest.

Reaching well outside his usual youthful "Daily Show" demo, Stewart took to "Crossfire" to promote his new book, "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" (see "Jon Stewart Writes A History Textbook That — At Last! — Features Nudity"), but instead of pushing the tome, Stewart used his time to verbally slap the network and the media for being "dishonest" and "doing a disservice" to the American public. After co-host Tucker Carlson suggested that Stewart went easy on Senator John Kerry when the candidate was a guest on "The Daily Show," Stewart unloaded on "Crossfire," calling hosts Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" and chiding them for not raising the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering.

"What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery," Stewart said. "You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

"I watch your show every day, and it kills me. It's so painful to watch," Stewart added as it became apparent that the comedian was not joking. He went on to hammer the network, and the media in general, for its coverage of the presidential debates. Stewart said it was a disservice to viewers to immediately seek reaction from campaign insiders and presidential cheerleaders following the debates, noting that the debates' famed "Spin Alley" should be called "Deception Lane."

"The thing is, we need your help," Stewart said. "Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations and we're left out there to mow our lawns."

While the audience seemed to be behind Stewart, Begala and Carlson were both taken aback. The hosts tried to feed Stewart set-up lines hoping to draw him into a more light-hearted shtick, but Stewart stayed on point and hammered away at the show, the hosts, and the state of political journalism. Carlson grew increasingly frustrated, at first noting that the segment wasn't "funny," and later verbally sparring with the comedian.

"You're not very much fun," Carlson said. "Do you like lecture people like this, or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?"

"If I think they are," Stewart retorted.

The conversation reached its most heated moment when Carlson said to Stewart, "I do think you're more fun on your show," to which Stewart replied, "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

"That went great," Stewart could be heard sarcastically saying as the show went off the air (a transcript of the show is available on

In an era when the media is increasingly fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views, be they on the right or the left, Stewart's blast seemed especially on point. It seems fitting that the tirade came on a day when much of the media attention focused on the presidential race was directed at the mention of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter during the last presidential debate, as opposed to the issues addressed at that debate.

Why Kerry Must Win #18
caption contest countdown

Thursday, October 14, 2004


Being the sole female on the Ludis staff I had to bring this up. Once again, the Bushies have disregarded the international community. What was that last night about respecting women?

250 countries sign women's rights plan
More than 250 countries, including India, have asked the United Nations to help promote women's right to education, healthcare, reproductive health and family planning, but the Bush administration declined to join the demand, objecting to a reference to 'sexual rights', a term which it says does not have any agreed definition.
Why Kerry Must Win #19
caption contest countdown

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Let's see how this factors in

Aw shit.

OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies. For example, we direct you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the entire document, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation.

Why Kerry Must Win #20
caption contest countdowny Must Win #20

Thanks to Jeff Hardison for this dandy.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The Constitution recognizes rights, it doesn't give them

A fantastic historical article submitted to Buzzflash that details the modern erosion of the founding fathers' vision of constitutional rights. So much so, that many of the Fathers didn't even want to include a Bill of Rights, because these rights were so obvious to everyone....Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton's arguments about future generations forgetting or "foolishly electing" tyrannical leaders, is downright scary in their accuracy of foresight.

some excerpts (but you really should read the whole thing):

In an eerie juxtaposition during the second presidential debate, both George W. Bush and Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia - each in their own sort of code - were saying at the same time that if Bush is elected in 2004, women who get abortions will probably face criminal prosecutions, and our rights of privacy will evaporate.

In a bizarre re-writing of American history, Scalia advocated the new conservative doctrine he calls "originalism," to which he and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas subscribe. According to Scalia and Thomas, the government gives us rights. And, they say, if rights weren't explicitly written into the Constitution, they don't exist.

As the AP article noted: "Abortion, gay rights and the 'right to die' are best left to the legislative and executive branches, he [Scalia] said. 'You want a right to abortion? ... Pass a law.'"

In his belief that we get our rights from our government, Scalia is more closely following the logic of dictators and theocrats than of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.

Until Scalia and Thomas came along, modern Supreme Court justices generally understood that we don't get our rights from laws. Civil and human rights don't even come from the Constitution - as the Declaration of Independence notes, they pre-existed it.

in the minds of the Founders, we are born with rights by the simple fact of existence, as identified by John Locke and others in the 1600s, and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution - or Scalia, or any government - can hand to us.

Thomas Jefferson, however, foreseeing a time when the concepts fundamental to the founding of America were forgotten by people like Scalia, Thomas, and Bush, began to agitate for at least a rudimentary statement of rights as amendments to the Constitution, laying out those main areas where government could, at the minimum, never intrude into our lives.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights - it acknowledges that We The People are the sole holders of rights. We don't need to "pass a law" to have rights.

Yet despite all the documentary evidence - from the Declaration of Independence, to the Federalist Papers, to the Constitution's own Preamble, to the letters of our nations Founders and Framers - Scalia continues to insist that we only have rights if he can find them written down in the Constitution.

With no right to privacy, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and PATRIOT Act provisions wouldn't infringe on a non-existent right.

Why Kerry Must Win #21
caption contest countdown

Monday, October 11, 2004

Why Kerry Must Win #22
caption contest countdown