How cute-as-a-button was Daniel Radcliffe (aka Harry Potter) on The Daily Show? Love how modest his is. (Amy Poehler lives in his building and he was adorable when he talked about her.) I hope his post-Potter career flourishes.
NY Magazine: The Best of Coach Taylor’s Inspiring Speeches
I’m really gonna miss Coach Taylor. Aren’t y'all?
Julie & Julia Still Inspires
The other night while flipping through the TV stations, I came across the movie Julie & Julia and decided to watch it again with my two sons (selectively muting the volume when I remembered that a cuss word was coming up or for one part of the film where Julia Child’s sex life was discussed by blogger Julie Powell). The film provided me with inspiration all over again, even on this third viewing. (I've also read both Powell’s book and Child’s memoir about her time in Paris.)
For Julia Child to create for herself a culinary and TV career from scratch in her late 30s and 40s, and to be doggedly persistent about it over a series of years, in the face of numerous obstacles and rejections, gives you hope, or at least it gives me hope for my quest to get my freshly completed manuscript published. It was sweet when my boys recognized this and said, “That’ll be you Mom!” when Julia Child, at long last, finally received that letter saying a publisher who wanted to publish her book.
The Mentalist Freshman Season
This past winter my eldest son and I happened upon The Mentalist one night when just he and I were home and we decided to give the show with the weird name a whirl. Turns out, we liked that quirky, suave fellow, Patrick Jane, and decided to give another Mentalist episode a try the following week. And we were hooked on the solved-in-an-hour drama.
After its extraordinarily tense season finale in May featuring the illusive Red John, I told my son that this summer, we’d go back to the beginning and learn Patrick’s backstory and how this Red John tale unfolded. The season one DVD has arrived, and the kid is now itchin’ to break into it. Patience, grasshopper.
In my house, the first well attended Republican debate on CNN got short shrift because we were all watching the Boston Bruins playoff game, though I watched highlights of the debate later. (It did indeed pain this political junkie to miss watching the debate live.)
Didn't think this was CNN's John King's most shining moment, but with the debate I think we can safely say that the 2012 presidential election is finally under way. Which of course means that The Daily Show's Jon Stewart has to take aim and satirize the crap out of it. And man, did he have some fat targets. This is going to be one weird election.
How is it possible to laugh at this sad, sad Weinter-Gate situation that's so patently and bizarrely insane?
Watch The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart take a stab at what his staff is calling, “The Wangover,” and place the hullabaloo into its surreal context. (Note: Stewart was once a quasi-roommate of Rep. Anthony Weiner's, actually Stewart shared an apartment with Weiner’s then-girlfriend.)
Measly Local News Coverage = More Gov’t Power, Potential Abuses
On a more serious note . . . When I was but a mere cub newspaper reporter and was assigned to cover a small town, I was given this advice: Get to know the people who work in the various departments in the town, particularly the administrative assistants, back then called secretaries. So I routinely checked in with departments and chatted folks up. I made sure to find out what happened at all the public meetings the boards/departments had if I hadn’t been able to attend them in person. In essence, I covered any given town to which I had been assigned, like the proverbial blanket.
That’s no longer the case for newspaper reporters as their staffs shrink and resources are pulled away from local newsgathering. Plus, many local newspapers have shied away from having their reporters write stories about government meetings because they don’t think it makes for interesting reading in a hyper-competitive, 24/7 media landscape.
The result? People don’t necessarily know what the heck is going on inside Town Hall any more. Local elections get barely any coverage and information about candidates for elected offices is sparse while local newspapers’ space for news stories contracts. We, the voters, are left largely in the dark as to what our local elected officials are doing. Think about what happened in the city of Bell, California where, until a Los Angeles Times story last year, its city officials were receiving oversized salaries, like $100,000/year for part-time City Council positions and nearly $800,000 for the city manager. And this was in “one of the poorest cities in Los Angeles County,” the Times reported. If a local news reporter had been covering that city on a regular basis -- scouring proposed municipal budgets and attending budget hearings like reporters used to do -- the public outrage about what officials were proposing would've likely prevented those salaries from being approved in the first place.
Which brings us to a new study from the Federal Communications Commission which found, “Coverage of state governments and municipalities has receded at such an alarming pace that it has left government with more power than ever to set the agenda and have assertions unchallenged,” the New York Times reported.
The paper quoted the study’s author as saying, “The independent watchdog function that the Founding Fathers envisioned for journalism – going so far as to call it crucial to a healthy democracy – is in some cases at risk at the local level.” The FCC report cited the Bell, California case as an example of what happens when regular local reporting is cut.
I heartily concur that the dearth of local reporting will result in an ill-informed electorate and unchecked government power. Maybe folks like a local blogger I know -- who covers her hometown much more thoroughly and in depth than the local newspapers -- will step in and do the job that trained journalists used to do: Providing updates on what’s transpiring at Town Hall.
Several female pols prevailed in primary elections on Tuesday night, causing many pundits to grope around for some kind of clever, all-encompassing storyline around which they could wrap the election results, given that the anti-incumbency line didn't seem to work out too well. Invoking the term “Ladies Night” appeared to be the media favorite. Check out Jon Stewart’s take on the media’s gal power declaration on The Daily Show:
Obstructing Oil Spill News Coverage
Whenever I hear reports from BP execs and federal officials about the status of the Gulf coast oil spill, I’m pretty skeptical and assume that I’m not being told the whole story for whatever reason, figuring that the money and political capital at stake, prohibiting the real story from coming out. So I give a jaundiced eye to their reports about how much oil is really being released into the Gulf of Mexico and the true impact of it -- and the chemical dispersants -- on the environment and the economy. I prefer, instead, to sample a variety of news reports from organizations which lean left, right and somewhere in the middle to try to get a real sense of what’s going on.
Then I read this story on the front page of the New York Times today, about BP and government officials obstructing the media’s access to affected areas, including threatening a New York Daily News reporter and a CBS News crew with arrest for trying to gain access to a public beaches where oil was washing ashore. The Times reported:
“Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.”
Yeah, this is comforting.
Goodbye ‘Chevy’
Also on page one of today’s New York Times, is a piece about how G.M. execs want to stop using the nickname “Chevy” for their vehicles, preferring, instead, to use the full, formal name, “Chevrolet.”
“On Tuesday, G.M. sent a memo to Chevrolet employees at its Detroit headquarters, promoting the importance of ‘consistency’ for the brand, which was the nation’s best-selling line of cars and trucks for more than half a century after World War II,” the Times reported. "And one way to present a consistent brand message, the memo suggested, is to stop saying 'Chevy,' though the word is one of the world's best-known, longest-lived product nicknames."
Bet that’ll go over about as well as when federal government officials tried to re-label the swine flu by the more clinical, “H1N1 disease.”
Is ‘Feminism’ Label for Liberals Only?
There’s been a spirited debate over the past few weeks spawned by the fact that Sarah Palin has started embracing the word “feminist.”
Several bloggers for feminist/liberal-leaning writers took great umbrage to Palin claiming this word as her own, pointing, in particular, to their belief that if a woman does not favor abortion rights, she can’t be considered a feminist. Writing in the Washington Post, Jessica Valenti wrote, “Palin's ‘feminism’ isn't just co-opting the language of the feminist movement, it's deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women's rights.”
“There has to be a move toward ownership from other Democrats, from those women and men who have perhaps not yet named themselves feminists . . . but who also do not want to see ‘women's rights’ come to mean the exaltation of fetal life over female life and religion over science, who don't want to see ‘women's liberation’ divorced from notions of equal opportunity and instead reframed as Ayn Rand-ian survival of the richest or most privileged.”
Meanwhile others have pushed back against the outcry over the notion that conservatives are calling themselves feminists including writer Cathy Young who tossed out the most recent volley on this subject in the Boston Globe:
"Who owns feminism today? Many feminists are incensed when the label is appropriated by women who question the Violence Against Women Act, or who argue that the pay differential between women and men is due largely to women’s more family-focused personal choices, not discrimination. Yet critiques of the conventional feminist paradigms of such problems as domestic violence and the gender gap in pay have been made both by many dissident feminists and by many scholars and researchers. To reject them out of hand as incompatible with feminism is not only ideologically intolerant, it also suggests an unwillingness to even consider factual claims that are at odds with dogma.
. . . Yet the audience for a different kind of feminism — one that seeks individualistic and market-oriented solutions, rather than big-government-driven ones, and focuses on women’s empowerment rather than oppression — is clearly there. The women who embrace it are likely to transform both feminism and conservatism. The feminist movement ignores them at its peril."
As millions of gallons of oil gush from the out-of-control BP oil line which has been polluting the Gulf of Mexico since April, killing wildlife, destroying ecosystems, as well as devastating Gulf Coast businesses and livelihoods across a large swath of American coastline (never mind the long-term impact of the toxins used to disperse the oil dumped by the millions of gallons into the ocean), and nobody seems to have any clue as to what they’re doing about how to stop the leak, never mind how to deal with what’s already out there.
Pumping mud and junk -- tires and golf balls -- into the pipe to stop it up? Might work in your kitchen pipes but didn’t work with this pipe, one with no working “off” switch. (This “junk shot” approach, ditched after putting a hat/cap over the pipeline failed, sounded like something Wile E. Coyote might attempt while using Acme brand mud and tires.)
In the meantime, President Obama’s promises to devote his utmost attention to solving this, as well as applying the power of the federal government to the BP execs, have rung hollow. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of many critics, has been highly critical of the president’s perceived lack of passion and anger, fury which is felt by Americans who are watching horrifying scenes play out on TV and online via the dreadfully depressing oil spill live feed. Today Dowd wrote:
“It’s not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water.
One little hole a mile down on the ocean floor, so deep it seems like hell spewing up its sulfurous smoke, has turned the thrilling saga of The One into the gurgling horror of The Abyss.
. . . With as much as 34 million gallons of oil inking the Gulf of Mexico, ‘Yes we can’ has been downgraded to ‘Will we ever?’”
Ouch. Political satirist Jon Stewart took on the issue with aplomb, devoting two segments to the issue on The Daily Show.
Oh, and as for the diamond saw Stewart mentioned, latest reports coming from the bottom of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico: The damn saw is STUCK! BP seems like it should be re-branded as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Two Jon Stewart videos in one week . . . unheard of for this web site. But when there's so much news, particularly of the political type, Stewart generally comes through. I can only hope Saturday Night Live is half as good this weekend. This week has been so packed with great political material, SNL HAS to be good, right?
Anyway, back to Stewart . . . earlier this week, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann launched a vicious verbal attack against GOP U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown. When people complained, he came back the next night and added more fuel to the fire. Last night, Stewart ripped into Olbermann:
While I liked Stewart's bit, I still think that Ben Affleck's SNL parody was better:
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart is ticked . . . totally ticked, angry, really, with the Democrats for bungling the Massachusetts race for U.S. Senate, a race that was, just a month ago, purported to be a lock for the Democratic candidate.
Noting that the president on Sunday injected himself (and by extension the fate of the health care bill) into the race which is perceived to be going down in flames for the Democrats, the left-leaning Stewart went ballistic last night and asked how "a naked guy who drives a truck" could be poised to win the seat formerly held by Senator Ted Kennedy, adding, "It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess, it's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs."
Jon Stewart used the opening minutes of his first 2010 episode of The Daily Show to eviscerate the U.S. intelligence community for failing to stop the guy with the "Doomsday underpants" who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane on Christmas day.
As he detailed the information that various intelligence officials had in hand prior to the alleged underpants bomber setting foot on the plane, Stewart was incredulous, particularly about the fact that the alleged bomber's father went to U.S. authorities to warn them that his son had become radicalized and posed a security threat.
"I too have a tendency to ignore messages from Nigerian bankers who wish to help me," Stewart quipped, "but when they show up in person and aren’t asking for a money order but instead turning in their own son maybe that conversation doesn’t get filed under 'spam.'”
Saying that the one-way, paid-with-cash plane ticket coupled with no checked luggage should've been an obvious "hey dudes pull me out of line" clue to security officials, Stewart added, "It’s December, he’s going from Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detriot without a coat? With a one-way ticket? Do you think he’s going to Detroit to start a better life? What do you think he’s going there because he thinks there are lots of jobs?"
To illustrate the horrific absurdity of the situation, Stewart used an action figure to dramatize how not much has changed in the eight years since a man -- who also had a one-way ticket paid for with cash and checked no luggage -- used the same type of explosives as the Christmas day underwear bomber, only the explosives were moved up from the shoes to the underwear.
When I read that officials apparently think that the answer to underwear and shoe bombers is to take quasi-naked images of airline passengers and make everyone sit in their seats for the last hour of a flight, I know I feel super-safe. Not.
There's a reason that's a cliche Governor Sanford. And, as a married father of four boys, it's one you should've heeded some time ago before your name evoked tsking and dark humor from coast to coast.
First you disappeared and the cable news networks became like animated milk cartons, bearing your likeness, age and the location where you were last seen. There were reports from your office saying you were hiking on the Appalachian Trail. Then, lo and behold, when a reporter found you at an Atlanta airport and you lied about what you'd been doing. Eventually the world learned that you'd been in Argentina to visit your lover.
If Sanford, once considered a potential GOP presidential candidate, has any political advis0rs left, my best guess is that they're headed for Wasilla where their job would seem easy by comparison.
Jon Stewart, among other commentators, had an amusing take on Sanford's inability to keep his mouth shut.
The events which are unfolding in the wake of the disputed Iranian presidential election are being documented by a multitude of web sites, from streams of tweets from Twitter, videos from YouTube and stories from news organizations which are struggling to adhere to the recent Iranian crackdowns on the media's transmission of video from the streets. It is, in a word, stunning.
I've been watching coverage of the five days' worth of election protests on cable news, on video feeds from news web sites and have read stories from newspapers, as well as tweets from Iran. Several things about this historic struggle to grab hold of democracy -- and a vote tally that actually bears a resemblance to an accurate count of the ballots -- struck me:
Silent Protest
Imagine people walking through the streets -- thousands and thousand of them -- there to protest an election they believe has been taken from them. And they walk in silence, holding their hands up in the peace sign, trying not to raise the ire of government riot police with whom some protesters have violently clashed over recent days. The video below captured the silent protest:
Years Ending in "9"
While reading a column in the Boston Globeby Jeff Jacoby today -- which compared the reaction of President Obama to the unrest in Iran, to President George H. W. Bush's muted response to the democratic protests in China 20 years ago ("In reacting to the recent Iranian election and to the protests that erupted after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the runaway victor, the Obama White House seems to be taking a page from the elder Bush's 1989 playbook.") -- I found it oddly intriguing that the Chinese uprising was in 1989 and the previous unrest in Iran occurred in 1979.
"The Revolution Had Begun."
The Boston Globehas on its web site a dispatch from Tehran from a participant of one of the large protests. It's riveting reading:
". . . [T]he crowd did not consist of young men, but housewives, seniors, businessmen wearing suits, even children. There was blood on many of them. They were walking downhill towards the Interior Ministry, determined and in force. The wave that had taken over Iran and partied in the streets into the morning for the last few weeks was now an army on the move. As I stood in place trying to figure out what I was seeing, I noticed shopkeepers shutting down and joining the flock. People were also chanting on the sidelines, 'down with the dictator,' referring to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, while the crowd chanted 'join us proud Iranians, join us, join us.' The crowd was growing by the moment."
The Daily Show Goes to Iran
Further blurring the lines between news, entertainment and journalism, Comedy Central's The Daily Show is sending the same guy who cut the New York Times to shreds last week, to Iran in a series of reports called, "Access of Evil."
Jon Stewart had a brutal take on how CNN has been covering the breaking news in Iran, given the restrictions placed on American journalists by the Iranian government. Mocking their reliance on "unverified material," Stewart also skewered the Iranian government's election tallying techniques.
Did the New York Times staffers who agreed to participate in a recent Daily Show segment about the future of the dying newspaper industry realize that the Daily Show is all about SATIRE? Did they not expect wacky questions? Sharp hey-dude-you're-so-toast darts to be thrown their way?
It doesn't appear as though those thoughts crossed their minds when they decided to partake in the piece. Judge for yourself by watching the segment below, a scathing portrait of out-of-touch editors, though Executive Editor Bill Keller's comment about how the Huffington Post can't and doesn't have bureaus in far-flung and dangerous locales because it doesn't have the money to do so was interesting, but only to a limited degree because you know what, the NYT shouldn't be bragging about having more money than anyone else right now, particularly when they're threatening to shutter the Boston Globe (which already eliminated a lot of its foreign bureaus because of costs) because of red ink. That last joke, about what's black and white and red all over: Killer. (Link to the video here):
Stewart and Scarborough Go Mano-a-Mano . . . Through Their TV Shows
I've been monitoring this (manufactured?) controversy between the Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough. (For the record, I'm a fan of both guys and their shows.) In a nutshell, Morning Joe recently decided to team up with Starbucks as a sponsor, seeing as though the anchors, Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are conspicuous consumers of Starbucks products during their news casts. This made them big, fat, irresistible targets for spoofing. Cue: Stewart. This resulted in the anchors going back and forth was various and sundry sniping.
Yesterday, in discussing Stewart, Scarborough called him an angry man and suggested he had a Napoleon complex. Stewart responded last night by calling Scarborough "watered down and stupid" and then did a skit which I'd venture to say was funnier in the writers' room than in its execution. Stewart brought out all manner of faux-branded coffee products -- like a box of "Taster's Choice" tissues -- had mascara running down his face while he pretended to cry, fled the stage, asking for his Napoleon hat and coat as he climbed on top of a small horse. When he was "talked back" into returning to the stage, he did so shouting, "Rage on! Rage on!" (Link to the video here.)
That's the question du jour regarding Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin's recent appearance at a New York Yankees game, where she brought her 14-year-old daughter along with her. Letterman made jokes about a Palin daughter, including about A-Rod knocking up a Palin daughter during the game, and about keeping a Palin daughter away from disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Why do I keep saying, "a Palin daughter?" Because the 14-year-old daughter was the one in New York at the game with her mom but, apparently, Letterman thought it was the 18-year-old daughter who recently had a baby, the one who was on the cover of People Magazine with her infant. Last night, Letterman explicitly said that he wasn't talking about the 14-year-old. He said he was talking about the 18-year-old. But that's not exactly how it came across when he told the jokes.
Palin got ticked. Told him off indirectly by spouting off to journalists and issuing a statement, which resulted in Letterman issuing a caustic clarification last night which, I guess in a comedian's world, constitutes an apology of some sort. During Morning Joe this morning and later on The View, the question was raised by Brzezinski and by Elisabeth Hasselbeck as to whether Letterman would've gone after Palin's teenaged kids if she were a Democrat instead of a very conservative Republican. Barbara Walters added during The View's discussion that politicians' children should be off the table as far as lampooning goes, unlike panelist Joy Behar who said that because the Palins "traipsed" her pregnant daughter out in public, the family deserves what it gets. (See The View debate here.)
UPDATE: While listening to various folks discuss the Letterman/Palin situation this afternoon, I heard a local radio commentator make an interesting analogy: Invoking the suspension of MSNBC's David Shuster in 2008 after he suggested that twentysomething Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by her mother as she went out on the campaign trail talking up Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, the commentator asked why Shuster was suspended for making a comment about an adult and used the words "I apologize," while some folks are brushing off Letterman's comments about a 14-year-old daughter of a Republican vice presidential nominee.
It was so brutal last night, when Jon Stewart absolutely destroyed CNBC's Jim Cramer's will to live during his Daily Showinterview that I almost felt badly for Cramer. Thought he'd burst into tears at any moment. He was reduced to a quivering shell. (The first part of the three-part interview is below, link here.)
Several interview post-mortems have called Stewart a new kind of fearless media critic who's doing the work that the "real" journalists won't do, which is holding pundits accountable for what they say on the air and for the impact of those words on others. In the case of the CNBC analysts (Cramer, et al), Stewart's point was that when they urge people to "Buy! Buy! Buy!" stocks in certain companies, people listen because CNBC bills itself as the place for insightful business news from experts in the field. But when their prognostications go awry, the commentators don't own the responsibility for their words . . . until Stewart skewers them, as was Cramer's case last night. THEN they finally admit that mistakes were made.
The Atlantic'sJames Fallows, author of a fantastic book on the media called Breaking the News, likened Stewart's interview with Cramer to interviews by the ground-breaking Edward R. Murrow, noting, "I thought Stewart, without excessive showboating, did the journalistic sensibility proud."
The New York Times' media reporter Brian Stelter observed: "Mr. Stewart questioned Mr. Cramer about the perception that CNBC acts as a cheerleader for the investment community. 'The financial news industry is not just guilty of a sin of omission but a sin of commission,' Mr. Stewart said. Mr. Cramer agreed that he made a number of faulty predictions over the years."
The Associated Press described Stewart as "hammering" Cramer and telling the commentator that the fall-out from his and his colleagues' bad predictions was no joke. AP reported:
"Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesmen, only The Daily Show is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative 'powerful tool of illumination.' And he alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered -- that regular people's stocks and 401Ks were 'capitalizing your adventure.'"
This interview harkened back to Stewart's obliteration of CNN's Crossfire in 2004 where the comedian called the political pundits on the carpet for contributing nothing but negativism and bile to our national political discussions and asked them to just "stop." He was as ruthless then as he was last night. (FYI: The quality of the video below isn't great.)
I'm a regular viewer of political chat shows. Morning Joe. This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Fox News Sunday. Meet the Press (a shell of its former self from the Russert years). Hardball with Chris Matthews. But this particular interview, aired on COMEDY Central, was one of the toughest and on-the-money interviews I've seen in some time, even tougher than Katie Couric's Sarah Palin piece. When I turned off my TV last night, I was still stunned by what I'd witnessed.
Let me first say this: I'm a big fan of Morning Joe. Love the camaraderie between Joe and Mika. Love the in-depth political conversations in which they engage that sometimes sound like discussions you might overhear in a bar at 12:20 in the morning. I'm a bigggg fan.
Last week, I laughed my fanny off at Jon Stewart's lambasting of CNBC -- Rick Santelli in particular -- for what Stewart saw as aggressive market cheerleading, urging people to buy stocks from companies that, not too long after the buy recommendations were made, collapsed.
When I heard Joe Scarborough yesterday morning talking about Stewart with CNBC's Jim Cramer (Joe felt Stewart was unfairly targeting his CNBC colleagues and cherry-picking prognostications just to make them look foolish), I knew it would get ugly. Cramer, who also appeared on the Today Show that morning, wasn't pleased with Stewart either.
Which, of course, only prodded Stewart to attack anew, and brilliantly, I might add, particularly the part at the end of the segment below (link here) where he had Dora the Explorer weighed in on the war between cable network personalities while Dora's pet monkey Boots offered to throw feces at Joe and Cramer.
Tangential question: Why is Jon Stewart doing the job that the news media should be doing?
The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert lampooned professional media prognosticators -- the same ones skewered by Jon Stewart -- who've been aggressively advising President Barack Obama to be more positive about our dour economic situation, despite the negative Dow numbers and layoff notices.
So Colbert interviewed CNBC's Jim Cramer (who was smacked around in Stewart's 8-minute anti-CNBC barrage on The Daily Show) while images of puppies and kittens ran behind Cramer's head. Colbert said the footage -- puppies frolicking in a meadow, with giant bows around their necks -- would make people feel more "comfortable" and possibly stop shoving all their money under their mattresses.
I couldn't stop laughing. (Link to the video here.)
I, like, the rest of the informed citizenry, have been greatly distressed about the economic news as of late. It's so dire and bleak. It seems as though a huge black hole has opened up and all these solid American companies (or companies we thought were solid and would be around forever, like Ford), are hurtling into it . . . that's when those companies aren't being thrown lifelines worth trillions of dollars in taxpayer money with no guarantee that the money will stave off further disaster. (The New York Timesbreaks down the sordid amounts here.)
Even the normally optimistic Brian Williams is so down in the dumps these days that at the end of his NBC Nightly News broadcast last night, he put out a call for viewers to send in feel good stories about folks who are doing good things for others so that he could report on something positive for a change.
Yes, it's gotten that bad.
Columns like Maureen Dowd's yesterday, detailing the obscene pork (8,000+ items including funds for "pig odor research," "catfish genetics research" and a tattoo removal program for gang members) in the proposed federal budget -- pork which Senator Obama said he'd eliminate when he was campaigning for president, but now that he's the Commander in Chief, he and his people are saying that the pork in this proposed budget is President Bush's fault, not his -- just make things feel hopeless.
Then I saw Jon Stewart. Thank God for Jon Stewart. I don't normally tune into The Daily Show, despite the constant pleadings of my friend Gayle who's a major Stewart fan. I usually watch local news at 11 p.m. and then go to bed. But I digress . . . Jon Stewart was supposed to have as a guest the now infamous CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, he of the much-ballyhooed rant against the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal and how it would reward bad behavior and help people who bought more house than they could afford, people who Santelli called "losers" who made bad decisions.
But Santelli canceled his Daily Show appearance. And I'm so glad he did.
What Stewart & Co. aired instead was a damningly hysterical and tragic indictment of how business journalists, specifically from CNBC, blew the coverage of this economic crisis, how they cheered on large businesses -- which are now receiving mucho bailout bucks -- and that the CNBC staff are no better than the "losers" who made bad home loan decisions. (Video link here.)
Sure, we may not know what the future holds and just how bad this economy will get, but at least we know we'll have guys like Stewart to make us laugh through our tears.
