Jon Stewart: Smart-Ass or Modern-Day Prophet?

For well over six years now my wife and I have faithfully watched "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". What we have seen take place during those years is nothing short of a metamorphosis from what many considered to be an above average stand-up comic with a gift for interviewing guests to an often irreverent but essential disseminator of information to an audience, the majority of whom neither had the intellectual prowess to understand what he was saying, or the sophistication to care what the ramifications of the program’s material content portended. But, whether the bulk of his audience got it or not, the rest of us not only got it, but applauded, for what might have been initially thought of in its early days as nothing more than a stand in and filler for "South Park" addicts and "Chappelle Show" devotees, has become, ironically enough, THE most topical and informative program on cable television today. Fake news has now trumped “real” news to the dismay of the established “real” news networks, and all I can say is WTF?

How did this admitted pot smoking, smart-ass, stand-up comic, whose crowning achievement was the B-movie flop "Death To Smoochy", rise to such heights? The fact that collectively CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC and CBS can’t do in 24 hours what Stewart does in thirty minutes, should appall any and all who have even a minute interest in the day’s events. Honestly, would any network news program have dared done to Mad Money’s Jim Cramer what Stewart did in his now infamous March 12th interview? http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4668112/12478589

I doubt it. And therein lies the problem. Jon Stewart has ascended to the lofty status of political hatchet man extraordinaire more as a result of an industry’s incompetence and indifference than on the merits of his talent. Not that he isn’t funny and salient, but the fact that he is one of the few courageous voices on television challenging politicians on both sides of the political aisle, as well as taking on the very industry tasked with reporting on their actions in the first place is a sign that something very serious is wrong with the mainstream media. Jon Stewart, for better or worse, has now become the guardian of journalistic integrity. Take out PBS, which does, on a whole, a very good job at reporting the news stories of the day, and the sad and painful truth is that among the rest of the media, you’d be hard-pressed to find enough qualified “journalists" doing the job they were hired to do to fill a small row boat.

Shameful would be a word in a half. How did this travesty happen? As Steve alluded to in one of his comments to my Tim Russert piece two weeks ago corporations now control much if not all of the media reporting that goes on in this country. That isn’t to suggest that parent companies restrict news directors from what they can or can’t report on, but it would be naïve to believe that corporate bottom lines don’t ultimately have the final say in which shows air and when, which stories get promoted, and how “tough” the actual reporting will be. Witness the interview that John King of CNN did with former Vice President Dick Chenney last March. King might just as well have phoned it in as it were. Not once during the entire interview did King challenge Chenney’s assertions. Can you imagine Jon Stewart laying down for that interview? Corporations care most about profits not truth-finding. News shows that show reporters digging in their heals and challenging guests on the truthfulness of their answers may win the respect of colleagues and academicians, but when the average guy in the street turns the channel for a softer, more palatable program, profits plunge. So the message is report, yes, but don’t dig too deep, lest ye lose corporate sponsors.

And you wonder why the Right has been touting the abolishment of Public Broadcasting for years. Were it not for National Public Radio and Television, I dare say most if not all of us would be getting our information from the BBC.

So, for now, we have Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer, and maybe a handful of others standing in the way of total mediocrity. Edward R. Murrow must be spinning around in his grave over the condition of the industry he helped create in the 1950s. In deed in a speech he gave in 1958 to the RTNDA the warning he issued is both ominous and, I’m afraid to say, self-fulfilling. Below is an excerpt from that speech:

“Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

"For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

"I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.”

What we desperately need today is a latter day Edward R. Murrow, who calls it as he sees it, doesn’t back down, and who challenges the powers that be. In lieu of someone rising up to recapture the mantle that Murrow built in what currently passes for the mass media in this country, looks like we’ll have to settle for Jon Stewart.

Pro Life vs. Pro Choice: An interesting dialogue.


Below is a link to a discussion between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that I got from Steve. I agree with the comments made by Jim Wallis. Why can't there be more thoughtful discussions on this admittedly provocative subject?



http://blog.sojo.net/2009/06/24/jon-stewart-and-mike-huckabee-on-abortion/

Time for the Neo-cons To Take A Hike

The events in Iran over the last few days have stirred emotions in all of us. It would be impossible not to be moved by the violence take is taking place in cities like Tehran. Unquestionably the election results were fixed so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would win in a landslide; it is obvious that he has the backing of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as the Majlis – the Iranian equivalent of a legislative body. It is equally obvious to all with eyes that this is a test for the American government, and for once we have a president who is passing the test.

The last thing the United States needs to do is get involved in the internal affairs of another Middle Eastern country. Despite what conservatives and Republicans – it is getting more and more difficult to tell them apart these days isn’t it? – are saying, President Barack Obama has chosen wisely to not bite on the apple of intervention. He has condemned the violence without taking sides. He has chosen to let the Iranian people fight their own revolution, if that’s what in deed happens.

The truth is we have had a deplorable track record with respect to the Middle East. We badly overestimated our presence in Afghanistan, needlessly invaded Iraq, and inflamed the passions of countless millions of Muslims around the world against us, who see us as invaders and occupiers of their holy land.

What we need now is restraint and patience, not more of the same disasters that have been the stuff of countless failed neo-con game plans. When are we finally going to get it through our thick skulls that the United States is NOT welcomed in this part of the world; that we have earned our badly scarred reputation, and that by staying the hell out of a conflict and not inflicting our own brand of democracy, things do have a way of working out? If we want someone to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East all we have to do is look in the mirror. It was our support of the Shaw of Iran that brought about the revolution of 1979. The whole 444 days episode that helped bring about the end of the Carter Administration in 1980 could have been avoided had we simply stayed out of Iranian affairs in the first place.

And now the people of Iran will decide which course of action to take. If we truly desire democracy than let’s do our part by not sticking our nose in places where it doesn’t belong. The religious authorities are paranoid about what the West will do and are looking for any excuse to blame us. Let’s not give them that excuse. For once let’s let our principles and values speak louder than our bombastic voices and our military might. The President’s wisdom is the correct path; for our sake let’s hope the rest of our leaders get it.

Alternative Politics: The Moderates are Coming! The Moderates are Coming!


For those of you who have been growing concerned that there seems to be only two political viewpoints being articulated in the nation - the extreme Left and the extreme Right - I found this article by David Brooks in The New York Times on March 2nd of this year. While I don't agree with all of Brooks' concerns or conclusions, and would definitely position myself to the left of his stances, I admire his intellect and his passion. I therefore thought the article deserved to be included in this blog. What we really need is an open and honest debate on the issues, free of the ideologues that too often poison our minds with narrow-minded and defeatist attitudes.


A Moderate Manifesto


By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 2, 2009

You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.


But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.


So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.


The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.


The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.


The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.


The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.


Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”


Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.


Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.


The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.


But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.


Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.


They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity.


If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes.

Remembering Russert



It was one year ago this past weekend that Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, died suddenly of a heart attack. His loss dealt a staggering blow to an industry that has struggled to replace, in vain, his journalistic integrity.

Russert was a throwback, a diamond in the rough and a maverick among his peers. Respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and equally feared, Russert became an iconic figure in American culture, as well as the very face of politics itself in Washington. His no-nonsense, non-partisan style of interviewing was refreshing to watch, especially in lieu of what usually passed for the plethora of weekly programs that his competition felt obliged to produce.

Throughout the 2008 presidential primary campaigns, Russert was, if nothing else, relentless in asking the tough, probing questions that few, if any, of his contemporaries had the stomach to ask. He was a devout Catholic, but he never let his faith interfere with his interviewing technique. He had no patience for tabloid journalism, which sadly has risen to almost epic proportions throughout the 24-hour news channels. He equally had little love or use for pandering to prominent politicians who appeared on Meet the Press. He had a job to do, and that was getting at the truth, no matter how excruciating it might be for the guest. He felt he owed it to the viewers, as well as to his guests, to be both tough and fair-minded, and the results spoke for themselves.

Over the last twelve months many have speculated what the political landscape would’ve looked like had Russert not been cut down so tragically; sadly we will never know. What we do know is that his like will never be seen again, at least not for quite some time. His successor on Meet the Press, David Gregory, has done a credible and competent job, but has not come close to replacing Russert.

For my part, what I miss most is how superbly Russert cut to the chase and forced so many of his guests to admit to mistakes or misjudgments that lesser journalists would’ve winced at. He was the ultimate gotcha journalist in an industry that loves the likes of a Larry King and who sought a kinder, don’t rock the boat approach from its “professionals.”

That he is still revered by so many one year after his passing is a tribute to the man’s authenticity and accomplishments; that no one has come close to replacing him speaks volumes for the industry he loved so much and worked so hard at dignifying.

The Garden and the Journey: Making Sense Out of Genesis.

I have always been fascinated by the attention so many Christians pay towards the book of Genesis. It is a book, like Revelation, that has been the center of attention of biblical scholars for centuries, not to mention the subject of countless controversies. St. Augustine devoted an entire book on the subject, aptly titled “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” in 415 AD.

We all heard the account, either in Sunday school, or as in my case, Catechism. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, resting on the seventh day. His crowning achievement, man, was created on day six, though we’re not quite sure when he created woman. He told the man and woman (Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and increase in number.

Everything was going according to plan until the serpent (Satan) tricked Eve into eating from the “forbidden” tree. Eve then tricked Adam into doing the same, and thus “The Fall” occurred. Adam and Eve were banished from paradise and all their descendents have had the stain of original sin ever since.

Literalists – those who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis – are convinced that everything happened just like it was written. The heavens and earth and all that we see were created in six actual days; that there were two actual people named Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that their first two children were Cain and Able; and from these two individuals – both men by the way – all civilization descended.

Those who take a more literary stance, suggest that the biblical account of creation is more a sonnet than an actual historical account, much like popular songs of today with verses and refrains. Adam and Eve are more symbolic characters meant to represent not so much the origin of man like some genealogical lineage but rather mankind in general. The Garden of Eden is less a place than a state of being in which man was given the choice to live under God’s will or to choose to go his own way. The serpent represents the dilemma of free will and the apple represents what happens when we chose unwisely.

The journey that is Man’s is always played out in the biblical account of Genesis, for this is where so many literalists go awry. The Garden is not some mythical place that we need to search for like the Ark. It is found within our hearts and minds. For every day of our lives – in deed every waking minute – we are given the choice to live under God’s will for us, or to eat of the apple and proceed under our own unaided will. The expulsion from Eden is our choice, just as it is our choice to come back into right relationship with God. It is both the blessing and curse of that ultimate gift called free will. We get to choose whether we will live in peace under the guidance of a loving God or to toil and struggle with the sin that exists within our hearts and pay the ultimate price: separation.

The most interesting thing about the biblical account of Genesis that often goes unmentioned is that God could’ve roped off the forbidden tree making it impossible for Eve to get to; instead he left it totally accessible. Thus God introduced temptation to us. And like those two fabled individuals whose constitution failed them when it was needed most, we too fail when tested. Our struggle is not with the forbidden fruit, but with what it represents. Deep down, man has always struggled with submission. We often think of it has defeat. What we have deep down always craved is to be as powerful as God. Our demons are those lies that we listen to that tell us we don’t need any help, least of all from some God who only seeks to rule our lives and kill our joy. We can have it all without any consequences; all we have to is move away from God (eat the apple) and be our own gods.

Simple and equally false. The enemy is not some mythical serpent in paradise but rather our own arrogance; and that arrogance leads to our own individual falls as we misuse that which God gave us freely. In short we are given the keys to freedom but instead prefer imprisonment. But escape, like a get out of jail free card, is available anytime we seek it. For in the final analysis the garden was never taken from us; we walked out of it with our eyes wide open. We can always return to it any time we choose. It is a choice we have been given by a God who knew all too well what we were capable of and who, in spite of our sinful ways, still loves us and wants us back in the fold.

Who Is To Blame?
Domestic Terrorism and the Anti-Abortion Lunatics Who Encourage It.

Whatever your personal views on abortion, know this: the murder of Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of the Reformation Church in Wichita, Kansas this past Sunday by Scott Roeder was nothing short of an act of domestic terror. No building was brought down, or jet hijacked, or car bomb detonated. And yet, the forces that brought about this hideous act of violence within the supposed safe confines of a church sanctuary are as diabolical as the actions of those who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. For in the final analysis, Scott Roeder was merely a pawn used by those to achieve their ends by any means necessary.

And who is to blame? All of us, that’s who. Like so many other conscientious Christians, I have written many times about the inability or unwillingness of the Church to call out the Pharisees within its ranks, to no avail. The result has been a myopic, almost single-minded movement that has taken root and come to represent what to many unbelievers is the predominant voice in Christianity. A voice which is neither predominant, nor representative of the Body of Christ.

Sick, twisted individuals like Randall Terry, who founded “Operation Rescue” in 1987, and who basically ran out on his first wife, have gone out of their way to rile up their minions to fever pitch and helped set in motion the events which culminated in Tiller’s murder. He and his ilk are as guilty as the lunatic who pulled the trigger. But all of us are culpable as well. Our silence and, yes, indifference allowed the rage against Tiller and other doctors like him to build to fever pitch, until there was no place for it to go.

When these hate-filled organizations encourage acts of violence against doctors just because they perform a procedure that is offensive to them, where is the indignation from the true believers? Did Jesus kill or encourage the killing of those who sinned? Of course not. Just the opposite. Christ loved the sinners of his time, and was more often than not seen with them. It was the proud and righteous - the religious elders – that he shunned.

2,000 years later it is still no different. Witness the statement that Terry issued immediately after the shooting. “George Tiller was a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”

Where is the humility or the mercy of Christ? There is not even a miniscule of regret for his own role in inciting the very act. The word “peacefully” is comical in its context. No one who has ever had to contend with such venom would ever mistake such actions for those of peace-minded and God-loving folk. Such individuals are psychotic, nothing more, nothing less; as psychotic as the hijackers who flew those planes into the Twin Towers almost eight years ago. Worse, for the Islamic extremists who felt compelled to hate us enough to go to such lengths to kill us did not know any better. Theirs was an ideology and a philosophy that blinded them to the truth that all men are children of God. Christians, it is said, are supposed to know better. Our bible commands us to love one another, even those who do things that we consider sinful. We are to hate the sin, not the sinner.

And as long as we allow those who hate and condemn to death the sinner without reproach, and in the process allow them to define our faith for us in the eyes of the world, we will forever have the stain of innocent blood on our hands. Now is the time for all of us to speak out against this insanity; to rise up in righteous rage, like Christ did when he discovered his father’s temple was being misused. You needn’t have approved of what George Tiller did for a living to be outraged by his murder. That people who do not call themselves Christian get that is the irony or ironies; that many of our flock sadly do not is the shame of our faith.