Pangloss

Shoot, they've been doing that since 2006! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fusion_%28Americas%29

Or mislead into supporting a policy, e.g. "fining individuals for not buying insurance is not a tax" (the opposite now being the basis for the government's response to the various states' challenge to the law).

Fair enough, and I think a further look would be interesting. Unfortunately even this brief analysis took a couple of hours of re-watching old episodes and compiling the data, so I'll probably just leave it here, but I have no problem agreeing with the above. I don't think anyone disagrees that he's been critical of the President recently as well, and that could certainly be looked at as a separate "bucket". I think it's accurate for me to say that Stewart has spent almost as much time over the past two weeks criticizing Democrats and the President as he has spent criticizing Republicans. I think bascule's point that he has a clear beef with Republicans is also supported. So, regarding the title of the thread, and just to throw something out for more discussion: Does this data support the notion that, pursuant to his upcoming "Rally to Restore Sanity", Jon Stewart is making a generally non-partisan appeal for moderacy?

I think what most people had in mind was fixing a broken system, not making it "more socialized". Regarding whether his preferences should be seen as surprising, it's important to keep in mind that during the election he pushed moderacy and common ground. Though I think your point is still a good one; he may have tamped down his preferences (or he may not have), but he's a Democrat with a background of immersion amongst people obsessed with social justice and liberation theology, so perhaps we should have his more liberal side coming. (Not that I think that's a huge problem. I think the president's policies have been very transparent and well-communicated, as well as generally moderate.)

Over in another thread a question came up over whether Jon Stewart and The Daily Show have, lately, been as critical of Democrats as they have been of Republicans. Let's take a look at some data for the past two weeks. Stewart typically does two segments of "news" before a third segment featuring a guest. Sometimes the guest gets two segments, leaving only one "news" segment, and sometimes they do something else (like promoting their upcoming rallies). As it turns out, we have a total of 14 segments to assess over this most recent span. Thursday, September 30th (Guest: Justin Timberlake): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-30-2010-justin-timberlake - Segment 1 main focus: Secret hold on Haiti relief by Republican Tom Colburn. Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans. - Segment 2 main focus: Obama's backyard BBQ tour, "bored straight". Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama. Wednesday, September 29th (Guest: Linda Polman): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-29-2010-linda-polman - Segment 1 main focus: Enthusiasm gap not addressed by administration's criticism of "irresponsible" Democratic voters. Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama. - Segment 2 main focus: Democrat attack ads. Assessment: Primarily critical of Democrats. Tuesday, September 28th (Guest: Arianna Huffington): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-28-2010-arianna-huffington - Segment 1 main focus: Israel undermining peace process with settlements. Assessment: Neutral (international politics). - Segment 2 main focus: Running out of helium. Assessment: Neutral (no party focus). Monday, September 27th (Guest: Bill O'Reilly): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-27-2010-bill-o-reilly - Segment 1 main focus: Objections to Colbert congressional testimony from Democrats and Republicans. Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans (more GOP congresscritters shown than Dems). - Segment 2 main focus: None (extended guest segment with Bill O'Reilly). Thursday, September 23rd (Guest: King Abdullah): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-23-2010-king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan - Segment 1 main focus: US walkout during Ahmadinejad UN speach. Assessment: Neutral. (Mainly critical of Ahmadinejad.) - Segment 2 main focus: Republicans unveil their new ideas. Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans. Wednesday, September 22nd (Guest: Edward Norton): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-22-2010-edward-norton - Segment 1 main focus: Senate fails to repeal DADT, "Are we run by a**holes?". Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans. (Some criticism of Democrats but mainly aimed at GOP.) - Segment 2 main focus: "Recession over" declaration, some swipes at Fox News Channel and President Obama. Assessment: Neutral. Tuesday, September 21st (Guest: Sigourney Weaver): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-21-2010-sigourney-weaver - Segment 1 main focus: "Obama's kryptonite" (<sarcasm>"Just because she gave an incredibly reasonable critique of the Obama administration and cut to the very heart of this administration's greatest failings, so what? Who's she?" </sarcasm>) Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama, especially towards the end. - Segment 2 main focus: Promo for Rally to Restore Sanity. Assessment: Neutral. Monday, September 20th (Guest: Jimmy Carter): http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-20-2010-jimmy-carter - Segment 1 main focus: GOP jumps on Tea Party bandwagon. ("The Right Club") Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans. - Segment 2 main focus: Hillarious Asif Mahndvi segment exposing Union hypocrisy regarding part-time temporary picket workers. Assessment: Primarily critical of unions (a progressive cause). Tally for the two-week period (14 segments): - 5 segments critical of Republicans - 4 segments critical of President Obama and/or Democrats - 1 segment critical of unions (a progressive cause) - 4 segments neutral or not focused on American politics If we look at this as a question of whether Stewart is more critical of the left or the right, it looks like a pretty even split to me. The union segment could be seen as just critical of a specific individual, which would mean that Stewart is criticizing the right slightly more than the left. If we look at it as a question of whether Stewart is more critical of Democrats or Republicans, it looks like Stewart is criticizing the right slightly more than the left. Overall conclusion: Stewart (at least recently) seems to be criticizing the right slightly more than the left. What do you all think? A valid approach? (Certainly we could use more data, but the premise of the question does include the word "recently".) In terms of what this may mean, I think it shows that Stewart is standing behind the promise of his "rally to restore sanity". The idea seems to be "toning down" the rhetoric and focusing on common ground. Which sounds great to me. What do you all think?

Sure, I agree with that. I have no issue with your point in general. I don't entirely agree with the degree of your expression (though I do share it to some extent!), but I do think that what you're saying is largely true. There are some detrimental people pushing some very bad buttons on the right these days. I am also concerned that if they win in November they're going to see it as a conservative mandate, just as many Democrats thought their rise was a progressive mandate. I have seen very little sign that the GOP has "wised-up", as Bill O'Reilly might say. I think also perhaps some of our newer members are less familiar with your history here and don't know that you've taken conservative positions, e.g. gun ownership, and expressed support for some conservatives at various times. IMO this speaks to your general objectivity, albeit admittedly from my skewed centrism-uber-alles perspective.

The opening post does not violate any forum rules. Also, please direct complaints about a post to administration by using the Report button rather than a public comment. Thanks.

Good to see you back, bascule! Been too quiet around here! You mentioned being excited about Jon Stewart's upcoming rally -- I agree. Though in my opinion Jon Stewart would react to these statements... ... by saying that you should take it down a notch too. He's spent almost as much time recently criticizing left-wing reactionary politics as he has on criticizing the right. On the night he announced the rally he held up a sign that read "I am not afraid of Muslims/Tea Partiers/Socialists/immigrants/gun owners/ gays — But I am afraid of spiders." (source) If you look at that list, it seems to indicate two items aimed at the left. Then he held up this sign: ... or evil? In fact, just as Glenn Beck makes the GOP nervous, I think Jon Stewart has a similar impact on Democratic leadership, which has taken quite a pasting from The Daily Show over the last 18 months. My two bits anyway.

I don't mean to distract from your interesting point, but the above seems a bit over the top. The differences between the different countries is pretty small. From Canada to the US is a spread of only 2.5 years -- far narrower than the range of ages at which people die. (source) A categorical approach might give us a more accurate general idea than the statement above. Here's one: Key here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook.svg

An interesting question, but a system change is probably not in the cards for the US. What I think is coming is that politicians will gradually wake up to a better understanding of what people want, and slowly begin to align themselves with the people. These party shifts back and forth are (it seems to me) coming more rapidly, with less time for people to forget their reasons. People seem to generally know that Republicans blew the budget out of the water. People seem to generally remember those surplusses of the Clinton administration. So the GOP is in for a very bumpy ride if they win in November, and it's going to continue until politicians get the message. In 1994 people were just beginning to wake up. I believe it's going to be different from now on. I cannot remember a time when the public's preferences seemed so fully defined and yet so completely non-aligned with the goals of either political party. I cannot remember a time when candidates ran from both parties at the same time. The people turned on Bush in spite of 9/11 and two wars. There's a reason for that, and it's the same for Obama and Congress. They're just not doing what the people want them to do. Always in the past it's seemed like 40% of the people just automatically voted Democrat, and 40% automatically voted Republican, and none of that 80% really paid much attention. It does not seem that way to me anymore. In casual discussion nobody used to want to talk about politics, and when they did I'd find that they were just auto-voters for one party or the other. Now everyone seems to want to talk about politics, and nobody seems to want to be identified as an auto-voter. (Has anyone else observed this?) So I think we're in for big changes. What will the country look like when the dust settles? Here's what I think: - Much more secured border, and a path to citizenship for those already here - Fully defined laws on human rights versus security, no more warrantless wiretaps, no more fear mongering and power-grabbing - A better definition of which safety nets we're going to have, and why - Legal abortion - Gun rights - Medicinal marijuana, or full legalization - Gay marriage and gays in the military IMO it will mean progress on global warming, but only in so far as measures address more immediate concerns such as pollution and transportation expense. It will not mean redistribution of wealth. It will not mean the full restoration of rights for former criminals (e.g. pedophiles). It will not mean you don't have to take off your shoes at the airport anymore. IMO it's not a completely populist America we're heading for. It will be more engaged, more aware, more understanding, and more compassionate. It will learn faster and adapt better when it makes mistakes. It's not Ancient Greece 2.0. It's going to be something new -- a hyper-connected, hyper-informed national polity. It's going to be democracy on steroids. On the whole, I believe, a good thing.

Yes, though in my opinion it's not just a back-and-forth change in preference between Dems and Repubs, but also a steady push in the same direction -- a direction that just isn't represented by candidates and parties. Even if Republicans make huge gains in November, it seems that they're BARELY more preferable to voters than Democrats, and still have more disapproval than approval. I think that push is healthy, because I believe it's the system that's ailing, not the people or their intelligence, wisdom, education or wisdom. I think they're right, they just don't have a great way to express it. My two bits, anyway.

New "battleground" poll out today from Politico. These are special polls aimed at identifying key tipping points in the upcoming election. Some interesting take-away's here: - More people get election news from 24-hour cable stations than the networks, and Fox News is much more popular than CNN or MSNBC for that kind of news - Some analysts are concerned that viewers are turning to more ideological sources for news - Newspapers and the networks remain important sources, and in general the networks continue to have far more viewers than cable (the slides seem to be shallow, not steep, but gradual and continuing) - Glenn Beck has more positive than negative impact (38% vs 32) - Bill O'Reilly's positives far outweigh his negatives (49 vs 32) - Rush Limbaugh's negatives far outweigh his positives (52 vs 36) - Jon Stewart's positives far outweight his negatives (34 vs 22) - Fox talent generally known to the public; MSNBC talent generally unknown; Jon Stewart generally known (only 34% unfamiliar) The poll focused mainly on older viewers, which could be a factor affecting Jon Stewart's numbers, but I think it's interesting that he did as well as he did given that age grouping. His appeal is clearly to a far younger audience than the rest of this crowd. I generally agree with the analysts, or at least can't think of any reason not to. It seems like we're sliding into a more ideological perspective, which I think is generally a bad thing. It's probably no surprise that conservatives are leading the way here, since we've heard this before, but the data seems to suggest that liberals are at least not shifting to ideological sources as dramatically as conservatives are. I'd like to see more study in this area. I've read commentary that liberals are less engaged right now, so perhaps that's a factor, and it's often said that there are less of them in the country, but is it also possible that they're less inclined to reach out to partisans for steering? Whatever the case with liberals, the danger to conservatives seems clear. But I think there's a silver lining here in that Bill O'Reilly is a pretty moderate guy compared with Rush Limbaugh, and their numbers suggest that the public thinks so too. What do you all think? ------- (Edit: Wups, forgot the links!) Analysis of poll data wrt commentators: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738_Page2.html Main article on the poll: http://www.politico.com/polls/politico-george-washington-university-battleground-poll.html

This article has further information about Nonpartisanship in tax exempt orgs, which of course go well beyond churches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_%28American_organizations%29 I thought this was interesting: Here's some more info from the same article (bold is mine): If they break the rules, not only do they run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status, but they may face criminal penalties if they attempt to cover up their involvement: Interesting stuff. I'm actually in the process of forming a non-profit for a specific purpose. It has nothing to do with politics or even current events (it's just a student support network), but I could see how an org might want to take a general position on an issue, especially if it intersects with their goals and purpose. But it would be very easy to cross a certain line, and I think it's not just religious institutions that run a risk here.

It's an interesting point, and an interesting example -- thanks for posting it. I agree that the result could be that they lose their tax exempt status and accomplish nothing. It will be interesting to follow. What if the purpose of the money they've collected is not politics, but charity? That seems like a reasonable line to me, saying that if you collect for charity, fine, but if you collect money and make political statements (or build a bigger church, or buy Cadillacs, or whatever), you pay the piper.

California passed a law in 2006 that would have reduced green house emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (details) But now that the economy has hit the skids, a new proposal would freeze that law until unemployment drops to 5.5% (it's currently over 12%). It's notable that when the emissions law passed in 2006, unemployment in California was at 4.8%. But the proposal has amassed quite a lot of opposition already, ranging from the Governator to unions and eco groups. Backers include oil companies and other business groups. Voters are split on the issue: I don't know who's right, but I think it's an interesting example of how difficult it is to deal with ecological reform when the economy is down. What do you all think?

Well put. I think that's a valid reason to begin an interest in politics, but it's just a starting point -- you have to go on from there to compare different sources and not take pundits at their word (kind of a stage two, if you will).

I'm not sure what's up with that, but I noticed a few minutes ago that just pasting the full YouTube "share" link (the entire URL) triggers the board to replace it with the video. No tag required. I know this doesn't answer the question about why they didn't port over correctly. I'm pasting "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98xg6HS91s"'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98xg6HS91s" below, without the quotation marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98xg6HS91s

Great interview of Jon Stewart by Bill O'Reilly this week. If you hurry you can catch it on YouTube before it gets deleted. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Zsxs_PWjI Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98xg6HS91s It's a great example of a moderate, left-of-center guy debating with a moderate, right-of-center guy. And some pretty funny stuff in there all around. O'Reilly will be Stewart's guest on Monday, to talk about his new book. (BTW, I haven't read Earth yet, but I am reading "Pinheads and Patriots" right now, and I agree with Stewart's jab at it in part 2 above. It's pretty shallow stuff, though it does have a few interesting insights.

Calm down, there's no call for that. I definitely did not get "liar" out of that quote, in fact he seemed to be saying that he's happy to take your word for it. Your questions are fine just... (to borrow from Jon Stewart)... take it down a notch, please. --- By the way, I meant earlier that I appreciate your son's service, not the jerks who beat him up. I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression there.

I think Lemur was maybe referring more to my reference to John Avalon and the "Wingnuts" title of his book. I agree that that's counter-productive, especially in the current environment.

I'm sorry you guys had to deal with that, but for what it's worth, I appreciate the service.

I think you're right in saying that it's gone beyond simple humor. As the author of this article points out, if Jon Stewart is polled as the most trusted man in news, and as his colleague Stephen Colbert was called to testify before Congress yesterday, I think we can finally put to rest the notion that this is purely entertainment. I think your overall point has merit as well, but this stuff all feels like "gray area" to me. Just to give an example, I don't agree with Jon Stewart's overall *apparent* (see below!) opinion of Glenn Beck, but I do think that when Beck is focused on doom and gloom and poised-on-the-verge-of-destruction rhetoric that he's having a negative impact on society and I don't really see a problem with expressing that opinion (Stewart's and Avalon's opinion of Beck is just their opinion, and they're allowed to express it). What I think they miss is that Beck also has an optimistic side that focuses on motivation and common sense that has a lot of validity and applicability in the current environment. But are they really attempting to silence extremism? It doesn't really seem to me that either Stewart or Avalon are actually condemning Glenn Beck and others. They're not even saying that they're always wrong. They're just saying, as Stewart put it, "take it down a notch". I'm not sure I entirely agree with even THAT point -- I often think escalation of the centrist voice would be a good thing. But the extremes have demonstrated quite well how escalation leads to breakdowns in communication and failure to move forward, and that's certainly not a good thing. Like I said, a gray area. I guess that's a big part of the problem. It's not even easy to discuss problems that exist in a gray area, much less solve them. Thanks for the post. Interesting. It'd be funny if we found out some day that Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. But then... how would we tell?

That's interesting. Wouldn't that be a violation of the "ask" portion of DADT?

I'm not sure how much discussion value this really has, but I loved the story and thought you all might enjoy it as well. Basically DC Mayor Tom Felty lost the Democratic primary. But in a strange twist of fate, enough Republican voters actually wrote in his name to cause him to win the Republican primary. The GOP didn't actually field a candidate, and the total number of write-ins wasn't huge, but even so it's a pretty unusual event and perhaps an interesting example of bipartisan appeal. He's declined the GOP nom, which he apparently is not legally able to accept anyway, but he did issue this grateful acknowledgement to the write-in voters: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/dc-mayor-fenty-wins-republican-primary-as-write-in-091710

This could become an interesting story next week. Apparently a small news service called the Inter Press Service (wikipedia description here) has unearthed an interesting immigration story. These quotes are a good starting point: The catch? These familiar-sounding quotes don't come from Mexico. They come from Guatemala. Apparently Mexico, which has long complained about the US building a wall on its northern border, is now in the process of building one of its own -- along its very long, winding southern border with Guatemala! And it's not small matter, either: Wow! Sure sounds hypocritical to me, at least on surface. But before I get to a couple of potential caveats, let me point out that this story, for the moment, only comes from the right-wing blogosphere and (where I caught it) last night's episode of Bill O'Reilly. Here's the link that most bloggers are referencing: http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/hypocritical-mexico-is-now-building-their-own-wall-on-border-with-guatemala-press-ignores Now THAT story, as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, references the Inter Press Service. IPS does not appear (at a glance) to be a partisan service (see wikipedia article linked at the start of this post), and I was able to find a short blurb on IPS's web site referencing this story. Unfortunately it's behind a subscription firewall, but here's a link and the summary that came up when I ran a search: http://www.ipsnews.net/dominologin.asp?Db=ips\eng.nsf&wView=vwWebMainView&DocID=81C68C613CC06D8CC125779F0051F67B But if you want more than that I guess you have to pay, or at least register. Oh well. But even without a full read, I've already thought of a couple of caveats. For one thing, Bill O'Reilly's guest claimed that the United States asked Mexico to build this fence. If that's true then we can hardly accuse them of hypocrisy for actually building it. Maybe complying with a US request is part of a diplomatic move. Second, if most of those Guatamalans are bound for the US, which a US request would suggest, then closing that border would actually seem to be in our best interests, rather than a negative. But even if this turns out to be the case, Mexico has said many of the same things that Guatamala has said above. Does it no longer believe these things? One of Mexico's objections is that a fence would be ecologically unsound, harming wildlife (source). Wouldn't a fence with Guatamala run the same risk? BTW, former president Vincente Fox is also a frequent critic of the wall, frequently saying so during a tour of the US in 2009. (source) I think it's too early to call hypocrisy, but it will be interesting to see if the press picks up on this story next week. What do you think?