[besson3c]

For those of you that enjoy watching good debate about the sort of topics we debate in here frequently, I think this interview between Jon Stewart and Eric Cantor was good quite:

Eric Cantor - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/12/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


After you watch this check out the extended, unedited parts 1 and 2 that follow.

[besson3c]

Just watched this again. It's sort of sad that a comedian can keep up with, if not best a career politician.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Is that supposed to be flamebait? "It's sort of sad that you think this was anything resembling a level playing field" or "it's sort of sad that Jon Stewart feels good about himself by inviting people on to berate them so his adoring fans can cheer." Is that what you're looking for?

Here's what I'll give you... if you ever wonder how anyone can equate Glenn Beck et al to Jon Stewart, your last post is why. You're more than happy to refer to Stewart as a political figure* at times like these, when it's convenient to do so. But when it's inconvenient, like when you want to contrast him to Right wing commentators or pundits, then you claim his show is just light entertainment.

Stewart is a smart enough fella, but he really suffers a lack of self control. Instead of going off on a rant (like the "you hate freedom" bit in this interview), it would be far more effective if he could distill his position to one or two lines, and give them and be satisfied. He kept repeating himself and it made him look frantic, panicked. The crowd cheered of course, but they love him, he's literally preaching to the choir. If he could make his point succinct and with humor, that would be even better. Colbert is really good at this. I think he's a far superior liberal marketing ninja. The only problem with Colbert is that he takes the sarcasm so far that most people can't tell it's sarcasm.

*yes, I know you'll deny referring to him as a "political figure" citing calling him a "comedian." But the message is that he can "keep up with" or "best" a politician, at politics, despite being a comedian. Without that last, that context, your post simply makes no sense.

Edit: also I thought Cantor did an excellent job of not letting Stewart bait him into anything. He was there to plug his book, not to convince Jon Stewart on small government. That was never going to happen.

[besson3c]

I don't really care what you feel my personal shortcomings to be, but I hope you enjoyed this interview.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here's what I'll give you... if you ever wonder how anyone can equate Glenn Beck et al to Jon Stewart, your last post is why. You're more than happy to refer to Stewart as a political figure* at times like these, when it's convenient to do so. But when it's inconvenient, like when you want to contrast him to Right wing commentators or pundits, then you claim his show is just light entertainment.

There are a precious few things more entertaining than the reaction of one to their own angry, contorted face in the mirror.

[KittyKat]

Comedian or not, Jon can strike political cords with precision. I appreciate his wit and am looking forward to his sanity rally.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a precious few things more entertaining than the reaction of one to their own angry, contorted face in the mirror.

As well as people freaking out trying to put up mirrors everywhere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Besson, do you know the term "null hypothesis?" It is your starting assumption, which you try to disprove. If you can disprove it, then that is what allows you to reach a sound conclusion. My null hypothesis is that both sides are equally right. This way, when I draw a conclusion that one side is more right than the other, and it has disproved my null hypothesis to my satisfaction, I can be fairly certain that I reached this conclusion through evidence or reason, not through bias. You call this "putting up mirrors everywhere," but I call it choosing to use a superior null hypothesis. You reject this notion of an unbiased null hypothesis, by scorning the concept of "putting up mirrors," which leaves you using the inferior biased null hypothesis that your starting position is probably right, and your opponent's is probably wrong. Then when you think you've proved your point, you can never know if you think this because of your evidence or because of your biased starting point. These "mirrors" give you the benefit of distinguishing your argument from your point of view. You should want this information, not scorn it.

[besson3c]

Skeleton: I might have cared in years/months past, but I'm just tired now. I can see why people like to reinvent themselves on the internet with new nicknames and identities, because there is years and years and years of history on me here - I'm a legend. It is tiresome that with every new post/thread we have to hash out all of this history. I've decided that all of this is a losing battle, none of this is going to be productive and change any minds anyway, and it certainly is a deterrent to discussing actual subject matter other than me, my shortcomings, my hyperbole, my hypocritical behavior/beliefs, my tactics, etc. Any constructive criticism coming from other people is going to be tempered with this dirty laundry, grudges, assumptions, proxies, and whatever else. I'd rather just learn how to do what I do better my own way and pace rather than parse through all of this.

Therefore, I've tentatively decided that I'm in this for me. I don't really care about psychoanalyzing me in any way. If you want to discuss what was actually said, fine, but everything else is probably a waste of time. I'm sure I have been hypocritical, blinded, and whatever else in the past, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but... meh.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you want to discuss what was actually said, fine, but everything else is probably a waste of time.

Well what do you expect to come of it? Jon Stewart was blowharding and goading as ever, and his guest was humoring him to promote his book. Each person admitted that the other has a point, but only given each's mutually incompatible assumptions (faith vs skepticism in big government to somehow fix a difficult problem). So what? You brought it up, so why don't you tell us what you thought was so good about it?

[besson3c]

I thought it was fairly close, relatively speaking, to a civil and fairly reasonable debate, and I enjoyed listening to it. I didn't expect anything.

[smacintush]

The reason why Stewart appeared to be doing such a good job is simply because Cantor is a tool. He is indicative of what is really wrong with the Republicans. He speaks in platitudes about freedom and limited government, but in reality he is a progressive…just perhaps less so than others. He looked to me like someone who is trying to keep people from knowing his true position. He looked like someone who is saying what he feels he needs to say in an election year, straddling the line as much as he can while toeing the party line and parroting the party slogans.

You don't do well in debates by not defending your position.

That being said, Stewart, when he actually started asserting his opinions on the role of government, he was full of shit. I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything he said. ( I know, big surprise there)