Skip to main content

they now officially have my attention


the academy of motion picture arts and sciences, ever eager to try to prove that they're not a bunch of out of touch millionaires who have no clue what's going on outside los angeles, have managed to show that they're a bunch of out of touch millionaires who occasionally find out what the world outside los angeles is doing, by signing jon stewart to host their annual love-in, aka, the academy awards.

honestly, there was a fair likelihood i was going to watch anyway, since i feel that this year has had a better share than most of decent films (although i'm deeply disturbed that jarhead hasn't been receiving nearly the award buzz it deserves), but now it's a definite. i have a certain amount of trepidation about this, because i hated seeing the "chris rock lite" on last year's show, but i have my fingers crossed that jon will find a way to shine through.

i don't make a secret of how much i admire stewart, and i admire him for a lot of reasons, not just because we're politically synchronous (although it helps). strangely, the first few times i saw the daily show, i hated it, but, like mold, it grew on me and now i rarely miss an episode. i think the change came upon the realisation that, rather than just making the same standard-issue political jokes at the expense of both parties, this show actually pays attention to what's going on. here are a few more reasons he's on my noteworthy list:

1. he doesn't play partisan politics, and slams the democrats as hard as the republicans (because they deserve it).

2. columbia university ranked him 4th out of 20 on their list of the best reportage on the election and 69% of americans polled identified him as the newscaster they most trust... and, technically, he doesn't host a news program.

3. he is the only person ever to be justified in the using the word "dick" in broadcast media. (ok, ignore the dick comment and just listen to what he's saying about media in america. brilliant simplicity.)

4. he says that he doesn't want david letterman's job (despite persistent rumours that he's next in line for it) because cbs wouldn't give him the creative freedom he has on the daily show (here's hoping that continues).

5. in a year and a half of watching his show, i have only ever heard him mention his wife to say that he loves her. smart, funny, respectful to the wife... ain't no woman in the world can resist that trifecta.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …