Daily Show Jon Stewart
==
capt 219
neglected, tho fighting to good fight
see burn pits
msnbc post rachel Last Word always includes in montage; staple on AN
==
aha: provocateurs are mirrors/ crypto?
===
freq an
---
---
Lee Brice Announces New Single “Country Nowadays,” Which He Performed During Turning Point USA Super Bowl Halftime, Dropping This Month
Aaron Ryan·February 8, 2026
Lee Brice
Looks like Kid Rock isn’t the only one dropping a new song after the Super Bowl halftime show(s).
Video Playlist
Lee Brice announced tonight that he’ll be releasing his new single, “Country Nowadays,” on February 19, after debuting the patriotic anthem during the Turning Point USA All-American Halftime Show.
Brice first teased the song during an interview with Breitbart News ahead of the performance, announcing that the song would be available on his still yet-to-be-announced upcoming 30-song album.
The politically-charged anthem finds Brice lamenting the state of the country these days:
*“It ain’t easy being country in this country nowadays
*The direction of fingers point when it all goes up in flames
*Saying I’m some right wing devil because I was downside red letter raised
*It ain’t easy being country in this country nowadays”
In introducing the song during the halftime show, Brice praised TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk for giving people a voice to speak out about their beliefs:
“Charlie, he gave people microphones so they could say what was on their minds. This is what was on mine.”*
One verse (and line) in particular really seemed to resonate on social media:
*“I just want to cut my grass, feed my dog, wear my boots
*Not turn the TV on, sit and watch the evening news
*Be told if I tell my own daughter
*That little boys ain’t little girls [got cheer?]
*I’ll be up a creek in hot water
*In this cancel-your-a** world”
Immediately after the performance I began getting messages from people wanting to know where they could find the song, and it wasn’t long before Lee himself gave us our answer.
The song is available for pre-save now on streaming platforms, and according to Spotify will be dropping everywhere on February 19.
Lee’s announcement comes as Kid Rock also gears up to drop a song that he performed during the halftime show.
After opening with his own rockin’ song “Bawitaba,” Kid Rock (whose real name is Robert Ritchie) slowed things down with his own spin on Cody Johnson’s #1 single “Til You Can’t,” even adding his own verse that he wrote after the death of Charlie Kirk:
“There’s a book that is sitting in your house somewhere
That could use some dusting off
There’s a man that died for all our sins, hanging on the cross
You can give your life to Jesus, and he’ll give you a second chance
‘Til you can’t”
Kid introduced the new lyrics by saying that he woke up one morning and felt called to add one more verse:
“I awoke one Sunday morning all alone with this song stuck in my head, and in that moment, something or someone spoke to me. They said there was still a verse that needed to be written for this song. And to get up and write it down.”*
It’s a version of the song that Kid Rock first performed back in November while filling in for CoJo during the Hondo Rodeo Fest. And ahead of the halftime show, Kid even recorded his version of “Til You Can’t” to drop as a single tonight at midnight.
I have a feeling both of these songs are going to be pretty popular.
---
AN 9 25
PARODY DISNEY b&b SHUT YOUR TRAP
Jon Stewart viciously mocks Trump with 'administration-compliant' show after Kimmel ouster
303 creative wedding website is fantasy fb
daily show lawless bk
715,482 views Jun 2, 2025 #CaroleCadwalladr #JonStewart #DailyShow
“I think what is happening in America is they are building a techno-authoritarian surveillance state.” Carole Cadwalladr, the award-winning journalist behind the Substack newsletter “How to Survive the Broligarchy,” talks to Jon Stewart about how the U.S. government ignored the huge wake-up call that was the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook data breach scandal – a story Cadwalladr broke and which resulted in no legislative protections for citizens’ private data. She warns about the unregulated dangers that data-mining and AI pose to individual privacy and freedom, and what people and institutions can do to push back on big tech’s authoritarian agenda. #DailyShow #JonStewart #CaroleCadwalladr
=
936,026 views Nov 18, 2024 #DailyShow #Republicans #Democrats
“You actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people in their daily lives and figure out how to do it... so they feel it.” Co-founder of The Liberal Patriot Substack and co-author of “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” Ruy Teixeira sits down with Jon Stewart to discuss how Democrats lost their coalition of working-class voters and economic instincts. They talk about the decline of Democratic economic policies since Bill Clinton, whether DEI and “woke” culture are turning people away from the party, and what Teixeira views as an era where both Democrats and Republicans may not be interested in forming a dominant majority coalition. #DailyShow #Democrats #Republicans
VID]
an 11 24
The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart opened his show Monday by taking Democrats through the wringer in a stinging takedown of their election night defeat last week, joking with his audience, "It turns out the election was stolen by more people voting for Donald Trump.”
“It’s quite the capper,” Stewart said to laughter. He opened his show Monday by demanding a close-up camera view before taking on a serious tone and declaring: “Welcome to the resistance," he said, pausing as the audience applauded. "I’m actually being facetious.”
He continued his opening segment by dissecting the Democrats’ election night loss with a smattering of humor and defeat, and then offered his own assessment of what the Democratic Party – and the political analysts – got wrong.
“I’m glad to say Democrats did protect democracy, just for the other side,” he said. “But it’s a delight to hear about why it happened from so many people who were so wrong about what was going to happen,” Stewart said.
ALSO READ:Trump didn't win — disinformation did
“Everybody’s talking about this ‘wokeness’ theory,” he continued. But, he noted that the Democrats “didn’t talk about pronouns, they didn’t say ‘Latinx,’ it was the opposite. They didn’t do the woke thing…they acted like Republicans for the last four months. They wore camo hats and went to Cheney family reunions.”
He said instead, Democrats were mostly running “against an identity that was defined for them based on a couple of months of post-George Floyd defund the police ‘Me Too’ Instagram posts from four years ago."
He continued his post-election assessment by telling viewers that the general mood in the country that the Democrats discovered on election night was that “government wasn’t working for them.”
“And then Democrats in particular were taking their hard-earned money and giving it to people who didn’t deserve it as much as them. So the Democrats got shellacked," he said.
“But, I just want to assure people that this isn’t forever,” Stewart told his audience, before discussing the 1984 election results when Democrats won just a single state.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in four years, at all.”
mediaite
Daily Show host Jon Stewart mocked news networks reaction to comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who faced heavy criticism after performing roast-style jokes at former President Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally.
Hinchcliffe’s performance, which included calling Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage” and played on other jibes at Hispanics and Black people in a set that was the focus of condemnation by political figures and media pundits alike on Monday.
Major cable news networks aired clips of Hinchcliffe’s routine, with one anchor labeling the jokes “distasteful and inflammatory,” echoing sentiments shared by high-profile entertainers like artists Bad Bunny and singer Jennifer Lopez, as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Unfazed, Stewart used Monday’s episode to push back, remarking, “For the media, there was one moment in particular that raised the alarms.” He played a supercut of outraged news anchors critiquing Hinchcliffe’s jokes before diving into his defense of the comedian’s style.
Defending Hinchcliffe, however, Stewart said: “Obviously, in retrospect, having a roast comedian come to a political rally a week before election day and roasting a key demographic – probably not the best decision by the campaign politically.”
“But to be fair,” he added, “the guy’s just really doing what he does.”
Stewart even brought up Hinchcliffe’s earlier Roast of Tom Brady set, subjecting those on stage to jokes at their expense in which he joked about slavery and Jews.
Laughing off the reactions, the host said: “Yes, yes, of course, terrible, boo.”
Laughing he continued: “There’s something wrong with me. I find that guy very funny. I’m sorry, I don’t know what to tell you.”
Stewart likened the controversy to inviting a pop icon like Beyoncé to speak at a rally, which Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris did, and expecting her not to sing – quipping that expecting Hinchcliffe to tone down his roast humor was similarly incongruous.
Stewart spent the rest of his opening monologue lambasting Trump and other “underlings” who spoke at the rally for ramping up the rhetoric, taking aim at the former president’s promise of “mass deportations” on day one in the White House, should he win the election.
Watch above on Comedy Central.
===
The Daily Show host Jon Stewart on Monday night slammed ex-President Donald Trump, 2024 GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance (R-OH), Republican lawmakers and commentators' inability to make a strong case against Vice President Kamala Harris in her pursuit of the presidency.
"You're going to have to shift gears — recalibrate," Stewart said, referring to the fact that the GOP's constant attacks on President Joe Biden's age no longer stand. "You've had 'Crooked Joe' and 'Sleepy Joe' on speed dial. You're going to need a new line of attack," the late-night host added.
Stewart played a clip of former Fox News host Megyn Kelly on right-wing political commentator Ben Shapiro's show, saying, "It is relevant when a young candidate tries to sleep her way into politics and into power. And that is what it appears Kamala Harris did.
READ MORE:'Got a lot harder': House Republicans privately fear JD Vance 'doesn’t add much' to Trump ticket
Shapiro added, "She never earned or won anything. She was legitimately handed her original post in California state government because she was sleeping with [former San Francisco Mayor] Willie Brown. And then he backed her in her race for San Francisco DA."
Stewart then said, "I don't know, guys. You're being awfully subtle here. Isn't there a grosser way you can say that?"
"Does anybody have a substantive critique? he added. "Nobody believes Kamala Harris is the second coming of Karl Marx. And even when they get substantive policy critiques, they undercut them immediately."
Stewart then pointed to the fact Republicans can't decide whether Harris is too soft, or too tough on crime.
READ MORE:'Obsession with controlling women': Harris calls JD Vance a 'creep' in scathing statement
"People, we open in three months!" Stewart yelled. "You're flailing! Dig deep!"
Stewart then played a clip of far right podcast host Mark Levin criticizing Harris, saying, "There's one final thing that nobody talks about: She's hated by people who work for her."
The Daily Show host screamed, "Are you kidding me? Your candidate's Donald Trump. His catchphrase is literally, 'You're fired!' Donald Trump hired 44 cabinet members — 75% of them want nothing to do with the guy. His Secretary of State called him a f—ing moron. His chief of staff said 'He's the most flawed person I've ever met.' You know why he needs a new vice presidential running mate? I'll tell you why. He tried to get the last one killed.
Watch the video below or at this link.
---
https://www.alternet.org/trump-indictment-2659749601/
---
Jon Stewart torches GOP senator with brutal reality about gun violence - Alternet.org
---
nyt-jon-stewart-to-end-show-after-apple-tells-him-not-to-criticize-china-or-ai
---
https://www.alternet.org/Bank/trump-alvin-bragg/
no lnx an 3 23
Jon Stewart: Here’s why Trump was elected president in the first place
Alex Henderson March 28, 2023
Former President Donald Trump predicted that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested in connection with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr.'s investigation of alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. But a week later, on Tuesday morning, March 28, such an arrest had yet to materialize. Trump had not been indicted.
Nonetheless, Bragg's investigation continues. And the former president is also facing two separate criminal probes from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith as well as a criminal probe from Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis.
Comedian Jon Stewart, who formerly hosted "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central and now hosts "The Problem With Jon Stewart" on Apple TV+, weighed in on Trump's legal problems during a late March appearance on CNN.
READ MORE:Why the threat of 'Trumpist violence' must not 'be discounted': political science professor
CNN host Fareed Zakaria, interviewing the 60-year-old Stewart, noted fears that reports of a possible Trump indictment are "going to turn him into a martyr."
:{Stewart sarcastically responded, "The idea that someone may face accountability who's that rich and powerful is outrageous. This country shouldn't stand for it."
Stewart's tone became serious, however, when he added, "Fareed, we either have the rule of law, or we have no rule of law. The rule of law does not take into account if that might make you a martyr to somebody. I'd much rather the conservation be: What is the law? What exactly are we saying that he did? His lawyer went to jail for the same situation for a couple of years."
The former Trump attorney that Stewart is referring to is Michael Cohen, who has testified that he made hush money payments to Daniels on Trump's behalf. Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations, but he did not serve the entire sentence.}:
READ MORE:Trump's MAGA apologists show their 'demagoguery' with bogus attacks on DA Bragg: ex-federal prosecutor
Stewart told Zakaria, "The reason why Donald Trump became popular in the first place and the reason (for) these populist movements is that the citizenry have become fed up with the lack of accountability for those in power. We have no accountability in our financial systems; we have no accountability for the bankers…. And instead of bringing accountability to the rampant corruption that surrounds our government and our financial systems, the Supreme Court just changed the definition of corruption rather than prosecuting it…. You can influence-peddle as long as you don't explicitly say, 'By the way, this money, is so that I may influence this law specifically.'"
READ MORE:Why the threat of 'Trumpist violence' must not 'be discounted': political science professor
Watch the full video below or at this link.
Jon Stewart: This is why Trump became popular in the first place
www.youtube.com
FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES
Donald Trump attacks 'racist' Alvin Bragg and 'horseface' Stormy Daniels in social media rant ›
'Going full fascist': Morning Joe blasts Trump’s latest 'dehumanizing' attack on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg ›
Alvin Bragg smacks down Jim Jordan: No 'legitimate basis for ... ›
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
New York DA Alvin Bragg responds to requests on Trump ... ›
Alvin Bragg: Manhattan DA tells CNN that his office's investigation of ... ›
Manhattan DA Bragg privately warns of intimidation after Trump calls ... ›
===
They play-act': Jon Stewart torches JD Vance and Tucker Carlson over Ohio train derailment
February 15, 2023
Jon Stewart did not mince words when he slammed both Fox News' Tucker Carlson and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) for their reaction to the Ohio train derailment.
According to Stewart, although both expressed outrage...
===
https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/trump-2657893280/
salon sophia mc
When George W. Bush announced that the United States had begun military action in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks orchestrated by al-Qaeda, he emphasized that the mission would also focus on providing humanitarian aid to the citizens of Afghanistan. "The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies," he explained. "As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine, and supplies." The hypocrisy of a military strike framed as a humanitarian mission was on full display. For those of us who could immediately see through Bush's hubris and his malignant American exceptionalism, the global war on terror epitomized the toxic nature of America's culture of political hypocrisy.
It all seems quaint now.
Today we live in a world where chanting "lock her up" at Hillary Clinton for her handling of sensitive documents runs in tandem with outrage over an FBI seizure of classified documents as "un-American;" where unsubstantiated concerns over election fraud are best handled by attempting to overthrow the democratic process; where you chant "Blue Lives Matter" except during the Jan. 6 insurrection or when you attack the FBI; where invoking the Fifth amendment means a person is definitely guilty, except when you do it; where you call for bipartisan unity on one day and then stoke party division the next.
It's actually kind of exhausting to try to list even the best highlights of Trump-era hypocrisy. As columnist Don Kahle writes, since the election of Trump, "GOP hypocrisy has become strategic."
For some scholars, the Bush-style hypocrisy of the War on Terror is considered indispensable for the functioning of the world order. In fact, University of Cambridge professor David Runciman argues that politics isn't possible without hypocrisy. For Machiavelli expert Ruth Grant, hypocrisy is essential to politics because a political life and a moral life are simply incompatible.
For others, hypocrisy threatens democracy because, as political science professor Austin Sharat puts it, hypocrisy "erodes trust and breeds cynicism." For Sharat, Trump's extreme and excessive hypocrisy poses a danger to the future of U.S. democracy because he has normalized it and, thus far, not been held accountable for it: "He has been a master of saying one thing and doing another. He has held up others to ridicule and then done the very things for which he shamed them."
But that's the thing. Whether or not you justify hypocrisy in politics, you have to admit that Trump-style hypocrisy is entirely different from previous examples. Sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" while unashamedly owning slaves. Lyndon Johnson said "we will seek no wider war" in reference to Vietnam and then did just that. Richard Nixon said "I am not a crook" when he was. Bill Clinton stated he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky when he had. But not one of the above examples of hypocritical presidents comes even remotely close to the hypocrisy of Trump.
Trump hasn't just been a hyper-hypocrite. He hasn't just mastered it; he has redefined the very meaning of it. Part of this shift lies in the fact that Trump may be the chief hypocrite, but every single one of his political allies and supporters is one too. You literally cannot support Trump or work alongside him and not be a hypocrite. In fact, if there is one recognizable element of the Trump party platform it is collective, weaponized hypocrisy. Without the hypocrisy, there literally is nothing else left.
Before we decide what to do about the new turn in political hypocrisy, we first have to understand it. Here are four key changes to keep in mind.
01 It's in your face.
To say that the hypocrisy of Trump and his supporters is flagrant, shameless and extreme is to state the obvious.
In April 2017, Chauncey Devega wrote an essay for Salon in which he called Trump's hypocrisy "flagrant." The trouble is that when you used a word like "flagrant" to describe excess Trumpist behavior in 2017, you ran out of effective adjectives by 2022.
But the in-your-face style of Trumpist hypocrisy isn't just limited to the hypocrite-in-chief. Perhaps there is no better example of the mass approach to Trumpist hypocrisy than its contradictions over health care. One day, pro-Trump Republicans are freaking out over needing to wear a mask during a pandemic; the next they are mandating control over women's health. One ad targeting the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" position pointed out that Republicans only care about policing women's bodies, not supporting them or their children.
So, we have both a spate of inconsistencies and a mass movement practicing them, but the additional in-your-face feature of Trumpist hypocrisy is the lack of shame. Think, for example, of all of those Trump nominated members of the Supreme Court who blatantly misled the public during their confirmation hearings about their position on Roe v. Wade, but also showed zero remorse, embarrassment, or even concern that doing so was not just hypocritical; it was deliberately deceptive.
Trumpist hypocrisy is just there all the time, in your face, and proudly on display.
02 It's invisible.
Here's where it gets really weird, because while it is on display, openly, all the time; it is also invisible. The difference is that some of us see it and some of us can't.
Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore argued in a 2017 essay for Foreign Affair that it was a mistake to consider Trump a hypocrite. "Trump's No Hypocrite," they claimed. Rather, they described him as inconsistent rather than hypocritical. "Hypocrisy requires a minimal degree of self-awareness," they argued, as well as "clear understanding of both one's own interests and of public norms." Their point was that Trump simply couldn't even "recognize" his hypocritical behavior, which meant he wasn't actually a true hypocrite.
Here's the catch — and it explains why some of us see the hypocrisy and why those who practice it don't. Farrell and Finnemore's point rests on the premise that hypocrisy depends on being aware of a moral compass and deliberately not using it. But that's the thing about the new hypocrisy:Its moral compass is its hypocrisy.
Once you recognize that the issue here isn't failing to effectively compare one's actions to an ethical code, but rather, embracing selfish, self-serving, irrational, inconsistent and illogical behavior as an ethical code, then you get why those who practice it can't see it. Inside the Trump hypocrisy bubble, nothing that is done by them can be judged against an external ethics. Therefore, they simply can't possibly be a hypocrite.
For the Trumpist hypocrite, everyone else who doesn't agree with you is the real hypocrite, but you never are. Sure, it's absolutely batshit logic and an ethical code that lacks anything resembling ethics, but that's how it works.
03 It's invincible.
In 2017, professors Emile Bruneau, Nour Kteily and Emily Falk published a groundbreaking study on the power of revealing hypocrisy. Studying how communities commonly resort to collective blame after mass violence — like when individuals blame all Muslims for acts of mass violence committed by a small group of Muslims — they tested a range of interventions that could be used to disrupt that habit. What they found was that showing individuals that it was hypocritical to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few, when they don't blame all Christians for the acts of a few, was a highly effective tactic.
The catch, though, was that the study wasn't looking at Trumpist hypocrisy but hypocrisy in general. What is important to note, though, from the study, is that for the average person, it is possible to become aware of one's hypocrisy and alter one's beliefs. That simply isn't true in Trumpland.
Sharat notes that one of the core problems with Trumpist hypocrisy is the fact that calling it out just doesn't make any difference. He points to a piece in the philosophy and politics blog, Vim, that argues that the reason why calling out Trumpist hypocrisy doesn't matter is because "charging a fascist with hypocrisy is especially pointless." This is so because fascism requires that exposing its inconsistencies and incoherence has no effect on its adherents. Whether we want to use the F-word to describe Trumpist hypocrites or not, we do have to agree that calling it out has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to its grasp on American society.
If you have any doubts, check out the work of Jordan Klepper, who has done brilliant work satirizing the absurdity of Trumpist hypocrisy. His recurring segment for ":{The}::{ **Daily Show with Trevor Noah**}:" — "Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse":{ — has him out in the field interviewing Trump supporters and literally repeating their hypocrisy back at them. In every case, the interviewee hears Klepper ironically explain their hypocrisy. They then respond by unironically repeating it back to him. The contrast between Klepper cleverly exposing the hypocrisy and the hypocrite happily and obliviously owning it is stunning. }
:{, "This would be so much funnier if it wasn't so existentially terrifying."}:
04 It is all there is.
When you think about it, Trumpism doesn't just practice hypocrisy — it needs it. How else do you explain defending democracy by literally trying to destroy it? Whether attacking pizza or the vice president, this is a politics grounded in unethical inconsistencies and immoral irrationality.
Hypocrisy has now become the signature feature of Trumpian politics. In fact, every single party platform is rife with it. There is literally nothing else.
But it's worse than that. Because Trumpist hypocrisy has also overtaken most anti-Trump politics as well. In race after race this primary season, non-Trumpy candidates have literally defined themselves over and against Trumpist hypocrisy to the detriment of offering alternative policy platforms.
It's not entirely clear how we escape the vicious cycle of constantly needing to respond to the latest hypocritical move of the Trump camp. It isn't wise to ignore it, but it's also problematic to let it take up the whole room. It sparks legitimate outrage but also sucks the air out of productive political engagement. And given the fact that signaling it isn't going to affect those who practice it, giving it too much energy isn't tipping any political scales.
It may well be that the most effective challenge to Trumpian hypocrisy comes from satire, like the Klepper segments highlighted above, since satire's creative use of irony is uniquely suited to revealing ironic behaviors. In one excellent example, Trevor Noah offered
of Trumpist media when he ran tape of Fox News covering Hillary Clinton, but paired it with footage of Trump.
There is a real benefit to allowing comedians to be the ones to skewer the hypocrites. They are experts in irony and they know the difference between the kind of inconsistency that sparks critique while getting a laugh and the kind that makes no sense. Even more important, they get that the best challenge to weaponized hypocrisy may well be to mock it. Since if there is one thing Trumpist hypocrites are worse at than recognizing their own hypocrisy, it is taking a joke. And that's pretty funny.
===
===
https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/jon-stewart/
Former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart recently slammed the U.S. Supreme Court following its flurry of controversial rulings. During the latest segment of his podcast, "The Problem With Jon Stewart," he even described the conservative-majority justices as the "Fox News of justice.”
According to HuffPost, Stewart mainly focused on the overturning of Roe v. Wade which reversed a half-century-old legal landmark that paved the way for women's abortion rights. Stewart offered a critical assessment of the ruling describing it as an "ideological” decision as opposed to one based on constitutional backing.
Per HuffPost: "The ruling was not grounded 'in any kind of reasoned debate or philosophical' perspective, he complained, now making the Supreme Court the 'Fox News of justice, in my mind.'"
“It is a cynical pursuit in the same way that Fox News would come out with ‘We’re fair and balanced’ under the patina of what would be a high-status pursuit to the betterment of society: journalism.” Stewart also insisted that the high court is now a “cynical political arm."
Stewart also recalled the lengthy confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh where they both admitted, under oath, that they believed Roe v. Wade was “'settled law' that should not be substantially changed." However, that did not stop them from overturning the 1973 landmark.
He noted that in the “ridiculous Kabuki theater now of justice confirmation ... they can just go out there and just fucking lie" as he emphasized that the justices should understand the meaning and consequences of perjury.
“There is no consistency,” Stewart said of the latest rulings which included giving states the power to impose their own abortion bans while stripping away some gun restrictions in the state of New York.
He later added, “States can’t regulate guns, but they can regulate [the] uterus."
==
1st responders 911 air
---
cruz fist bump ---- PO'd b/c passed CHIPS bill
burn pits, passed 84-14 a mo ago, 180 for spite after manchin 180 jon s livid
https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/jon-stewart-veterans-health-bill/
// agent orange
on newsmax msnbc fox turned down]
Comedian Jon Stewart appeared on the right-wing media outlet Newsmaxon Thursday and shredded the Republican Party's blockage of a United States Senate Veterans Affairs Committee bill to provide health care to veterans who were exposed to poisonous substances while serving overseas.
The filibuster of the Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT) was led by retiring Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania).
"It's not just not true," Steward said of the GOP's claim that the legislation contains "unrelated spending."
READ MORE: Susan Collins under fire for threatening to tank marriage rights bill
Republicans, Steward continued, "don't like that it's mandatory as opposed to discretionary. There isn't unrelated spending to it. They're saying, 'there could be if there isn't oversight.' But that's what the Senate's job is. The bill itself is incredibly detailed and prescriptive about what it's for. It's about treating and preventing the different conditions that veterans are coming home with including cancers and chronic bronchiolitis and all these other issues from their exposures in Iraq in Afghanistan. And to push back on what they're saying, they're saying, 'what if this creates a slush fund?' Right? So, are you familiar with something called the OCO – the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund?" Steward asked anchor Shaun Kraisman.
"Fairly, yes," Kraisman replied.
Stewart underscored why that obscure statute – and its backing by lawmakers – is significant.
"So every year, 50 billion, 60 billion, 70 billion dollars is added to what's called the OCO on top of the 600 billion, 700 billion, 800 billion that goes to the Defense Department. That OCO fund is actually a slush fund. Sixty to 70 billion dollars every year – no oversight, no guardrails – and every one of those Republicans that voted against healthcare for veterans voted for the slush fund for the war," Stewart explained.
"They don't support the troops; they support the war machine," Steward added. "And that's gotta stop. The value of the US military isn't in the toys. It's not in the hardware, it's not in the tanks. It's in the men and women. And until they start supporting them in the manner that they purport to online, they are hypocrites."
Watch below or at this link.
===
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/how-comedians-like-jon-stewart-are-redefining-patriotism/
n0 fw lnx
How comedians like Jon Stewart are redefining patriotism
written by Sophia A. McClennen / Salon June 13, 2019
Over and over, political comedians are taking our national values more seriously than our politicians do.
On Tuesday, June 11, legendary satirical comedian Jon Stewart came out from retirement to testify before the House judiciary committee regarding the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. The fund was established to support 9/11 First Responders and is reportedly facing cuts of between 50-70%. Stewart, who has long been a champion of support for the First Responders, made an impassioned plea to Congress to do their jobs and pass legislation to permanently and fully fund support for the victims.
“Behind me, a filled room of 9/11 first responders. And in front of me, a nearly empty Congress,” Stewart riled. “Sick and dying, they brought themselves down here to speak to no one. Shameful. It’s an embarrassment to the country and it’s a stain on this institution.”
Using his characteristic sharp wit, Stewart underscored the difference between the work ethic of the 9/11 First Responders and those in Congress, “They responded in five seconds. They did their jobs [with] courage, grace, tenacity, humility. Eighteen years later, do yours.”
Stewart’s rant has now gone viral and ideally will, in fact, push Congress finally to do their jobs and fully fund support for the 9/11 First Responders. But that’s not the real story here. The real story is that ever since 9/11 comedians have increasingly worked to defend the values of our nation, oftentimes more so than politicians themselves.
Stop and consider what an inversion this has become. Typically the role of the satirist is to call out the flaws in the system, to speak truth to power in a witty way, to expose hypocrisy, and to mock hubris and folly. Stewart, when he hosted “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, certainly did all that and more. And today his legacy is that we have a broad slate of sharp-witted satirists continuing the tradition.
But something odd happened to satire in the United States after 9/11. Suddenly, it was the court jesters who were taking on the role of defenders of our values and our core institutions. Sure, the comedians still made fun of the emperor with no clothes, or the orange-faced president, but they did more than that. They became role models for engaged citizenship, they defended American values, and they redefined patriotism. Satirical comedians, who typically focus on questioning values and institutions, rose up to protect them.
Stewart has been recognized for the role that he played in mentoring a range of comedians, each of whom is using satirical comedy to elevate the national conversation. Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Hasan Minhaj and others all acknowledge his efforts to encourage and develop their work.
But less attention has been paid to Stewart as a model American, to the way that he transformed political comedy in the United States from a source of critique to a source of patriotic leadership. Over the course of the years that Stewart hosted his show for Comedy Central he did far more than serve as a voice of ironic commentary on national crises and political follies; he increasingly became an advocate for American values. While he regularly recognized the various ways the country had failed to live up to its ideals, he remained convinced that the goal was to keep striving to attain them. And he was especially committed to using those ideals to counter the fear-mongered, hate-filled, fact-averse vision of patriotism espoused by the far right and visible on Fox News and via pundits like Rush Limbaugh.
In the post-9/11 days, Stewart was not alone in this mission. He was accompanied byStephen Colbert,who hosted “The Colbert Report” for Comedy Central in the time slot after Stewart. Colbert appeared in-character as a bloviating pundit, but central to the character was the way that Colbert mocked right-wing versions of patriotism that are more bluster than substance. Swooping in on the back of a bald eagle during the opening credits to his show and then sitting behind a desk surrounded by Americana, Colbert mocked the way that that the right had co-opted the idea of American patriotism. Both Stewart and Colbert worked to expose the hypocrisy of the right, which often imagined itself as the nation’s true patriots. But the key is that they did more than just expose hypocrisy and question hubris; they actually engaged in various efforts to strengthen democratic institutions.
Stewart championed legislation to support the needs of the 9/11 First Responders. Colbert, too, testified before Congress in 2010 on behalf of migrant labor. Stewart and Colbert held a rally together on the National Mall in advance of the 2010 midterm elections. That event focused on the fact that the nation was suffering under the weight of right-wing divisive rhetoric and they argued that citizens needed to fight to champion the US tradition of reasoned debate. Colbert also ran for President, twice, in an effort to expose the undemocratic nature of our campaign finance laws. Stewart and Colbert used their satire to offer a different version of patriotism: one that is compassionate, reasoned, democratic and just.
This all set the stage for the work that political comedians are doing today in the era of the Donald Trump presidency, where the disconnect between the slogan “Make American Great Again” and the administration’s dehumanizing policies feels like a sick joke. If patriotism under George Bush seemed like a sad performance, then under Trump it has become a charade. Think, for example, of the time that George W. Bush appeared in a flight uniform behind a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” in a far-from-stable Iraq. Then compare that to the Donald Trump administration requesting that the USS John McCain be hidden from view during the president’s trip to Japan. They are both egotistical insults to those who fight to defend our nation; but one is simply absurd and petty.
So, just as we have transitioned from Bush’s performed patriotism to Trump’s farce, we can note the rise in comedians stepping up to remind the nation of our values and our democratic institutions. In the wake of the tragic events in Charlottesville, NC, during the “Unite the Right” rally that led to the murder of a Heather Heyer, Seth Meyers reprimanded President Trump on what it means to be a leader in response to Trump’s repulsive “all sides” have some blame comments. Meyers stated: “You can stand for a nation, or you can stand for a hateful movement. You can’t do both.”
Both Hasan Minhaj and Michelle Wolf schooled the Trump team on the First Amendment when they hosted the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinnerin 2017 and 2018 respectively. John Oliver regularly uses his show on HBO to educate his audience on major issues of significant public interest. And who could forgetJimmy Kimmel’s turn from goofy frat boy humor to emotional champion for universal healthcare— a move that underscores the way that even the most unlikely comedians are advocating for policies that benefit our nation.
In fact, the examples of ways that comedians are serious about defending national institutions and committed to advancing national ideals abound. This uncanny transition where comedians don’t just mock institutions, they actually defend them, has happened for a range of reasons, but one thing remains clear: the public trusts comedians often more than politicians or the press and they also learn more from them.
This is why Stewart’s appearance at the Capitol on behalf of the 9/11 First Responders simply confirms the fact that it is regularly the case that political comedians take our national values more seriously than our politicians. During his speech, Stewart expressed frustration and outrage that the brave men and women who defended us in the immediate moments after the 9/11 attacks had to waste precious time continuing to ask Congress to act on their behalf. He then pointed out that there wasn’t a single lawmaker on the committee who on the anniversary of 9/11 failed to tweet, “Never forget the heroes of 9/11. Well here they are!” Stewart pointed to the men and women sitting around him. “And where are they?” he asked as he gestured to the empty committee seats. “It would be one thing if their callous indifference and rank hypocrisy were benign, but it’s not.”
“I’m sorry if I sound angry and undiplomatic, but I am angry and you should be too,” Stewart added. Stewart, of course, is right. We should all be angry over this issue. But what should really anger us is the fact that we live in a nation where comedians defend our national heroes more vigorously than our politicians do.
==
Frosty the Slowman’: Why climate scientists are reveling in this Daily Show segment ripping Trump’s stupidity
by Andrea Germanos February 2, 2019
Climate scientists gave a round of applause Thursday night to a segment on Comedy Central‘s “The Daily Show” that quickly—and with an appropriate level of frustration—showed the ignorance of President…
==
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/arts/television/jason-spencer-sacha-cohen.html
...Spencer isn’t quite as prominent as the other lawmakers that Mr. Cohen has fooled, including Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, and Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent. But you might have heard his name before.
Mr. Spencer, a 43-year-old physician assistant, was elected to the Georgia House in 2010 from Woodbine, near the southeastern tip of Georgia. This is his fourth term, and his last, for now at least. In May, he lost his primary election to a political newcomer, Steven Sainz. He had a reputation of being combative and a knack for attracting negative attention, which may have been what brought him to the attention of Mr. Cohen.
In 2016, shortly after President Trump won the election, Mr. Spencer filed and then withdrew — following an outcry — a bill that critics said would have effectively banned Muslims from wearing veils in public.
Last summer, Mr. Spencer got into a Facebook exchange with a former Georgia lawmaker, an African-American attorney named LaDawn Jones, who supported the removal of Confederate statues. In a comment that had threatening racial overtones, Mr. Spencer told Ms. Jones: “Looks like you are afflicted with the same poison you claim to fight against. I can guarantee you won’t be met with torches but something a lot more definitive. People in South Georgia are people of action, not drama.” He added that people who want the statues removed “will go missing in the Okefenokee,” referring to a swamp in Georgia.
---
Republican state representative from Georgia, Jason Spencer, has been caught on tape shouting the n-word in the latest episode of comedian Sacha Baron Cohen’s show “Who Is America?,” in which Cohen impersonates characters in order to spoof famous people—from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney. For Republican Jason Spencer, Cohen impersonated an Israeli terrorism expert training him how to outwit militants.
Sacha Baron Cohen: “In America, there is one forbidden world, the n-word. Now, I am going to be the terrorist. You have three seconds to attract attention. Go.”
Jason Spencer: “Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!”
Sacha Baron Cohen: “Are you crazy? The n-word is noony. Not this word. This word is disgusting.”
Sacha Baron Cohen: “Show me your weapon, go!”
Jason Spencer: “I’ll touch you. I’ll make you a homosexual right now! You drop that weapon. USA! USA!”
That was Republican Georgia state representative Jason Spencer, believing that ISISmilitants are so afraid of gay people, that he could escape a kidnapping attack by dropping his pants and “attacking” the man with his bare bottom.
==
sasha b cohen sp roy moore, then palin? 8/17
comedian and chameleon provocateur Sacha Baron Cohen has been traveling the country and duping clueless Republican lawmakers and their supporters has been known for weeks, but as his new show—titled "What Is America?"—readies to drop its first episode for Showtime on Sunday night, clips have surfaced in which actual adults are seen endorsing the preposterous idea of arming children as young as three and four years old with guns in order to possibly intervene in case of a school shooting massacre.
According to Reuters:
In the first episode of “Who is America?”, previewed for media by Showtime, Baron Cohen poses as an Israeli anti-terror expert who gets two U.S. congressmen to voice support for his fake “Kinderguardians” scheme for children as young as three. The scheme includes a fake instructional video featuring children’s songs and “gunimals” — weapons adorned with soft toys — that would purportedly help kids confront the school shootings that have plagued the United States for the past decade.
Republican congressmen Dana Rohrabacher of California and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, along with former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, who is now a lobbyist at a Washington law firm, are shown enthusiastically backing the idea, alongside gun rights advocates and a former congressman-turned-talk radio host, Joe Walsh.
While official trailers have not been released, some on social media have been posting portions of the episode:
In his reviewfor Variety, television critic Daniel D'Addadario says the show is Cohen's best work in some time:
“Who Is America?” feels both as richly comic as anything Baron Cohen has done in the decade-plus since “Borat” and urgently resonant with our own era. The show’s format—using four new Baron Cohen personae in order to expose the nature of contemporary American culture—is particularly effective, moving as it does beyond the boldface names who’ve come forward to say they’ve been pranked by the comic. The first episode, for instance, puts gun lobbyists in conversation with Erran Morad, a former Israeli colonel played by Baron Cohen. “Morad” is traveling the U.S. to learn more about gun policy and to share his full-throated support for a particularly libertine understanding of the Second Amendment; by episode’s end, gun lobbyists as well as past and present members of Congress are on tape endorsing his “Kinder-Guardians” program, designed to teach children of three and four how to shoot.
...
https://www.alternet.org/think-gop-lawmakers-arent-unhinged-enough-endorse-program-called-kinderguardians-puts-guns-hands-4
==
sam b atr grover norquist
2/28/12
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/qzl2j5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-grover-norquist-s-taxpayer-protection-pledge
===
https://www.alternet.org/culture/science-satire-and-lies-watching-colbert-can-fight-right-wing-brain-rot
In a National Rifle Association (NRA) TV ad from February of this year a man stands in front of a TV screen that airs a series of clips. Among them is a shot of John Oliver saying the words “National Rifle Association” and another of Alec Baldwin impersonating Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live. The rest of the shots are of talk shows, pundits or cable news reporting. As the clips roll, the man takes a sledgehammer to the TV and smashes it. Then a slogan appears: “The truth is our greatest weapon.”
It is a stunningly stupid ad. And it helps explain why the right keeps going after comedians.
It’s also a pretty funny ad, because what better way for the NRA to expose its penchant for aggressive hyperbole and its snowflake logic than to have a man sledgehammer a TV and equate that act with the “truth”? So according to NRA logic, their weapon is the truth, which is a sledgehammer that they will use on anyone who says things they don’t like. This is the ad they use to suggest they are being misrepresented as aggressive lunatics. Its irrationality is only outdone by its irony.
This weird habit of freaking out over comedians and suggesting that they are threatening the truth isn’t just the domain of the NRA. It’s a right-wing trend.
No one needs reminding of Donald Trump’s incessant agitation over Alec Baldwin’s impersonations of him for "SNL." Recall that Trump wasn’t just upset at the way that he was being presented as a bombastic fool (hardly a creative stretch); Trump also suggested that folks were “forced” to watch the impersonations, that the comedy was “one-sided” and “biased” and that he deserved “equal time.”
But one of the best recent examples of the right-wing witch-hunt over late night comedy came from House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, who didn’t take kindly to a recent sketch Stephen Colbert did on “The Late Show” that mocked him. Colbert traveled to Washington, D.C. to grill lawmakers about the investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia. While there, he released his own redacted memo about Nunes.
Nunes later called into Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business show and called Colbert’s jokes a “danger” to the country. “Conservatives in this country are under attack,” Nunes said. “They attack people who are trying to get to the truth.”
Many of us are aware of the fact that Donald Trump is the most-mocked president in U.S. history. But the other side of the story is that this is the first time in our nation's history that comedians have so consistently been under attack across such a broad range of venues and in such a public way.
So, what is it about these comedians that has the right in such a tizzy?
Clearly, they don’t like being ridiculed. But that isn’t the main reason why these comedians feel like a threat. Instead, the real challenge comedians pose is to the right-wing version of the “truth” that is actually grounded in lies, B.S. and faulty logic. And what really makes the right’s antagonistic attitude towards comedians interesting is the fact that the comedians aren’t just challenging right-wing truth claims; they are thwarting the cognitive processes that lead us to accept right-wing falsehoods as true
Does Texas Congressman Steve Stockman need a refresher course in elementary school science? Jon Stewart suggests he does. Photo credit: Comedy Central
“Here’s why you need the march,” he says, answering his own question. “It’s accepted pretty much everywhere—but there’s one place called the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology.” He illustrates his point with jaw-dropping clips of House members on that committee interviewing John Paul Holden, President Obama’s senior advisor on space and technology issues.
In one clip, Texas Congressman Steve Stockman explains that he doesn’t believe in rising ocean levels, saying, “When your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow—it’s displacement!” “How far back to the elementary school core curriculum do we have to go to get someone on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology caught up?” exclaims Stewart, pounding on his desk in exasperation. “Do we have to bring out the papier-mâché and soda so you can make a %#$&$ volcano?”
In another clip, Indiana Congressman Larry Bucshon offers that climate change has been disproved because “there’s public comments out there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.” “You should look at the scientific literature rather than the public comments,” offers Holdren. “With all due respect, Rep. Bucshon,” says Stewart, “I suggest you get the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology as opposed to the YouTube comment feed of Obummerlies1776.”
It wouldn’t help. Bucshon goes on to say, “Of all the climatologists who depend on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, I could read that but I don’t believe it.” Stewart then reveals who Bucshon’s three biggest campaign contributors are. You won’t be surprised to learn their identities.
cf vid burned notice
===
horner beats jon
===
Even though Piltz's complaints were far broader, journalists immediately latched on to a key nugget: A lawyer formerly with the American Petroleum Institute named Philip Cooney, who had previously lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol, had been the White House editor of the scientific documents in his role as chief of staff on the Council on Environmental Quality. Here was a classic fox-guarding-the-henhouse story that everyone could understand and get easily outraged about. The blogs went nuts over the news.Moreover, the charges came just asTony Blairarrived in the United States to pressure George W. Bush to do something about global warming. Blair's visit -- a prelude to the coming G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, where more pressure will be applied -- catapulted the issue from an environmental obscurity to the center of pack media coverage.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was thrust into a journalistic feeding frenzy, where his defenses of the White House's "interagency review process" for scientific reports did not impress. McClellan uttered that phrase as if the mere fact that such a process exists provided an automatic justification for the routine editing of scientific content by political actors. It didn't wash. Before long, The Daily Show was mocking the Bush White House for its willful and devious denials of global warming, Cooney had resigned from his government post (promptly moving to work for Exxon Mobil, a key corporate sponsor of global-warming skepticism), and USA Today was declaring, "The debate's over: Globe is warming."
What hath Rick Piltz wrought? It's too soon to tell, but there's a new feeling in the air about global warming. It's a sense that the Bush administration may finally be held to account, by the media and by Congress, for four years of obstruction and denial while a planetary problem steadily worsened.
Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine and a TAP Online columnist. His first book, The Republican War on Science, will be published in September by Basic Books. His daily blog and other writings can be found at www.chriscmooney.com.
==
9/13/14
Stephen Colbert: U.S. Needs New National Bird in Face of Climate Change
Stephen Colbert was thrown in a tizzy by an Audubon Society report ..
==
Colbert Pokes Fun at ‘Rolling Coal,’ the Insecure Trucker Driver’s Response to Environmentalists
Watch the ‘Colbert Report' hilariously explain a new phenomenon..
.http://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=a0081d6261&e=c2e8fdabfa
==
==
JS recently did
Jon Stewart Roasts Republicans Who Deny Climate Change: Deaf Party Jam;
Editor Post | June 27, 2014
Read more at http://livinggreenmag.com/2014/06/27/video/jon-stewart-roasts-republicans-deny-climate-change/#gVyIU7TCTXgS5IqU.99
Read more at http://livinggreenmag.com/2014/06/27/video/jon-stewart-roasts-republicans-deny-climate-change/#gVyIU7TCTXgS5IqU.99
epa 4 admin: rmn, b1, b2, rr wm ruckles: no debate on real or we do it; CTW; boozman ark optometrist, zoo mjr; jeff sessions: co2 is plant food, not nox/sox; inhofe: nat'l elect mkt, BO's green dream; Deaf Party Jam;
---
TUE JAN 07, 2014 AT 04:45 PM PST
Jon Stewart blasts climate change deniers at Fox News
byBruinKidFollow
Last night, Jon Stewart was back for his first show of 2014, and he blasted those on Fox News for being climate change deniers, and then talked with Jessica Williams about these denials.
Hey, you know what? This is nice. No name-calling, no left vs. right ideological bullshit, it's just the pleasure of watching news anchors slowly perish from hypothermia.
MELISSA FRANCIS (1/2/2014): All this snow, and still cries over global warming.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on there, but the weather where you are on a particular day doesn't... don't... don't do this, don't.
ERIC BOLLING (1/4/2014): We're having a hard time understand how global warming alarmists are still trying to push their radical position.
DANIEL HENNINGER (1/4/2014): Global warming, a phrase we're all familiar with, I think it's going to die this year ... given the kind of incredible cold weather we've had this weekend.
(disappointed audience laughter)
Right now there are parts of my body that are getting angry that I didn't even know could get angry. (audience cheering and applause for earlier joke reference) And it's... they're getting so angry right now that it's... I'm not going to tell you which part it is... it's my balls. (audience laughter) Right now, I have angry balls. Oh my God, I think I just invented a new video game
(audience laughter)
"Are you kids playing Angry Balls? Hey you kids! Stop playing Angry Balls!"
Just when you think it's over, they pull you back in!
There you have it. War on Christmas is over, the War on Carbon begins. Global warming, just one more liberal conspiracy. Because even though there is a great deal of scientific data establishing climate trends, even though many of the models of global warming predict more extremes of weather — not just warming — apparently decades of peer-reviewed scientific study can be, like a ficus plant, destroyed in one cold weekend.
STUART VARNEY (1/2/2014): Looks to me like we're looking at global cooling. Forget this global warming. That's just my opinion.
Yeah! You're fucking opinion! That's your opinion! It means nothing!! Sorry. (yells at balls) Guys, settle down! (audience laughter)
What... it's your opinion! "Yeah, based on its flavor, I think lead paint is good to drink. That's my opinion. Peeing into a fountain the same time as another person is a good way to switch souls with them. My opinion!"
1/4/2014: DAN WEISS, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: If 97 doctors told you that that lump on your lung was something to worry about, and 3 scientists — er, doctors — told you not to worry about it, are you going to listen to the 97, or the 3? Sounds like you might listen to the 3, which would be sad.
ERIC BOLLING: Well, it really matters to me if the 97 were getting paid to tell me I had a lump on my lung, and it was bad.
(confused audience laughter)
You know, that is how doctors get paid, right? You go to them, and then they charge you to diagnose and treat your problem. Although, I think I've figured out where the lump is. (looks at image of Eric Bolling)
All right, let's follow this climate science money.
ERIC BOLLING (1/4/2014): I gotta tell you, I think these scientists are laughing from their lavish laboratories, and their vacations up at the Arctic, in their nice boats that are well-equipped.
(shocked audience laughter)
This Arctic? This lavish boat?
Yeah, that's the dream, man. I remember thinking, when I get older, I'm gonna be taking one of them Arctic research cruises. And monitor shit, 'cause all the ladies be like, "Damn, your readings are so accurate." (audience laughter)
But I get it. You can't trust these scientists, their judgment is clouded by money. Why do you oppose these scientists?
NEIL CAVUTO (5/4/2013): I think it borders on lunacy that we commit billions — dare I say it, Charles — trillions of dollars to something that might not be.
STEVE FORBES (11/24/2012): This is simply another government attempt to extort money from businesses.
Ah, so the integrity and research of corporations saving millions of dollars by denying climate change is unimpeachable. But keep an eye on those tricky global warming scientist thousand-aires. I've never trusted them since I found out one of the elements on their Periodic Table — gold. Pretty convenient!
Look, it seems like there's a simple way to solve this. Just bring on someone whose opinion we all respect, and whose expertise in this field cannot be denied.
DONALD TRUMP (1/6/2014): This whole global warming hoax.
(Jon facepalms as audience bursts into laughter)
(in Jerry Lewis voice) Nooooo! Oh, the doctor is in!
DONALD TRUMP (1/6/2014): This winter is brutal! I mean, I'm in New York right now, the airports were closed, everything's closed, it's freezing!
Oh! So global warming must be a hoax. Because, I mean, Mr. Trump would never conceal a bald-faced truth or go through any effort to hide when something's clearly receding over the years. (scratches hair as audience laughs)
1/14 fox
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/07/1267926/-Jon-Stewart-blasts-climate-change-deniers-at-Fox-News
---
http://www.alternet.org/print/media/how-john-oliver-became-sheriff-cable-news
Contrast that with Colbert, who in April [7] tackled the related subject of Tennessee’s slimy new death penalty law: Colbert assumed the audience agreed that the death penalty is “unusually cruel,” and mocked the government for its dodgy behavior. Even for someone who doesn’t have an opinion about the death penalty, it would be easy to laugh at Colbert’s segment and still get the joke: the government– a target that’s always ripe for mockery. In Oliver’s segment about a botched execution, though, the joke is that Americans — including you, the audience — are still attempting to justify the death penalty. It may not be as side-splitting as Colbert, but it’s far more compelling.
The Colbert Report [8]
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes [9],The Colbert Report on Facebook [10],Video Archive [11]
In a later episode, Oliver converted his own anger and frustration into action. In a segment about net neutrality — a debate that, though urgent, has been heated for months — Oliver managed to get his audience to do something about it. “This is the moment you were made for, commenters,” Oliver said, urging “Internet trolls” to complain to the FCC about its plan to regulate the Internet. “We need you to get out there, and for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction!” he exclaimed after making a 13-minute case against the FCC’s proposal. A day later, the FCC crashed, and it’s likely that Oliver’s segment was a major contributor [12], if not the cause. Oliver told CBS of the incident, “We merely pointed people to their website and told them why they should be angry about it, and they went in droves.”
Oliver may not have figured out his show’s exact format yet, but week after week, he continues to raise “tough questions,” as his show has advertised, and often skewers his audience in the process. Whereas Stewart and Colbert take pains to seem like our friends, Oliver has made it clear, as he recently told NPR’s Terry Gross, that he is “no one’s friend.” So if “HBO is the moral wild west,” as Oliver said on CBS, then the host has successfully assumed the position of lone sheriff. As the show continues to evolve, we’ll see how far he will go to enforce the law, however unpopular it may be.
===
peach
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2011/04/climate-change-through-the-eyes-and-wit-of-jon-stewarts-daily-show/
Jon Stewart’s highly regarded Comedy Central false-news program, “The Daily Show,” is no stranger to climate change. But along with the humor and wit, there are times when a bit more scientific rigor might help inform his important audience.
In a 2008 episode of “The Daily Show,” host Jon Stewart had an important story to tell about the U.S. government’s response to climate change.
“Our government doesn’t operate, necessarily, in the exact manner that we learned about in high school civics,” he began. “But I’ve got a little story for you tonight that may just rekindle your sense of wonder at just how truly f***** up it all really is.”
Stewart explained that the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v EPA, required the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. But when the agency e-mailed a climate action plan to the George W. Bush White House, the administration refused to open it.
“Amazing!” Stewart said. But the punch line of the story was this: “Not opening the e-mail worked …. The EPA rewrote the policy to Bush’s liking!”
The Daily Show – Be Patient This Gets Amazing – EPA E-Mail
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
In just three and a half minutes, Stewart had summarized the complicated legal and political forces at play in Bush-era attempts to address climate change. At the same time, he illuminated the absurdity of the government’s actions, keeping his audience — one not necessarily inclined, mind you, to spend endless hours vetting peer-reviewed journals — laughing all the while.
‘Your Show is So Funny, Until … Global Warming’
Since 1999, Stewart has lampooned government, the media, and the public from his perch as the host of “The Daily Show,” Comedy Central’s fake news program. During his run, the show has racked up two Peabody Awards and 14 Emmy Awards. As recently as February 2011, the program was the most popular late-night show in America.
An April 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 16 percent of Americans regularly watched “The Daily Show” or its sister program “The Colbert Report.” (In the same survey, 17 percent said they watched “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News.)
Although the show is clearly intended to entertain, it often draws on the conventions of serious journalism. Stewart is famous for grilling guests in interviews. The show also employs a fact-checker, Adam Chodikoff, who told *The Washington Post* that without a factual basis, the show’s jokes are meaningless.
In a 2007 interview with journalist Bill Moyers, Stewart insisted — as he has often done — that he is nothing more than a comedian.
“Ultimately, we have very interesting reactions on our show,” he said. “People are constantly saying, ‘I love your — your show is so funny, until you made a joke about global warming, which is a serious issue, and I can’t believe you did that. And I am never watching your show again.’ You know, people don’t understand thatwe’re not warriors in their cause. We’re a group of people that really feel that they want to write jokes about the absurdity that we see in government and the world and all that, and that’s it.”
Reinforcing Public Misunderstanding?
When it comes to climate change, “The Daily Show” offers an often-uproarious take on the issue. Stewart has called climate skeptic Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) “the Senate’s resident denier bunny.” In a 2004 episode, Stewart opened a segment on science news by exclaiming, “Science! Fact! Testable data! There was a time when some Americans gave a crap about that!”
Although the show deftly highlights the follies of politicians and television news networks, it isprone to inaccuracies of its own in the nuances of climate science.A Yale Forum analysis found that Stewart and the show’s other correspondents have repeatedly — and mistakenly —conflated the ozone hole and climate change.At times, Stewart has appeared uncharacteristically timid in questioning guests about climate science. Meanwhile, the show’s coverage of the University of East Anglia/Climatic Research Unit 2009 e-mail controversy likely reinforced public misunderstanding of the issue.
Early Focus on Science, Then Policy
Comedy Central maintains an online archive of “Daily Show” episodes at thedailyshow.com. Using keyword searches and the site’s tagging system, The Yale Forum identified 67 episodes of “The Daily Show” that addressed global warming between 1999 and 2011. On average, about five episodes each year mentioned the issue, peaking at 13 episodes in 2009, the year the U.S. House of Representatives passed a ”cap and trade” climate change bill and world leaders met for the Copenhagen negotiations. In 2010, only four episodes addressed the issue, and none have so far in 2011.
The show’s coverage of the issue can be divided into three eras. In the early period (roughly 1999 to early 2001), Stewart addressed the issue through reports on scientific findings, such as rising sea levels, soaring temperatures, and melting glaciers. This clip, about melting ice caps, is typical of the show’s early treatment of the subject.
The Daily Show – Other News – That’s Thaw, Folks!
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
After President George W. Bush announced in 2001 that the U.S. would not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, “The Daily Show” began to address political issues related to climate change. In its middle years (April 2001 to late 2005), the show satirized politicians, climate deniers, and mainstream media coverage of the issue.For example, in the following clip, Stewart explains that the top greenhouse gas emitters, the U.S. and China, remain unfettered by the Kyoto Protocol. When a spokesman for the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute says that greenhouse regulations would cause American job losses, Stewart retorts, “We’re going to need those jobs as we evolve into a black-lunged race of sun-blistered ocean dwellers.”
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
During this period, Stewart and other correspondents began occasionally confusing the ozone hole and climate change. For example, in a 2001 episode, comedian Lewis Black commented on the consequences of rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Then he said, “And if they don’t get us by destroying the ozone layer, they’ll get us with mad cow disease.”
Susanne Moser, a research scientist specializing in climate science and communications, reviewed key “Daily Show” clips for The Yale Forum. “There is a very complicated relationship between ozone — in the stratosphere and in the lower atmosphere — and global warming,” she said. “Ozone-destructive chemicals are also heat-trapping gases, but the ozone depletion is not a cause of global warming.”
For Guests, ‘He Can Offer Very Difficult Questions’
In the modern period (late 2005 to the present), the show has continued to satirize politicians and the media. But guest appearances now make up a significant portion of the show’s coverage of the climate change issue. Stewart has discussed climate change with author Chris Mooney, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass), NBC network journalist Bob Woodruff, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, former vice president Al Gore, and former president Bill Clinton, among others.
Stewart is known for — at times — conducting blistering interviews. When CNBC stock market pundit Jim Cramer visited the show in 2009, Stewart trashed him for giving his viewers misleading financial advice. To former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Stewart said, “You’re a guy that is the most adamant about his innocence as anyone I’ve ever met. So you’re either the victim of a terrible persecution or a sociopath.” In a 2007 interview, Senator John McCain (R-Az) said the Iraq War had been terribly mismanaged. Stewart replied, “But then why not be honest about that? Why attack the people who question?”
McCain: We are where we are now. We are where we are now. The question is: can we give this strategy a chance? I’m emphasizing a chance to succeed with a great general, and I think-
Stewart: Why should we? Why?
McCain: Because the architects of failure are ignoring this.
Stewart: If the architects that built the house without any doors or windows don’t admit that that’s the house they built and continue to say: “No, it’s your fault for not being able to see into it,” then I don’t understand how we’re supposed to move forward.
Lance Holbert, an associate professor of communication at Ohio State University, said that Jon Stewart can be a tough interviewer in part because he is a satirist. “He can offer very difficult questions in ways that a journalist cannot, because he’s not as worried about maintaining access, and he always has an ‘out’ that he can laugh it off,” he said.
In climate-related interviews, Stewart appears to accept that warming is occurring and that people are substantially responsible. But he acknowledges that he doesn’t have a clear command of the issue. “It’s very difficult to know if people are lying to you with science,” he said in a 2005 interview with author Chris Mooney.
Perhaps as a result, Stewart appears more timid when he talks with guests about climate change and science than about the Iraq War or the financial crisis. In 2007,Stewart interviewed climate skeptic Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate science “skeptic.”
The Daily Show – Christopher Horner
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
Stewart began the interview with a subtle jab at Horner, telling him that he preferred Horner’s book,The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, to the 2007 IPCC report, because the latter contains graphs and data. “I didn’t care for it,” Stewart said, to audience laughter. But when Horner unleashed a barrage of skeptical claims, including thecanard that scientists in the 1970s believed Earth was cooling, Stewart didn’t correct him.
“It was a salvo of contrarian arguments — data free, as implied, and dead wrong,” said Moser. Horner’s arguments “were only mildly questioned, albeit repeatedly, by common-sense arguments on Stewart’s part.”
On Hacked E-Mails, ‘Little Corrective or Different’ to Say
Stewart again displayed a misunderstanding of climate issues in his coverage of the hacked e-mail controversy. In November 2009, e-mails stolen from a University of East Anglia server and released to the public were seen by climate skeptics as revealing misconduct by climate scientists. Climate deniers seized on an e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones, who had written, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
The Daily Show – Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
“Ha! Ah see, it’s nothing!” Stewart said in his report on the subject. “He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique, recalibrating data, in order to … trick you … into not knowing about the decline.”
Although Stewart acknowledged that the hacked e-mails did not disprove climate change, he lambasted scientists for mishandling data: “If you care about an issue and want to make it your life’s work, don’t cut corners!”
At the time of Stewart’s broadcast, misleading claims about the Jones e-mail were circulating widelyin the media. For example, Jonah Goldberg, writing in USA Today in December 2009, erroneously claimed that scientists had discussed “the ‘trick’ of how to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures since the 1960s.”
But as early as November 21 — 10 days before Stewart’s report — Andrew Revkin at The New York Times had accurately reported the context of the Jones e-mail: Recent thermometer and satellite data shows a temperature rise, but tree ring data does not. Jones dropped the tree ring data because it didn’t match actual temperature records. (See also The Yale Forum‘s coverage of the subject.)
By overlooking the context of the Jones e-mail, Stewart himself was cutting corners, Moser said.
“I would assume this only perpetuated ignorance about the real issue and confirmed in Stewart’s audience a sense of suspicion of scientists,” she said. “He portrayed the media debate, but actually had little corrective or different to say about it.”
Moser said Stewart’s treatment of climate change may, at times, reinforce public misunderstanding of the problem.
“I find him considerably more effective in raising questions about political or ideological news coverage on other issues than on global warming,” she said. “I’m rather disappointed.”
==
newsbusters:
---
If you needed any more assurance the growing ClimateGate scandal is far more significant than America's media has been portraying, you got it Tuesday night from Comedy Central's Jon Stewart.
Somewhat surprisingly, "The Daily Show" host in his opening sketch tore apart the scientists involved in sending the obtained e-mail messages for showing "a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it."
Stewart even mocked the man responsible for spreading more fear on this subject than anyone on the planet:
Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony.
Irony indeed (video embedded below the fold with transcript, vulgarity alert, h/t Story Balloon):
(BEGIN VIDEO)
UNKNOWN PERSON: A hacker in England got hold of emails between leading scientists which skeptics say show a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it.
(END VIDEO)
JON STEWART, HOST: Oh for f**k's sake! Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony. The iro---ny. Actually, the real story isn't quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading centers for global warming show them discussing the work, a bit, how do I put this, casually.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
UNKNOWN FOX ANNOUNCER READING EMAIL MESSAGE FROM CLIMATEGATE PARTICIPANTS): "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (Kevin Trenberth)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." (Phil Jones, CRU Director)
(END VIDEO)
STEWART: (Laughing) See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science: in disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.
(END VIDEO)
STEWART: Oh for f**k's sake! Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s! Laminated. What did you keep?
(BEGIN VIDEO)
UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): The scientists say they kept something called "value added data".
(END VIDEO)
STEWART: Value added data? What is that, numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
SENATOR JOHN INHOFE, (R-OKLA.): The fact that this whole idea on the global warming. I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won. You lost. Get a life.
(END VIDEO)
STEWART: Alright. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. That guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a Slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was from BEFORE he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. If you care about an issue, and want it to be your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skullf**k polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now apparently by God's tears!
Pretty amazing.
To be sure, it's just a comedy show. However, for several years various polls have indicated that many young people in America get their "news" from this program.
As polls have also shown belief in the global warming myth seems to decrease as you go up in age bracket, young folks hearing Stewart's view on this matter could easily be swayed by it.
But even more important than that, "The Daily Show" addressing this subject is a clear indication that ClimateGate is not going away any time soon.
All we need now is for "Saturday Night Live" to start mocking Al Gore along with this entire pathetic scam, and we can say goodbye to cap and trade.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Bravo, Jon. Bravo.
About the Author
Noel Sheppardis the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
===
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fox-news-praises-jon-stewart-for-climategate-coverage/
---
---
no images here)
Fox News praises Jon Stewart for climategate coverage
December 3, 2009by greenfyre
BPSDB That’s right,Faux News thought Stewart’s coverage was just great,no irony or sarcasm at all.
The sad news is, Fox is right. The Daily Show earned that praise and deserves it, unfortunately.
Once again (when was 1st?) Stewart acted largely as an echo chamber for a climate story rather than as the insightful wit that cuts to the truth with clever juxtapositioning. Completely absent was Stewart’s trademark of letting a talking head crawl out on a limb, and then presenting some visual or commentary that exposes the lie.
Notwithstanding a couple of cheap shots at Inhofe, which is both too easy and pointless to the story, and affirming that the emails do not topple climate science, which is obvious to anyone with a brain, [but useful for B&B fans?] Stewart contributed nothing new. Instead Stewart just let’s the main claims of the CNN talking head stand. Not just stand, but clearly accepts the claims as stated to be both accurate and true.
Jon, seriously … when Fox thinks you’re doing a great job maybe it’s time to double check just what it is you are doing. Not to say that it’s necessarily proof that you’re screwing up, but it’s sure not a good sign.
I am not asking Stewart to do anything different from his usual schtick; quite the opposite, I want to know why he didn’t do his usual schtick?
Make no mistake, many aspects of this story are too nuanced, complicated, or as yet unresolved to be suitable for The Daily Show to tackle. Nor am I asking The Daily Show to be some sort of news show format. It’s not, it’s a comedy show. But it’s a comedy show that does cover the news of the day, and does so with a particular style … usually.
Elements of the story, particularly the elements covered in the CNN report, did lend themselves to being deflated with the usual Daily Show format. Further, this aired Dec 1st, when all of the information needed to craft a classic Stewartesque puncturing of the wingnut hysteria were easily available. One phone call or two hours of an intern’s time on the internet were all that was required, and yet that’s not what we got.
How could Stewart have handled it? Well, take the “hide the decline” piece. How hard would it have been to follow the talking head with this graph clearly showing:
there was no temperature decline to hide in 1981, and
the CRU data is no different from the other data sets, hence obviously had not been tampered with.
Instead of exposing the misleading story, Stewart chose to reinforce it “It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you.” He then uses that to segue into helping spread the lie that the raw temperature data from the 1980s has been destroyed, another lie he could have debunked, but chose to repeat instead.
As for the accusations of draconian suppression of dissent, I can easily see Stewart using his standard ‘speaker in the ear’ bit to clarify that:
the alleged suppression was not of dissenting views, but of work and journals thought to be false, and that
these works and journals did indeed turn out to be false.
Not only would that have been easy, it would have been standard Stewart style, but it’s not what we got. Instead we got a straight read as if Stewart were some Fox News sock puppet reading the teleprompter … no wonder Fox thought it was a wonderful performance.
So what does this mean? Is it that the facts are so hard to find that even The Daily Show can’t come up with them despite their considerable resources? What does that tell us about how the average member of the thinking public is getting their information?
Or is Stewart & Co. really so clueless on simple climate science that they start to border on Denial? That may seem hard to believe, but since when does Stewart uncritically accept and repeat stories exactly as the appear on popular media? Yet he did so here, and also with his servile fawning over the Superfreaks climate scam.
Regardless of why, this is not good given how relatively influential Stewart is. What next? Inhofe as a special and honoured guest? co-hosting with O’Rielly? Seriously Jon, if you’re not going to give climate stories the standard Stewart lampooning with all of it’s insight, accuracy and wit, please don’t cover them at all.
Much more of this sort of coverage and Glenn Beck will be holding you up as an example for the popular media to emulate, and I am not sure you want to go there …
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/jon-stewart-on-climategat_n_376672.html Jon Stewart On ClimateGate] see below (too bad JS got punked on
Jon Stewart On ClimateGate (VIDEO)
First Posted: 03/18/1006:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:50 PM ET
On the Daily Show Tuesday night, Jon Stewart dug into ClimateGate -- a series of leaked emails between climate scientists which global warming skeptics have latched onto to prove climate change doesn't exist. "Poor Al Gore," Stewart proclaimed, "global warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented." [nb:uses same gag in both segments?
The claim behind ClimateGate is that these hacked emails prove that scientists were hiding evidence against global warming. (See our slideshow of the 7 Biggest Lies About ClimateGate here.) The real story, Stewart says, is not quite so sensational. But the emails do provide fodder for climate change deniers to go wild. Like Sen. Inhofe, who recently proclaimed 2009 "the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard." (Or, as he said to Sen. Boxer: "We won, you lost, get a life.")
"That guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a slushy and gets a brain freeze." Stewart said, then pointed out that Inhofe proclaimed victory before the climate emails were even leaked.
"But that's the point," Stewart said emphatically. "if you care about an issue, and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners.It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight, drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to scullf*ck polar bears. Which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans. Caused now, apparently, by God's tears." [he alludes to explanation of science method, but does not bother to actuially explain it, thus some listeners might misconstrue?] show clip from 11/25 Fox segment, then comment OFF's sake"
maybe not: onearth blog:
The Daily Show Tackles Climategate-gate (Too Bad No One Else Does)
By Ben Jervey
October 27, 2011 | (4) Comments
Share |
|
Call it Climategate-gate.
Last week, the results of a study that climate skeptics were eagerly awaiting, funded at least in part by theKoch brothers and headed by noted climate contrarian Richard Muller, were finally revealed. And the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (or BEST) project found, well, that mainstream climate science has been pretty much right all along, supporting the overwhelming consensus that the earth's atmosphere has warmed by about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. Climate Central's Michael Lemonick has a more detailed post about this study, which pretty much ought to put an end to the controversy (but won't, of course, becasue it's always been more about politics and profits than science).
Considering the insane airtime given to so-called "Climategate," you'd think that this BEST study might have generated at least a little bit of interest from the cable news networks. Not so much. But I guess that's what Jon Stewart is for. We generally don't post Daily Show videos, because everybody else does, but in this case we think an exception is clearly warranted. (Plus, Jon gets his science geek on, which is always fun.)
http://www.onearth.org/blog/the-daily-show-climategate-gate has particle phys guest, 2nd anniversity of CG 2009, massage joke, gore internet invented joke; 79-59% down polls, muller op-ed in WSJ (did not see that coming) koch funded; TP big debunk: mcrib big story CG got 24 secs of media coverage (network tv?)