The Daily Show just showed a clip of one of those retarded pundits from Fox News saying the following, regarding Sarah Palin:

"But of course she DOES have international experience - she's up there in Alaska, which is right next to Russia!"

*headdesk*

Would someone who plans on voting McCain please explain to me how you can feel comfortable voting for a team where the main guy has had cancer multiple times and is 72, and if he died or became incapacitated the person who would take over from him as the Ruler of The Free World™ has two years of experience as governor of Alaska, and prior to that was on a City Council? I mean, come on. Even if you don't care for the democratic party, can you acknowledge that Obama and Biden are far FAR more qualified?

*headdesk*

Let me e'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

1. I owe my mother an apology - I was supposed to drive with her out to meet up with my sister and her kids in Tennessee on Sunday, and I didn't because I haven't been sleeping well and wanted to sleep in that morning. Turns out she had made a whole gluten-free picnic for the day, which I didn't know about until afterward. So Mutti, I'm very sorry I flaked.

2. On Saturday night I went with notgruntled  and a few other friends to see Tropic Thunder at the drive-in. I don't remember the last time I laughed that hard at any movie, and the drive-in is the perfect venue for a movie that encourages a raucous audience. It was absolutely hilarious. And yes, I've regained a modicum of respect for Tom Cruise. Further, to those people who are protesting because of the fake mentally-handicapped character of "Simple Jack", you clearly have never heard of the following terms: irony, sarcasm, subtext, allegorical.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Because a movie has a sexist or racist character, it doesn't mean that the movie is therefore ALSO racist or sexist. When a movie shows a person doing an offensive portrayal of a character which is clearly MEANT to be over the top and offensive, so as to point out the obtuseness of the person portraying the character in addition to the shallow industry promoting that type of portryal and the easily-emotionally-manipulated mass audiences who often thrive on such characters, the movie is therefore mocking the aforementioned person and groups and NOT the actual offensively portrayed character. Ok?

3. We got a new couch for our upstairs media room - it is bright red and exactly what we've been looking for since we bought the house almost five years ago. Most importantly, the cats approve.

4. I broke down and signed up on Facebook. *sigh* And it's already a soul-sucking timewaster. And I intend to waste more time with after I've gotten my inbox down to 100 emails.  On the plus side, I've already - in the space of a few hours - managed to reconnect with a number of old high school friends with whom I haven't been in touch since I graduated in 1991. I'm also grinning at the number of them who also qualify as ex-boyfriends. I was such a playa.

5. Are you all sure you don't need a fabulous black desk?? Do you know anyone who might??

6. I'm looking forward The Daily Show's take on the DNC convention. Their whole "Best F*cking News Team Ever" gag has been terrific.

7. Fritos make an excellent side to roasted red pepper and tomato soup. (And all gluten-free!)

8. It's clear that McCain is going to take a page from Giuliani's old playbook and replace the overused phrase "9/11" with "POW". Yes, you were in a POW camp, you survived a horrible experience, it's admirable as hell, but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MOST OF THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE BEING ASKED. Now please, continue your regularly scheduled program of gaffes, hypocracy and right-wing-ass-kissing.

That's all, folks - have a lovely week!
.</lj>

I'm catching up on my Daily Show episodes from this week. That's *A* Daily Show, as it's been renamed, not *THE* Daily Show - the distinction being marked by the former's lack of writers due to the Writers' Guild of America strike.

I'm impressed. His first show sans writers was rocky and awkward, and he acknowledged as such.

His second show was good. It was sharp, it was funny and insightful. Granted, it would have been better WITH writers, but I give kudos to Jon for what he's doing. What I don't understand is HOW he's doing this. Clearly there's preparation, evidenced by the news clips and graphics. But it's allegedly with no writing, evidenced by the lack of script in his hand (making him clearly uncomfortable - he's used it as a prop for the last 10 years) and no teleprompter. Is it all adlibbing? How much preparation is acceptable until it becomes strike-breaking actual writing?

In the third episode he actually tells the audience that what he's doing is an "MSTK" type thing - he picks out media clips that he's seen recently or know exist, has them played, and then riffs on them, semi-off the cuff. And it's pretty damn good. His strength is insight into the theatre of the macabre that is our news media, and that's where he pulls the best (and most frightening) humor. Granted, it's sprinkled with inane silliness, but let's give the man a break - he's doing the show without writers.

He does a particularly good bit mocking the media's coverage of Hillary "crying" - and follows it up with an excellent montage of presidents and politicians sobbing over the years. Apparently if a male politician (Bush Sr.) cries, it's moving and inspired. If a female politician looks remotely tearful, it's emotional manipulation. (Bill Kristol can bite me.)

Jon's a little more cantankerous with his guests - not bitchy, exactly, and not rude, but definitely more willing to argue and mock their causes. He's less politely deferential then he has been in the past. When talking to David Frum, who is advising Giuliani's campaign, he couldn't resist some pretty harsh (and deserved) digs on Mr. 9/11 himself. And I feel for the pollster to whom Jon says "polling doesn't matter." He does get the guy to admit that polling is basically a big crapshoot and wholly unscientific. He even has the pollster laughing as Jon says "I was expecting a bigger fight here!"

Fourth episode. Ouch. Starts it off with the report that "NBC expects to make a billion dollars this year in digital revenue." But of course those WGA writers are just greedy asking for a piece of that billion dollar pie. And after all, who needs writers.... Also some good digs at Bush's relationship with Israel (watching the Israeli PM extolling Bush's virtues, Jon muses, "I wonder if George Bush's ass is kosher?"

What these episodes do make clear is the truth of the fact that Jon Stewart is not just an "actor" on this show - he's a satirical analyst. He actually watches the news. He actually watches the media coverage. And he actually formulates intelligent points on various issues, albeit in a satirical fashion. In some ways I'm finding this better - there's actually LESS sophomoric humor, and more sharp humor.
.

I Tivoed the Emmys last night for one purpose, and one purpose only - to watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert present an award together.

I was not disappointed.

Thanks to Crooks and Liars, you can watch their clip in WMV or QT format.  It's the only part of the show you shouldn't miss.

(Background info: Colbert lost in a category for Variety Show, in which Barry Manilow won. Yes, that Barry Manilow.)

I can watch this clip over and over and over and over - and it still makes me ROTFLMAO.
.