"Truthiness to Power"
Stephen Colbert is more my hero than ever.
Watch an excerpt,
or
Read this story about what he said at the White House Correspondednts dinner.
Some key quotes:
And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes Bdecisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!
Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
Okay,I could obviously keep going and going and going. But seriously, this shit is amazing.
So in honor of the man himself, here's my own anti-dead-to-me list:
Badass celebs who stand up for shit:
Neil Young (hear living with war here)
Stephen Colbert
Pink
The Clooneymeister
Brangelina (mostly cause they be so hot right now)
Alright, that's it for now. I am in awe, Stephen.
and don't forget to THANK STEPHEN!
Watch an excerpt,
or
Read this story about what he said at the White House Correspondednts dinner.
Some key quotes:
And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes Bdecisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!
Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
Okay,I could obviously keep going and going and going. But seriously, this shit is amazing.
So in honor of the man himself, here's my own anti-dead-to-me list:
Badass celebs who stand up for shit:
Neil Young (hear living with war here)
Stephen Colbert
Pink
The Clooneymeister
Brangelina (mostly cause they be so hot right now)
Alright, that's it for now. I am in awe, Stephen.
and don't forget to THANK STEPHEN!
Labels: culchural commentation
posted by SarahMarian at 2:42 PM
9 Comments:
yo this post is excellent, and s.c. is a true hero to all of us who still believe those naive things about journalists standing up for the truth. (also a true hero, by-the-by: fellow-ette.) someone should write an incredibly witty letter about this to the nytimes!
[what's with the comment moderation tho?!]
Colbert showed the world he is a bully. And an idiot.
Sooner or later someone will compare him with the fellow who stood before the tanks in Tienenmen Square (China, 1989) and faced down the forces of an overbearing government.
Nothing could be further from the truth or reality. Colbert took no risk when he attacked the president. None. Nada. Not one risk. Yeah, in the future he's not likely to receive an invitation to the Bush White House, but I don't think that matters.
He verbally assaulted the president, whom Colbert knew would maintain his composure and decorum. He knew Bush wouldn't stand and leave the room. He knew he'd have clear shooting as long as he wanted to fire away
Someone will undoubtedly claim Colbert "spoke truth to power."
But he didn't. Because doing so involves risk. He just ran his mouth knowing he'd make a big media splash and send the blogosphere into orbit.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering exactly what he meant when he claimed the country was like the Hindenberg. Is he anticipating, expecting, hoping for a cataclysmic end to America? Sounds that way.
Anyway, he demonstrated his rudeness and his desire to bully. What a guy.
No_slappz, you always have some lovely reactionary stuff to say.
How is a COMEDIAN a bully, when it's the president who has actually caused people's deaths, and singlehandedly sunk the american reputation perhaps irretrievably.It is the president who bullies, who was never denied a desire, and the idea of someone bullying him is as refreshing as it is absurd.
yeah, no_slappz, i gotta say you're the only one who seems to be "running his mouth" here. (posting hostile rants to other people's blogs! what a risk-taker you are!)
out of curiosity, do you actually have any substantive objections to colbert's points, or are you just pissy because he had the nerve to challenge group-think goose-steppers like yourself?
ps thanks for the citation on tiananmen square! think you misspelled it, though. :(
fellow-ette,
Had Colbert made the same statements on TV, without the president in attendence, his distribe would have sounded like a million others. And it would have been within the bounds of partisan commentary.
However, his rant took on a new dimension when he delivered it to its target in a manner that compromised the person in the gunsights.
Colbert launched into a unilateral attack. No counterattack would ensue. He knew that. Colbert wasn't entering a debate. He was shooting a sitting target. Giving verbal slaps to a guy who wasn't going to hit back.
That makes him a bully. The airwaves are filled with sniping from Air America, Sean Hannity. Limbaugh and other gasbags. They entertain their constituents with lacerating talk.
But Colbert had effective control of the talk-switch on Bush's microphone. As though Colbert were a radio talk-show host with an opponent on the telephone line who was left unable to respond to the jabs from the host because the host controlled the phone speaker.
As for your comment about the "American Reputation", the concept of the "Ugly American" has been around since not long after WWII. Therefore, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about when you suggest a past in which the US was universally admired.
The Soviet Union and Red China showed no esteem for the US. For its plan to sink the US, the Soviet Union, instead collapsed upon itself. Meanwhile, China has acquired the wisdom and discretion to employ the old canard -- if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Much better idea for them. Hopefully the US too.
Meanwhile, you seem to misunderstand the simple fact that Bush was elected and his term will end. He's not the king. Best bet for you is to find a Democrat who can take the White House.
Hint: Hillary can win the nomination but not the election.
On that note, I recall a roast of Bill Clinton at which Don Imus performed in a manner similar to Colbert. Imus ranted about Clintons peccadillos while Hillary was sitting beside him.
The result? Imus was battered in the press for taking potshots at Clinton, who like Bush in the face of Colbert, wasn't going to rebut the attack.
err, you said:
"(posting hostile rants to other people's blogs! what a risk-taker you are!)"
Are you making the point that if no risk is taken no points are scored?
Of course there's no risk posting comments on the internet -- unless one is engaging in libel. But that's not the case here.
Should there be risk when posting responses to people's statements?
You asked:
"...do you actually have any substantive objections to colbert's points, or are you just pissy because he had the nerve to challenge group-think goose-steppers like yourself?"
What were Colbert's "points" other than acts of ridicule and rudeness?
One last point.
I had enjoyed posting on the main Edwize board. However, because of the totalitarian mindset of Kombiz the administrator, my access has been denied.
He disapproves of my point of view. Hence, he has blocked comments coming from my IP address.
I guess he thinks I represent a "risk".
slappy, i'm not nearly as fond of my own voice as you seem to be (you should really look into a career as one of those "gasbags" you like talking about!), so i'll limit my comments here to a simple recommendation to go back and read fellow-ette's original post which inspired your first little manifesto. she excerpted a few of the more incisive paragraphs from colbert's speech; two of the points made there were 1) that our president has responded to the great crises of our time (man-made and otherwise) with photo-ops instead of sound policy, and 2) that the national media swallowed administration propaganda on iraqi weapons of mass destruction, among other things. neither of those points is "ridicule" or "rudeness"; they're both important political expressions, and you seem to be too cowardly to acknowledge either.
you write that bush is "a guy who wasn't going to hit back." that's funny, because bush's idea of "hitting back" isn't satirical speech - it's bunker-busting bombs and 10,000+ corpses. hope you sleep well at night knowing you're standing up for the little guy.
err, you wrote:
"two of the points made there were 1) that our president has responded to the great crises of our time (man-made and otherwise) with photo-ops instead of sound policy,
Really? I think force-feeding democracy to the middle east is a very good idea. And I believe we are on that road. After WWII ended in 1945, it took an additional 7 years of our uninterrupted presence in Germany and Japan before they were capable of self rule. But they seem to have taken to it rather well.
You wrote:
"...and 2) that the national media swallowed administration propaganda on iraqi weapons of mass destruction, among other things."
Oh. So much of your complaint falls on the shoulders of journalists who you believe failed to actively dig in the sands of Iraq to fact-check administration claims. I guess your battle is with the press.
You added:
"...neither of those points is "ridicule" or "rudeness"; they're both important political expressions, and you seem to be too cowardly to acknowledge either."
The content of Colbert's assault is not in question. He's free to say whatever he likes. I really don't care what he says about Bush. But he chose a venue and circumstance in which he was able to embarrass and humiliate the president because the president couldn't respond.
That's the essence of bullying. Knowing you can strike with impunity for a purpose no greater than humiliation of your victim.
But you'd rather pretend Colbert was a high-minded brave soul. You can be sure he wouldn't have felt safe doing the same in at least a hundred other countries.
You wrote:
"you write that bush is "a guy who wasn't going to hit back." that's funny, because bush's idea of "hitting back" isn't satirical speech - it's bunker-busting bombs and 10,000+ corpses.
I've traveled in the middle east. Well before 9/11 the deep animus and contempt for the US was openly displayed. Meanwhile, I used to have an office on the 47th floor of Tower 1 in the World Trade Center. No more, however, thanks to radical islam.
Please, don't bother with the nonsense about the nationalities of the 9/11 perpetrators. Believe it or not, the anti-US animus is not contained by the borders of individual middle east states. It is defined by islam.
You cracked:
"hope you sleep well at night knowing you're standing up for the little guy."
I do.
Post a Comment
<< Home