The other day I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he did a brilliant impression of Glenn Beck. He had the chalkboard, the glasses, the shoes, and Beck's entire act compiled into one hilarious skit. I thought it was great.
Today I was reading over LRC and noticed a blog post entitled "Jon Stewart's 'Daily Snow.'" Of course, it was about Stewart's Beck impression.
On last night’s program, Jon Stewart had an uncontrollable outbreak of giggling in his efforts to tie Glenn Beck’s “conservatism” in with a “libertarian” philosophy. That the highly-unfocused Beck has tried to pass himself off as a libertarian — something even Ronald Reagan tried to do for himself! — confirmed how utterly desperate the statists have become in their efforts to destroy the only intellectually-respectable source of criticism of the omnipotent state. Taking apart the word “libertarian,” Stewart finally settled on the final syllables of the word: “arian,” as in “aryan,” his infectious giggling spread to his audience in what must have seemed a self-congratulatory response to ideas he seems unable to challenge on substantive grounds.
Then there was a reply to the above-mentioned post.
How “clever” of Jon Stewart, considering that the last three letters of his beloved political affiliation (Democrat) blatantly spell the word “rat.”
UPDATE: Scott Evans points out:
“And that the last four letters of his surname spell “wart,” a form of persistent viral infection!”
Of course, I know Beck is not a libertarian by a long-shot. But, is it just me or do some of the LRC bloggers lack a sense of humor?
Here is the video if you all wish to watch it. I thought it was hilarious:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian
It seems to be a bit of a tit for tat with Beck.
Stewart is a bit smarter than Beck, even if Stewart is not exactly philosophical.
It seems Beck and Stewart tend to derive most of their thinking by either analogy or by comparison. This is why they need each other. It's like Wiley Coyote and Road Runner. You pretty much can't run a political outfit unless you have some type of persecutory complex and imagined enemies blocking the roads or storming the gates.
Blueline976: The other day I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he did a brilliant impression of Glenn Beck. He had the chalkboard, the glasses, the shoes, and Beck's entire act compiled into one hilarious skit. I thought it was great. Today I was reading over LRC and noticed a blog post entitled "Jon Stewart's 'Daily Snow.'" Of course, it was about Stewart's Beck impression. On last night’s program, Jon Stewart had an uncontrollable outbreak of giggling in his efforts to tie Glenn Beck’s “conservatism” in with a “libertarian” philosophy. That the highly-unfocused Beck has tried to pass himself off as a libertarian — something even Ronald Reagan tried to do for himself! — confirmed how utterly desperate the statists have become in their efforts to destroy the only intellectually-respectable source of criticism of the omnipotent state. Taking apart the word “libertarian,” Stewart finally settled on the final syllables of the word: “arian,” as in “aryan,” his infectious giggling spread to his audience in what must have seemed a self-congratulatory response to ideas he seems unable to challenge on substantive grounds. Then there was a reply to the above-mentioned post. How “clever” of Jon Stewart, considering that the last three letters of his beloved political affiliation (Democrat) blatantly spell the word “rat.” UPDATE: Scott Evans points out: “And that the last four letters of his surname spell “wart,” a form of persistent viral infection!” Of course, I know Beck is not a libertarian by a long-shot. But, is it just me or do some of the LRC bloggers lack a sense of humor? Here is the video if you all wish to watch it. I thought it was hilarious: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian
I thought the sketch was funny, but I felt a moment of embarrassment when I saw Glenn Beck calling himself a libertarian... thats setting back our movement a couple hundred years in terms of respectability.
"It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them."
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
John Ess: It seems to be a bit of a tit for tat with Beck. Stewart is a bit smarter than Beck, even if Stewart is not exactly philosophical. It seems Beck and Stewart tend to derive most of their thinking by either analogy or by comparison. This is why they need each other. It's like Wiley Coyote and Road Runner. You pretty much can't run a political outfit unless you have some type of persecutory complex and imagined enemies blocking the roads or storming the gates.
I understand, but I'm commenting more on the sense of humor (or lack thereof) of some LRC bloggers. It gets irritating after a while.
Not familiar with them really... sorry :(
ChroMattic: Not familiar with them really... sorry :(
Sorry, my post was in response to John Ess :P
Stewart and Colbert are gatekeepers for the establishment. Basically, they make statism and shilling for larger criminal gangs "cool" for the kids.
Stop watching television.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Stop watching television.
I quite enjoy some television shows.
Stewart is basically a wanker, that is, a socialist who thinks he's not partisan because he's critical of both sides. Critical in the sense of a plastic bag fluttering in the wind.
The fact that basically kids watch his rubbish reveals the analytical quality of his dialogues. And that he lumps Beck with serious classical liberals reveals his intentions are and always have been libel.
As a libertarian and as a Jew as well, I'd like to knock (in a pejorative way) some sense into Stewart as well as Ben Stein who are in club of libeling classical liberals as espousing anti-semitism (Stein pulled the same crap with Ron Paul). Reminds me of the propaganda Stalin told Feutchwanger, way back when: 'Monopoly Capitalism' means Nazis, so Jews must be communists.
thelion: And that he lumps Beck with serious classical liberals reveals his intentions are and always have been libel.
And that he lumps Beck with serious classical liberals reveals his intentions are and always have been libel.
Does he?
To be honest I didn't see much harm in Stewart's skit. He was making fun of Beck, using words such as "Conservative" and "Libertarian" in the same way that Beck throws around "Progressive" and "Socialist."
what I find ironic is that Stewart's arguments are just as intellectually dishonest as Beck's, if not more.
he had a big census piece on later, and actually made light of the Japanese internment camps.
I've stopped watching Stewart some time after Obama came into office. The kinds of things he defends and the way he defends them are both deplorable. Stewart remains forever in the 'Republicans are bad and therefore socialism is good' mindset. As the nation is crumbling in debt Stewart is shouting at the politicians to 'get things done', and completely failing to understand that politicians can only loot wealth from other people.
He's a clown.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Didn't Ron Paul say he has come to admire John Stewart? ( I Could be wrong)
I used to watch Daily Show and Colbert Report every night in high school, then I found something better to do with my time like read LRC. I think the time I actually stopped watching them was sometime before the election. At that point I tried to stay away from any mainstream program with politics.
I always view shows like Beck, Olberman, Stewart and Colbert with the mindset that I'm watching the court jesters of the American aristocracy.
Blueline976:do some of the LRC bloggers lack a sense of humor?
No.
viresh amin: Didn't Ron Paul say he has come to admire John Stewart? ( I Could be wrong)
Conza88: Blueline976:do some of the LRC bloggers lack a sense of humor? No.
It would seem so. I mean quite a few times they would write blogs trashing Glenn Beck. If anything I see Stewart's skit as a supplement to their previous posts, regardless of his liberalness.
Let's be honest here. The author(s) took the "arian/aryan" part seriously...
Let's be honest here, you obviously have no conception of the false left / right paradigm and it's manifestations within the mainstream media.
Conza88: Let's be honest here, you obviously have no conception of the false left / right paradigm and it's manifestations within the mainstream media.
Then enlighten me and try not to be so hostile when I'm simply trying to have a discussion.
(If your post wasn't meant to be hostile then I apologize. It just came off that way to me.)
I personally laughed my ass off when he "deconstructed" the words "conservative libertarian". I certainly didn't see any real harm in it.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
I don't know, I can see pretty big differences between left and right.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz:I don't know, I can see pretty big differences between left and right.
Like what?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
thelion:Stewart is basically a wanker, that is, a socialist who thinks he's not partisan because he's critical of both sides.
i doubt that has no plans for sheltering his 7 figure salary.
Blueline976:I mean quite a few times they would write blogs trashing Glenn Beck.
He deserves to be trashed. False right.
Blueline976:If anything I see Stewart's skit as a supplement to their previous posts
It's not though, because it's false left.
Blueline976:Let's be honest here. The author(s) took the "arian/aryan" part seriously...
And those who hear libertarian, now make an easy illogical jump to "ayran", think "right wing" - Hitler, Nazi's etc.
Not productive for us at all.
Blueline976:Then enlighten me and try not to be so hostile when I'm simply trying to have a discussion.
What you will now see from the MSM
As is generally understood by the average person; the political paradigm is as follows - at the end of each "wing":
Left wing: Communism / Stalinism / Marxism = international socialism Right wing: Fascism / Nazism = national socialism
Literally 5 letters of difference. Libertarians are neither left or right wing. Even when you re-jig the paradigm, you're never going to be able to recover in the minds of the masses - your attempt to re-define the terms "right wing" or "left wing". As such, it needs to be rejected - and the blatantly obvious error / attempt to box people into socialism.
The normal response by the average voter is well, extremes are bad - very left wing is bad, very right wing is bad - so "middle of the road" socialism it is... because that's the only options they think they have.
Conza88 wrote the following post at 03-21-2010 1:49 AM:
("Clearly we just shouldn't let people talk who disagree with us. That is the libertarian way.")
(So the left should base whether or not they listen to him on his affiliations rather than what he says? Party politics at its finest, I daresay.)
(Was it any more productive for that association to not exist? I mean, doesn't the very fact of this word game mean you have a good reason to try and get more people to listen to your own perspectives? Or...or...and here's an idea that never occurred to anyone, I'm sure...You could just pass a law saying no one can bad-mouth libertarians. Yes, that would be the way to handle this, clearly.)
(Perhaps you should do something to prevent that. I would recommend getting some sense into the minds of the masses and knock off all the pessimism. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get people talking about something?)
(Perhaps. Good thing we never have middle-of-the-road candidates to vote for, I guess, since I'm sure both sides would just flock to that fella. I don't see how this description holds up when the party definitions are always changing...)
Valject:("Clearly we just shouldn't let people talk who disagree with us. That is the libertarian way.")
Clearly this is a strawman & non sequitur.
Valject:(So the left should base whether or not they listen to him on his affiliations rather than what he says? Party politics at its finest, I daresay.)
You clearly haven't read the thread I linked below, nor understand the tactics used by the power elite, via the fourth estate & intellectual whores to bamboozle the public.
Valject:(Was it any more productive for that association to not exist? I mean, doesn't the very fact of this word game mean you have a good reason to try and get more people to listen to your own perspectives? Or...or...and here's an idea that never occurred to anyone, I'm sure...You could just pass a law saying no one can bad-mouth libertarians. Yes, that would be the way to handle this, clearly.)
You missed the point - and you need to work on your sarcasm. Or did I miss something?
Valject:(Perhaps you should do something to prevent that. I would recommend getting some sense into the minds of the masses and knock off all the pessimism. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get people talking about something?)
Perhaps I am. Do you?
Valject:(Perhaps. Good thing we never have middle-of-the-road candidates to vote for, I guess, since I'm sure both sides would just flock to that fella. I don't see how this description holds up when the party definitions are always changing...)
You don't see, because you didn't understand. The paradigm hasn't shifted at all. Both parties are fulfilling their goals. One (Democrats) explicitly represents the welfare state, the other (Republicans) the warfare state. In essence, the president and party always do both. Growth in the state, keeps on keeping on.
Conza88: Valject:("Clearly we just shouldn't let people talk who disagree with us. That is the libertarian way.") Clearly this is a strawman & non sequitur. (I'm not the one throwing around terms like deserves. You would do better to simply trash-talk your enemies rather than talk about people deserving things. It's the same as saying "There ought to be a law...") Valject:(So the left should base whether or not they listen to him on his affiliations rather than what he says? Party politics at its finest, I daresay.) You clearly haven't read the thread I linked below, nor understand the tactics used by the power elite, via the fourth estate & intellectual whores to bamboozle the public. (You clearly can't see the point of a statement. What in blazes does a bamboozling intellectual whore have to do with my point? Let me spell it out for you. Yes, fine, we can give you that Jon Stewart is a bamboozling thought-whore, despite the fact that you ignore the possibility he might simply be saying exactly what he thinks, and the actual whores are letting him because it is doing them a service. Let's skip that, because I don't pretend to know the motivations of others. I certainly will not make a wild conjecture that you do not understand something, since I know nothing about you. So, given the whoriness of Jon Stewart, if someone agrees with something he says, should they still renounce him because he is bamboozling people? I mean, I've never been one to follow a lesser of two evils, but those who would subscribe to Stewart-ism do so because he is at the very least saying the things they believe in, whether or not he's holding a carrot on a stick. Do you suggest, perhaps, that the bamboozled left aren't helped by someone promoting their ideas, even if the promotion is not in good faith? Or is it simpler? Are you trying to convince people not to listen to him by pointing out where he stands? If that is the case, I have a suggestion. It might do you well to not just toss the term "false left" or "false right" around and expect people to understand what you mean. There is a good reason for that. Those people...the ones listening to you...they're only listening to the words coming out of your mouth/typing hands, and they cannot read your thoughts. I've seen a situation similar...it's like...it's like those people who listen to Jon Stewart and like his ideals, despite the fact that he might not believe in those ideals. Come to think of it, how do I know you really believe any of the stuff you type? Hmm...we should just not let people talk at all, to avoid that issue, right? I say law against communication, right now!) Valject:(Was it any more productive for that association to not exist? I mean, doesn't the very fact of this word game mean you have a good reason to try and get more people to listen to your own perspectives? Or...or...and here's an idea that never occurred to anyone, I'm sure...You could just pass a law saying no one can bad-mouth libertarians. Yes, that would be the way to handle this, clearly.) You missed the point - and you need to work on your sarcasm. Or did I miss something? (Really? What point did I miss? Seeing as my point has nothing to do with the context of what you were saying, and that I was only pointing out the problem with simply saying someone should be "trashed", do I really need your point? The point being made is quite sound. Jon Stewart is a hip and cool way to get people to believe in certain ideas. At what point did I argue against what was being said? I didn't. I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't shoot Jon Stewart because he spouts ideas contrary to a cause we happen to believe in. Seeing as I did so in a definitively sarcastic way (there are dictionaries defining the word and everything!), I don't think my sarcasm needs any work. Read this paragraph a second time if you're still wondering what you missed. I'm not about to dumb down to talk to someone who already agrees with me. It's pointless. I'm already miffed that I have to explain that I agree with you.) Valject:(Perhaps you should do something to prevent that. I would recommend getting some sense into the minds of the masses and knock off all the pessimism. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get people talking about something?) Perhaps I am. Do you? (I do. I got you to talk about this, in particular, merely by being sarcastic.) Valject:(Perhaps. Good thing we never have middle-of-the-road candidates to vote for, I guess, since I'm sure both sides would just flock to that fella. I don't see how this description holds up when the party definitions are always changing...) You don't see, because you didn't understand. The paradigm hasn't shifted at all. Both parties are fulfilling their goals. One (Democrats) explicitly represents the welfare state, the other (Republicans) the warfare state. In essence, the president and party always do both. Growth in the state, keeps on keeping on. (I don't understand? What didn't I understand? And since when isn't the democratic party a party of a warfare state? Since when are the republicans not part of the welfare state? Since when are some not playing both sides just to keep a seat? You know, it's still a party attitude to say that every democrat = X and ever republican = Y. And I doubt I made any conjecture claiming that the state does not grow. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but we've been talking about a national health care plan for a year now...So yeah, the state does keep on keeping on. The paradigm has to be taken to broad terms that don't really matter to make a statement like "the paradigm" hasn't shifted. It shifts by individual. But if you mean in the sense that it's about government power expanding and two parties vying for power...well, quite frankly it's difficult for that to shift at all. Remember, if you were a member of congress right now, and I was having this conversation with someone else, you would be part of the melting pot that you just lumped everyone into. I would make another, final suggestion. It might benefit you to not assume that just because I say "we shouldn't silence Jon Stewart", it doesn't mean that I disagree with you about what he is and what he does. It means that I think we shouldn't silence him. By saying that I "don't see", you assumed I disagreed with your analysis of Jon Stewart. I do see it, quite well. I see it everywhere, on every side. I see it from so-called libertarians. I see it in every member of the government that currently calls themselves "liberals", and clearly have not picked up a dictionary to that effect. But maybe I'm just saying that I see it. Maybe I'm just here to agree with you and act in accordance with your ideals, while I secretly wring my hands together and laugh maniacally. I hope no one ever finds out though...they might decide to "silence" me.)
(I'm not the one throwing around terms like deserves. You would do better to simply trash-talk your enemies rather than talk about people deserving things. It's the same as saying "There ought to be a law...")
(You clearly can't see the point of a statement. What in blazes does a bamboozling intellectual whore have to do with my point? Let me spell it out for you. Yes, fine, we can give you that Jon Stewart is a bamboozling thought-whore, despite the fact that you ignore the possibility he might simply be saying exactly what he thinks, and the actual whores are letting him because it is doing them a service. Let's skip that, because I don't pretend to know the motivations of others. I certainly will not make a wild conjecture that you do not understand something, since I know nothing about you. So, given the whoriness of Jon Stewart, if someone agrees with something he says, should they still renounce him because he is bamboozling people? I mean, I've never been one to follow a lesser of two evils, but those who would subscribe to Stewart-ism do so because he is at the very least saying the things they believe in, whether or not he's holding a carrot on a stick. Do you suggest, perhaps, that the bamboozled left aren't helped by someone promoting their ideas, even if the promotion is not in good faith? Or is it simpler? Are you trying to convince people not to listen to him by pointing out where he stands? If that is the case, I have a suggestion. It might do you well to not just toss the term "false left" or "false right" around and expect people to understand what you mean. There is a good reason for that. Those people...the ones listening to you...they're only listening to the words coming out of your mouth/typing hands, and they cannot read your thoughts. I've seen a situation similar...it's like...it's like those people who listen to Jon Stewart and like his ideals, despite the fact that he might not believe in those ideals. Come to think of it, how do I know you really believe any of the stuff you type? Hmm...we should just not let people talk at all, to avoid that issue, right? I say law against communication, right now!)
(Really? What point did I miss? Seeing as my point has nothing to do with the context of what you were saying, and that I was only pointing out the problem with simply saying someone should be "trashed", do I really need your point? The point being made is quite sound. Jon Stewart is a hip and cool way to get people to believe in certain ideas. At what point did I argue against what was being said? I didn't. I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't shoot Jon Stewart because he spouts ideas contrary to a cause we happen to believe in. Seeing as I did so in a definitively sarcastic way (there are dictionaries defining the word and everything!), I don't think my sarcasm needs any work. Read this paragraph a second time if you're still wondering what you missed. I'm not about to dumb down to talk to someone who already agrees with me. It's pointless. I'm already miffed that I have to explain that I agree with you.)
(I do. I got you to talk about this, in particular, merely by being sarcastic.)
(I don't understand? What didn't I understand? And since when isn't the democratic party a party of a warfare state? Since when are the republicans not part of the welfare state? Since when are some not playing both sides just to keep a seat? You know, it's still a party attitude to say that every democrat = X and ever republican = Y. And I doubt I made any conjecture claiming that the state does not grow. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but we've been talking about a national health care plan for a year now...So yeah, the state does keep on keeping on. The paradigm has to be taken to broad terms that don't really matter to make a statement like "the paradigm" hasn't shifted. It shifts by individual. But if you mean in the sense that it's about government power expanding and two parties vying for power...well, quite frankly it's difficult for that to shift at all. Remember, if you were a member of congress right now, and I was having this conversation with someone else, you would be part of the melting pot that you just lumped everyone into. I would make another, final suggestion. It might benefit you to not assume that just because I say "we shouldn't silence Jon Stewart", it doesn't mean that I disagree with you about what he is and what he does. It means that I think we shouldn't silence him. By saying that I "don't see", you assumed I disagreed with your analysis of Jon Stewart. I do see it, quite well. I see it everywhere, on every side. I see it from so-called libertarians. I see it in every member of the government that currently calls themselves "liberals", and clearly have not picked up a dictionary to that effect. But maybe I'm just saying that I see it. Maybe I'm just here to agree with you and act in accordance with your ideals, while I secretly wring my hands together and laugh maniacally. I hope no one ever finds out though...they might decide to "silence" me.)
I think this thread has gotten out of hand.
Look, I'm not saying Stewart is some champion of late-night television or that he should be praised. I know he falsely plays both sides of the left-right spectrum. However, my original point was that despite Stewart's skit that trashed Glenn Beck being absolutely hilarious, the two LRC bloggers (and apparently some people on this very forum) completely missed the point of the skit and took it far too seriously.
Why does every bit of political satire have to be brought down to a level of "oh well that wasn't funny because, see, that guy is actually a shill for the establishment?"
You are a libertarian. Stewart just called you an anti-semite. Is that funny?
I'm a libertarian (a liberal). I'm also a Jew. Stewart just called me an anti-semite. Is that funny? Or is that just insulting?
LRC people got it right this time, I think.
Jon Stewart was not promoting, or even slyly suggesting, that libertarianism can be associated with Aryanism. He wasn't even making fun of libertarianism at all. He was making the point that Beck using word free-association to link ALL social democrats with what are considered the most extreme left-wing ideologies is just as ridiculous as linking libertarianism with the what are considered the most extreme right-wing ideologies. If anything, in basing his joke on the ridiculousness of associating libertarianism with extreme ideologies, he's implicitly endorsing the reasonableness/moderateness of libertarianism.
thelion: You are a libertarian. Stewart just called you an anti-semite. Is that funny? I'm a libertarian (a liberal). I'm also a Jew. Stewart just called me an anti-semite. Is that funny? Or is that just insulting? LRC people got it right this time, I think.
Did he call me an anti-semite on a personal level or over his satirical television show? There's quite a difference.
Oh come on. By equating libertarian and aryan, he obviously wanted to make the point that Beck's "methods" and illustrations are completely ridiculous and don't prove a damn thing. It's kind of what SouthPark did with the Kill Smurfs thingy.
Libertarian = Aryan
Aryan = Iranian
Iranians put a fatwa out on Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is an anagram of Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh is fat
Fat people need health care coverage
Do you see where this is going, America? These people are taking over your country by the hour. Their Islamofascism and hatred for you is out of control. We've never been this divided, America.
*tear*
Does anyone here remember 9/11?
John Ess: Libertarian = Aryan Aryan = Iranian Iranians put a fatwa out on Salman Rushdie Salman Rushdie is an anagram of Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh is fat Fat people need health care coverage Do you see where this is going, America? These people are taking over your country by the hour. Their Islamofascism and hatred for you is out of control. We've never been this divided, America. *tear* Does anyone here remember 9/11?
Well done, sir.
Libertarians are aryan? Someone better tell Walter Block.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Grayson Lilburne: Jon Stewart was not promoting, or even slyly suggesting, that libertarianism can be associated with Aryanism. He wasn't even making fun of libertarianism at all. He was making the point that Beck using word free-association to link ALL social democrats with what are considered the most extreme left-wing ideologies is just as ridiculous as linking libertarianism with the what are considered the most extreme right-wing ideologies. If anything, in basing his joke on the ridiculousness of associating libertarianism with extreme ideologies, he's implicitly endorsing the reasonableness/moderateness of libertarianism.
+1
I thought this was pretty obvious, really.
Awesome. Bonus points for knowing Aryan = Iranian, even bigger bonus points for enlightening me on the Salman Rushdie anagram