“This is America. We must defend the principles symbolized by Lady Liberty – unless she’s on the pill, in which case, she is a giant green tramp.” –Stephen Colbert
Liberal Values Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
Blog Stuff
Bioethicist Calling Jon Stewart Our Greatest Public Intellectual
March 7, 2012 — Ron ChusidIn an article in the American Journal of Bioethics, a Loyola bioethicist is calling Jon Stewart “our greatest public intellectual.”
Kayhan Parsi, JD, PhD, writes that Stewart “has emerged as our voice of sanity in a sea of insanity in a new media age with its ephemeral nature and lack of substance.” Parsi is an associate professor in the Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy of Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.
Parsi explains that a public intellectual is seriously committed to ideas and discourse. He or she may be an academic, although journalists, policymakers and even politicians can play the role.
Parsi notes that Stewart invites a variety of writers, artists and intellectuals to discuss their work on “The Daily Show,” which he hosts on Comedy Central. In doing so, Stewart has taken on the mantle of a public intellectual himself.
“In an era with a great amount of strident self-righteousness, Stewart cuts through the absurdities of what passes for political discourse,” Parsi writes. “Although bioethics topics do not figure prominently in the Stewart oeuvre of satire . . . the issues that are part and parcel of bioethics (say, health care reform) have merited a significant amount of attention.”
Stewart and his colleague Stephen Colbert “have created a space where serious writers can discuss their works in front of a fairly large audience.”
Quote of the Day
February 5, 2012 — Ron Chusid“Mitt didn’t just beat Newt Gingrich, he stomped him by a devastating 14 percent margin. Fourteen percent! That is higher than Mitt’s tax rate.” –Stephen Colbert about the Florida primary.
Quote of the Day
January 13, 2012 — Ron Chusid“Nation, unless you live in a cave, I’m sure you’ve heard that yesterday’s New Hampshire primary was won by Mitt Romney. And if you do live in a cave, I’m guessing you voted for Ron Paul.” –Stephen Colbert
Quote of the Day
May 30, 2011 — Ron Chusid“There is a simple explanation for this because Newt Gingrich buys his engagement rings in bulk.” –Stephen Colbert, on Newt Gingrich running up $500 thousand dollars in Tiffany’s debt
Quote of the Day
March 10, 2011 — Ron Chusid“I’m upset that friend of the show Mike Huckabee criticized Natalie Portman for having a child out of wedlock. Listen, I’m no fan of unwed mothers either, but this is Natalie Portman we’re talking about. That unborn child is Luke Skywalker.” –Stephen Colbert
Is Donald Trump Serious About Running For President?
February 16, 2011 — Ron ChusidI’ve often pointed out that in recent years conservative beliefs have become so absurd that it is often difficult to tell the difference between real conservative beliefs and parody. Even some conservatives have difficulty with this, such as conservatives who take Stephen Colbert seriously. Jonathan Chait is now having difficulty telling whether Donald Trump is serious about running for president or if this is some sort of a joke.
Donald Trump changed his registration to Republican in 2009 and his views expressed at CPAC and in recent interviews have taken a sharp turn to the right. In 2007 Trump was calling George Bush “probably the worst president in the history of the United States.” He also identified with the Democrats on many issues, even pointing out that “the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republican.” Now Trump follows the conservative line, such as blaming Obama for the loss of respect faced by the United States which he very well knows was caused by George Bush.
Personally I see registration as a Republican and taking up GOP talking points as a sign that someone is considering running in the Republican primaries, but I can see where Chait might see this all as a joke. In 1999 Trump was strongly pro-choice but now opposes the basic right of a woman to control her own body. Trump not only changed his position on abortion but had a rather ridiculous explanation for the flip-flop from the executive vice president of his organization:
“People change their positions all the time, the way they change their wives,’’ said Cohen, executive vice president of the Trump Organization and the founder of a website called ShouldTrumpRun.com.
I’d love to see a Republican debate where past statements in favor of abortion rights are pulled up from both Trump and Mitt Romney. I much prefer both the old Donald Trump and the Mitt Romney of 1994.
This explanation for the change in position on abortion rights is not the only item which could lead one to believe Trump’s candidacy is a parody. Take a look at this graphic at ShouldTrumpRun.com:
“It’s cold outside…so where’s the global warming?” Sure, any intelligent, educated person would laugh at this, but this is just the sort of nonsense which many Republicans believe. Trump probably does realize this makes no sense, but also realizes that this is the type of thing which needs to be said to attract votes from the Republican base. There’s nothing surprising about people saying things they know are absurd to attract conservatives. People like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do it all the time.
Bill O’Reilly Explains God and the Tides
February 5, 2011 — Ron ChusidBill O’Reilly proves the existence of God, and Stephen Colbert responds.
Quote of the Day
January 18, 2011 — Ron Chusid”Many are asking if our political discourse has gotten too heated. And those people should go to hell!” –Stephen Colbert
Stephen Colbert Interviewed Out of Character
December 1, 2010 — Ron ChusidSteven Colbert assisted Reddit in a fund raiser for DonorsChoose by agreeing to do an interview out of his television character if $500,000 was raised. I’ve reprinted some of the questions here beginning with his comments on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (text of his legendary talk here).
To this day I’m convinced that your appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was because the Bush Administration didn’t understand your show.
Did they? What happened behind the scenes there? Was it more “non-alcoholic beer in the Roosevelt Room” or “Dick Cheney peppering your limo with bird-shot as you beat a hasty retreat?”
I was as surprised as the next guy that I was invited to roast the President and the press corps that spring.
Here’s how it works. The White House Press Association (or some name close to that) actually does the inviting, not the President or White House. The president of the press association that year was a man named, I believe, Mark Smith, I think from the AP. He invited me. When all was said and done, I wrote to thank him and said I hoped I hadn’t made trouble for him. He said there was zero fallout.
As for the backstage aspects of the night, the President has a nice, small gathering in a room near the banquet hall. The presidential seal is etched into the granite on the floor. A few news anchors, football greats, cabinet members and advisors (I remember Rove and Chertoff, there were others I think), Rich Dahm, Allison Silverman, my brothers and sisters and mom, my wife Evie, and the President and Mrs. Bush. Let me say that the President could not have been nicer, especially to my mother. I have some lovely pictures of her with him. The President and I had a brief conversation before we went on stage. There were in total maybe 60 people at the party, many of whom I should remember more about, but I was pretty focused on my job that night. There was no backstage event after the dinner, but several parties around town.
I had my family up to our room for a drink then hit a party, don’t remember which one. We all had a great time. but I had no sense of public reaction until Monday at work.
On the complications of doing all interviews in character:
Do you sometimes wish you could not be in character for some interviews? Being in character, do you feel that it prevents some people from coming on the show?
Well these questions are really related. I’ll say that from my end of the interview, I often have a guest whose subject I happen to know a thing or two about, and I want to engage them intelligently, but I am an aggressively ignorant character. That is frustrating. Of course knowing their subject lets me make the dumbest possible characterizations of their position or idea. If you ever see me truly being vigorously dense with a guest, I probably know something of his or her subject. And as I said, yes, the character aspect may give some people pause.
In response to another question, Colbert also stated that, “No one doesn’t know I’m in character. I tell everyone first.” Of course it could also be said that the anchors on Fox and MSNBC’s opinion shows are also playing a character:
Jon Stewart’s interview on Rachel Maddow highlighted Jon’s philosophy on the difference between his role and the role of news people like Rachel Maddow.
What, in your mind, is the difference between your responsibility or job and the responsibility or job of a news anchor or 24 hour news host / personality? Do you feel you’re fulfilling your role? Do you feel they’re fulfilling theirs?
Thanks for doing what you do. You’re a funny, funny man.
I think Jon’s appearance on Rachel highlighted his ability to be pretty sharp after vomiting for eight hours.
As for the 24 cable hosts / personalities fulfilling their roles, you bet they do — as those roles are defined by their companies. If not, they are fired. The fact that the roles they fulfill are hard to recognize anymore, and have little to do with informing us, but are instead used to emotionally “engage” us with their brand personas, means I have a steady stream of material.
I too would be fired if I wasn’t fulfilling my role as defined by my company. Happily they define that as comedy, and I agree. I have no real responsibility beyond working hard on jokes.
