shit, did canada anex california recently?

I'm not getting the embed either, but clicking the "original link" link works.

That made me very aware that it was "unlikely future".

Really? That's the best you've got? One of his relatives is in high finance?

Go fuck yourself.

LOL JEWS AMIRITE

Maybe this is naive of me to ask, but what does that have to do with it? How is that supposed to undermine anything he's saying here?

Tu quoque
Ad hominem
Et cetera

Red herring much?

What family members do shouldn't make someone look bad. Compare Billy Carter to President Jimmy Carter.

Hey, I'm not saying he's WRONG. I'm just saying he's an insincere, twofaced bastard. Surely we can all agree on that much?

Look, I grew up on the Daily Show too. As an entertainer, I like him; he's funny, he's charismatic, and I'd probably let him sodomize me if he bought me a nice dinner first. But this is a man who makes a living spouting empty populist rhetoric, despite being firmly entrenched within the 1%'s 1%. He's Bill O'Reilly for the campus socialist set. The pop-political equivalent of one of those designer Che shirts.

Part of it's just political bias, I admit. I first gravitated toward Jon for his "principled", socially libertarian talking points during the Bush era; now that Obama is in power, it's not hip to whine about expanding federal powers or launching unsanctioned military strikes against Third World nations. But hey, that's just me.

But come on. Really? Every time Jon talks about "wealthy people" and the "priveliged, entitled elite", like it's us vs them, and he's one of us, not one of them, it just... it makes me cry a little inside.

And it's not even like he ever presents any sensible alternatives to the shit he bitches about. Yeah, rich people are bastards... so? So we set up a market-hostile system in which crony capitalism (crony socialism?) has an even easier time remaining entrenched, due to the vastly increased regulatory oversight granted to state entities already mainly controlled by a narrow range of private interests? Gosh, that'll work well.

But right now, all I want to know is whether this is the episode in which Jon discloses his blatant conflict of interest in the growing "class war" spurred on, in a large part, by his own cable comedy program. I'm guessing no, right?

I think you're really out on a limb here.

Jon doesn't speak populist "us vs them" rhetoric in terms of the poor and rich, not in this clip, and not generally that I've noticed. He's primarily a media critic, calling them out on double-standards.

His specific complaint here is that some people rich and poor complain that when they get benefits, they are deserved, but when others others get benefits they are parasites sucking up entitlements. A rich person who gets tax breaks but doesn't automatically judge others who get similar breaks isn't criticized, while a poor person who demands their medicare but considers student loans socialism, is. It's not about income = bad, it's about hypocrisy from those who operate only in self-interest and build their worldview around that.

" Yeah, rich people are bastards... so? So we set up a market-hostile system..."

What fucking show are you watching? That's nothing Stewart has complained about or advocated. You seem to be inferring your own meanings to what he says by lumping Stewart into a 'class warfare' group. You're suggestion that they haven't reported critically on Obama's continuation of Bush civil liberty violations and military presence is wrong, although there are many obvious reasons why it's not as critically discussed now by any news source, than it was when the wars were started and escalating and the redefinition of our rights began.

Inferring my own meanings? Maybe. After all, one of the most remarkable things about the Daily Show is how little"meaning" ever comes out of Jon's various segments. He criticizes, he points out hypocrisy, flubs, and other obvious stuff, and then... nothing. When I asked what Jon's alternative was, that wasn't a rhetorical question; I've watched the show for over ten years, read his books, and still don't know for sure.

I would like to point out, however, that Jon's preference for... whatever you want to call the modern Democrat's brand of "too statist for the Randroids/ too neoliberal for the pinkos" economic policy, is an open secret. It's usually subtextual, and often goes unremarked, but it's always there and it always informs the ways he picks, and goes after, his targets.

As for his treatment of the media, that's even more hypocritical than his treatment of issue of class and economics. Jon IS the media, in fact, I'd argue that Jon has had more influence on the face of the media over the last decade than any other media personality. Here, again, he relies on his disarming charisma to try and paint a picture of "us vs them", when in reality it's more like "me vs people just like me, only with slight differences".

Finally, what "obvious reasons"? The only obvious reason I can think of is, well, Jon pulls for the Democrats; he didn't really give a shit about civil liberties in the first place, any more than he gives a shit about entitlements now. It's an act; everything is rhetoric, to be used or discarded according to the ever changing needs of "his team" (which, again, includes one of the most powerful investment bankers in the world).

I don't expect Jon Stewart to offer specific policy plans to fix America for the same reason I didn't George Carlin. They are both smart and insightful stand-up comedians, not politicians.

He is a Democrat, like me, but you seem to have your own views on what Democrats are and believe that your transferring. I've never heard Jon say that rich people are bad and it's us against them, nor would I say it. I'm well-off enough that my taxes will likely rise after Obama is elected, and I'm not a hypocrite for being fine with that, or for criticizing those who support unaccountable corporate welfare but consider a penny spent on stopping children from going hungry or dying of preventable diseases to be a waste.

The "us vs. them" framework you're using is incredibly simplistic. People within a system can criticize a system. Media figures can criticize the media, politicians can criticize politicians. You aren't actually pointing out any hypocrisy, unless you think Stewart says "media is bad because it's media" rather than "specific media figures and organizations have caused harm through these practices".

It is the usual tradition under dictatorships of the various sorts that criticism of the government is limited to comedians. In this way, the people are relieved of their stress w/respect to the societal problems by laughing at the leadership rather than toppling it.