rigorousintuition.ca

This was one of hundreds of jokes told by the Norwegians from 1940 until 1945.

This is getting bizarre now. Show me where I objected to Iraqis making jokes about the foreign army that invaded their country six years ago and is still occupying it today. (Or maybe they're incapable of doing so without generous Western aid, in the shape of Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show.)

Nordic wrote: So someone doesn't meet your fantasy projection of who they're supposed to be (in your mind). So how they're "whoring" for the Pentagon?

I've tried to bring this point up before. It seems like every critique of film, TV etc. around here comes from that petulant position, ( ie. 'such and such doesn't mention what I think is important- so the whole thing is CIA misinformation'). In the ridiculous "MLK movie" thread awhile back, there were many people who had totally made up their minds about a movie that doesn't even exist yet- and may never get made.

How many people slandering Colbert actually watch his show on a regular basis?

There's no sense of proportion in these threads anymore. Nobody knows what's meaningful anymore. Its just petulant griping over insignificant minutia. 'Holy shit a comedian entertained the fucking troops!' Stop the presses, this is some diabolical shit!

MacCruiskeen wrote:The thread is about a highly-paid TV jester in a desert-camouflage business suit choosing to be a tonic for the non-conscripted troops who are earning their wages by prosecuting an imperialist war in a devastated foreign country.

I'm actually kind of surprised more people here aren't disgusted, embarassed, and/or extremely disappointed by Colbert's self-indulgent display. I guess it's all just all seen as normal in the Obama zeitgeist.

Fresno_Layshaft wrote:

Nordic wrote: So someone doesn't meet your fantasy projection of who they're supposed to be (in your mind). So how they're "whoring" for the Pentagon?

I've tried to bring this point up before. It seems like every critique of film, TV etc. around here comes from that petulant position, ( ie. 'such and such doesn't mention what I think is important- so the whole thing is CIA misinformation'). In the ridiculous "MLK movie" thread awhile back, there were many people who had totally made up their minds about a movie that doesn't even exist yet- and may never get made.

How many people slandering Colbert actually watch his show on a regular basis?

There's no sense of proportion in these threads anymore. Nobody knows what's meaningful anymore. Its just petulant griping over insignificant minutia. 'Holy shit a comedian entertained the fucking troops!' Stop the presses, this is some diabolical shit!

Nobody said that, except you. It's "your fantasy projection of who (your opponents in this argument) are supposed to be (in your mind)".

Colbert is "entertaining the troops" in a foreign country they have no right to be in, a foreign country where they are not wanted, a foreign country they invaded, occupied and ruined, killing and maiming untold thousands of men, women and children in the process. I bet very few of the survivors were amused by Colbert's comedy-turn, but then very few of them will have seen it. They weren't invited.

There's nothing diabolical about Colbert's "entertaining the troops" in occupied Norway, sorry, Iraq. It's just averagely shabby, unprincipled and self-serving behaviour, but highly publicised and held up for our admiration.

That's Entertainment.

Mac, do your research and stop being such a player-hater for fuck's sake.

Rocketman, I think you're confusing cause and effect in several arenas -- ie, publicit-journaliciosity depicting SC's shows in Iraq vs. what they convey to the troops, vs. what he may intend to achieve by doing them vs. what they convey to his domestic audience, etcetera.

However, I may have gotten a wrong impression about that. This thread is premised on so many fallacies I got a little confused myself. Also, I only read it once through, quickly. And also, this will be my one and only post to it. I couldn't comment on the the material for which Colbert's being flogged yet, since I haven't seen it yet. But overall, I take his work seriously enough to have a thoroughly considered opinion about it. And in general, I value it pretty damn highly. So....Well. As I'm sure everyone can understand, the prospect of entering into a debate over it with people who are making expansive overdetermined conclusions about it based on the reflection of a shadow of a likeness of a very, very, very small part of it on a snap-judgment basis is not a very appealing one to me.

Okay. Sorry for the interruption. I just felt compelled to represent for something I esteem. But I'm done now. So please carry on.

compared2what? wrote:Mac, do your research and stop being such a player-hater for fuck's sake.

Qué? Research what, exactly? The history of German comedians entertaining the troops in Norway? Or what? Please specify.

And "player-hater"? For fuck's sake! - Forget Muhammad Ali. I wonder how George Carlin or Lenny Bruce would have reacted to Colbert's Entertainment. Even if you don't.

On edit: Also, c2w, and just by the way, it's exceptionally bad fucking manners to enter a debate, especially in such a studiedly supercilious manner, while simultaneously declaring that actually taking part in it is beneath your dignity.

But don't let me take the shine off your favourite funster.

Colbert is "entertaining the troops" in a foreign country they have no right to be in, a foreign country where they are not wanted, a foreign country they invaded, occupied and ruined, killing and maiming untold thousands of men, women and children in the process

Indeed. And while Colbert may be telling jokes to the troops, he's performing for the Army. The Army invited him, not the troops. And every time the troops laugh, the brass smiles.

I recognize the conundrum presented by the fact that many here (including me ) do not want to see the 19-year-olds who are pawns in this terrible game spiritually abandoned. But the deciding factor in Colbert's being there is the nationality of the troops - not their pain, and not their need for humor (both of which are achingly real, I have no doubt). If they were not American, he would not be there. Thus whatever the content of his act, his visit is a species of jingoism.

As an American, I cannot support that.

Research what, exactly? The history of German comedians entertaining the troops in Norway? Or what? Please specify.

Mac, since you keep SCRAMBLING THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THAT HUMOR HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A WEAPON OF RESISTANCE, while mocking it indirectly, only leads me to believe that I hit a sore spot which you are unable to deal with directly. So, let's talk about YOUR approach to resistance. What is it?

If they were not American, he would not be there.

What are you talking about, bks? Of course the brass isn't going to invite a non-American. You think they'd invite someone whose accent the troops couldn't understand? I can't understand half of what the little gecko says. I'm still trying to figure out if this was a brilliant move on the brass's part, or a very stupid one. I lean towards stupid, since as I said before, there are no funny right-winger comics, which would have been their first choice, so I think they settled for Colbert. But don't confuse the reason the brass invited him with the reason that Colbert accepted. They could be two very different things. And frankly, I have to wonder if the brass's decision to do this didn't have something to do with the suicide rate.

Edit:

Rocketman, I think you're confusing cause and effect in several arenas -- ie, publicit-journaliciosity depicting SC's shows in Iraq vs. what they convey to the troops, vs. what he may intend to achieve by doing them vs. what they convey to his domestic audience, etcetera.

Oops, I guess c2w already said what I meant to say. Sorry.

I think the easiest test for this is to find out what Iraqis would think of Colbert and his jokes...oh they weren't invited?

Just watched most of the show. Standard stuff. Pretty lame by Colbert standards. But thats how these shows always are. I still have know idea why this particular show is of any importance to anything. Its been done thousand times before. What is the big deal? How is Stephen Colbert 'crossing the line' here? Why give a shit about this forgettable run of shows that nobody cares about?

I just watched it and I still have tremendous admiration and affection for Colbert.

They're keeping the permanent bases, and America is still a fascist brute.

Colbert is something else. Obama's appearance was... startling.

I think this is a small and significant turn for the wheel.

BTW, Colbert's Christmas special snapped me out of a depression... especially the sublime and beautiful duet with Elvis Costello that ended it.

Colbert is not a bad man or an appeaser.

I really need to digest what I just watched, though.

chigger, I think you've got the wrong emphasis. I mean that COLBERT decided to go there because the TROOPS are American. HE'S engaging in jingoism.

And I just watched it, too (or the first 10 minutes of it).