Is John Cena Really Greater Than The Great One?

•March 29, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Randy Orton said something interesting this past week on ESPN.com. He said Cena would “own” The Rock. He said “…I think Cena is 10 times the performer in the ring that The Rock is. This Monday in Chicago, he’ll prove it.”

Most of us scoffed at the idea. After all, John Cena is nowhere near the league of The Rock, that’s partially why we all hate him. But last Monday, John Cena came out and did a shoot promo on The Rock, telling The Rock that Rock hates him because he wears the wrong colors, listens to the wrong music etc. and most surprising that his audience is kids. But Cena is damn proud of that was tells The Rock if he has any legitimate concerns about him not working his tail to the bone to further this business they have something to talk about. If not, who is The Rock to judge him?

It was a really good promo, even better considering it came from MR. Vanilla John Cena. But The Rock is the best promo guy in the history of the WWE, he’ll set Cena straight, it’s been years it’s finally time the people had a champion (no pun intended) to explain to Cena why exactly we all hate him.

And The Rock basically says the equivalent of: “Oh yea? Well I’m gonna whoop your ass!” …Really? What…what just happened? Where’s the classic Rock comeback? Where’s the long list of legitimate problems The Rock and the people have with Cena? Just off the top of my head he could have said that the people judge him, and the people are not entertained. Or he could have said that he left out one thing: that he’s untalented and does not deserve to be the top guy. The Rock could have said ANYTHING except what he said which was nothing.

For the next few hours I just sat here, stunned and checking updates on the wrestling sites. There had to be an explanation. The Rock can’t just get owned by Cena. That’s like Santino Marella outshining Stone Cold Steve Austin. That doesn’t happen. The Rock is the best promo guy ever. He can’t just have nothing. Was Randy Orton right? Is Cena really better?

But then it hit me: The problem The Rock and the people have with Cena isn’t something that can be broadcast to the world on WWE television. John Cena is their top guy and Vince McMahon is the reason for that. The Rock can’t go out there and shoot on Cena and say he’s not talented, he’s overrated, his 5 moves he only ever does, his super hero gimmick, his pandering to children, his plain boring 1980′s babyface persona, his corporate ass kissing, his watered down presentation, his bad attempt to be funny, his inability to wrestle, etc. etc. etc. The Rock isn’t going to stick around. Even if he were, the WWE is PG now and is not a habitable place for people like The Rock anymore. The Rock can’t basically go onto a sitcom, expose the lead character for being the absolute horrid thing he is, and then leave and hope that the show can continue with it’s now buried lead performer.

But if this is truly what happened, that leaves a number of unsettling problems. 1, Cena is an major tool for acting like he punked out The Rock, giving him that straight face when he damn well knows he’s got the boss on his side and The Rock can’t do anything about it. You don’t go out there and shoot on someone when their hands are tied. It’s a major dick move. And I hate Cena because of his spot in the company, not so much him as a person. But if Cena knows The Rock can’t hit Cena back, the way Cena acted makes me dislike him as a person now too. And 2, if these legitimate gripes with Cena can’t be brought up as more than jokes, by even someone of the Rock’s caliber, then the WWE is really owned by John Cena and nothing will ever change that. Cena will continue being this super overrated lead of the company and Vince will never allow anything on his show to challenge him.

I have no problems with PG shows. If that’s the point of them. John Cena and WWE PG is as if I were watching Dexter and halfway through the season Big Bird came in and the entire show changed. But this isn’t Sesame Street. It’s Dexter. Same way John Cena running WWEPG is not WWE (WWF). When the Rock originally debuted he was Rocky Maivia, A super chipper smiling one dimensional babyface who did everything short of hugging babies. Does that sound familiar? And how did the fans react? Well, it was the beginning of the Attitude Era. The fans HATED him. They chanted Die Rocky Die and Rocky Sucks. This was supposed to be their big babyface star! But what did The Rock do? He changed, became a bad guy and took that reaction and fed off it, and bettered himself as a performer. Now The Rock is one of the greatest of all time. John Cena didn’t debut that way, he eventually had a rapper gimmick that naturally got him popular, but then he did a reverse and became the super chipper smiling one dimensional babyface. Because now there was an audience for that-children. Anyone over 12 and anyone who remembers the Attitude Era or the ECW revolution hates him. But because he’s so over with kids, he watered himself down, comes out every night, does his unfunny safe promos, does his 5 moves, and leaves. He will never become great if he does not have any reason to push himself to be. The Rock coming back, made Cena entertaining for a few weeks. It pushed him to be better. But now with Vince, WWEPG and kids behind him, he really has no reason to be. I feel like, WWE will never have the next big star like The Rock and Austin, because this environment is inhospitable to them. And if that’s the case, I really have no reason to watch it anymore either.

Jon Stewart: A disappointing turn (Or realization?)

•November 4, 2010 • Leave a Comment

I used to be a big fan of Jon Stewart and his show, “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central. It’s a good mix of comedy and political news, usually to make a point of the idiocy of what goes on in the news on cable TV. But more and more Stewart is starting to drift into making a comedy show about politics, rather than trying to make poignant political viewpoints, while being funny.

A lot of this started with Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity”, a spoof of Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor”. Many people took up this movement, with many celebrity endorsers including the likes of Oprah Winfrey, and even being mentioned by the president of the United States. Stewart had a real chance to be America’s voice of reason. Instead what we got was a 3 hour rally, 2 hours and 40 minutes of it being filled with grade school level humor and silliness. The sincere moment, about cable TV being a hindrance on the problems in Washington, has one major flaw: Stewart shows clips of Fox news and MSNBC as if they are equally “insane.”

Fox news is not a legitimate news organization by any means. Jon Stewart essentially makes a living off of poking fun at their shows and their inaccuracy or made up fear mongering nonsense. Stewart will occasionally poke fun at MSNBC but only for silly stuff, like not understanding or taking issue with their new slogan “lean forward”, or with Keith Olbermann’s occasionally over the top rhetoric, or with Rachael Maddow’s analysis of President Obama’s administration being an advocate of those who helped during the earthquake in Haiti, as being on the “right side” of the tragedy.

I am of the opinion (or at least i was) that Stewart does this to seem “fair.” That he has to find anything at MSNBC, the “liberal” network, to poke fun at to show that this is not a republican or democrat thing. But it has gotten more and more fallacious these past few days. Stewart including statements from MSNBC in his vignette of “insane” cable TV statements such as “republican’s lie”, “Right wing terrorist” “right wing nut jobs” and puts them on par with the complete inaccuracy of the buckets full of statements by fox news. Keith Olbermann discussed on his show that this was a “false equivalency”, because MSNBC is based in fact and will correct itself when it makes mistakes (and is backed by this record by Politifact) and fox news is not and does not.

Stewart has not officially made a comment about this but mentioned it in this video:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-3-2010/exclusive—chris-wallace-extended-interview

Stewart sucks Chris Wallace’s di- er, I mean gives Chris Wallace an interview, Whispering a sweet nothing in his ear before the interview started which sounded like “this is so nice” and finishes up the interview with “I really like you” and is filled with compliment after compliment in between. Chris Wallace backs up his statement that the media is biased because of Chris Matthews interview with Michele Bachmann:

Chris Wallace says: "And she said 'No…'" and goes on to tell what Bachmann said. However, Bachmann never actually said no. Wallace added that part. That is why Mathews kept asking the question because Bachmann never actually answered it. Stewart respond "Yea, I saw that" and Wallace says "So when people say the Lame-stream media is biased, they're biased" to which Stewart replies "Oh I don't disagree." Stewart either didn't see the full clip (an abridged version was the "moment of zen") or missed it and is making a foolish and inaccurate statement like Wallace is.

But here is what I can gather as any official response Stewart has made about this accusation of a "false equivalency", Stewart says: "(the media has) been sad with me, that I was drawing a false equivalency between fox and MSNBC that they were the same, but I think…" and then gets interrupted by Wallace with him saying they (Fox) don't think they are equivalent, meaning fox is better, to which Stewart agrees, and jokes that MSNBC is "cute" in comparison but fox the the BEST, meaning one would assume, as far as blowing things out of proportion and sensationalizing or fabricating stories. But this still implies that not only does MSNBC do this, but they are a "fox Jr" but just for the other side, again equating what it is both of them do, but this time adding an insult as they are the lesser version of it. Stewart goes on to say that: "In some ways, MSNBC by trying to maybe become a version of that, you cannot defeat fox by becoming what they say you are-if fox's game is, the media is biased against republicans, all you're doing is giving them that field, the only way you can defeat them is through, like, an earned credibility not an earned partisanship, so I think they're making a mistake by becoming equivalent to fox rather than becoming, a brand new journalistic organization."

I am convinced at this point that Stewart does not watch MSNBC, only the clips his staff sends him. Because MSNBC is at times also hard on democrats, the morning crew is filled with conservative pundits, and the main team, Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow etc. have been hard on democrats when the situation called for it, Charlie Rangel for ethics violations, democrats who held up the health care bill, Joe Manchin for his opposition of the cap and trade bill, and has been very critical of president Obama for being "safe and electable" and not being liberal enough, trying too hard to be in the center and compromise. Now that being said, 95% of the main programs' show anti republican stories, which is about the same if not less than Stewart's show who makes anti-republican jokes. The reasoning is clear-because the really fucked up shit happens on the republican's side. Bill Maher (a much better and more poignant political comedian, in my opinion) has said, "I'm not a fan of fake fairness" so it's not reasonable to display idle concerns about, say, specifics in the health care bill, when you've got republican candidates talking about violent overthrow or the government, privatizing social security, or whatever crazy story is happening that day.

But now here's an interesting clip from Stewart's show just a few weeks ago:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9-2010/are-you-ready-for-some-midterms—-msnbc-s-political-narrative

There is Jon, comedically bashing MSNBC for being FAIR and not stooping to tactics used by fox news. All the sudden he seems to get it there, although still calls MSNBC “hyper partisan.” Jon has bashed the media for being partisan and over stating one sided news, so if he’s seriously bashing MSNBC for not doing that right then he is a hypocrite. But if he is (more likely) making the point that MSNBC is presenting a more fair analysis of the situation, that Fox does not, then he is indeed creating a false equivalency in his statements now. I feel like if Jon Stewart did a show on himself this would be the clip he’d show to prove himself wrong, like he does with so many other politicians and pundits. But that wont happen, because there is no counter show to Stewart. You know who does have a counter show? Fox news, and it is called MSNBC. You know why? To counterpoint all the silly, ridiculous and non factual claims made by the other show. Fox news is a propaganda machine and MSNBC is a 24/7 rebuttal to that program. While also being fair and factual along the way.

So, to suggest that MSNBC has an earned partisanship and not an earned credibility, is hugely insulting and inaccurate. Do I expect Stewart to examine and recant his claims? just look at Tuesday’s show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/364222/tue-november-02-2010-michael-beschloss

Stewart equates democrat's views of controlling the house and senate with republican's views of it turning over power. Stewart presents this as if all democrats or at least a majority of them, share the views of the 3 he showed. Only 2 were expecting the house not to change hands, the other quote is a optimism about races swinging the democrat's way. If Stewart took one second to watch MSNBC, he would have seen all the journalists, commentators, and most of the guests agreeing the democrats would lose. Bill Maher and most on his show agreed they would lose. Almost everyone agreed they would lose. But then why would Stewart present this viewpoint in this way? Because it doesn't fit with his narrative. His comedic narrative. Jon Stewart is making a comedy show about politics, not a political show with comedy in it. The rally to restore sanity was supposed to be a voice of reason in politics, but it's become clear that Stewart is more a comedian who simply makes political jokes. Stewart has lost a lot of credibility in being "the voice of reason" in his overall smugness in poking fun at everyone while being factually inaccurate, creating false equivalencies and creating his own narrative, but I think it's less blurring the line of comedian and pundit and more overlapping, trying to be funny at the expense of being a credible pundit. And it's kind of sad to watch a once great and thoughtful show become a lot less watchable when put up to the scrutiny he supposedly stands for. I am disappointed.

Real time reaction to a Rickroll

•May 27, 2010 • Leave a Comment

For any of you who haven’t opened up your fair share of internet videos, Rickrolling is a bait and switch, where someone tells you to click on a video that may pertain to something you are discussing, or something that may be of interest to you, but when you click on it you see Rick Astley’s 1987 hit song “Never gonna give you up.”

Why this meme has taken off to such great heights is debated, but I believe it’s the multi-layered reaction one has to it. Allow me to walk you through a typical Rickroll reaction:

“Oh cool behind the scenes video of my favorite TV show!!…”

0:00-0:01: Bum Bum

“Wha…”

0:01-0:02: Bum Bum Bum Bum Bum Bum Bum Bum

“Ah shit!

0:02-0:19: intro plays

“Fuckin Rickrolled again, assholes wasting my time, I’m tryin to watch my videos and this is…”

0:19-0:23: We’re no strangers to love

“annoying as fu…to loooove…” *bobs head*

0:23-0:27: You know the rules, and so do I

“…good fuckin song tho…”

0:27-0:31: A full commitment’s what I’m thinkin of

“…guy’s dance is hilarious…”

0:31-0:35: You wouldn’t get this from any other guy

*Tries and fails to imitate dance* “…Fuckin impossible dance…”

0:35-0:40: I just wanna tell you how I’m feeling

*opens up a new web page, keeps song playing in background*

0:40-1:01: Gotta make you understand, Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down…

“Let me get back to what I was looking at and…NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP!!!!! NEVER GONNA LET YOU DOWN!!!!!!!!!” *full on jamming session*

1:01-3:33

Jamming commences, then the music trails off, as if nothing happened. Until next time.

My Thoughts on the “Lost” Finale

•May 24, 2010 • 1 Comment

(Spoilers, obviously) I don’t think I’ve ever watched a show where I REALLY didn’t want anyone to know or see anything about the show unless they watched from start to finish. You could casually watch something like Law and Order and be fine. I’ve watched House, Angel, ER, and several other shows by seeing episodes in mid season and going from there. But Lost is so mystery driven that watching one episode from mid season would potentially ruin a half a dozen mysteries that build up over the course of the show, therefore ruining a lot of the suspense and speculation you’d get from watching the earlier episodes.

(So if you haven’t watched Lost, stop reading now)

So this makes my views on the Finale a little mixed. For one, the finale is very character driven. A lot of the mysteries of the island and several other events are still unsolved. But here’s my problem with that: If the people who watched this sci-fi mystery wanted to see a character driven show, or finale, they’d watch a normal drama. If the characters were all that mattered in the end, then why build up a massive mythology and hundreds of sci-fi elements? Why not just do a show about a bunch of people and their normal lives? Why not have the flashbacks be the show? Or a show about a bunch of people crashing on a completely normal island? With a character driven finale and dozens of unanswered questions, the mystery and sci-fi elements now just seems like useless tacked on elements to stretch out the show and keep people watching. I’ve had my fill of that on Heroes.

On the other hand, mystery was a big theme in the show. Communities all over the world spent thousands of hours debating over theories. Had Lost addressed these issues, then what would there be to discuss? There’d be little to gain with second viewings, having the mystery element come off as dull and long winded knowing all the answers. Especially if the answers were bad ones. Keeping the fans in the dark makes the series still seem interesting and open to interpretation. The fans can come up with theories that are much better than anything the writers can.

My other thoughts just deal with a lot of philosophy. On one hand, it seems kind of cheap that the alternate reality was an afterlife, because it isn’t real. But, what is real? They experienced it, they are still themselves and still have all their memories. Their reunions and awakenings were all legitimate experiences for them. In this show’s reality, that world is basically as real as any other, so it really isn’t cheapened at all.

But that leads me to a question: why then, would a sci-fi show, with a legitimate supernatural afterlife reality, try to conceal a lot of the supernatural looking elements? What I mean is, why do we never see the smoke monster physically transforming into Locke, why do we never see things that are disappearing, actually disappear (the camera looks away), why is there all this kind of integrity of never showing the supernatural, when we all now know that it is? It seemed like there was something more to it, this integrity seemed to mean there was something more than a supernatural theme, as if it were all somehow scientifically explained, but in the end it really wasn’t. If it was legitimately supernatural, then what was the reason for not showing it? Maybe it’s just style preference, I don’t know.

That being said, I’m more positive about the finale than negative. No finale that I’ve ever seen can really live up to any expectations, either it’s not good enough, or it’s what you’d thought it’d be and it’s then too predictable. I feel like any finale can never succeed fully based on the expectations for it. But I thought it was a nice ending and made a certain sense in the context of the show. But I do feel like the Sci-Fi and supernatural elements were all basically useless, which is kind of ridiculous for a Sci-Fi show. I feel like, all this time spent finding out about the island and what happened on it, there was kind of a curve ball by saying that it didn’t matter, the characters were all that mattered. Thoughts?

Anti-Conan arguments debunked

•May 5, 2010 • 18 Comments

Recently I watched the 60 minutes interview with Conan O’Brien. And I enjoyed it. I feel for the guy. As should anyone who has human decency and really *gets* it. But some of the same comments and talking points keep being brought up and it’s driving me crazy. Some of these are:

“Stop whining Conan!”

Stop whining? Conan just did his first interview on the subject. It’s basically the equivalent of someone who lost their loved one and stopped talking and after 4 months he started talking about how he felt and people yell at him “Stop whining about it!” Seriously? This is word one on the record from him about it. Also, “Stop whining?” When has he whined? If anything, he’s been TOO classy about it, not wanted to come off as anything but happy go lucky and fine. If I were him I’d be pissed off and everyone would know it. And yet these stop whining remarks exist. It’s amazing ignorance of the situation.

“I can’t feel bad for him. He got 30 million”

Wow, you must be extremely shallow. Yes, losing a job and getting 30 million is fantastic. But Conan didn’t lose a job. He lost a dream. Only 4 other men have been where he has, and it was snatched away from him after only 7 months. Imagine a Star Wars fan being cast as the main hero in a Star Wars movie, only to have it taken away from you, for inaccurate out of date data and by some old guy who just won’t let go despite being too old for the part and having essentially stole it in the first place through shady and borderline unethical ways, forcing a legend out and betraying a “friend”. Imagine being pulled up from the minor leagues to be the next Babe Ruth, only to have it taken away. People like Conan, people with artistic integrity and dreams; they don’t care about the money. Would you? What is your dream? Would you feel happy go lucky if you lost it but got a huge payout? If that’s the case, what else would you be willing to do or give up for 30 million? Kill your wife? Screw over your best friend? This whole argument is being said by people who either don’t understand the situation or seriously value money above anything else.

And if you still don’t think he got screwed, these people sure did:

Photobucket

“He sucked and he got thrown off the air. It’s his fault”

Actually, no. It was Leno’s lead in show, the Jay Leno show, that brought down the ratings. For one, no one who really enjoyed Leno would have a reason to switch to Conan-Leno is still there. The Tonight show basically moved. So a lot of Leno’s audience presumably went with him. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating, do you think if Johnny Carson had a show at 10 pm, that Leno would have a chance? Of course not. Also, Conan’s ratings were not the problem-no one was complaining, and it took Leno 3 years to get things going for his show-Conan had 7 months. It was Leno’s show that was the problem, the affiliates were complaining about his low ratings bringing down the news casts and were threatening to just preempt it. This also resolves a side argument-people who don’t believe lead-ins are important. NBC canceled the Jay Leno Show, while it was making money, because it created a bad lead in for the news. That’s a fact. So Conan’s show suffered as well. Also, the only data being used for ratings is the Nielson ratings, an out of date process where it only counts certain families homes and TV’s with Nielson boxes. So some who watched the show weren’t counted, and other who watched the show on TIVO or on the internet (Remember, Conan’s viewers are a younger internet savvy demographic) weren’t counted either. So the ratings were actually higher. So Conan’s show was not bad, he didn’t fail, and I’m sick of seeing this.

Also, Leno did worse and got the tonight show back. Same logic applies. Also, Leno is now doing ratings very close to those of Conan’s, and he’s still on the air. So the people who say it was Conan’s fault, it wasn’t. It was Jay Leno and the Jay Leno show. If I gave more credit to Leno, I’d say he had a diabolical plan to get back the tonight show by sabotaging Conan’s show.

“Don’t’ blame Jay blame NBC”

Yes NBC is to blame. But Jay is far from innocent. Jay lied about retiring, instead waiting until the 5 years he was given was up to basically say “Hey give me a show or I go somewhere else.” Then his excuse was it was to keep his staff working. The staff had 5 years to figure something out. What about Conan’s staff who was uprooted from New York to LA who obviously will now have a hard time adjusting and have no west coast contacts. What about the thousands of staffers that won’t have work doing drama’s in the 10 PM lineup that were always there. If Leno had a show at 10 in 1992-2009, there may not have been Friends, ER, Seinfeld, Will and Grace, just to name a few. Leno also publicly stated he’d take the tonight show back from Conan if offered, if Jay was an “Honorable” man he’d leave like he said he would and let Conan have his time, his lead-ins, and the Tonight Show audience. But no, he lobbied for his own show and he lobbied for Conan’s spot, pushing O’Brien off the air, and claiming he’s really the victim in all of this. It’s disgusting.

“Leno was pushed off the air first!”

As far as I’m concerned, that seat never belonged to Jay as he maneuvered into it by outing Johnny Carson and stealing it from Letterman, who was patiently waiting for it, because he is an honorable man. Jay forced NBC’s hand, and got the job, and didn’t thank Johnny Carson on his first show. Also, the Tonight Show is not the Jay Leno show, it was time for a new, younger host to take over, otherwise Conan would have left 6 years ago to do his own show and Leno would eventually lose as Leno’s older audience died off, or Leno himself. Plus, you can’t equate Leno’s run with Conan’s. What’s Leno going to say “I only had the show for 17 years!” Conan had it for 7 months. He’s roughly 29 times more screwed than Leno. So if people are going to use Leno being screwed first to justify O’Brien’s outing, you have to then go back to Carson and Letterman’s outing.

“Conan is a hypocrite for bumping Lopez back an hour just like Jay did to him!”

There are a number of differences. First, Conan did not want to move the Tonight Show back, because of the Tonight Show franchise. The Tonight Show has held the 11:30 time slot for over 30 years, O’Brien did not want to be a part of the destruction of the franchise by it being moved back for another comedy program, or move back Jimmy Fallon or Carson Daly. Leno jumped on the opportunity. Also, O’Brien was originally against the TBS deal, until George Lopez gave his blessing. Also, George Lopez had a show for 1 year. O’Brien had a late night show for 17 years, there is no comparison in what Leno did to what Conan did, especially considering how Leno handled it compared to Conan. Conan cares about the people involved, Leno only cares about getting his spot, no matter who or what it would have hurt.

“All Conan had to do was move back a half hour and everything would be fine!”

As I mentioned before, this wasn’t an ego thing, it was to preserve the integrity of the Tonight Show. Conan worked after Leno for 17 years, 5 of which he did to get the Tonight Show that was promised to him. But to move the “tonight” show into “tomorrow” is unacceptable. And this isn’t just a Conan thing, the king of late night, Johnny Carson, had attempted to block moving the show from 11:30 to 11:35. 5 minutes. It only got moved once it was his last year, as he had lost a lot of power within NBC. Want some more perspective? Former Tonight Show host Jack Paar once left the tonight show too, in the middle of a live show. Why? Because he made a joke about a “water closet” that got censored. A water closet is a bathroom essentially, in 1960’s lingo. He later returned around a month later.

So Conan left, after being disrespected, lied to , and with the threat of moving back the Tonight show 6 times further than Carson wanted, then being censored for months from talking bad about NBC. Conan just basically got the all in one package of Tonight Show screw jobs, 10 times over. It would have been tremendous disrespect to those former legends and to the franchise of the Tonight Show if he had stayed.

There’s one more argument that’s been coming up, and I don’t know why. People saying Conan is ugly. First of all, you’re using that as a reason to prefer Jay Big Chin Leno?

Also, calling him a spoiled brat, whiner etc. and it’s just plain rude. Conan O’Brien is one of the nicest guys in all of entertainment, one of the nicest guys in general. During this whole debacle, he had an army of pissed off viewers ready to go to war, and he told them not to be cynical, that he was fine, and to be kind. He basically preached peace and love to his followers and disarmed them, taking an amazing high road. O’Brien left the Tonight Show to preserve its integrity, which Leno apparently cares nothing about, as he accepted the deal to push back the Tonight Show, without even contacting O’Brien. Conan lost his dream, his love, and there are some who kick him while he is down. It truly saddens me that some people have so little compassion and so much uncalled for hate and rudeness. I’ve said this a hundred times, I don’t care if people genuinely don’t like him for his comedy, but these people are attacking him personally, and I just don’t understand that.

So, those are the factual counterpoints to these arguments, I realize some people making them truly have no idea of the situation and are just stating what they think with the knowledge they have, but ignorance is no excuse for misplaced anger or trash talk. Enjoy being informed.

Zombified Sheep

•May 3, 2010 • Leave a Comment

I wrote a blog a couple days ago about politics-the bottom line being that some people just don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know any of the facts. Once I figured that out as the reason for a lot of the negative comments on political issues, one thing has become very clear to me in general:

People by and large don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.

Anyone who’s read my previous blogs can see I’ve written about Conan O’Brien, former host of the Tonight Show. Long story short, Conan got 32 million dollars to leave NBC and couldn’t do a public interview until May 1st. On May 2nd, O’Brien did his first interview.

It was an interesting piece, nothing unexpected for a first interview after an event like this. Kind of understated to be honest. But the comments and the blogs written about this are amazing.

First, there are dozens of comments where the video is posted basically saying “It’s been months get over it” or “Why is he still whining?” These people have no idea he couldn’t do an interview until now. None. Yet they somehow feel the urge to write these things about a genuinely good guy like O’Brien. Even if you don’t like his style of comedy, he is a stand up guy. He left the Tonight show on principle, he rarely has a bad thing to say about anyone, even now of all times, and some people still treat him like an asshole if they have some alternate view of how he is.

Even his agreement is unknown to some. They mentioned it in the damn interview, he can’t say a bad thing about NBC or Jay Leno. Yet some are blogging either their kudos or anger that he did not. They have no idea that he can’t. But instead of finding out this extremely easy to learn fact, they blog away, blissfully unaware of how ignorant they are. It drives me insane.

How can anyone have so much of a strong opinion about something while they have no idea about any of the facts? Is it Laziness? Stupidity? I’m constantly seeing people calling people Nazis, communists etc. with absolutely no facts. This is shit people will kill over. And yet people don’t have the simple ability to look a goddamn thing up for 2 seconds and realize they’re disgustingly misinformed. I cannot consciously have an opinion about something until I know what it’s about. I don’t get why that’s so simple for some and yet so impossible for so many others.

Conan O’Brien is far from whining, he did an interview that he basically had to get out of the way, his first interview since the debacle. It would have been a huge joke if he hadn’t mentioned what happened, and not in a good way. What should be “Finally we get to hear some of his thoughts, on the record” is, by some, becoming “Stop talking about it.” Stop talking about it? What the hell are you talking about? Listening to these people you’d think it’s his 40th interview about something that happened in 1992. And yet a seemingly large percentage of people have a completely different and inaccurate view of the situation and have no problem spewing their BS about shit they know nothing about to other people who know nothing about it and will repeat it like zombified sheep. It’s a damn epidemic.

Politics: Discussing the misinformation

•April 25, 2010 • Leave a Comment

There seems to be a huge difference in political ideas and thoughts over the same issues today. Most of this has to do with the current president Barack Obama. Some see him as a true American hero, first African American president, a visionary. Others see him as a communist, the next Hitler, Karl Marx, etc. Then there are the issues. Some see the health care bill as overdue, a small step towards universal health care, others see it as an unconstitutional mandate worthy of death threats and vandalism. I often ask myself, how can there be this enormous gap in the understanding of the issues, and of this man Barack Obama?

It’s easy to write it off as ignorance. It’s easy to say one side is clearly wrong and stupid and they can’t be helped etc. But that’s just generalizing and it’s often incorrect. Sure, there is a small percentage of people like that, that can’t be swayed with logic or reasoning, they think what they think and that’s that. But, that’s not what the majority of this is about.

In my opinion, this misinformation and hatred is a direct result of one major “News” network, Fox News. There are different opinions on this network as well. Some see it as a joke, not worthy of anyone’s attention. Others see it as the only “Fair and Balanced” network, and the criticisms are just bias from the “lamestream media.”

But let’s examine Fox News, with actual facts. Fox news is a cable news network, created in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch. Now I’ll get to him a bit later. It’s most well known hosts are Bill O’Reily, a conservative “Traditionalist”, sexual harasser, verbal abuser, and equates gay marriage with marriage to a turtle. Sean Hannity, a conservative, who once called Obama “Fancy” and “Watches too much TV” for using Dijon mustard, an inexpensive mustard made in America (He showed the Gray Poupon commercial), and Glenn Beck, a…well, seemingly a complete wackjob. It’d take me a whole other blog to write about Beck’s ridiculous statements. But I’ll get to him later.

Nearly everyone else on Fox News has similar sentiments towards Democrats, Liberals, and Barack Obama. Rupert Murdoch claims that ALL other news networks are biased, except his, although later on that night when asked the question to name ONE democrat on Fox News he couldn’t name anyone. He also claimed that Fox news shouldn’t be supporting the “Tea Party”, a right wing movement with talking points ripped straight off of Fox News, and with essentially the tea party queen, Sarah Palin, as one of their “analysts.” Fox News has been a “corporate partner” to the tea party movement since its inception, covering them with very positive stories and with slogans like “Americans are standing up.” An inception, I might add, that was recently discovered to be a tool of certain individuals to make money and for political gain. Shocking.

Easily the most astounding, slanderous and completely nonsensical comments about Barack Obama and the government come from Glenn Beck. Beck has compared Barack Obama and his policies to Communism, Maoism, even Nazism. He’s called progressives the cancer of America. He…Well, I can’t even do justice to properly explain what he does, I’ll have to show you:

…That’s seriously his most used form of arguments. Somehow using letters from words he put up there to imply that the government is becoming an “Oligarhy”. By the way, it is spelled Oligarchy, with a C, and when corrected on that he took it as the people helping him uncover the Oligarchy in America. Amazing.

But wait…Here are some interesting quotes from Glenn Beck. Beck insists that he “could give a flying crap about the political process.” And that “We’re an entertainment company,” He also states “if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”

Wow, well that completely discredits him as a political analyst right? He said so himself, no harm no fou…Oh wait. Still, everywhere there are people defending his talking points, people showing up to rallies carrying signs of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache, calling his a communist, etc. Why? It’s supposed to be entertainment right?

Hence the reason I am writing this blog. I feel like the majority of Americans want to be into politics and understand the important decisions so they try to watch the shows and read the news but they can’t understand a lot of it. There’s a lot that goes with it, Taxes, Health care, liberal, democrat, conservative, right wing, left wing, summits, senators, speakers, debates, analysts etc. When you turn on a channel like MSNBC or CNN, it’s easy to get lost. However, when you turn on Fox News you have a self proclaimed “Rodeo Clown” like Glenn Beck explaining conspiracy theories on a chalkboard like a kindergarten class, which is not only easy to understand, the black and white fear mongering, the one layer “journalism”, but it’s also interesting and scary if it’s real. Fox News does one thing well, and that’s report on something in a very one sided simplistic manner. Then, they have slogans like “Fair and Balanced” and “We report, you decide” to make it seem like it’s a real neutral news network. So you have 2 things, very motivated people who believe all of this and will fight for it in every way, and regular people who just don’t know any better.

Then, you have a third thing. Word of mouth. The biggest reason I believe these ideas get a wide spread as they do. You’re not going to casually go up to someone and go “Hey did you see that 7 hour health care debate? The financial structure Barack Obama laid out was brilliant” But the people on the other side are filled with outrage and crazy ideas, so you hear “Obama, what a communist Muslim. I can’t believe he’s turning our country into Canada or Russia.” So people who have absolutely no knowledge of politics hear this, again and again, from friends and family members, and they join with it. So you have a complete army of people spouting out ridiculous rhetoric, and they really don’t know any better.

And now what you’re seeing is a revolt, people are sending death threats to senators for voting for policies from Barack Obama, throwing bricks through windows of public officials. We’ve seen this kind of hate before with the Oklahoma City Bomber, and now we have a huge “News” organization fueling the same anti-government sentiment. It’s a serious problem, and one I’m not sure how to fix, other than to write a blog like this and show it to anyone I think fits the misinformed category. So I go.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.