Jon Stewart Vs Judith Miller

On the political spectrum, the safe bet is that I rank somewhere left of center. Even then, the demolition job Jon Stewart did when he handed Judith Miller her carcass at the end of a 20-minute interview two weeks ago made me a little uneasy.

Don't get me wrong - he was 100% right, he attacked with facts on things she wrote about and said, but being it's one of the two political issues he's most passionate about (with Veterans Affairs being a close second), he was versed in the subject matter as if he'd written it itself, and she never had a chance. She walked into a trap, except she was expecting a trap door and instead found a lion's den where the animals had been starved for a week.

Plus, with him having set his departure date to August 6th, he's leaving with a bang (interspersed with marshmallow-y small talks with long-time celebrity friends a couple of times a week; the he has circles to fill, and he looks like he won't leave any stone unturned.

If there was any time in History that Dick Cheney could be charged with war crimes, it seems like Stewart would want it to be now, and himself to be the perpetrator, like Hunter S. Thompson going after Richard Nixon.

It's beautiful and righteous, but it's also brutal and violent, calculated and without mercy. Good, because his opponents never pulled any punches themselves.

Canadian viewers can watch it here, American viewers can Google ''The Daily Show''.

1132 Years A Slav

I've avoided writing about Ukraine thus far, but too many people have chimed in with wild theories - and too many of those with no facts to back their points of view up - that I had to at least mention it...

The city of Kiev was officially founded in 482. That's not a typo. Founded mostly by Slavs, the settlement was also inhabited by Finnics (ancestors to modern-day Finns, among others), and Khazars (think Turks, Kazakhs, Tatars and Bulgars) very early on.

The first agglomeration to consider Kiev as its capital was Kievan Rus', circa 882-1283 (that's where I start considering it the capital of a 'country', hence the title of this post). Mostly Slavic, modern-day Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all claim to descend from that federation.

With wars and power struggles a constant in Europe, Kievan Rus' made way for the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (a.k.a. Kingdom Of Rus). Like J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, the Kingdom wasn't a united country per se, more like autonomous provinces each with their own capitals within a loose border; Kiev was not a capital, but three other now-Ukrainian cities were: Volodymyr-Volynsky, Halych, and Lviv.

By 1283, the Grand Duchy of Moscow had come into effect, and though its leaders and official name came to change many times (Tsardom of Russia in 1547, Russian Empire in 1721, the USSR in 1922 after a few turbulent years of the 1917 Revolution, The Russian Federation of Independent States in 1991 and the current-day incarnation since 1993), was essentially the beginning of what is now Russia. Russians share the British taste for imperialism, as well as the ''father knows best'' mentality of many Eastern cultures. They like owning a large plot of land (currently occupying an eighth of the world's land mass though they are barely 2% of its population at 145 million people), and they really dislike opposition.

And so, Ukraine has shared countries, ownership or administrations (or been under the influence of) with Russia for over 1000 years. They only declared their actual independence in 1918, and though they tried to refrain Russians from formally entering and claiming ownership from then on by themselves being a socialist state (kind of like Canada signing on NAFTA with the U.S. in 1992), Russians took advantage of the turmoil caused by World War II (and a deal with Germany) to invade Ukraine in 1939, made easier by World War I-era territorial delimitations where the Ukraine was basically split in three.

There was another, short-lived declaration of independence in 1941 when the Soviet troops went back home, but the Nazis made sure to render that useless by jailing, torturing and killing the government in place, and when Germany fell to the Russians, the movement became nothing but a footnote in History.

When the USSR collapsed and became the Russian Federation, most Eastern European subject-states decided to assert their independence, and a lot were allowed to do so. Some chose to remain part of the Russian whole, others were forced to (see: Chechnya). Ukraine chose to proclaim its independence, if only for political reasons: the Russian version of communism/socialism/sovietism  was collapsing, and it was going to change political systems; Ukraine wanted to remain communist, so in an effort for self-preservation, decided to opt for a referendum asking its population if they wanted out of the union. 82% of the population voted, and 90% voted in favour of seceding.

Ironically, Canada was the first country to recognize Ukraine as an independent state, the minute the votes were in. Russian President Boris Yeltsin did the same in the evening, proving there were no hard feelings.

Fast-forward to 2014.

Ukraine was offered to enter the European Union - or at least enter into economic accords with them first, with a promise of future consideration - though many of its constituents (Spain, The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium especially) took issue with that, mostly for political reasons (how it treats its political prisoners chief among them). As a means of negotiation, some of the terms of the deal weren't as advantageous as those of other countries, with the underlying message being ''if you play nice, we'll be nicer with you later''.

President Viktor Yanukovych, rightly, refused to sign the deal because it wasn't advantageous for his country. He then signed a trades agreement with Russia, mostly for natural gas purchases, which could have worked in addition to a deal with the EU. Protests started as people demanded closer ties to the rest of Europe and European integration, and like scared leaders do (and like we saw here in Québec in 2012), the government passed anti-protest laws, which just fueled the violence.

Also, like here in Québec, the protests soon included anger towards the perception (and fact) of widespread corruption. Ironically, though, in Ukraine, a lot of that can be traced back to Yanukovych's opponent in the last election, the country's former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who is among the imprisoned that the EU is demanding better treatment for; Tymoshenko owns a bunch of gas companies, which made her one of the richest people in her country (Forbes ranked her as the third most powerful woman in the world). And though her arrest and eventual mistreatment when she was found guilty were undoubtedly politically-motivated by a direct adversary, the fact remains that she was convicted of embezzlement and abuse of power, two facts that point to the sense that she at least participated in the corruption of the State.

And as the protests gained traction and Yanukovych resigned and political pressure mounted, she was released from prison - but she wasn't acquitted or even pardoned: the actions she was found guilty of were instead decriminalized. That's a big fucking difference, folks.

That is to say that all is neither all black nor white.

Except that Russia didn't have to send troops in Crimea, though it claimed it hadn't at first but eventually will/did. (of note, under international treaties, if an elected official asks another country for military help, that country is allowed to step in and intervene on a local level, which is what Russia claims Yanukovych has asked.) And while I'm not one to blindly trust Vladimir Putin, I will contend a point Jon Stewart hammers on daily since first reporting on the story a month after it had started, to wit: Putin claims the groups in place are local militias (or ''self-defense forces''), ''but they speak Russian, support Russia and have Russian weapons - so they have to be Russian''.

Dear Jon,

pretty much everyone in the area speak Russian, and they have for over 1000 years. Also, most Finns speak Swedish, a shitload of European countries have German as a first or second language, and most Quebecers understand English; surrounded by imperialists and conquerors, borders change, wars are started, people are annexed and/or assimilated. Until they no longer are... until they are again. Anglo-Saxons and Russians are expansionists and imperialists; one day they wake up and feel the need to own other people and/or their land and/or their toys and/or their food; it's what they do, whether it's to feel like Kings or to spread their ''superior'' culture (or race). Or to sell their sub-par fast-food culture. Or to ''spread democracy'' (still laughing at that one more than a decade later, by the way).

As for the Russian weapons, weren't those all for sale at discount stores in 1991? Doesn't the Russian mob own more nukes than the Russian Army? Why wouldn't a bunch of people buy some AK-47s and military garb, don't you guys have a right to purchase M-16s even with a criminal record and mental health issues, and can't you buy military clothes at both Army Surplus stores and The Salvation Army? And if you can, why shouldn't they?

'Cause to me, equating people who kind of wear military uniforms with no specific designation with the official military kind of makes it seem like your Bible-belt gun nuts and anti-Obama armed militias would then be a representation of your Army, and I guess that would make the Tea Party an actual political party, not just a fringe unrepresentative proportion of your political debate.

Thanks.

Seb

As I said, neither black nor white.

The whole world is going to shits, because the worst people have been in power for so long that they have instituted corruption as a rule rather than an exception. And those who lose their elections (or get ousted by the population) are only replaced by equally-minded career white-collar criminals, so the wheel keeps turning and, in doing so, always finds newer and better ways to keep its rhythm going.

Money needs out of politics. It needs out completely in everything, but especially in politics. And leaders need to feel they are liable for their crimes; I've long proposed their sentences be double those of civilians' when found guilty of crimes, but that's just the tip of the iceberg, because those fuckers are usually so well connected that they rarely even get prosecuted. They only lose their friends in high places when the shit has completely hit the fan and there is no longer a way for them to hide and melt back into the general population with their golden toilets and billions of dollars. They are but a small minority.

But, uh, yeah, Ukraine. How that turned into a battle of wits between Putin and Barack Obama is beyond me (and further proof that Americans don't view their own imperialism as such), I will never truly get it, but here's a novel idea: why don't we let the people of Ukraine decide for themselves? It worked in Iceland (where was Fox then, by the way?) recently, though there is something to be said both for and against how they made it impossible for foreigners to withdraw money out of the country (for: promotes re-investing within the country, which even foreigners can take advantage of, i.e. you cant leave with your millions but you can buy millions' worth of stuff; against: detracts foreign investors from coming in to invest for profits that would leave the country - theoretically, though, what it is meant to do is keep the economy rolling and increasing).

Romitt Wouldn't Concede To Votebama

Almost 1AM. That's how late Mitt Romney held onto his illusions this morning, refusing to concede his defeat. It had been more than an hour since most media outlets had given Ohio to President Barack Obama, and almost two hours since Jon Stewart had declared Obama winner of the elections.

For a while, Romney led the popular vote but trailed the electoral College by a landslide; things went back to normal around midnight, with the President maintaining a fair advantage of electoral votes, but also winning the actual vote count, avoiding a repeat of (what History remembers of) the 2000 election.

In a predictable yet ironic twist, we now find ourselves exactly where we were before: same President and VP, the House to Republicans, the Senate to Democrats. However, perhaps the House will actually stop cock-blocking Obama now that their strategy of ''our job is to avoid a second Obama term'' has failed massively, and maybe they can ratify a few of his plans to get Americans back on the job market, which they were saying was their priority, although their actions proved otherwise.

Now that that's done, here's a cat being coy about trying to suffocate a child (or just being stubborn):

The Thing With Mitt Romney

Earlier this week, Jon Stewart said smart things about Mitt Romney on The Daily Show. Because Viacom are being jerks, it's difficult to find clips of it online - and the rights to the show differ from country to country, so I'd probably have to find 6 or 7 videos anyway, but have instead affixed it on an image:

I'd like to add this: Romney's running for President of the United States. Chief of the country with the biggest influence on Democracy on earth. As President, one of the things he'd have to decide on is how to spend his people's money - what services to provide, what benefits to give, who to subsidize, what wars to wage.

This money comes from taxes.

Romney (and folks like him) paid 15% in taxes last year, yet is worth roughly about half a billion dollars. His money is and always has been held in tax shelters (previously Switzerland, now the Bahamas and Caiman Islands).

How can he be an authority on - and have authority with - his people's money when he, himself, barely contributes to the pot?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. As an elected official, he's allowed free health care, paid for by seemingly everybody in the country except himself.

That's what's offensive. Not the ''fact that he's rich'' - everyone deserves a fair shot at life. It's what you do during it that matters, and what he's done is hide his away from the greater good and try to manipulate everyone else's. It's unfait, it's wrong, and above all, it's unfit of a Presidency.

Overkill Much?

The most over-rated record of all time reaches a new milestone this September: turning 20. Ironic, considering most of Nirvana's fans reached that age just after 1994, when Kurt Cobain died.

In any event, the remaining members and producer Butch Vig will get together with Jon Stewart for a Q&A session on the 24th, recorded live for Sirius Radio. Of course, if you aren't a subscriber, you're fucked.

You'll also miss out on Nevermind Radio, a short-lived 24/7 station devoted to Nirvana that will run for less than a week, but there's nothing wrong with that. Missing it, I mean.

Come on, how many people still listen to ''the album that changed music forever'', especially in light of all the stupid fucking pop stars flooding the airwaves these days - and for the past decade? Not me, I tell you that.

But I will admit to listening to some In Utero once in a while.

The Stories The News Choose To Tell

Times are changing in the Middle East, as People are learning that a few million of them protesting at once might have an impact and, in some cases, even topple and overthrow a government - something Canadians, for example, had long forgotten, as they are ruled by a minority party that can't even get 30% of the vote.

Why are the regime changes not enough? Why must Western (professional) news readers and commentators laugh at the toppled dictators' physique? Two nights ago, Jon Stewart described Muammar Gaddafi (Kadafi for some) as a ''tired Lionel Richie impersonator'', which would have been enough, but added ''perhaps he should do less Dancing On The Ceiling''.

Today, Robert Fisk, commentator for The Independent, called him ''the old, paranoid, crazed fox of Lybya - the pallid, infantile, droop-cheeked dictator'' in his introduction, and went even further in his conclusion:

The old boy looked bad, sagging face, bloated, simply "magnoon" (mad), a comedy actor who had turned to serious tragedy in his last days, desperate for the last make-up lady, the final knock on the theatre door. 

The complete story is here.

Like... really? You can't get over his fucking face? Why not a single fucking word about why his people are mad, what he did to them to incite revolt? Why is what he looks like more important than his mental state, his whereabouts, how he's preparing his legacy and/or the follow-up to his administration? Or the one mistake he made that got his opponents thinking now would be a decent time for an uprising?

But no. He looks like a drag queen who has gone sleepless for months on a crystal meth binge. Much more fucking important.

The Rally To Restore Inadequacy

I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and his Daily Show, and also of Stephen Colbert's Cobert Report. I watch the show(s) every night (4 nights a week anyway, but I curse the fact that they don't tape/air on Fridays), I buy the books.

I've found that in the past three years or so, Colbert has been more consistently funny, while Stewart has adopted a more serious approach. Colbert 'pretends' to be a Conservative while Stewart is openly 'Liberal' and has shifted his sarcasm not towards the message but more towards the news outlets delivering it - as has always kind of been the show's mandate.

But Stewart rides a high horse that needs to be put down: as an avowed Leftist, he went hard on George W. Bush's presidency - particularly the last three years - and time and time again has pretty much told the Democrats where they should attack Republicans to win seats and, hopefully, elections.

But since Barack Obama's election, probably because he wants to appear like the only 'fair and balanced' pundit out there rather than a blind follower, Stewart has repeatedly called Obama on every single one of his 'failures' or mistakes, often times making it seem like he's doing a worse job than Bush ever did.

And we're talking about the third President ever in ranking in terms of getting bills passed, including a historic health care bill, tax cuts for the middle class (which people actually believe was a raise in taxes), a bailout that was paid back in full by the automotive industry, and finished combat operations in a wildly unpopular war, all while staving off another Depression in the worst economy of our lifetimes.

But with the Tea Party firing up the Republican base and Stewart and the like diminishing the Democrats' accomplishments, is it any wonder Obama's party lost the House and barely kept the Senate?

Keith Olbermann and most of the other journalists at MSNBC have also been a target of Stewart's criticism, as he compared them to Fox News in their defense of the Left (where Fox News is pretty much the Republicans' mouthpiece). Except we've seen for 8 years how Fox News and NewsCorp in general not only don't even pretend they're an actual news network, but they go to great lengths to prove their points, most times being unethical (planting evidence then saying there's wrongdoings, such as during their Acorn reports or with their former male stripper asking Bush softball questions at an official press conference), and even go as far as hirting all the leading Republicans to serve as correspondents: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, and Karl Rove, to name a few.

Part of Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity was to have pundits stop calling everyone 'Hitler'; well, Jon: stop calling every news outlet Fox News. And grow up, and see what the world is made up of. To quote Olbermann: you can't work on “the assumption that if the good guys stand down, the bullies will too.” Life isn't a fairytale, it's where reality lies - and in the real world, you have one party that led for 8 years on fear and cutting rights one at a time, and another one who vowed to do all it can to put an end to this. Shit takes time. You can't topple Washington and reform it in one night, those who run it and have run it for years (big companies, big lobbies, fat five-term-and-more politicians who forgot how the real world operates) don't want to let go of the stick, and you have to pry it out of their mouths; for some it takes strength, for others it takes wisdom, and others yet it takes time.

Let the Democrats do their work, or endure Republicans again. It's a two-party system, there is no other choice.

Even Bill Maher had a take on this. A good one, as you can see below. Here's one part that struck me:

“The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that, if the media stopped giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side forgetting that Obama tried that and found out…there are no moderates on the other side. When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama’s a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11’s an inside job, but I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11’s an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama’s a Socialist…all of them.”

Look in the mirror, Jon. You are not the middle-ground voice that most Americans view as the voice of Reason. For many of them, say fans of Larry The Cable Guy (i.e. people who can't afford actual cable and live in trailer parks), you are a rich, Jewish entertainer from New York/New Jersey that politicized the Oscars for a couple of years - all things they hate. Add that you are open-minded, tolerant, neither racist nor homophobic, educated, have traveled abroad, an avowed Democrat, an entertainer - and one who makes his audience think, at that! - and they have even more of a gut urge to disagree with you on all points.

It's good to show both sides of a story, to hit either side who makes or says something stupid. But you can't bash your own side more than the opposing side even when it's unwarranted just to give you enough credibility to be listened to when you do bash the other. It won't make Bill O'Reilly swing your way in an argument nor Sean Hannity defend you when Olbermann gets pissed off. All it does is fuel their fire and have them say: ''See? Even Jon Stewart agrees with us!'', thus giving your opponents undeserved credibility. It's called shooting yourself in the foot. And you're just as bad a shooter as Dick Cheney was.