Pancake City

Dallas, Tex.: Why is it the Daily Show takes an overwhelmingly liberal stance when it comes to the elections and Democratic candidates? Shouldn’t the Daily Show be a little more unbiased? The Daily Show can still be funny yet fair at the same time.

Stephen Colbert: First, we are not news. We are under no compunction to be fair or balanced or any other thing other than funny. Second, satire always attacks the status quo. The status quo is presently a Republican executive, legislative and judicial branch. There’s hardly a liberal target left. Third, we throw hay makers at the Democratic candidates across the board. Fourth, I hope Bush loses.

(chat transcript)

I made a smiley in your likeness. I call it “The Stephen Colbert Special Edition.” Will you use it?

?`:|

—–

***Hope***, Michigan

I applied to be a PA for The Daily Show last month and I got a form letter saying there are no positions right now but my resume will be kept on file. Can I have my resume back? That was my only copy. I wrote it in crayon to show my sense of humor, but my friends don’t believe me. It’s eight pages long and has a picture of a green sun at the end (I THOUGHT GREEN WAS MORE CREATIVE BUT EVIDENTIALLY YOU GUYS DIdn’t.) (Ignore all the caps after “thought”.) You can COD it but please mail it under my roommate’s name (References, #7). His mom is always shipping him stuff COD.

—-
Dundalk, Detroit
The site says we can submit questions before or during the discussion. This isn’t a question. I just wanted to say we could send questions after the discussion if you had a time machine, jack ass.

(I started reading his chat, and I’m chagrined for sending these questions. His answers to regular questions are hilarious. I feel like the wanna-be trying to upstage him.)

* One of the Washington Post’s most loved and hated columnists is Leving. (I have a few friends who are now crying with joy.)

* Howard Kurtz’s response to my question in his chat today:

Arlington, Va.: I disagree with your analysis on the Weekly Standard story about the supposed bin Laden-Hussein connection. I think the real reason this story hasn’t got much attention is because Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, who in the past have willingly sighted specious evidence to support various claims on Iraq, haven’t said: “See? This proves our case.”

That’s an important mark of whether a story like this has any meat in it (and it’s one that doesn’t require journalists to do extensive analysis of the info in the memo and risk getting fooled again). If there was new information in this story that could be supported after a rigorous analysis, wouldn’t the Bush administration seize upon it, especially considering they’ve promoted flimsier evidence in the past? Has any major Republican leader, or non-partisan leader of the intelligence community, supported the claims of this story?

Howard Kurtz: In fact, the Defense Department disputed the notion that there was new and conclusive evidence here. But it’s certainly worthy of media debate. This was, after all, a previously undisclosed administration memo on a controversial subject to which the press has devoted acres of type during the whole Saddam/9-11/uranium/WMD/terrorism debate. As I mentioned in today’s column, the NYT and WP did come around to doing more substantive analyses of the memo obtained by the Standard.

The first of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus” appears this Sunday. His chat today with the Washington Post is great.

This is one of the best Tom the Dancing Bugs ever. Yeah, you have to watch an ad to read it. Suck it up.

From a Washington Post online chat today with Renee Landers, president of the Boston Bar Association:

“washingtonpost.com: Renee Landers, thank you for being with us today. Please explain what comes next now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled against the state ban on same-sex marriage.

Renee Landers: The Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion essentially gives the legislature 180 days to enact amendments to Massachusetts statutes that would give effect to the court’s opinion, that is, to recognize marriage in order to eliminate discriminations that attach to couples who are not permitted to marry. If the legislature does not enact appropriate amendments to the statutes within that time period, the Superior Court(the state trial court) would have the ability to enter an order implementing the SJC opinion. After 180 days, as a result of either legislative action or an order by the Superior Court, marriage licenses should begin to be granted to same-sex couples.

Another possibility would be for the legislature to begin the lengthy process for amending the state constitution to overrule the court’s opinion. The process for amending the constitution calls for two successive legislatures to vote favorably on an amendment and for that amendment to be submitted to the voters after the legislative action is completed. At a minimum, this process takes 3 years. The earliest such an amendment could appear on the state ballot would be November 2006.”

***
She gives a good summary of the ruling’s effects. From what I understand, gay marriage will be legally recognized in Massachusetts within 180 days, either by the legislature’s hand or the courts’. Making Massachusetts the first state to do so.

I was trying to get a Pancake City online store (through CafePress) up by 4:00, but I’m too brain dead to come up with good ideas. My two ideas so far are this (which has probably been done before) and a shirt that says “Preachers Like To Thump It.”

This question in the chat made me laugh:

Normal, Ill.: Why do the strings, the fundamental elements of matter and energy, vibrate in the first place? Does something induce an outside force which makes them them vibrate, or do they will themselves into vibration, because I want to know how to make myself vibrate.

Jim Gates: Hi,

The short answer to this question is that the laws of
quantum theory demand that superstrings vibrate. So
it is not necessary for any outside agency to “cause”
the vibration.

Mo Rocca is giving an online chat tomorrow for the Washington Post. I submitted this question:

“Hi Mo,

Let’s say a little boy (bald headed, very cute) has cancer, and his dying wish is to be a writer for The Daily Show. “Oh,” he says, his trembling hand clutching a stalk of broccoli, “How I wish I could write for my favoritest show, before I die….OF CANCER.”

Now let’s say said cancer-stricken boy is slightly older and probably doesn’t have cancer, although the boy/man can’t afford health insurance so who really knows? And he’s not bald, although everyone in the hairazzi enjoys pointing out that he’s balding.

Is there any way this person could get a chance to write for The Daily Show, even if it means cleaning Mo Rocca’s toilet with the gold toothbrush Jon Stewart gave him for his loyal service? How does a 26-year-old writer get his foot in the Dream Store that’s selling his fantasy of writing for his favorite show?”

UPDATE:
Mo responded to my post.
MO: “This email is truly sick. How can you even joke about using my gold toothbrush to clean my toilet?!”

It wasn’t the “Here’s my cell phone number, let’s chat” answer I wanted (I was hoping that he would be drunk by the time he responded to my post), but it’s cool that he responded.

I figured out how to bring the Pentagon’s global warming report into the U.S. news media stream. Put Gene Weingarten on it. Okay, he hasn’t answered the questions below (yet!) but I’m sure he will.

Hi Gene,

A nutty organization did a study recently that said that climate change is a far worse problem than terrorism, and it may wreak catastrophic havoc in twenty years from now. Okay, the nutty organization is the Pentagon, and the defense chiefs covered it up until it was leaked to the British press a few days ago. A few questions:

1. Does The Washington Post feel snubbed? You guys are in the Pentagon’s back yard. A mere RPG launch away. Britain is a whole MX-80 away! And that’s assuming the SDR satellite system holds up for the transatlantic flight. What ever happened to taking care of your home dogs?

2. Um, why isn’t the U.S. news media talking about this? It’s like going in for an oil change and finding out your car may spontaneously combust in the next year. “But did you change the oil?”

3. I apologize in advance if you post this question. I made the missile and satellite system names up, and I am sure you will make many emails about how you post an email from someone so stupid as to not know the difference between an MX-80 and a IBM-45x, jackass. You don’t have to take their criticism for me, although I would like to mention I am a home dog.

3a. Same thing for the IBM-45x. I think it’s the name of the first computer I bought, 20 years ago. “Now with more ‘X’ power!”

4. WHY IS NO ONE IN THE U.S. MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THIS?!!!!