My brother lives out in the wilds of Yakima, and he mentioned to me the other day about how they were "successful" in keeping out a Wal-Mart in their area. I mentioned something about letting the people decide where they want to shop, and he replied that (paraphrasing) people are stupid and don't know what's best for them. (Yeah, he's a flaming liberal.)

When a private company decides to exercise their right to control what they sell based on standards their executives have formulated, then the liberals cry foul and complain that people should be able to decide what they want to purchase.

Double standard? Hmmm, maybe!

Personally, I like to complain about Wal-Mart, but you can find me there every week doing my grocery shopping, simply because I do live in a smaller town and the other grocery stores can't complete with selection or prices.

I simply refuse to buy my children's clothes there. My oldest is 6, and the clothes in that size look like the same things you see teenagers wearing.

On a side note - the pregnant doll they took off the shelf - that was a pregnant Barbie - I think the first run of those dolls neglected to paint on a wedding ring, but subsequent runs did.

Mr. Walton was a Christian man, I'm glad they haven't completely tarnished his name, yet.

Jon Stewart can be funny at times, but he is far from brilliant.

1 -- Jon Stewart is an unfunny short dude who tries way too hard.

2 -- Wal-Mart is evil, if only because they tried the "dead peasant" insurance scheme.

I'd like to shift this convo from the moral degradation of Walmart to the alleged "brilliance" of Jon Stewart.

Yes, he is funny. No, he is not brilliant. And, Tucker Carlson has levied a legitimate criticism against him and his show that he has yet to answer:

People look to your show to inform their political opinion, whether you intend for that to be the case or not. Noting that, you have a responsiblility to at least partially uphold the standards of good journalism (i.e. stop throwing softballs to John Kerry).

Stewart's answer is a non-answer, in essence. He simply says that he is purely a comedy, not a political news or opinion show (it follows Crack Yankers, he cries!), and therefore I don't have to uphold any standards.

Here then is the paradox:

Either he is a political news show, in which case he does his viewers a disservice (at least in terms of content, if not in style) by providing them with less-than-thorough explorations of the candidates and politicians in general.

OR

He is a comedy show, in which we have to bemoan the existence of such people that, although demonstrably more intelligent than O'Reilly's viewers, take their political cues from a comedy that follows a show where puppets make crank calls.

Either way the voters that Jon Stewart has produced are an intriguingly paradoxical group.

I have no idea where that was going, but there.

That is my I-am-tired-of-everyone-being-on-Jon-Stewart's-schtick rant.

Claudio

My community of Palo Alto [50,000 lovely, upscale folk and one old grouch] resists "Overly large" chain stores. Whenever anyone needs variety of diet or goods, one goes out of town. My town whines about declining sales tax revenues. My town is fortunate that so much dot.com and Silicon Valley money falls its way, because the City Fathers could not hit a bull in the butt with a banjo on their own.

Claudio, I agree with you. Good rant. And yes, I agree that his show isn't totally a comedy show.

I have the same beef with Stewart that I have with Maher. They're allowed to say whatever they want without a standard because they're "funny".

I'd at least like to read or hear some legitimate dialogue on Tucker Carlson's claim. We'll see....

Are you kidding? Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are comedians first, above all else... that their brand of comedy is potently packed with political satire of a liberal or libertarian bent is completely secondary... they don't pretend nor advertise themselves as some sort of objective, serious news or commentary source... they obviously and unabashedly have a point of view which they in no way try to hide. Of course, because you all seem to forget, I must repeat that they are primarily comedians!

On the other hand, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, FAUX (we distort, you comply!) advertise themselves as independent, objective new organizations... Jon Stewart had an excellent reply to Tucker Carlson by saying that standards must be pretty low if they are comparing themselves to an admitted comedy show...

In summary:
(1) Stewart is absolutely correct that his show is primarily comedy and therefore should not be judged by the standards of supposed real journalistic formats...
(2) That said, he is also correct in his critique of serious shows that claim to be objective outfits, but fail to do their jobs!
Apples and oranges, people!

Ambra said "Well get outta Texas!"

ROTFLOL, HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh and smile!

Good points, jab, but I beg to differ.

My rebuttal was already written on my blog before I read this post. You can view it here (http://www.therightwingconspiracy.org/index.php?p=512), and additional comments are below.

Whether Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are primarily comedians or not, the point is that waaaay too many people in our (and I will assume you are of the same generation, no offense if I am mistaken) generation are not wise enough to balance political satire with real political knowledge. All they know is the satire. This is why "The Daily Show", in Jon Stewart's own words, is, "HURTING AMERICA." He produces a breed of young Americans that care more about how the Supreme Court justices look naked (and the inherent comedy in such a thought) than about how Kerry or Bush appointments to that Supreme Court will change the course of their lives.

Tucker Carlson was not comparing Crossfire to The Daily Show. For what it's worth (and I don't have a TV so I don't know how Crossfire normally works), I don't think that Begala or Carlson properly answered Stewart's criticism (whatever it was...partisan hackery?) However, I don't think that Stewart should believe he is above the standards of personal integrity when he interviews Kerry and asks him about who he meets in the bathroom.

Claudio

Let's get to the real issue here: Savion gets a "brilliant" but Prince only gets a "possibly"?!? :)

Walmart dropped my book and that doesn't bother me, as they have a right to sell whatever they wish. It could only have been for a few words they might have found unsavory, however, and I notice they still list books (Bukowski, for instance) that contain much worse language.