Former Minnesota governor and potential candidate for President in 2012, Tim Pawlenty, appeared on the Daily Show last night. The interview, including the portion that didn't air, is here.
I don't agree with him on much policy, of course, but I think he deserves consideration from Republicans who want a serious candidate. He's smart; he's experienced; he's articulate; he's a true believer in a conservative economic philosophy without emphasizing a socially "conservative" agenda.
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Stewart on Imam Rauf's "threat"
Stewart was in fine form last night. In this segment, Jon highlights the response of the right-wing media to Imam Rauf's purported threat. Stewart's take jives jibes with mine.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Islamophobiapalooza | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ahem
Haven't there been some revelations about Imam Rauf's nefarious connections that you want to share, Michael? I rely on you for such news, so I was disappointed to have to get it from Jon Stewart.
I think maybe NOW I'm opposed to the building of the mosque because of its frightening connections to Fox News.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Parent Company Trap | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
Jon Stewart on hypocrisy w/r/t Franken's anti-compelled-arbitration-for-rape bill
Sen. Franken, D-MN, has authored a bill amendment to the defense spending bill that precludes the awarding of govt contracts to firms that contractually preclude the right of its employees to sue said firms for their liability for rape. Hypocrisy ensues.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Short-selling, credit default swaps and zero-sum gambling
Samantha Bee last night on the Daily Show shines a light on short selling:
Anyone want to tell me how/why short-selling is allowed? I've heard a defense of it as a mechanism for properly pricing stock, but it didn't make sense to me. Why can't potential buyers just look at the P/E ratios and other company fundamentals to decide what price they're willing to pay for a stock?
The short-selling is just another version of gambling, like the credit default swaps. This kind of gambling is zero-sum, isn't it? For someone to make money, someone else has to lose money, as far as I can tell. If I have that right, then that's what makes these vehicles different in kind from regular old ownership of a share of stock in a company. Sure, it's a gamble to own stock, in the sense that it could lose some or all of its value, but no one need lose any money for your stock to go up in value.
Anyone want to tell me how/why short-selling is allowed? I've heard a defense of it as a mechanism for properly pricing stock, but it didn't make sense to me. Why can't potential buyers just look at the P/E ratios and other company fundamentals to decide what price they're willing to pay for a stock?
The short-selling is just another version of gambling, like the credit default swaps. This kind of gambling is zero-sum, isn't it? For someone to make money, someone else has to lose money, as far as I can tell. If I have that right, then that's what makes these vehicles different in kind from regular old ownership of a share of stock in a company. Sure, it's a gamble to own stock, in the sense that it could lose some or all of its value, but no one need lose any money for your stock to go up in value.
Subhead: Crips
The subtitle nearly quotes Gen. Richard B. Meyers, from his appearance on The Daily Show on Monday, March 16. He was talking about the partisan political climate since 2004.
Thanks to reader RS for correcting my spelling of Crips.
When I posted it, I thought about rephrasing it as: "Like the Crips and the Bloods, except with better grammar" but I couldn't remember if we ever took liberties with quotes for the subtitle. Now it looks like I might have considered "Like the Crips and the Bloods, except with better spelling." Or would that be worse spelling, since I got it wrong?
Thanks to reader RS for correcting my spelling of Crips.
When I posted it, I thought about rephrasing it as: "Like the Crips and the Bloods, except with better grammar" but I couldn't remember if we ever took liberties with quotes for the subtitle. Now it looks like I might have considered "Like the Crips and the Bloods, except with better spelling." Or would that be worse spelling, since I got it wrong?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Cramer v. Stewart (and O'Reilly and Hannity)
I've got no problem with the way Stewart loaded up the questions and then crushed the puny Cramer and his Mad Money. Stewart's show is what it is, primarily a comedy show with bits of news and current events tossed in to make it relevant. It's the SNL weekend update for thirty minutes every weeknight.
In fact, from what little bits of Cramer's show I've caught in the kitchen at the office, his show is rather like Stewart's: primarily schtick with a bit of finance and economics tossed into the mix. The big difference is that Cramer's is on a "real" network while Stewart's is on the Comedy Channel.
I can't listen to O'Reilly and Hannity for the exact reasons LJ listed. Well, I guess I should say I've almost never listened to their radio shows. I can't watch the televsion programs for the exact reasons LJ listed. I don't even mind them being incredibly one-sided...that is what they do. I loathe the technique LJ described and the shouting.
In fact, from what little bits of Cramer's show I've caught in the kitchen at the office, his show is rather like Stewart's: primarily schtick with a bit of finance and economics tossed into the mix. The big difference is that Cramer's is on a "real" network while Stewart's is on the Comedy Channel.
I can't listen to O'Reilly and Hannity for the exact reasons LJ listed. Well, I guess I should say I've almost never listened to their radio shows. I can't watch the televsion programs for the exact reasons LJ listed. I don't even mind them being incredibly one-sided...that is what they do. I loathe the technique LJ described and the shouting.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Cramer on The Daily Show
I've never watched CNBC, so I don't really have a sense of how fair Stewart's criticism is, though his central premise makes sense to me: that if CNBC shows were going to have interviews with CEOs, giving them a platform to spew lies, then they had a duty to either a) investigate and do some in-depth reporting or b) clearly present themselves as nothing but entertainment.
Stewart makes a couple other points worth making that don't have much of anything to do with CNBC (except to the extent they ought to have been a watchdog on behalf of average investors): 1) that publicly-traded corporations have lately been managed for short term gain, while average joe investors have been investing for the long term (based on the misunderstanding that corporations were managed for the long term) and that mismatch has robbed investors of their savings; and 2) there are two markets, one of hard-earned dollars by ordinary people on an ordinary scale being invested to own a piece of companies and a second that is a big game in which market players use the money of average investors in their betting games. (I could swear I posted my own made-up theory that was similar to #2, but I can't find it.)
The Daily Show has made the whole interview (much longer than what appeared on the show) available on its website, and available for embedding, so here you go:
Stewart makes a couple other points worth making that don't have much of anything to do with CNBC (except to the extent they ought to have been a watchdog on behalf of average investors): 1) that publicly-traded corporations have lately been managed for short term gain, while average joe investors have been investing for the long term (based on the misunderstanding that corporations were managed for the long term) and that mismatch has robbed investors of their savings; and 2) there are two markets, one of hard-earned dollars by ordinary people on an ordinary scale being invested to own a piece of companies and a second that is a big game in which market players use the money of average investors in their betting games. (I could swear I posted my own made-up theory that was similar to #2, but I can't find it.)
The Daily Show has made the whole interview (much longer than what appeared on the show) available on its website, and available for embedding, so here you go:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Update: Stewart excoriates CNBC
Jim Cramer complained that Stewart's take on CNBC last week, in which Stewart said Cramer encouraged people to buy Bear Stearns five days before it collapsed, was in error. Cramer pointed out that in the clip Steward showed, Cramer wasn't encouraging people to buy Bear Stearns stock; he was simply assuring them it was safe to use Bear Stearns for handling one's investments. Steward acknowledges the error, but then goes on to show that Cramer did indeed encourage people to buy Bear's stock not long before the collapse.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Friday, December 05, 2008
Stewart on bailouts
John Stewart comments on the difference between Congress' attitude about bailouts for the auto industry as opposed to its attitude about bailouts for the financial industry: While I don't agree with his conclusion that Congress should give Detroit the money, I suspect he's right about why the financial industry was treated differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
