Letterman calls it quits.

[davejames]

It'll be interesting to see just how much Stephen talks about the new show on TCR, considering it's not really the character who's doing it. Will he just keep hinting around at the idea like he did Thursday, with comments like "I do not envy whoever they try to put in that chair"?

With a year to go, I suppose it's inevitable that he's going to have to talk more about it (especially if the guests keep bringing it up), but personally I hope he's able to maintain the idea for as long as possible that it's something happening to a completely different guy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe he'll have Stephen Colbert interview Stephen Colbert about it. A formidable opponent.

 

[Gaith]

Good riddance to the Report. The over-the-top right-wing blowhard schtick was funny for a few weeks, but not only is it hard to ridicule/satirize people who barely seem sane in the first place, the whole premise pretty heavily implied that right-wing media loons come by their delusions honestly, and not because they're paid handsomely to spout their crap. O'Reilly gets paid, what, 10m a year for being a dickweed blowhard? So what incentive does he have to promote meaningful and thoughtful political discussion? So the Report was a parody of something that wasn't even necessarily genuine to begin with. "Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

I don't even watch The Daily Show regularly anymore, but I'm glad to know it's still there, especially during election seasons. The Report, OTOH, I could give a rat's ass about. Good on Cobert for the promotion; he's earned it. And more '80s music videos from Stephen and the Colberts, please.

 

[J.T.B.]

Good riddance to the Report. The over-the-top right-wing blowhard schtick was funny for a few weeks, but not only is it hard to ridicule/satirize people who barely seem sane in the first place, the whole premise pretty heavily implied that right-wing media loons come by their delusions honestly, and not because they're paid handsomely to spout their crap. O'Reilly gets paid, what, 10m a year for being a dickweed blowhard? So what incentive does he have to promote meaningful and thoughtful political discussion? So the Report was a parody of something that wasn't even necessarily genuine to begin with. "Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

I couldn't disagree more. Genuine or not, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and their like have huge audiences and were ripe for parody. But the character was really just a springboard for ranging all over the news with some of the most sharply-written satire going today. And some of the things he's done, like the SuperPAC shows, outdid a lot public-affairs programming in illuminating an issue.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

And whether or not O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest genuinely believe what they spout I don't think there's a question that many of their listeners do. Since part of their schtick is to say what they do with an authoritative spin I think it's good to have people like Colbert and others to deflate it.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The problem isn't that there are differences between races, so much as that there are generational traditions of power and privilege that correlate highly with race, and those traditions give people advantages and disadvantages.

And even if those traditions are not your fault, if you receive the benefits of those traditions, it's hard to honestly dissociate yourself from them.

So, is it ok with you if I don't feel like a victim because a lot of my ancestors were mistreated?

Depends, do you now have fewer privileges because the people who mistreated your ancestors passed down the profits from doing so to their children?

Feel however you want, my post was directed at suburban white kids who grow up with trust funds and private schools and act like because they're not racist that there don't exist racial inequities and that the income gap isn't a problem.

 

[Mister Fandango]

What exactly is the cut-off date for the persecution?

I mean, what if you're Jewish or Irish but filthy rich now thanks to your forefathers? Or any of the people who were enslaved by the ancient Romans? Or any of the people who were enslaved by prehistoric man? When, exactly, does it stop?

And, damn, what if you're a rich black dude, but one of your ancient ancestors was in a tribe that benefited from the slaves of another tribe back in Africa? Yikes.

 

[JarodRussell]

It stops right at your birth. You are not responsible for anything your parents, grandparents and further ancestors did. Nor are any other people responsible for what their parents did to your parents. People are only responsible for their own actions.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Indeed. A man is responsible for only his own actions. And you accepted the money passed down to you. You accepted the education given to you by your parents who accepted the money passed down to them. You accept the advantages given to you because you're part of a demographic group with more money, when you know that demographic group has more money because of past crimes. These are actions you chose to take.

If my father robbed your father, and then gave the money to me, could I then say "Hey, I'm not the one who robbed anyone. That was my father. But it's my money now, he gave it to me?"

The expiration date is the day that the per capita income for a white man is equal to the per capita income of anyone else. It's the day that a person has equal access to privileges, careers and education regardless of who their ancestors were.

 

[Mister Fandango]

So you're saying everyone is indirectly guilty of and benefiting from murder, theft, rape, and other unspeakable crimes, because everyone has ancestors who indulged in such behavior if you go back far enough, and thus are equal. Cool.

I was just checking.

I mean, just the fact that you're alive and breathing today means you benefited from one of those things at some point in the past.

 

[Amaris]

Nothing beats my sweatshop of children who whittle toothpicks for me, ones I don't even use. I toss them in the trash.
I toss the toothpicks, not the children. The children are worth more than the toothpicks.

Probably.

 

[JarodRussell]

If my father robbed your father, and then gave the money to me, could I then say "Hey, I'm not the one who robbed anyone. That was my father. But it's my money now, he gave it to me?"

So in other terms, whatever you did with that money now belongs to me because it once belonged to my father?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

May I weigh in? I think, maybe as a German born in the 1980s, I may understand a bit of the guilt over one's ancestors' sins.

To this day, Germany pays reparations to the survivors of the Holocaust and the decendents of those who died. Is this right? Absolutely, because the German nation did horrible wrongs, and these reparations are the least we can do as a nation. Note, those reparations I speak of are paid to individuals, not nations. And even though I myself, as someone born almost 40 years after the end of the Third Reich, am not responsible for those crimes, I sincerely believe that the people of Germany have to pay those reparations.

Now, in the case here, it might not have been exactly the same, but there are enough similarities. The nation did wrong, the society did wrong, and a particular group of people suffered heavily. I think we all know racism didn't end with slavery, and it showed that it was not enough just to end slavery. Even not being slaves anymore, black people still did not have the same rights, and it was not that long ago that they did. Some of those rights they only got by law, meaning on paper, but the institutions of society, be it educational, judicial or economic institutions, still could and can get around those laws. Black people still are heavily at a disadvantage, even if some individuals among them may not feel that way.
And it is the duty of society, and thus of the state as the democratic representative of society, to make up for it. And while you personally may not have been responsible for societies past wrongs, as part of that society, you must share that duty.

Of course, it goes without saying, other specific groups of people have been openly discriminated against by the state and private institutions, and society must also strive towards righting those wrongs as well.


On the topic of Colbert himself, I do hate this situation. For the simple reason that I'll have to spend even more hours per week on my watching tv (or shows on the web). Maybe it won't be so hard if the replacement on CC turns out to be shit, but since it most likely be a spin-off of the Daily Show (or an extension of it), I won't hold my breath.

 

[JarodRussell]

To this day, Germany pays reparations to the survivors of the Holocaust and the decendents of those who died. Is this right? Absolutely, because the German nation did horrible wrongs, and these reparations are the least we can do as a nation. Note, those reparations I speak of are paid to individuals, not nations. And even though I myself, as someone born almost 40 years after the end of the Third Reich, am not responsible for those crimes, I sincerely believe that the people of Germany have to pay those reparations.

I guess those reparations are paid by each German via taxes (correct me if I'm wrong)?

Let's say you become American citizen. Would you still have to continue to pay the reparations yourself because you were originally born in Germany from German parents?

And why should foreigners that become German citizens have to pay reparations via taxes (if they do, but I guess that's the case)?

And are German Jews, and in general descendants of other WWII victims living in Germany, excluded from having to pay reparations?


Issues like that sum up my problems with the concept of being in debt for something other people did.

 

[davejames]

May I weigh in? I think, maybe as a German born in the 1980s, I may understand a bit of the guilt over one's ancestors' sins.

To this day, Germany pays reparations to the survivors of the Holocaust and the decendents of those who died. Is this right? Absolutely, because the German nation did horrible wrongs, and these reparations are the least we can do as a nation. Note, those reparations I speak of are paid to individuals, not nations. And even though I myself, as someone born almost 40 years after the end of the Third Reich, am not responsible for those crimes, I sincerely believe that the people of Germany have to pay those reparations.

Now, in the case here, it might not have been exactly the same, but there are enough similarities. The nation did wrong, the society did wrong, and a particular group of people suffered heavily. I think we all know racism didn't end with slavery, and it showed that it was not enough just to end slavery. Even not being slaves anymore, black people still did not have the same rights, and it was not that long ago that they did. Some of those rights they only got by law, meaning on paper, but the institutions of society, be it educational, judicial or economic institutions, still could and can get around those laws. Black people still are heavily at a disadvantage, even if some individuals among them may not feel that way.
And it is the duty of society, and thus of the state as the democratic representative of society, to make up for it. And while you personally may not have been responsible for societies past wrongs, as part of that society, you must share that duty.

Of course, it goes without saying, other specific groups of people have been openly discriminated against by the state and private institutions, and society must also strive towards righting those wrongs as well.

Well said. Just because no one should feel guilty or be held personally responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, doesn't mean we should just shrug off or pretend that hundreds of years of enslavement and discrimination didn't have a huge and lasting impact on a people and their culture. And that at the very least our government has some obligation to right some of those wrongs.

I mean, we're not talking about stuff that happened way back in Ancient Greece here. This is oppression that was still going on as recently as 50 years ago.

 

[JarodRussell]

I mean, we're not talking about stuff that happened way back in Ancient Greece here. This is oppression that was still going on as recently as 50 years ago.

Hm. But when does the obligation of a government/nation end? If not 50 years, what about 100 years, 300 years, 1000 years?

I have no problem with "righting the wrongs", but I have a major problem with the concept of being in debt for something other people did.

Whatever the George W. Bush government did, why should the Barack Obama government be responsible for it? They can look at what Bush did right and wrong, and then go and correct the wrongs. But Obama is not responsible or in debt for anything that Bush did.



Blaming people for something their relatives or associates did is the very root of never ending generational conflicts.

 

[Avon]

so is letterman quitting to go oppress some peoples or has this thread got wildly off-topic?

 

[JarodRussell]

so is letterman quitting to go oppress some peoples or has this thread got wildly off-topic?

It has gone BADLY off topic.

You can derail any discussion lately by saying "they only did that because they are racists". In this case, replacing Letterman with yet another white middle aged guy was just plain racist by CBS.

I still highly doubt that anyone in charge even wasted a single thought about that.

 

[davejames]

Hm. But when does the obligation of a government/nation end? If not 50 years, what about 100 years, 300 years, 1000 years?

Well when we get to 100 or 1000 years, we can decide then. Right now I'd say it should at least be longer than freakin 50.

And yes, if we're going to be part of a society that continues to discriminate against others in one form or another (which all kinds of studies and statistics confirm is very much the case), then we do still have some obligation. Maybe not monetarily, but at least in terms of some of the laws we create or some of our hiring practices. I don't really think that's asking that much, personally.

I mean to hear some complain you'd think the government was asking people to give up their first born child or something. Lol

 

[JarodRussell]

Hm. But when does the obligation of a government/nation end? If not 50 years, what about 100 years, 300 years, 1000 years?

Well when we get to 100 or 1000 years, we can decide then. Right now I'd say it should at least be longer than freakin 50.

And yes, if we're going to be part of a society that continues to discriminate against others in one form or another (which all kinds of studies and statistics confirm is very much the case), then we do still have some obligation. Maybe not monetarily, but at least in terms of some of the laws we create or some of our hiring practices. I don't really think that's asking that much, personally.

I mean to hear some complain you'd think the government was asking people to give up their first born child or something. Lol

But I don't have to play to "your ancestors did terrible stuff" card to stop discrimination. I seem to have a different mindset. Discrimination is a bad thing, and we should do something about it, plain and simple.

Overcompensation is not true equality either. Just because the previous generation got only 50% because they were discriminated, doesn't mean the next generation should have a right to get 200% at the expense of others. It's only shifting the discrimination, it's doesn't remove it.