WORDS ARE COIN OF EXCHANGE

It isn't often that The Globe and Mail devotes an entire editorial comment to one person, in today's paper to Jon Stewart, the star of a television program for 16 years, who "made journalism better." If you haven't seen episodes of "The Daily Show" you will have missed a bright mind skewering many of the deadbeats who proliferate in American politics and public life, and the recent Republican debate is a prime example of these puffballs. I think that the man under the wig would make more sense if he let the wig do the talking. I, for one, feel very comfortable in having watched Mr. Stewart at work, although I have never felt charming as a result. Charmed more than charming. As members of the same species we are inevitably subjected to the faults and foibles of our fellows. It's good to see "concupiscence" used in a sentence, but I question the appropriateness considering its common meaning. on AM SO CHARMING.......I SAID SO.

*************************************

I was part of Jon Stewart's audience. His journalist background gave edge to his humour.. By the same token, humour blunted his journalistic point. His skill was unique. It can't be copied and is unlikely to be replaced. Any more than Letterman. 

The silly stuff included  in Letterman's program to hold his audience was always tedious. It seemed it become increasingly hard to hide his own distaste for the meaningless discourse.

Jon Stewart generated  noise and histrionics for the same purpose as Letteman's nonsense. 

The channel often had to be changed for a break from the noise. 

I think they have both withdrawn  from the scene because U.S. politics can no longer be the stuff of laughter.

The two have been a comfort. Their contribution will be missed. 

*********************************

Concupiscence is a word not commonly used.  So it has no common meaning. 

The language of religion can and is commonly co-opted. 

I know the precise meaning.  I claim the word nevertheless .  It may be wide but it suits my purpose.