"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday 7 August 2015


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. 

think they have both withdrawn  from the scene because U.S. politics can no longer be the stuff of laughter.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


Anonymous said...

I will miss Letterman and Stewart.
That field of Republicans badly needs a comic to have a go at them.
I also ran into a word I had o look up. I had always thought that " dingleberries " were those little ,usually white or red , balls on a rope that young men used to string around their souped-up car windows. W called them " dingeleberry customs ".
Someone referred to the Republican debaters as a bunch of dingleberries.
That person had a different meaning for the word.

Anonymous said...

Words are great for playing

Anonymous said...

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "in its widest acceptance, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratification independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher facilities."

Thus comes lust and sexual desire.

Please use some more uncommon words next time and keep them coming.

Anonymous said...

I think Stewart is basically a nice guy who cannot believe the stupidity he sees around him. When the former mayor of TO was tearing up the air waves, Stewart remarked that he would be willing to forego any further levity if the obvious problems were addressed,

Anonymous said...

Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times makes mention of the fact that Trump regularly rates womens' body parts by ranking them on a scale from one to ten, making comparisons a matter of mathematics rather than aesthetics.

Possibly a panel of experienced women could do the same for him. Some of his dimensions might prove embarrassing.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"His journalist background gave edge to his humour."

What journalist background? Jon Stewart was never a journalist. He got his start as a stand-up comedian. Part of the "joke" of what he did on The Daily Show was the perception that it was 1. a true news show and 2. he was a journalist. Neither were further from the truth.

It's actually a sad state of affairs that more young people in the US got their "news" from Jon Stewart. That is equally offset by those that get their news exclusivly from CNN.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

You forgot the ones who rely on Fox. Or do you think that is " news "?

Anonymous said...

I miss Air Farce too.
We simply have to be able to laugh at politicians.

Anonymous said...

Air Farce was good on radio but their TV show - like most of the CBC's TV offerings - seemed to be very amatuerish. I know people rave about Rick Mercer but I honestly cannot watch the in-studio stuff or his rant. He is entertaining doing the outside stuff.

Anonymous said...

Why is the omission of Fox turned around to say "Or do you think that is news?" like it is somethinng bad.

No, Fox, and most US (and Canadian for that matter) news sources are biased. Fox is on the extreme side as well.

My point was to say that young people actually thought The Daily Show was real news. hell, you might as well read The Onion.

By the way, I do not get my news from any US-based sources.