The midterms for the midterms

Last night Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race by beating Martha Coakley. Coakley apparently decided that she did not need to campaign real hard or abstain from making fun of the Red Sox IN MASSACHUSETTS. (Source: The Daily Show)

According to the newspapers, this is a major rebuke of the Obama administration and the Democrats. Yeah, it probably is a little bit, though I think the crappy campaigning described above had a major influence. Massachusetts is labeled as one of the most liberal states in the country (mandatory health care for all and legalized gay marriage) and a Republican taking over Ted Kennedy's seat would seem impossible had it not just happened.

So, what can we learn from this? You've got to play all four quarters. No one is safe until they're raising the right hand in Congress.

I think that this defeat (minor or major, I'm not sure yet) puts the first half of the 111th Congress in a more realistic perspective. When you have a tent as big as the Democrats, you're not going to get the more/most liberal stuff passed because those pesky Blue Dogs (the ones who make your party the majority party) are going to demand abortion controls, opt-out provisions, and busts of Ronald Reagan in their capital building. Maybe next time, we should manage expectations a little bit and not think that CHANGE is going to happen by enthusiastic consensus or Presidential Fiat on the authority of his/her approval rating. Obama has not had the Congressional or party unity that Bush had in the wake of major national security concerns.

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Yes, Congressional politics will become more difficult, but I'm not sure that it will be SO different. Maybe the party will start getting its act together and focus on this year's midterms. Just like I said yesterday about Texas' loss, maybe losing some in the regular season can help you win the championship.

Ire Land

As a huge fan of The Daily Show I've seen John Stewart get in a lot of arguments with stupid guests.  During the entire 2006 season everybody with a book pandering to the conservative mindset of the country and the culture war/conservative revolution made a pass through TDS and it got to be a little trite. Since then there have been fewer and fewer of those interviews. But I have come to dislike the interviews when those arguments happen because John will make serious, thought-provoking arguments and the audience will jump in and applaud rather than let the guest respond. Basically, I think it kills the segment. (There is probably some effects from editing too.) The best argument John Stewart has gotten into by far happened NOT on his show but when he was on Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson and basically took them and the news media to task. There was an audience, but it wasn't involuntarily applauding when he made points, it responded to his jokes.

Come to last night's Stewart-Cramer faceoff and it went a little different than normal. First, they were talking about really complex financial stuff for some of the show and I don't think the audience knew when to respond. There was some, especially when John's tone of voice cued them to cheer but it was just not as much as maybe it should've been (not saying the audience is dumb, but...). Second, Cramer was very deferential and did not try and maintain a fight (very smart tactic) so the conversation was not as a tense as when jackasses who don't give a flip come on and just try to play the villain like a WWF bad guy (I'm old school so I don't care 'bout no WWE). Third, it was longer and necessarily so. There was SO much to talk about the normal 6.5-8 minutes wouldn't have cut it. So, the discussion was fuller and the parsing made it more comprehensive. Fourth, there were- at least on the internets- F-bombs that were not deleted. In all, I was bracing myself for the eye-rolling cheers from the audience and I was pleasantly surprised when they did not come to the level I was expecting.

Last night's interview was basically an extension of the "media not doing its job" theme of the Crossfire interview: what CNN et al. weren't doing for the public with regards to real information and discourse on our government and presidential candidates CNBC was not doing for financial instruments, corporations, and the financial system- GOOD REPORTING. I think Cramer was a little more forthright about his show ("Mad Money") being a work of entertainment than smug Carlson and vapid Begala were, to his credit. At the end, though, the level of catharsis that was provided by John going after Cramer about promoting certain financial instruments and stock etc. was more than offset by the fact that the problem is so much bigger than just him. The Daily Show is still on Comedy Central, CNBC is still going to do what it does, and major changes in our country's finances are not impending.

That is a serious review but it was a pretty serious episode. If you want a funny clip watch this:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Deer Hunter

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

You know how I know you're funny?

I thought Paul Rudd's interview/goof around session on The Daily Show was funny enough. Normally I don't like it when John Stewart's friends come on the show because they try to out-comedy one another and it ends up  being 1/2 watching someone else's inside jokes and 1/2 un-funny improv show. This time it was entertaining enough because of 1) free t-shirts and 2) silly dancing.

In other news Jim Cramer is going to be on TDS tomorrow and it should be interesting. Why?

On March 4- John ripped CNBC. Over that weekend the segment became a thing on the cable news networks and Jim Cramer responded. So all of this week (March 9, March 10, and March 11) TDS has been responding.

Of course, Colbert interviewed him last Thursday (March 5) and it was hysterical.

A week off

School work and a surprise trip to Beantown left me busy last week, so here's what I've seen in a nutshell:

How I Met Your Mother

The Good: It's finally back on.

The Bad: Can we move the plot please? Yes, Barney loves Robin. Can we get some movement there or drop it? Also, Barney seems only to love Robin when its convenient (in Three Days of Snow he pursued the college girl).

House

(Note: I watch this online and Fox puts it up a week after it airs on TV, so this may be doubly old if you watch it on TV.)

The Good: As usual a good episode.

The Bad: It seemed mechanical- reinforcing what is known about the characters, not moving them along except the Thirteen-Foreman relationship.

The Office

The Good: Victory for Kevin! I love to see him win (see Chair Model- Season 4, Episode 10). It is great to see a large part of the office coalesce into a supporting group (for the most part). The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was hilarious.

The Bad: It is kind of a downer that there are a bunch of unhappy people in the office. The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was disgusting.

30 Rock

The Good: The Frank-Jack story line is funny, although, maybe I say that only because I happen to really like the Frank character. I was dying when Jack had to turn Frank away just like Harry.

The Bad: I've seen this episode before- Jenna acting out because she's jealous of Tracy and Liz being crazy about babies and manipulating others to get her way is P-L-A-Y-E-D.

Lost- Separate review to follow.

The Daily Show

The Good: They're keeping the Obama administration's feet to the fire. I thought this interview was brilliant:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

White House Press Corps

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

I really liked the interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Part 1, Part 2) and think its a must-see. The interview with Billy Crudup got me more excited about seeing The Watchmen (review to come?). 

The Bad: They're still fighting culture wars against Fox News. That is kind of old hat to me.

Saturday Night Live (Yes, I still watch it)

I haven't actually watched it, but I've seen links to clips floating around online, so I'll probably watch this sometime. I just wanted to mention it.

Run, Fat Boy, Run

Running and especially running marathons seems to be a thing now so I'm very happy to review this movie. (Side note: I highly suggest watching this interpretation of marathons from HIMYM.) 

The plot is nothing spectacular, but the charm of the movie is that it is funny and uplifting. The male lead is Simon Pegg, who I liked in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and the female lead is Thandie Newton, the woman from MI2 and Crash, and both do what they do fine. The story is basically this: out-of-shape, loserly Dennis Doyle (Pegg) leaves pregnant Libby Odell (Newton) at the alter and then wakes up one day to realize he made a huge mistake. Libby's boyfriend- Hank Azaria as Whit- is a big threat to take both Libby and Dennis' son away from Dennis. The battle for Libby's heart is fought in the arena of a marathon. A group of Dennis' friends get together to help him get in shape- hilarity ensues. Hank Azaria (from the Simpsons and probably some other stuff- but I couldn't stop hearing Simpsons voices whenever he spoke) seemed like an odd choice because he's nerdy but I think it worked in the end. The humor ranges from gross (but never over-the-top) to classic.

I recommend this if you're looking for light fare.

That's it!