Showing posts with label Comedy Central. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comedy Central. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Viacom faces lawsuit over ‘What What (In the Butt)’ South Party parody
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed an amicus brief in support of Viacom over a parody of a popular online video called “What What (In the Butt).”
Comedy Central’s popular show South Park parodied the video in a 2008 episode. Two years later, copyright owner Brownmark Films sued Viacom and Comedy Central, alleging copyright infringement.
A federal judge held the parody was protected by fair use laws and dismissed the case. But Brownmark appealed to the 7th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that fair use cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.
The EFF says if Brownmark’s claim is upheld, it would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.
“Brownmark is asking the appeals court for a rule that would make it much more difficult to resolve easy fair uses cases quickly. That would discourage artists and others from fighting claims, no matter how baseless, or even engaging in the fair use in the first place,” said EFF Fellow Michael Barclay. “The judge in this case got it exactly right: when the fair use is obvious, the case should be decided right away.”
The EFF argued that dismissing obvious fair use cases helps to deter abuses of the copyright system by so-called “copyright trolls,” who threaten to sue over copyright infringement but push to settle out of court.
“Fair use – using some copyrighted material for the purposes of art, education, or commentary – is an important part of how we communicate today. We see it everyday in segments on The Daily Show, in political advertisements, and in ‘remix’ videos on YouTube,” said EFF Staff Attorney Julie Samuels. “We can’t let litigious copyright holders chill free speech by making it more expensive.”
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Responding to PolitiFact, Stewart reads laundry list of Fox News lies
When comedian Jon Stewart told Fox News host Chris Wallace that Fox News viewers are the “most consistently misinformed” in “every poll,” he may have let his rhetoric run away from him, just a little — and he got fact checked by PolitiFact, which called his allegation “false.”
On Tuesday night’s show, Stewart apologized and corrected the statement, then turned around a laundry list of Fox News lies and PolitiFact’s ratings.
“Well, I tell ya what … They’ve got a lot of fucking correcting to do,” he concluded.
This video is from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, broadcast Tuesday, June 22, 2011.
On Tuesday night’s show, Stewart apologized and corrected the statement, then turned around a laundry list of Fox News lies and PolitiFact’s ratings.
“Well, I tell ya what … They’ve got a lot of fucking correcting to do,” he concluded.
This video is from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, broadcast Tuesday, June 22, 2011.
Here is Stewart's unedited appearance on FOX News Sunday.
Friday, June 3, 2011
South Park Lampoons the US/Big Pharma's Overmedication of Kids
(It's hilarious. The Chinese/Japanese racial stereotype co-plot gets kind of annoying , but Butters being diagnosed for Multiple Personality Disorder for using his imagination is the real story. It's funny cuz it's sad. There's a twist ending, too.--jef)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Extended Interview
In this unedited, extended interview, Elizabeth Warren discusses Congress' fight to kill the consumer agency before it helps middle-class families.
Elizabeth Warren exposes the fight against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in this unedited, extended interview.
In this unedited, extended interview, Elizabeth Warren believes that getting rid of the fine print in financial contracts is basic and sensible.
In this unedited, extended interview, Elizabeth Warren discusses Congress' fight to kill the consumer agency before it helps middle-class families.
Elizabeth Warren exposes the fight against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in this unedited, extended interview.
In this unedited, extended interview, Elizabeth Warren believes that getting rid of the fine print in financial contracts is basic and sensible.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
I Give Up - Pay Anything...
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
I Give Up - Pay Anything...
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Agence France Presse
GE 'Zero' US Tax Furor Reignites Calls for Reform
Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.
A protester holds up a sign in front of a Bank of America branch in Washington in February during a demonstration against the bank having not paid any federal income taxes in 2009 despite having received US$45 billion in bailout money from the government in 2008 and 2009. No one, it seems, is very fond of the US corporate tax system.
Businesses bemoan the 35 percent minimum rate that is among the highest in the world, and taxpayers are furious at how easily big firms seem to pay much less.
But in recent months the issue has been overshadowed by multiple global crises and a fierce argument over government spending.
It resurfaced with a bang last week, when it emerged that manufacturing titan GE paid no taxes to the US government in 2010.
"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system.
But as millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet, and the Federal government fails spectacularly to do the same, that disclosure has caused consternation.
"The wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit," Democrat-allied Senator Bernie Sanders said Sunday.
Supporters of reform, from big business to the White House, are re-polishing their arguments.
The White House argues an overhaul could help bring down unemployment. Big business agrees a lower rate would aid growth.
Despite this broad coalition, experts say the prospect of a quick deal is illusory.
They argue the government has few options if it wants to substantially lower the minimum rate and not add to the deficit: Expand the number of people paying corporate taxes, or get more revenue.
"If you want to get the corporate tax rate down from 35 to 28 percent -- that is a 20 percent cut in the tax rate -- you have to have increase the tax base by 20 percent, or offset it," said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
"That is a big increase."
President Barack Obama has leaned heavily toward closing loopholes, arguing that "revenue neutral" reform must spell an end to some antiquated, but much-loved, tax breaks.
"I don't think there is anyway to do this without winners and losers," said Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Cutting roughly four billion dollars a year in oil and gas sector subsidies are a regularly cited example of cuts, so too is tightening manufacturing deductions that are used well beyond the sector.
But the most lucrative target for the Internal Revenue Service may be cracking down on overseas tax shelters.
Under current rules US firms pay tax on foreign subsidiaries only when profits are sent back to the United States.
Treating subsidiaries as domestic businesses for tax purposes could spell vastly higher tax bills for firms like GE.
While the company says much of this year's tax savings come from losses at GE Capital, even before other write-offs its effective US tax rate was just over seven percent -- thanks in part to some profits being kept overseas.
"If you just look at our statutory rate, it's high," said Annette Nellen, an accounting professor at San Jose State University, but "the effective tax rate for many companies is a lot lower."
Outrage or not, tough bargains will need to be reached if a reform deal is to be reached.
"It is going to depend on who all steps forward to say 'oh no, no, we can't get rid of the research credit, we can't get rid of that work opportunity tax credit,'" said Nellen.
"If you get enough people stepping forward to say you can't get rid of this stuff, then Congress I think will just step back and say, we'll leave the rate where it is."
I Give Up - Pay Anything...
(Sooooo on the money!--jef)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Agence France Presse
GE 'Zero' US Tax Furor Reignites Calls for Reform
Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.
A protester holds up a sign in front of a Bank of America branch in Washington in February during a demonstration against the bank having not paid any federal income taxes in 2009 despite having received US$45 billion in bailout money from the government in 2008 and 2009. No one, it seems, is very fond of the US corporate tax system.
Businesses bemoan the 35 percent minimum rate that is among the highest in the world, and taxpayers are furious at how easily big firms seem to pay much less.
But in recent months the issue has been overshadowed by multiple global crises and a fierce argument over government spending.
It resurfaced with a bang last week, when it emerged that manufacturing titan GE paid no taxes to the US government in 2010.
"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system.
But as millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet, and the Federal government fails spectacularly to do the same, that disclosure has caused consternation.
"The wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit," Democrat-allied Senator Bernie Sanders said Sunday.
Supporters of reform, from big business to the White House, are re-polishing their arguments.
The White House argues an overhaul could help bring down unemployment. Big business agrees a lower rate would aid growth.
Despite this broad coalition, experts say the prospect of a quick deal is illusory.
They argue the government has few options if it wants to substantially lower the minimum rate and not add to the deficit: Expand the number of people paying corporate taxes, or get more revenue.
"If you want to get the corporate tax rate down from 35 to 28 percent -- that is a 20 percent cut in the tax rate -- you have to have increase the tax base by 20 percent, or offset it," said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
"That is a big increase."
President Barack Obama has leaned heavily toward closing loopholes, arguing that "revenue neutral" reform must spell an end to some antiquated, but much-loved, tax breaks.
"I don't think there is anyway to do this without winners and losers," said Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Cutting roughly four billion dollars a year in oil and gas sector subsidies are a regularly cited example of cuts, so too is tightening manufacturing deductions that are used well beyond the sector.
But the most lucrative target for the Internal Revenue Service may be cracking down on overseas tax shelters.
Under current rules US firms pay tax on foreign subsidiaries only when profits are sent back to the United States.
Treating subsidiaries as domestic businesses for tax purposes could spell vastly higher tax bills for firms like GE.
While the company says much of this year's tax savings come from losses at GE Capital, even before other write-offs its effective US tax rate was just over seven percent -- thanks in part to some profits being kept overseas.
"If you just look at our statutory rate, it's high," said Annette Nellen, an accounting professor at San Jose State University, but "the effective tax rate for many companies is a lot lower."
Outrage or not, tough bargains will need to be reached if a reform deal is to be reached.
"It is going to depend on who all steps forward to say 'oh no, no, we can't get rid of the research credit, we can't get rid of that work opportunity tax credit,'" said Nellen.
"If you get enough people stepping forward to say you can't get rid of this stuff, then Congress I think will just step back and say, we'll leave the rate where it is."
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
"Trump could be the crazy third-world dictator America needs" says Lewis Black
Posted on 03.23.11
By David Edwards
Donald Trump, who may be running for president, boasted last week that he got the best of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a real estate deal.
Comedy Central’s Lewis Black thinks Trump may have what it takes to be the crazy third-world dictator that America needs.
This video is from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, broadcast March 22, 2011.
By David Edwards
Donald Trump, who may be running for president, boasted last week that he got the best of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a real estate deal.
Comedy Central’s Lewis Black thinks Trump may have what it takes to be the crazy third-world dictator that America needs.
This video is from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, broadcast March 22, 2011.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Lame-as-Fuck Lame Duck Congress Screws 9-11 Responders
Led by the Republicans--the party that truly understands 9-11? The bit at the end, the last minute or so is brilliant.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Reasonable Debate on the Sanity Bus
This was just splendid in illustrating my long held belief that we, as citizens, are being manipulated into this bogus Right/Left conflict to distract us from the class war waged upon us by those who would crash our economy in order to receive huge sums of money in one of the greatest extortion strongarms of all time. We have so much more in common than we'd ever have as differences, yet, because of constant media propaganda focusing only on these Right/left hot button issues rather than the income disparity between classes of citizens (for example), we feel like our fellow citizens with different beliefs are somehow alien traitors, unpatriotic according to our worldview, and someone who must be shouted down and hated, when in truth, it's the really rich guys getting paid bonuses even when his year was a failure, who should be the true target of our wrath, not our fellow citizens making around the same wages and living in a similar type home, after being raised in the same culture...yadda yadda.
Now, see all that played out live!
Also, Extreme Makeover DC Edition, was genius:
Now, see all that played out live!
Also, Extreme Makeover DC Edition, was genius:
Monday, October 4, 2010
Jon Stewart Turns His Satire Against Barack Obama
Daily Show host spearheads liberal discontent with the president's failure to deliver radical change
by Paul Harris in New York, Sunday, October 3, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
Jon Stewart, the famously smart host of the satirical Daily Show and habitual scourge of rightwing Americans, has embraced a remarkable new role as one of the fiercest critics of President Barack Obama and someone who is spearheading a wave of liberal discontent with the Democratic party.
The turnaround is a remarkable one for a man whose show soared to national and international fame during the George W Bush era, on the back of incessant ridicule of Republican policies and personalities.
But over the past year Stewart, who was a notable supporter of Obama in the presidential election campaign of 2008, has taken an increasingly strident tone on a wide range of White House policies, from the war in Afghanistan to gay rights and the economy.
Last week Stewart twice took on Obama head-on in brutal attacks during his trademark monologues at the start of the Daily Show. On Wednesday night he lambasted the president and the Democrats for their lack of backbone when it came to standing up to Republicans. "We came, we saw, we sucked," Stewart mockingly quipped.
The outburst created waves and prompted the influential gossip website Gawker to describe the incident under the headline, "The night Jon Stewart turned on President Obama".
Stewart followed up the next night by mocking Obama's recent campaign appearances in people's backyards, as a way of attempting to reconnect with disaffected voters. "Sir, you're the leader of the free world, you've taken the presidency from Air Force One to backyard number two," he said.
Critics – many of them liberal fans of a man who combines comedy with biting political observation – believe Stewart is going too far. Danielle Belton, an influential culture and politics writer who runs the popular blog The Black Snob, said: "Jon Stewart made the mistake that a lot of liberals did when they got caught up in the romance of the 2008 campaign. People like Stewart want Obama to be an 'imaginary Obama' that they created in their head during the campaign."
Belton said Obama had always run as a moderate who would try to unite American politics, not carry out a difficult liberal agenda. She said that people like Stewart were just damaging the Democrats' cause. "People are taking their eyes off the larger issues here," she said.
But Stewart's anger is only the most high-profile expression of an increasingly widespread dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats with the achievements of the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. Though the White House touts its success in stabilising the economy and bringing in a version of healthcare reform, much of the Democratic base is unhappy at a perceived lack of ambition from a president in whom they had invested many hopes.
"Stewart is reflecting the disillusionment that many voters have for Obama. They elected him for certain reasons that have not exactly worked out for them," said Jack Lule, a journalism professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
To his liberal critics, Obama's healthcare plans were a pale imitation of what might have been. They argue that the White House has spent far too much time trying to appease Republicans with compromises and not enough on pleasing its own supporters with bold plans.
The result, they say, has been a catastrophic collapse in liberal support that promises to hurt the Democrats in November's mid-term elections. The Democrats are expected to lose control of one house of Congress, or perhaps even both, a blow that is likely to hamstring Obama's ambitions in the run-up to 2012's presidential election.
Polls for the mid-terms show the Republicans picking up Senate seats, congressional districts and state governorships across the board.
According to one on Friday, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats had fallen to its lowest level in eight years. But, instead of mollifying liberal concerns, Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, have instead slammed their critics. "When I hear Democrats griping and groaning… I say, 'Folks, wake up!'," Obama said last month. Biden went further last week at a fundraiser in New Hampshire and told complaining liberals to "stop whining". (Yeah? Fuck you, too!--jef)
Such tactics are unlikely to impress Stewart or stop his attacks. In fact, the Daily Show host has been slamming Obama's policies for at least a year, growing ever more strident. He has been a vocal critic of a failure to act decisively on gay marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bars gays from serving openly in the military.
He has also been a critic of sending more troops to Afghanistan and of the president's tepid support for a planned Islamic centre near Ground Zero in Manhattan.
In a recent interview on Fox News, Stewart explained his disappointment with Obama. "He ran as a visionary, and he's led as a functionary," he told Fox talkshow host Bill O'Reilly. Obama had betrayed his "change" campaign mantra by keeping the "same system and the same people in place".
by Paul Harris in New York, Sunday, October 3, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
Jon Stewart, the famously smart host of the satirical Daily Show and habitual scourge of rightwing Americans, has embraced a remarkable new role as one of the fiercest critics of President Barack Obama and someone who is spearheading a wave of liberal discontent with the Democratic party.
The turnaround is a remarkable one for a man whose show soared to national and international fame during the George W Bush era, on the back of incessant ridicule of Republican policies and personalities.
But over the past year Stewart, who was a notable supporter of Obama in the presidential election campaign of 2008, has taken an increasingly strident tone on a wide range of White House policies, from the war in Afghanistan to gay rights and the economy.
Last week Stewart twice took on Obama head-on in brutal attacks during his trademark monologues at the start of the Daily Show. On Wednesday night he lambasted the president and the Democrats for their lack of backbone when it came to standing up to Republicans. "We came, we saw, we sucked," Stewart mockingly quipped.
The outburst created waves and prompted the influential gossip website Gawker to describe the incident under the headline, "The night Jon Stewart turned on President Obama".
Stewart followed up the next night by mocking Obama's recent campaign appearances in people's backyards, as a way of attempting to reconnect with disaffected voters. "Sir, you're the leader of the free world, you've taken the presidency from Air Force One to backyard number two," he said.
Critics – many of them liberal fans of a man who combines comedy with biting political observation – believe Stewart is going too far. Danielle Belton, an influential culture and politics writer who runs the popular blog The Black Snob, said: "Jon Stewart made the mistake that a lot of liberals did when they got caught up in the romance of the 2008 campaign. People like Stewart want Obama to be an 'imaginary Obama' that they created in their head during the campaign."
Belton said Obama had always run as a moderate who would try to unite American politics, not carry out a difficult liberal agenda. She said that people like Stewart were just damaging the Democrats' cause. "People are taking their eyes off the larger issues here," she said.
But Stewart's anger is only the most high-profile expression of an increasingly widespread dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats with the achievements of the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. Though the White House touts its success in stabilising the economy and bringing in a version of healthcare reform, much of the Democratic base is unhappy at a perceived lack of ambition from a president in whom they had invested many hopes.
"Stewart is reflecting the disillusionment that many voters have for Obama. They elected him for certain reasons that have not exactly worked out for them," said Jack Lule, a journalism professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
To his liberal critics, Obama's healthcare plans were a pale imitation of what might have been. They argue that the White House has spent far too much time trying to appease Republicans with compromises and not enough on pleasing its own supporters with bold plans.
The result, they say, has been a catastrophic collapse in liberal support that promises to hurt the Democrats in November's mid-term elections. The Democrats are expected to lose control of one house of Congress, or perhaps even both, a blow that is likely to hamstring Obama's ambitions in the run-up to 2012's presidential election.
Polls for the mid-terms show the Republicans picking up Senate seats, congressional districts and state governorships across the board.
According to one on Friday, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats had fallen to its lowest level in eight years. But, instead of mollifying liberal concerns, Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, have instead slammed their critics. "When I hear Democrats griping and groaning… I say, 'Folks, wake up!'," Obama said last month. Biden went further last week at a fundraiser in New Hampshire and told complaining liberals to "stop whining". (Yeah? Fuck you, too!--jef)
Such tactics are unlikely to impress Stewart or stop his attacks. In fact, the Daily Show host has been slamming Obama's policies for at least a year, growing ever more strident. He has been a vocal critic of a failure to act decisively on gay marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bars gays from serving openly in the military.
He has also been a critic of sending more troops to Afghanistan and of the president's tepid support for a planned Islamic centre near Ground Zero in Manhattan.
In a recent interview on Fox News, Stewart explained his disappointment with Obama. "He ran as a visionary, and he's led as a functionary," he told Fox talkshow host Bill O'Reilly. Obama had betrayed his "change" campaign mantra by keeping the "same system and the same people in place".
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)