# John Oliver vs Russell Crowe



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Who would have thought Russell Crowe would win?!? 

(If you didn't watch it, you have to...no description could do it justice. But a while back John Oliver pranked Russell Crowe, and now Russell Crowe has pranked him back so well, John Oliver has declared there's no point in going on and closed down his show...although since there's another episode next week I'm not entirely convinced of his sincerity. I'm sure it will be on YouTube shortly and somebody will post the video.)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

One of the better episodes. Having known all about Giuliani's past, none of it surprises me. He's the perfect example of a guy who was in the right place at the right time (9/11) and it made him a celebrity of sorts.

The Russell Crowe stuff was great. And JO just loved it, you could tell.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> The Russell Crowe stuff was great. And JO just loved it, you could tell.


It's nice that John Oliver can appreciate somebody who out-John Olivers John Oliver.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's nice that John Oliver can appreciate somebody who out-John Olivers John Oliver.


Hopefully this isn't too political, but it's a nice change of pace after speaking about Giuliani and his boss who both lack a sense of humor.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I loved the bit in last night's episode. But I'm not sure I'd say what John Oliver did that led up to this would be considered a "prank" on Russell Crowe. Crowe was selling memorabilia in an auction, LWT bought it and donated it to one of the last operating Blockbuster stores. Doesn't seem like a prank to me. Just something silly like giving the massive train set to Scranton, PA.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

It wasn't a prank- at least not at the same level as the Catheter Cowboy ads or the Marlon Bundo book. A Russell Crowe jockstrap begs to be made fun of and Oliver was obliging.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ... closed down his show...although since there's another episode next week I'm not entirely convinced of his sincerity.


I worried for a moment. I mean, not the Koala thing, but I can imagine him ending the show in just such a way, whenever it does end. Maybe even with more episodes listed on the schedule, just to throw us off.

(But he didn't say "And this is real"...)


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

The show (along with Oliver) is signed through 2020


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I worried for a moment. I mean, not the Koala thing, but I can imagine him ending the show in just such a way, whenever it does end. Maybe even with more episodes listed on the schedule, just to throw us off.
> 
> (But he didn't say "And this is real"...)


I can see him doing that, but I can't see HBO doing it...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So, this is REALLY a thing:

Everything You (and John Oliver) Need to Know About Koala Chlamydia


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

After I watched this episode I actually went to Google to make sure the show wasn't going away (whew!). Well done.

As to the Koala thing -  It makes me profoundly sad for any animal to suffer so I hope they are getting a handle on this thing.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I loved the bit in last night's episode. But I'm not sure I'd say what John Oliver did that led up to this would be considered a "prank" on Russell Crowe. Crowe was selling memorabilia in an auction, LWT bought it and donated it to one of the last operating Blockbuster stores. Doesn't seem like a prank to me. Just something silly like giving the massive train set to Scranton, PA.


It's probably just me but stunts/pranks like this are my least favorite part of the show.

(All those bits about TV anchors aren't that great either. )


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> It's probably just me but stunts/pranks like this are my least favorite part of the show.


I don't mind them. The Russell Crowe stunt was...mildly amusing.

But Crowe's response was absolutely brilliant.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I can see him doing that, but I can't see HBO doing it...


He did joke about that in last night's episode.


Spoiler



Claimed he didn't realize HBO contracts were that hard to get out of


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, that cracked me up. I don't know if he really didn't realize people would freak out, or if he planned that opening all along.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Nothing to do with Russell Crowe, but if you watch tonight's John Oliver, be sure to stick around for the credits. Rita Morena has a pretty hilarious blooper. Which she then leans into.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Video Unavailable for the John Oliver Russell Crowe Blockbuster Finale link further up the thread.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

The Alaska store closed, and the jockstrap is missing!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Saw that Sunday night. It is so fantastic!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

_"Are you not entertained!"_


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

And now we have to struggle thru three months of winter before we get another _Last Week Tonight_.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

astrohip said:


> And now we have to struggle thru three months of winter before we get another _Last Week Tonight_.


Yeah, I like winter but that sucks.  indeed


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Can't wait! One of my favorite shows of all time.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Perhaps a more generic thread?

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm ready for it. I missed all the political comedy shows over the break. Glad they are coming back.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Sunday nights are weird without Oliver closing the week. Not that I want him doing 52 shows a year... but you definitely feel it when he's not there.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Also glad the show w/b back. I don't think I really gave Oliver much attention until he hosted TDS for Jon Stewart, when he was out making a movie. He handled that brilliantly and when he got this show I was definitely in.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> Sunday nights are weird without Oliver closing the week. Not that I want him doing 52 shows a year... but you definitely feel it when he's not there.


I compensate by watching episodes of Hasan Minoji's Patriot Act. Very similar deep-dives but often with a PoC spin.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

When is it coming back?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Gerryex said:


> When is it coming back?


February 17


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> February 17


Thanks!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I've said it before, but it's funny that ex-Daily Show-ers are doing similar shows.. This one, Samantha Bee's show.. and both of them do far fewer episodes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tonight!

I sure hope he can find something to talk about...


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Tonight!
> 
> I sure hope he can find something to talk about...


Gee, I dunno, things have been kinda slow since he's been on hiatus.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

At least they've had plenty of time to come up with a new batch of "The Trump Presidency, or as we like to call it, _____."


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

John has been making the rounds on the talk shows this week. He‘s put on some weight and looks considerably older than he did on his last episode.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Three months off and his top two topics on his first show back were Brexit and New Zealand. Huh?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Three months off and his top two topics on his first show back were Brexit and New Zealand. Huh?


I can see Brexit...that's a much, much bigger deal than the US press seems to understand, since the failure of the Brexit could (probably will) have serious negative impacts on the entire world's economy. So I think it's good that he's trying to keep us current on the impending disaster.

As for New Zealand, well, that's exactly the kind of weird, inconsequential story he loves! I half expected him to put a map of something other than New Zealand up, and eventually say "And that's NOT New Zealand!"


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I can see Brexit...that's a much, much bigger deal than the US press seems to understand, since the failure of the Brexit could (probably will) have serious negative impacts on the entire world's economy. So I think it's good that he's trying to keep us current on the impending disaster.


Yeah, but Brexit is over a month away. We've got our own more immediate crises right here.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097346602388389893


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

The season premiere was a bit lackluster. At least for me since there was very little new information. I actually watch these type of shows to try and get exposure to topics that I don't know too much about. There's been so much written about Brexit that I feel there's very little material left for an episode.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

morac said:


> John has been making the rounds on the talk shows this week. He's put on some weight and looks considerably older than he did on his last episode.


Colbert commented on the fact that Jon's hair has started going gray in the last few months.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Yeah, but Brexit is over a month away. We've got our own more immediate crises right here.


I'm glad he does different topics. The current US/Trump topics have been talked to death on any number of talk shows (TDS, Sam Bee, Real Time, Colbert, etc). And really the jokes are all starting to sound the same. As an American, I really didn't understand all the implications of Brexit and J.O did a great job of explaining how damaging this could be to the world economy.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

The show may be a US based show,but it's nice that they talk about events from around the globe.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I'm glad he does different topics. The current US/Trump topics have been talked to death on any number of talk shows (TDS, Sam Bee, Real Time, Colbert, etc). And really the jokes are all starting to sound the same. As an American, I really didn't understand all the implications of Brexit and J.O did a great job of explaining how damaging this could be to the world economy.


Maybe it's because I read a ton of magazines and listen to a bunch of podcasts but I feel that both Trump and Brexit have been covered to death. I know about the problems with the "backstop". I've heard the dire predictions about the miles-long traffic jams and medicine shortages. Personally I'm skeptical that the worst-case scenario will come to pass. People and companies will figure out a way to muddle through if a hard Brexit does occur.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

yeah, yeah, but what about New Zealand!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> yeah, yeah, but what about New Zealand!


Yeah, how about that referendum to separate from the Pacific Ocean? I hear the cartographers are so confident it will pass, they've already started removing NZ on their maps!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Interesting that Oliver is in the "it's no big deal" camp when it comes to automation. Given the advances in AI, automation is moving up the value chain so I'm not so sure the ATM example is that applicable.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> Interesting that Oliver is in the "it's no big deal" camp when it comes to automation. Given the advances in AI, automation is moving up the value chain so I'm not so sure the ATM example is that applicable.


Although his overall point (which he didn't make very well) is pretty good...people have been complaining about technology killing jobs for centuries, but there have always still been jobs... the problem is, the old jobs are replaced by new ones, and the people who lose the old jobs don't tend to be well suited for the new ones.

So it's not a jobs apocalypse; it's jobs evolution. It just feels like an apocalypse to the people who are suddenly unemployed (which, of course, is understandable). And that's the dynamic that some people, especially politicians who feel obliged to make simple, easy-to-understand promises to win votes, don't seem able to grasp. Which Oliver kept dancing around but never really hit on the head...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

One thing that I remember from an Adam Ruins Everything episode is that the American middle class family good fortunes started right after WWII when Europe, Japan, Russia etc... were in ruins and incapable of competing with American manufacturing. China was an inward looking back water until recently. Now, many other countries can provide the jobs and wares that once were exclusively produced by Americans. China is an economic powerhouse now and there are many countries now where people are culturally willing to do the same job for less pay and longer hours than Americans. Automation along with the gradually decreasing advantages created by WWII are why things are tough for many people.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although his overall point (which he didn't make very well) is pretty good...people have been complaining about technology killing jobs for centuries, but there have always still been jobs... the problem is, the old jobs are replaced by new ones, and the people who lose the old jobs don't tend to be well suited for the new ones.
> 
> So it's not a jobs apocalypse; it's jobs evolution. It just feels like an apocalypse to the people who are suddenly unemployed (which, of course, is understandable). And that's the dynamic that some people, especially politicians who feel obliged to make simple, easy-to-understand promises to win votes, don't seem able to grasp. Which Oliver kept dancing around but never really hit on the head...


While it's true that past fears about technology replacing humans haven't panned out, it'll be interesting to see if this time will be different. Will advances in AI finally get to the point where it'll be able to do many of the white collar jobs that exist today? Or will more advanced AI simply augment an employee so they can be more productive?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I suspect it will be as it has always been. Automation will take the place of certain tasks, and humans will invent new tasks that aren't as easy to automate. At the very least, all of those machines will need to be designed, built, and maintained.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

logic88 said:


> Interesting that Oliver is in the "it's no big deal" camp when it comes to automation.


Even though it's the obvious joke, I totally expected there to be a bad CGI John Oliver with a stereotypical computer voice at the end.

BTW, there was a recent podcast episode, probably on Planet Money, about people going to the last Blockbuster(s). It's relevant to this thread, since that's where Oliver sent the jock strap.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> Even though it's the obvious joke, I totally expected there to be a bad CGI John Oliver with a stereotypical computer voice at the end.


I was expecting outtakes with the kids...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I hope John really did set up a program to robocall the FCC heads every 90 minutes, though I suspect the FCC likely has a way to block that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I was pretty disappointed in the robocall segment...it wasn't the kind of deep dive he normally does. In fact, it was about as deep as the network TV stories he spent so much of the segment making fun of...

The whole thing seemed like an excuse to show off how clever his FCC robocall trick was. Which wasn't very clever at all. Definitely not peak Oliver.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I was as well since he focused on “legal” Roboform calls from companies which make up a very small percentage of calls. Most are from foreign countries with spoofed numbers. 

Those are ones than only the FCC can mandate be stopped by forcing phone companies to verify phone numbers aren’t spoofed. I don’t even answer calls that start with my area code and prefix on my cell phone as they are all spoofed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, he only briefly mentioned the real problem, and the solution in "blink and you miss it" passing. That should have been the main focus.

I think he just wanted to do the robocall stunt. It didn't feel like they did anywhere near the usual amount of research for this story.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

logic88 said:


> While it's true that past fears about technology replacing humans haven't panned out, it'll be interesting to see if this time will be different. Will advances in AI finally get to the point where it'll be able to do many of the white collar jobs that exist today? Or will more advanced AI simply augment an employee so they can be more productive?


While AI has replaced a lot of the blue collar jobs, it's outsourcing that has been replacing the white collar jobs. And AI has replace SOME white collar jobs, such as call centers where there are automated scripts on how to fix certain things you are calling about, or can gather much of the information that used to be collected by an "operator" before you got to a real person. Can AI do manager or executive level work? Not YET.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I liked it. It was definitely more funny than informative, and that's fine every so often.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Here is is for anyone who didn't see it:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I agree that it wasn't as informative as many past segments. He kept mentioning how such calls COULD be made legally, and I kept expecting him to dive into the details of what is allowed and why most of the calls out there are not allowed. And then I expected him to provide consumers with some tools to identify illegal calls so they can be properly reported. But instead, he just went for the easy joke.

Although I have to admit I laughed out loud when the curtain dropped and the button push was just automating a much larger finger pushing a much larger button.

Also, do we really think the FCC doesn't have a way to filter out those types of calls? I seriously doubt any of those commissioners will ever even hear the call, unless they watch this segment.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree that it wasn't as informative as many past segments. He kept mentioning how such calls COULD be made legally, and I kept expecting him to dive into the details of what is allowed and why most of the calls out there are not allowed. And then I expected him to provide consumers with some tools to identify illegal calls so they can be properly reported. But instead, he just went for the easy joke.
> 
> Although I have to admit I laughed out loud when the curtain dropped and the button push was just automating a much larger finger pushing a much larger button.
> 
> Also, do we really think the FCC doesn't have a way to filter out those types of calls? I seriously doubt any of those commissioners will ever even hear the call, unless they watch this segment.


I think we forget sometimes that the show is really a comedy show more than a "news" show.  There's plenty of places to watch the news, but I watch J.O. for the laughs. I don't care really if he gives us every detail about his weekly issue.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree that it wasn't as informative as many past segments. He kept mentioning how such calls COULD be made legally, and I kept expecting him to dive into the details of what is allowed and why most of the calls out there are not allowed. And then I expected him to provide consumers with some tools to identify illegal calls so they can be properly reported. But instead, he just went for the easy joke.


And I was REALLY hoping he'd go into the technology that could end most of these calls, and how the phone companies won't use it, and the FCC won't make them use it. He mentioned it in passing, but it should be a huge scandal, and while I can understand the network news being shallow and uninformed enough not to understand, Oliver really has no excuse.

I don't buy that this is a comedy show. It's a news show disguised as a comedy show. It goes deeper into its stories than just about any other show on American television.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't buy that this is a comedy show. It's a news show disguised as a comedy show. It goes deeper into its stories than just about any other show on American television.


Yeah, if it was a just a comedy show, I would have stopped watching awhile ago.

Though TBH, I've been liking Patriot Act more recently. The dives are just as deep and I find Minhaj's (or at least his writing staff) comedy funnier.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

morac said:


> Those are ones than only the FCC can mandate be stopped by forcing phone companies to verify phone numbers aren't spoofed.


CAN you verify phone #s aren't spoofed, using the existing technology (from the consumer end, that is), also without having to replace MAJOR MAJOR parts of the telephone infrastructure (whether hardware or software)?

In other words, this ALMOST sounds like the "stop email spam by making SMTP servers authenticate everything", which basically breaks all existing email. (I didn't go google it, but there's a common email spam "solution" reply form like that, that has selections for replacing the entire infrastructure, etc..)

IOW, regular phone calls use Caller ID, which as we know is spoofable. 800(and other toll free) calls use ANI, which is a different technology and un-spoofable, presumably because the recipient of the call is paying for it.

I'm not saying I'm against it (either of them), but it's probably a way more complex problem than we think.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> I'm not saying I'm against it (either of them), but it's probably a way more complex problem than we think.


But no matter how complex it is, it has to happen. The status quo only benefits the scumbags (and the telephone companies the scumbags use). If things keep going the way they are, there's gonna be blood in the streets (metaphorically speaking).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mattack said:


> CAN you verify phone #s aren't spoofed, using the existing technology (from the consumer end, that is), also without having to replace MAJOR MAJOR parts of the telephone infrastructure (whether hardware or software)?
> 
> In other words, this ALMOST sounds like the "stop email spam by making SMTP servers authenticate everything", which basically breaks all existing email. (I didn't go google it, but there's a common email spam "solution" reply form like that, that has selections for replacing the entire infrastructure, etc..)
> 
> ...


Actually there are a number of solutions to email spoofing that don't have to do with the SMTP servers authenticating everything.

A number of years back, the big email providers (kind of) agreed to two standards: SPF and DKIM. SPF are DNS records which indicate to receiving servers which SMTP servers are authorized to send email from a domain. DKIM is a way of digitally signing emails with a public key to prove they were sent from a specific SMTP server.

Originally some providers backed SPF and others backed DKIM, but now they are used in conjunction. Combining the two means the receiving server has a way of verifying that the SMTP server used to send the email is authorized to do so and that the email headers weren't spoofed.

Usage of these aren't mandated and they won't stop spam, but they can stop spoofed emails if your email provider checks these, which most big ones do (at least for major senders like banks, etc). That's why you may get fake emails from "Google" that are from [email protected], but not from [email protected].

See 3 DNS Records Every Email Marketer Must Know

There is a similar standard created that can sign caller ID records to verify that the number is coming from the phone network it should be coming from. Nearly all spoofed phone numbers originate from VOIP numbers where the VOIP simply reports a fake originating number in the caller ID. What this standard will do indicate that a phone call supposedly from say a T-Mobile phone number actually originated from T-Mobile and not an overseas VOIP. Once usage of this becomes widespread unsigned numbers can simply be blocked. Until then, they can indicate when a phone number is verified.

See https://www.howtogeek.com/402141/how-phone-companies-are-finally-verifying-caller-id-numbers/


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But no matter how complex it is, it has to happen. The status quo only benefits the scumbags (and the telephone companies the scumbags use). If things keep going the way they are, there's gonna be blood in the streets (metaphorically speaking).


If things keep going the way they are, then nothing will change for me, because I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize. If it's an important call, they can leave a VM and I'll call them back. Otherwise, send me a text or email. So I could get 100 robocalls a day and it wouldn't matter, because I wouldn't answer any of them, and as soon as I get a VM from a robot, I add it to my contacts and block it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> If things keep going the way they are, then nothing will change for me, because I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize. If it's an important call, they can leave a VM and I'll call them back. Otherwise, send me a text or email. So I could get 100 robocalls a day and it wouldn't matter, because I wouldn't answer any of them, and as soon as I get a VM from a robot, I add it to my contacts and block it.


So if your phone rings 120 times per hour, that wouldn't affect you at all? You won't mind when you can't use your phone for incoming calls at all?

I know the time will come when robocalls will literally put me out of business if something isn't done, because most of what I do is over the phone. And the more calls I don't answer, the more I risk losing business (it already happens). The only reason I can get away with it now is because the rental market is so tight I can afford to lose potential renters because they call on their out-of-state cell phones. Not to mention the problem of every robocall blocking the phone line for a minute or two from legitimate callers.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: to Monica Lewinsky


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: to Monica Lewinsky


Considering all she's gone through, it really feels like she's got it together.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I noticed no wedding ring. I thought she was married and with kids. Her eyes are very striking and she has grown into a very thoughtful and articulate woman. Calling him Alvin at the end was just perfect.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Good on John Oliver for taking on Vince McMahon and the WWE. I don't follow rasslin' any more but definitely grew up watching it and was aware of it for many years. It'll be interesting to see if his request for signs and chants will be heeded although I expect any critical signs will be confiscated at the upcoming Wrestlemania and other events.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Good on John Oliver for taking on Vince McMahon and the WWE. I don't follow rasslin' any more but definitely grew up watching it and was aware of it for many years. It'll be interesting to see if his request for signs and chants will be heeded although I expect any critical signs will be confiscated at the upcoming Wrestlemania and other events.


Agree. It's been well known for years that they abuse their wrestlers. On the other hand some of them have become pretty big stars and very wealthy. But McMahan has always been a jerk, not just one he plays on TV. Watching those clips (entirely out of context of course) made me laugh uncontrollably. There is one I will see in my nightmares that involves Vince and a HUGE male butt in a singlet....It might take therapy to lose that one from my mind!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I've heard the same about the UFC. All of the riches go to a few fighters and everyone else fights for scraps.

But I'm still kinda meh about this week's topic and the season so far in general. I guess when you have that many episodes in the can, the well can start to run dry.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I think wrestling is stupid (though I'm now interested in hearing if a few of the Giant Bomb podcast members who are/were into wrestling comment on this), but I also think it's really stupid that that world wildlife fund sued to make them change their name. Yes I know it happened a long time ago now, but last night's episode mentioned it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mattack said:


> I think wrestling is stupid (though I'm now interested in hearing if a few of the Giant Bomb podcast members who are/were into wrestling comment on this), but I also think it's really stupid that that world wildlife fund sued to make them change their name. Yes I know it happened a long time ago now, but last night's episode mentioned it.


If I recall correctly the world wildlife fund and the world wrestling federation originally had a deal where the later could use the WWF logo, but had to say their full name when they used it. Instead they pretty much always said WWF. It was at that point that the world wildlife fund sued.

Just looked it up and that's basically it.

World Wide Fund for Nature - Wikipedia


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

logic88 said:


> But I'm still kinda meh about this week's topic and the season so far in general. I guess when you have that many episodes in the can, the well can start to run dry.


I used to think of LWT as borderline investigative journalism and not merely late nite schtick commentary. (Frontline meets The Daily Show)

Now I don't know what to think. It's not been rubbing me the right way this season either.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

At least the episode wasn't about Brexit!

Pro Wrestling is stupid but it's a fun stupid. I grew up watching the WWWF on Saturday mornings (and Roller Derby too) and the WWF and other federations into my 20s. It's "fake" but the people who do it put tremendous strains on their bodies and health. It's a shame that the corporation they work for treats them like dirt. Seeing Vince McMahon get popped upside his head with a bed pan cracked me up.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

logic88 said:


> I've heard the same about the UFC. All of the riches go to a few fighters and everyone else fights for scraps.
> 
> But I'm still kinda meh about this week's topic and the season so far in general. I guess when you have that many episodes in the can, the well can start to run dry.


Doesn't UFC consider it's fights legit? I think that's the difference in some respects. WWE fighters are essentially actors who are treated badly. A UFC fighter (assuming it IS on the up and up) has to understand that getting in the ring has risks. Boxing is the same way. Only champs and crowd pleasers make any money.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> If I recall correctly the world wildlife fund and the world wrestling federation originally had a deal where the later could use the WWF logo, but had to say their full name when they used it. Instead they pretty much always said WWF. It was at that point that the world wildlife fund sued.
> 
> Just looked it up and that's basically it.
> 
> World Wide Fund for Nature - Wikipedia


Of course the WWE, was, even before the WWF, the WWWF (World Wide Wrestling Federation.)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Saturn_V said:


> I used to think of LWT as borderline investigative journalism and not merely late nite schtick commentary. (Frontline meets The Daily Show)
> 
> Now I don't know what to think. It's not been rubbing me the right way this season either.


It's not a guy exploding through a table


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> I used to think of LWT as borderline investigative journalism and not merely late nite schtick commentary. (Frontline meets The Daily Show)
> 
> Now I don't know what to think. It's not been rubbing me the right way this season either.


I get the feeling that J.O. is just really bored with serious stuff (and especially anything related to US politics). First and foremost, it's comedy. The WWE is always good for a few laughs. But yes, sometimes it does border on some decent investigative journalism. But he's done plenty of lighter stuff too (hence we got the story on Scranton's train on the news, and Russell Crowe's jockstrap  )


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Doesn't UFC consider it's fights legit? I think that's the difference in some respects. WWE fighters are essentially actors who are treated badly. A UFC fighter (assuming it IS on the up and up) has to understand that getting in the ring has risks. Boxing is the same way. Only champs and crowd pleasers make any money.


I assume UFC is legit in terms of the actual fights (the match-ups are another matter).

I also assume the risks are higher in the UFC since those are actual hits. So I'm thinking the risk/reward ratio is even worse. Though I suppose those outrageous stunts can also be very risky since there are few precautions.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

logic88 said:


> I assume UFC is legit in terms of the actual fights (the match-ups are another matter).
> 
> I also assume the risks are higher in the UFC since those are actual hits. So I'm thinking the risk/reward ratio is even worse. Though I suppose those outrageous stunts can also be very risky since there are few precautions.


It likely evens out. In the UFC, the hits are harder, but they're only taking them a few times per year. In the WWE, there's no offseason and performers are taking bumps several times per week with constant travel.

Notably, CM Punk from Oliver's piece left WWE over safety issues and attempted a UFC career afterward.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> I used to think of LWT as borderline investigative journalism and not merely late nite schtick commentary. (Frontline meets The Daily Show)
> 
> Now I don't know what to think. It's not been rubbing me the right way this season either.


Another meh episode. There wasn't anything that hasn't been covered to death in other shows or news reports.

I'm really beginning to think that with so many comedy/news shows out there, the well is running dry.

(Either that or I've just been keeping too up to date on the news.)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Opioids *II*


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

logic88 said:


> Another meh episode. There wasn't anything that hasn't been covered to death in other shows or news reports.


I actually liked the Sackler Actor's Studio part. The most I've lol'd this season.

Sackler Gallery | VISIT OUR GALLERY AND WATCH FOUR DIFFERENT RICHARD SACKLERS READING EXTRACTS FROM HIS EMAILS AND DEPOSITION.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm annoyed with myself for not hitting the fast forward button quicker during that last 13 minutes waste of time mascot skit.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah...the initial stuff on the Mueller report was classic Oliver. Then the main story was...classic this season Oliver.

I'm wondering if maybe he's starting to get a little bored?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

That skit was probably a pretty expensive waste of money too. To take a deep dive into Japanese mascot culture was a curious executive decision. I'd have preferred another Brexit expose instead of that.

I'm definitely not going back to rewatch to check but it seemed to me that John was alternating between Mull-er and Mule-er in his pronunciations of Mueller.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm annoyed with myself for not hitting the fast forward button quicker during that last 13 minutes waste of time mascot skit.


About a minute in, I started FF. It didn't hold my interest at all. Of course, one has to keep an eye as you FF, as sometimes he gives us a treat at the end.

Alas, none.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah...the initial stuff on the Mueller report was classic Oliver. Then the main story was...classic this season Oliver.
> 
> I'm wondering if maybe he's starting to get a little bored?


I was thinking the same thing. His stories don't have the passion they used to show, and they (IMHO) definitely don't have the hold on me as a viewer. I was late to JO, just started watching in the last couple years. And can't recall FF thru any episodes. This season, I've done it more than once.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought, for a waste of time, the Mascot thing was pretty funny. I get the feeling that JO might be bored so he's including some irreverence into his last stories. He's done it before (the thread title was one time, another was the Scranton train story). I thought the stuff on the Mueller report was well done. For once he was able to get the drop on TN and Sam Bee, because their shows were on reruns this past week.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But this isn't just a one-time thing. He's been doing it pretty much all season.

I'm starting to get a little worried...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I am wondering if this was a canned bit so to speak prepared for weeks in advance to give his staff part of the week off for the religious holidays/spring break/... in addition to the this week they have off.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

John spent 15 minutes talking about the Mueller report, which was half the episode. That didn't give much time to do a deep dive into any kind of serious subject. I feel like if the report had come out earlier in the week that it might have been the main subject of the episode instead of the pre-story story. As it was, he had to talk in length about the report, but it couldn't be the main story so he came up with something light-hearted to fill in the rest of the episode. I watched it and found it amusing, which is what it was designed to be (the opposite of the Mueller story).


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

This is far from the first absurdly produced tangent they're run off of this nature. Sometimes they're pretty funny. What makes this one so memorable, is both that it was a swing and a miss, and it came at a time when we were really probably looking for him to continue on with more serious matters. It was just a misfire all around. (Although if some folks liked it, then that works too)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I think that sometimes we forget that this is a comedy show first and a news show second and in a lot of respects I find it sad when this (and others of it's ilk) is the primary news sources for a lot of people. Jon Stewart had to constantly remind us of that (and oddly I think he used to use the term fake news). Can we learn something about what's going on from these shows? Certainly. But the goal is to be funny, not to deliver a serious news story. I get that the Japanese mascot story was "out there", but it did amuse me. It amused me the same way that the Russell Crowe jock and the toy railroad story did. So this is nothing new for JO.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I think that sometimes we forget that this is a comedy show first and a news show second...


I totally disagree. At its best, it's one of the best news shows on television.

But it hasn't been at its best most of this season.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think that sometimes we forget that this is a comedy show first and a news show second and in a lot of respects I find it sad when this (and others of it's ilk) is the primary news sources for a lot of people. Jon Stewart had to constantly remind us of that (and oddly I think he used to use the term fake news). Can we learn something about what's going on from these shows? Certainly. But the goal is to be funny, not to deliver a serious news story. I get that the Japanese mascot story was "out there", but it did amuse me. It amused me the same way that the Russell Crowe jock and the toy railroad story did. So this is nothing new for JO.


I have seen it heard here and other places that people get their news first from these late night comedy shows. Speaking of Jon Stewart, I am looking forward to his new movie: Jon Stewart's Political Satire Irresistible: Everything We Know


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I thought it was funny.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Is this show filmed before a live audience? It seemed like somebody was really leaning on the fake laughter button pretty heavily this episode in the non-lethal injection segments.

Apparently, I'm not the target demographic for this show since I like KFC and I like cold, day old fried chicken.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

It is filmed before a live audience; in fact I've been to a taping. And, there are no "applause" signs, etc. Of course I can't say whether they sweeten the laughter. They don't even have someone waving their arms to get the audience to cheer more loudly, like they do at The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (in defence of Colbert, his studio is enormous and you really have to make a lot of noise in there to fill it up--but his band is absolutely amazing so that helps keep people energized anyway).


----------



## ayedee (Mar 26, 2004)

I would like to see Oliver replaced by Jonathan Pie, he is much more entertaining.

Live - Jonathan Pie


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

John Oliver has had some pretty great celebrity appearances over the years. But tonight's episode may take the prize. Because that was FREAKING HILARIOUS!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> John Oliver has had some pretty great celebrity appearances over the years. But tonight's episode may take the prize. Because that was FREAKING HILARIOUS!


Yeah, I had to rewatch that final segment twice, there was so much goodness in there.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I like John Oliver, but I don't know, maybe I'm getting bored with his topic of the week. This past week's with pharmacies, just bored me. But the payoff at the end was great. He's had a few shows this season that has topics I just didn't care about. With so much going on around us, I just feel that a show on a topic like that is just a waste. I do get that every comedian is covering current events and he wants to do something different, but he needs to come up with better things. Sorry, but 20 minutes on this topic didn't work for me.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I like John Oliver, but I don't know, maybe I'm getting bored with his topic of the week. This past week's with pharmacies, just bored me. But the payoff at the end was great. He's had a few shows this season that has topics I just didn't care about. With so much going on around us, I just feel that a show on a topic like that is just a waste. I do get that every comedian is covering current events and he wants to do something different, but he needs to come up with better things. Sorry, but 20 minutes on this topic didn't work for me.


At least it wasn't Brexit.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> At least it wasn't Brexit.


I was actually kind of hoping he'd do Brexit, with all of what is going on with Boris Johnson.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> John Oliver has had some pretty great celebrity appearances over the years. But tonight's episode may take the prize. Because that was FREAKING HILARIOUS!


Just as I clicked on this thread I was beginning to watch last night's episode. So, I didn't go on with the thread because I wanted to be surprised.

That was fun, but I did have one issue. The Eclectus that they showed as Michael Bolton's girlfriend was actually a male. I only know this because I have a male Eclectus and they are the green ones. The females are half red and half purple.

Not that that is worth a hill of beans, nor did it take away from the message.  Just a little note.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, you can take some pride in being a bigger geek than John Oliver. That's quite an accomplishment!


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I like John Oliver, but I don't know, maybe I'm getting bored with his topic of the week. This past week's with pharmacies, just bored me. But the payoff at the end was great.


I switched away in the middle of the Compounding Pharmacy story. Partly because it the show started 11 mins late, mostly because the story was a non-starter for me.

It's nice that it finished strong. But I long for the good ole days of LWT like "Net Neutrality", "Civil Forfeiture" and the "Supreme Court doggies"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I actually valued the Compounding Pharmacy story, because that's a thing that I never knew existed, and I think that's something we really ought to know.

I would discuss why I think the show has suffered lately, but it's pretty much impossible without getting political.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I knew they existed, but did not realize they were big (and mostly unregulated) business until that fiasco with NECC that he mentions in the story.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Yeah, it's been a weak season so far. Though I must admit the ending bit from last night was pretty funny.

For long-form comedy news shows, I think Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act has been much stronger this year. I look forward to new episodes of that more than LWT these days.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I honestly don't think of LRT as a comedy show. It's more of a news show than many news shows.

It just happens to be really funny.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I honestly don't think of LRT as a comedy show.


LRT???


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LWT.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

robojerk said:


> LRT???


HBO's new Game of Thrones spinoff: Last Reek Tonight


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max
...it's not HBO, it's just TV


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I still say that they dub in canned laughter when the live audience laughter isn't loud enough. Some of it sounds "engineered" like with his segment on Stephen A. Smith.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

There's nothing quite like the sound of John Oliver trying to sing Alive by Pearl Jam as Eddie Vedder. 

I think it could qualify under the Geneva convention as a form of torture...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's not torture.

It's just enhanced interrogation!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

The most recent episode was better. Too bad I had listened to The Coming Storm recently so was familiar with the subject matter.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Wow, Ken Burns does a wicked Ken Burns parody...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

It was an interesting segment on voting machines however he never explains how, if voting machines are not connected to the Internet, how are the votes tallied the same night that the votes are cast? I always wondered about that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> It was an interesting segment on voting machines however he never explains how, if voting machines are not connected to the Internet, how are the votes tallied the same night that the votes are cast? I always wondered about that.


I assume the votes are tallied locally (by the machines), and the results are sent to state officials by the local officials.

After all, we got results the same night from much of the country even before there WAS an internet!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> It was an interesting segment on voting machines however he never explains how, if voting machines are not connected to the Internet, how are the votes tallied the same night that the votes are cast? I always wondered about that.


The only part that bothered me is that a direct dial modem, while it may have some vulnerabilities, is absolutely NOT the same thing as the internet. (I'd compare it to a BBS or Fax machine - but many people don't know how those work; even if they know what they are )

Even on a complicated ballot you're usually talking about less than 50 individual races. The local tallies could simple be called or faxed in to a central location and then entered into their systems. There's no need to transfer the vote counts digitally. (Ideally the voting machines would print out a tally sheet that would include checksum or other integrity check data that could also be passed verbally (it'd be trivial enough to turn it into nonsense phrases of real words). That would protect against transcription errors but still allow easy non-digital, or even verbal, transmission of the information.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Living in one of the states where there is no paper trail (NJ) I can see how this is a problem since there's no record anywhere of how a vote was cast. We do have kind of a work around in our state. A few years back NJ made it so that anyone can vote by absentee ballet for any reason (now called "mail-in" ballot). There's a paper trail with that, but it can delay the election results. In last years election, the result for the US congressman in my district wasn't known for over a week because it was close enough that mail-in ballots mattered.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Why couldn’t a record of the vote that was cast in a paperless system be recorded on disk in the voting machine?


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Why couldn't a record of the vote that was cast in a paperless system be recorded on disk in the voting machine?


It is. But if someone hacked the system there's no separate record to cross check against what the disk says. You just have to trust it unless it's claiming something literally impossible (i.e. Abraham Lincoln won the 400,000 voter district with 2 million write in votes) in which case you can't do much except throw out _all_ its results.

With the paper trail systems you can go back can check what was printed out as each vote was cast. (And those systems _should_ be set up so each voter is able to see the paper record of their vote so they can double check it for accuracy). There are two main types of voter reviewable paper trail machines -
1) direct tally where the primary record is on disk within the machines and the paper backup also stays within the same machine throughout election day
2) ballot printers where the "voting machine" simply prints out a ballot with your selections pre-filled and you (after reviewing it) carry it over to a dedicated tally machine.

For a few of reasons I prefer the 2nd type. Easier to review and void an incorrect ballot; can work in parallel with pen and paper scantron ballots; and the primary record is the human readable scantron style ballot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> Living in one of the states where there is no paper trail (NJ) I can see how this is a problem since there's no record anywhere of how a vote was cast. We do have kind of a work around in our state. A few years back NJ made it so that anyone can vote by absentee ballet for any reason (now called "mail-in" ballot). There's a paper trail with that, but it can delay the election results. In last years election, the result for the US congressman in my district wasn't known for over a week because it was close enough that mail-in ballots mattered.


In my county in NJ we use a completely different machine. I'm pretty sure that the Election official puts a punch card into the machine before we pull the curtain to vote. Then again, I've done mail in ballots the last two election days so perhaps they changed the machines since. But they were the same machine for at least the last 20 years before I started doing mail in.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the method we use here in Arizona is pretty foolproof. The ballots are paper. You use a marker to draw a line connecting two black boxes next to the candidate you are voting for. Then the ballot is fed into an electronic machine that scans it and counts the totals. So the result is totally auditable. There are no voting machines to be hacked. And the scanning/counting machines can be used locally and then have the results called/faxed manually or they can be set up to send the results over a secure connection without exposing the machine to the internet.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

Colorado also uses paper ballots. Everyone who's registered gets a mail-in ballot that has to be returned by election to be counted. There are also convenient drop-boxes all over the state to drop off your ballot.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I think having a paper ballot (for accountability, recounts, etc.) should be required, always.

But I also think being able to use a screen that generates that ballot is the best of both worlds. Our ballots have 3 languages, and can have a dozen ballot questions, in addition to all the races. They are a mess, but a good UI can help a lot by not showing languages you don't need, warning you of things you did not vote for, or if you try to double vote in a race, etc. But without the paper, a pretty UI is not enough.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the method we use here in Arizona is pretty foolproof. The ballots are paper. You use a marker to draw a line connecting two black boxes next to the candidate you are voting for. Then the ballot is fed into an electronic machine that scans it and counts the totals. So the result is totally auditable. There are no voting machines to be hacked. And the scanning/counting machines can be used locally and then have the results called/faxed manually or they can be set up to send the results over a secure connection without exposing the machine to the internet.


I just went and dropped off my mail-in ballot at the polling place and it turns out they are now using touchscreen voting machines. They look like large all-in-one computers with a big (approx 24") touchscreen. I asked about them and they told me you can use those machines, and they will then print out a paper ballot which then gets scanned the same way as the mail ballots that I described earlier.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

We use optical scanners: we fill in circles with a black marker then feed it into the machine. To me this is the best possible solution: it's easy to understand, fast to count, and completely verifiable. If the machine breaks it's no big deal, you just collect the ballots and count them by hand (or with a different machine). And, they are relatively inexpensive.

I understand that people with some types of disabilities or who don't speak English could have problems with this, so absolutely we should have _one_ (or a few, for larger polling stations) automated systems. But the large majority of people don't need these complex systems and they're ripe for exploitation or just plain malfunction.

As a tech nerd I've been watching and reading about this for 20 years and if anything, this show _underplayed_ the problems.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

I dropped in to see why people are still talking about this minor Russell Crowe skit a year and a half later. Turns out they aren't, and haven't talked about it in over a year. Would it be possible to rename the thread to simply "John Oliver" since that's what it's actually about?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mdavej said:


> I dropped in to see why people are still talking about this minor Russell Crowe skit a year and a half later. Turns out they aren't, and haven't talked about it in over a year. Would it be possible to rename the thread to simply "John Oliver" since that's what it's actually about?


Wouldn't that be contrary to the spirit of John Oliver?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I think we should rename the thread "the Big Bang Theory"!


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

The touch screen voting machines my county used until last May recorded the votes on a paper tape (called real time audit log) inside the machine as well as kept in memory. At poll closing, a device called a PEB was plugged into each machine to collect its vote totals (it communicated over an optical interface) and each machine had a flash card to save that data also. The PEB was then plugged into a machine again to tally and print 2 copies of the local results. One of the results tape, the PEB, and all the flash cards were returned to the Board of Elections. Redundancy all over the place, though I suppose a hacked PEB can infect the whole setup.

My county now uses a ballot card voting system. One machine with a touch screen interface is used by the voter to make their choices, much like the previous system (new one made by same company). When done, it prints a ballot card that they take over and insert in a ballot counter. The counter scans the card and spits it back if it doesn't like it (a blank card falls into that category), otherwise it records the votes and drops the card into a locked, sealed compartment. Each machine has USB stick accessible behind a locked panel. At the end of the day, the ballot counter prints 2 copies of a results tape and the cast ballots and USB sticks are retrieved and returned to the BOE. If you don't want to use the ballot marker, you can request a pre-printed ballot with the traditional fill-in-the-ovals that the ballot counter can scan and ingest as well.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's almost as if John Oliver actually WANTS to get sued...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's almost as if John Oliver actually WANTS to get sued...


He's just trying to get his monies worth out of the tripling of the cost of his liability insurance.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> He's just trying to get his monies worth out of the tripling of the cost of his liability insurance.


Make that entire production into a Broadway show, sell tickets at $300 a pop and legal costs won't be an issue anymore.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

morac said:


> Make that entire production into a Broadway show


He'd have to make sure the "Suck My Balls Dancers" are available.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Sad that it takes a comedy show to stand up to someone like Bob Murray.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

All I can say is...That was figgin' AWESOME!!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

astrohip said:


> He'd have to make sure the "Suck My Balls Dancers" are available.


Correction. I watched part of it again (so funny!), and it's the "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers.



Steveknj said:


> All I can say is...That was figgin' AWESOME!!


+million

Best episode in a while.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

When was that segment filmed? Just curious since I didn't see any mention of it before the show aired.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Worth a link (*NSFW*)


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!!! I'm so glad John is on HBO and they are willing to back him up both legally and allowing him to stage these relatively extravagant pieces. I also was wondering what time of day they filmed in Times Square. I was just visiting NYC last May and that area of Times Square is always filled with people. If you look at the perimeter of the dancers there were some people outside of the barricades watching but there weren't all that many people. Maybe they filmed it early in the morning.

A GREAT SHOW!!!

Gerry


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

"You mean the Zodiac Killer?" 

Hi-larious!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Sunday’s show was the finalé for 2019.
...see you in 2020 John


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Gone, but not...well, not gone.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Bad Santa(s)


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Has anyone ever tried to quantify if Santa Con is a net positive to the communities? The local businesses seem to be busier but I'm curious if that outweighs the bad?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm one of the lucky ones (until now) who had never heard of SantaCon.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Philadelphia has the Running Of The Santas. I was in town last Saturday afternoon and what I thought was a seemingly endless stream of Santa hat wearing pub crawlers apparently was this event. The only people who probably make any money off this are bar owners and employees and I bet half of them wish this event would go away.

Philadelphia - Running of the Santas 2016


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Around here, we have Zombie Pub Crawl at Halloween. It used to pass literally outside my building, and as it got bigger and bigger it got more and more hellish (apparently, it peaked at 30,000 participants). Finally, they moved it to another part of downtown, and more recently they moved it again out of downtown. I don't think anybody really wants it around any more, especially after they've experienced it. (My building's staff had to spend hours the next day cleaning the sidewalks...)


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

Chicago's got TBOX (twelve bars of Christmas), and it's a total s--- show every year. 
Neighbors in Wrigleyville (where it's generally held) have been trying to get it shut for years now, but I don't think they ever will.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

A little something to tide us over...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

_"Tongue deep in sweet green" 
"Zombies are real and their not vaccinating their children" _


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For somebody who brags about how not funny he is, he sure is funny...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

I can't find our telemarketing thread, so I'll just post this here....

I just got a telemarketing call, which was new to me, because it started with (and continued under the pitch) very familiar "Epic and Dramatic" music. Yup, it was Ash: The Secession. And it was hilarious, possibly the most gripping notice that this is my final opportunity to lower my interest relates as pertains to the stimulus ever. 

(For those that don't remember Jack Warner's response to John Oliver)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> I can't find our telemarketing thread, so I'll just post this here....


By an astonishing coincidence, just a minute ago I posted in that thread...

Telemarketers Using Spoofed Numbers - What's to be Done?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

He's also just become an American citizen.

John Oliver Is Officially an American Citizen


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Disney blocks John Oliver's new episode critical of India's PM Modi - TechCrunch


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Malcontent said:


> Disney blocks John Oliver's new episode critical of India's PM Modi - TechCrunch


The headline needed more info:
_Disney-owned Hotstar, India's largest on-demand video streaming service with more than 300 million users, has blocked the newest episode of HBO's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" that was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi._​


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Malcontent said:


> Disney blocks John Oliver's new episode critical of India's PM Modi - TechCrunch


Wow, talk about click-bait headlines!

(The Oliver episode was blocked by an Indian streaming service, which is owned by Disney but locally-operated, and known for censoring what could be perceived as controversial material.)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Werewolf Solution


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Funny that one of his "And now, This" bits this week was making fun of Chris Matthews for basically appearing to be senile, and then he retired the next day. I wonder if him seeing that collection of his screw ups was the final straw for him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver will go on hiatus after a "shortened" show on Sunday - PRIMETIMER


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Last Week Tonight with John Oliver will go on hiatus after a "shortened" show on Sunday - PRIMETIMER


Between this, and the hiatus of all the late-night talk shows, how the hell am I supposed to know what to think about the day's events? Will I have to ... _ugh, shudder, take a deep breath, just calm down_.... think for myself?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

We”re here for you


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Between this, and the hiatus of all the late-night talk shows, how the hell am I supposed to know what to think about the day's events? Will I have to ... _ugh, shudder, take a deep breath, just calm down_.... think for myself?
> 
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


It isn't so much knowing what to think about them, it's learning about them in the first place.

I have no accounts on Facebook or Twitter and certainly don't intend to create any now. I definitely can't take watching MSNBC, CNN, or (ugh!) Fox for news. I guess I'll just keep watching the nightly local news and if it's not covered there (which, after they get done with COVID19 news and the weather, plus whatever local houses/businesses burned down since last night, is not that much) I won't know about it.

With all sports canceled I've been thinking they should retool the sports section of the nightly news as "COVID19 News".


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

_Last Week Tonight_ will air a new episode this Sunday, March 29 at 11 PM


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yay!

(Dang...you can only hit "Like" once...)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bill Maher is coming back the following week. It will be interesting to see how they do that show, considering it's panel driven. I guess it will be done like one of the CNN shows where the talking heads debate each other via satellite.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

And LWT will be was weird without a studio audience.


----------



## robbhimself (Sep 13, 2006)

Tony_T said:


> And LWT will be weird without a studio audience.


the last episode they had was a little quiet, i liked the early days of the daily show when there was no audience and you would sometimes hear the genuine reaction of the camera person or some random stage hand laughing


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Apparently Samantha Bee was new last night. I canceled my recording earlier in the day, since there had been no announcement that I saw.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Apparently Samantha Bee was new last night. I canceled my recording earlier in the day, since there had been no announcement that I saw.


I got an email yesterday that it was new. Not sure how I got on the email list. Since it was already in the guide data I didn't bother mentioning it.

LWT and Bill Maher are also in the guide data.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Apparently Samantha Bee was new last night. I canceled my recording earlier in the day, since there had been no announcement that I saw.


I had watched her Beeing at Home videos on YouTube last week when she said they were going to try to do a real episode for last night. Haven't watched it yet, though.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Apparently Samantha Bee was new last night. I canceled my recording earlier in the day, since there had been no announcement that I saw.


Oh man, I also deleted it (along with a whole slew more airings that were not shown as new). Oh well.

As to the 3/29 Oliver show - my guide doesn't show that as new, either.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

sharkster said:


> As to the 3/29 Oliver show - my guide doesn't show that as new, either.


My guide has Sun 11pm as "To be Announced"


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Sam Bee did a new show... she was out in the woods with Jason Jones as her cameraman and her kids helping with lighting etc.

She was funny but man, it's so weird when they do jokes with no audience to bounce off of.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Sam Bee did a new show... she was out in the woods with Jason Jones as her cameraman and her kids helping with lighting etc.
> 
> She was funny but man, it's so weird when they do jokes with no audience to bounce off of.


I did..."find" the episode.

Yes, odd...but WORLDS better than the one she did before the hiatus.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Sam Bee did a new show... she was out in the woods with Jason Jones as her cameraman and her kids helping with lighting etc.
> 
> She was funny but man, it's so weird when they do jokes with no audience to bounce off of.


Agreed. For those who don't like "laugh tracks" or even "live with a Studio Audience" realize how weird it feels without comics having an audience to joke to.

Anyway, I thought it was great. What I wonder is how they handle doing graphics and cutaways? I guess they send the SB portion to the studios in Atlanta or wherever and they mix that stuff in?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Anyway, I thought it was great. What I wonder is how they handle doing graphics and cutaways? I guess they send the SB portion to the studios in Atlanta or wherever and they mix that stuff in?


They don't need a studio for that. One person on a laptop or iPad could do all that. Maybe not as quickly, but it's not hard to superimpose a graphic on an image. Cutaways are just video and that can be spliced in.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> They don't need a studio for that. One person on a laptop or iPad could do all that. Maybe not as quickly, but it's not hard to superimpose a graphic on an image. Cutaways are just video and that can be spliced in.


And it's not like the show is done live...


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

John Oliver wants York artist's painting, offering $1K and $20K donation to local food bank


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Good to see him back and spending that HBO money wisely


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

This show is pissing me off. Recently I added even more padding and last night's episode cut off, still. I have 10 or 15 minutes padded!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Really? Mine ended right on time...

I don't think John has adapted to the new reality quite as well as Samantha Bee did...i.e., she seemed a lot more comfortable this week without an audience than he did...although he was a lot better than he was for his last show before the hiatus! They were both pretty wretched that week. I assume he'll settle in, though...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Mine cut off early, HBO GO to the rescue


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Will he have the painting hanging behind him for next week's show?

Edit:

This story includes interviews with the on-air host of that 1992 art auction as well as the artist himself.

Here's the true story behind 'Last Week Tonight's' rat erotica painting


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Mine was spot-on perfect, timing/recording wise. For those of you with problems, what is the guide showing as air times?


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? Mine ended right on time...


Same.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

astrohip said:


> Mine was spot-on perfect, timing/recording wise. For those of you with problems, what is the guide showing as air times?


11-11:30


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Oliver's appearance on Colbert was fun, if a bit improv-y.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

logic88 said:


> Oliver's appearance on Colbert was fun, if a bit improv-y.


I didn't notice during his show, but it looks like the 'perfect white' background behind him is rolls of paper on the wall. I suspect they shipped him some form of tacky paper to put up, because that sort of perfect white background just isn't likely to be found in most houses. You couldn't see it on the John Oliver show proper when it was perfectly framed, but with the various angles and shadows that were present it his call to Colbert, you could sometimes see the seams.

(Yes, these are the things that cross my mind when I have nothing better to contemplate - and after a day of fighting my own webcam to make myself not look like the whitest man on the planet in a yellow room).


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Why is the audio so bad on all of the various talk shows? I realize they are recording at home but many YouTubers don't seem to have this issue.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

logic88 said:


> Why is the audio so bad on all of the various talk shows? I realize they are recording at home but many YouTubers don't seem to have this issue.


I think there's a lot of learning going on with these talk shows. The hosts have never had to do this themselves and many didn't have decent equipment. The first night Seth Meyers did a YT show, he was in a hallway and was very echo-ey. A couple nights later, he mentioned he'd gotten a new microphone and had moved to a different room and it sounded much better. At least he didn't have kids laughing all through the whole thing like Fallon.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think there's a lot of learning going on with these talk shows. The hosts have never had to do this themselves and many didn't have decent equipment. The first night Seth Meyers did a YT show, he was in a hallway and was very echo-ey. A couple nights later, he mentioned he'd gotten a new microphone and had moved to a different room and it sounded much better. At least he didn't have kids laughing all through the whole thing like Fallon.


I'm just surprised they didn't do more testing before going live. I mean, these are multi-million dollar shows after all. I've only seen a few shows though, TBH. I guess I didn't realize how annoying bad AV issues could be. Maybe I'll give them another week to shake out the bugs.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Watched Colbert last night and the AV was quite good. In fact, if you did tell me, I wouldn't have known the Pelosi interview was done during the SaH period.

(Though the Alicia Keys interview wasn't nearly as good. I guess Keys didn't have the necessary equipment.)


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

"Don't let bi-curious manatees fool you!"


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He finally seems to have settled into the rhythm of doing the show without the studio audience.

Maybe scoring that rat porn painting has affected his outlook on life!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

*







*
*We did it!*​


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

OMG. Too funny that he ended up with that, but not surprising. I haven't watched last night's episode yet. Now I look forward to it more.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He finally seems to have settled into the rhythm of doing the show without the studio audience.
> 
> Maybe scoring that rat porn painting has affected his outlook on life!


It's just that. The rhythm. Gotta get used to no feedback. Better than the laughing during snl weekend update this week.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> It's just that. The rhythm. Gotta get used to no feedback. Better than the laughing during snl weekend update this week.


That was THE most bizarre, aurically offensive, laugh track stuff I've ever heard. I wonder if the guys heard that later and were aghast.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

So when do they post LWT on HBO Now?

If I'd know I couldn't watch it "live," I would have kept paying the extra $5/month for HBO cable...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I think it’s the next day, around the same time it shows up on YouTube.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

It’s up now. Looks like it was added at midnight Eastern.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Stamps ordered!

FWIW, it seems they are .55 stamps, not Forever stamps. I would have ordered 2-3 sheets (I use a fair number of stamps over time), but since rates will be going up soon... just one sheet.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Stamps ordered!
> 
> FWIW, it seems they are .55 stamps, not Forever stamps. I would have ordered 2-3 sheets (I use a fair number of stamps over time), but since rates will be going up soon... just one sheet.


Yeah, that alone would prevent me from buying them. I hated having to mix and match when rates went up, and I don't use them much at all in any case.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Yeah, that alone would prevent me from buying them. I hated having to mix and match when rates went up, and I don't use them much at all in any case.


Yeah, I buy rolls of Forever Stamps for my office (just got two rolls last week). I'd be tempted to get some of these, but A) not Forever Stamps, and B) not rolls.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Since I started using my banks "bill pay" service, I think I mail _maybe_ one payment a month.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Thought I'd post the stamps:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Thought I'd post the stamps:
> 
> View attachment 48936


Those are Freakin' Awesome!!


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Totally! Somehow or other, when I watched the episode yesterday, I missed them. So cute. Of course, I love the animal ones. Like others, I wish they were 'forever', as I use 3 stamps a year but maybe I should buy some anyway to put with some other sheets I have saved.

ETA - Ok, where do you get them? I Googled, I went to USPS, and no findy. TIA


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

sharkster said:


> ... Like others, I wish they were 'forever', as I use 3 stamps a year but maybe I should buy some anyway to put with some other sheets I have saved.
> 
> ETA - Ok, where do you get them? I Googled, I went to USPS, and no findy. TIA


here: www.stamps.com/laststamptonight

Stamps.com also has 5c "strips" for add'l postage. 
$0.05 Catchup Postage - Sheet of 40


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

sharkster said:


> where do you get them


LAST WEEK TONIGHT STAMPS

I use anywhere from 4-10 stamps a month, depending. So I don't mind one sheet.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Tony_T said:


> here: www.stamps.com/laststamptonight
> 
> Stamps.com also has 5c "strips" for add'l postage.
> $0.05 Catchup Postage - Sheet of 40


Thank You so much. Ordered. Odd that I didn't run across them but it was not a very good effort on my part.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> LAST WEEK TONIGHT STAMPS
> 
> I use anywhere from 4-10 stamps a month, depending. So I don't mind one sheet.


I'm still using the eclipse sheet I got!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I use around 5 stamps a _year_, if that. I probably won't be getting these.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

sharkster said:


> Totally! Somehow or other, when I watched the episode yesterday, I missed them. So cute. Of course, I love the animal ones. Like others, I wish they were 'forever', as I use 3 stamps a year but maybe I should buy some anyway to put with some other sheets I have saved.
> 
> ETA - Ok, where do you get them? I Googled, I went to USPS, and no findy. TIA


It is odd that the Post Office doesn't offer an Forever option for these branded stamps. I wonder if that's because of the accounting issue where they have to factor into future usage of Forever stamps?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

What's up with John Oliver and Danbury CT?
He started his rage 2 episodes ago with the Jury episode. I don't think Danbury had the problems discussed (i.e. Hartford being excluded from the CT jury pool because the "d" in Hartford was interpreted by the computer as deceased) (_"Those two missing cities (Hartford and New Briton) accounted for 63 percent of African Americans in the district, and 68 percent of the Hispanic population, which is horrible," says Oliver. "Because, if you're going to forget a town in Connecticut, why not forget Danbury? Because, and this is true, **** Danbury!"_)

On the last episode, out of nowhere, he went on a profanity laced rampage again against Danbury.

Danbury in response has named a Sewerage Plant after Oliver, so I guess we'll hear more from John Sunday.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> What's up with John Oliver and Danbury CT?


Apparently, no one knows...


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Tony_T said:


> What's up with John Oliver and Danbury CT?
> 
> On the last episode, out of nowhere, he went on a profanity laced rampage again against Danbury.


Maybe the simply answer as to why John Oliver is doing this is simply because he CAN and get paid while doing it.....


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think it's just a joke. Like how he went after Janice in accounting multiple times.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it's just a joke. Like how he went after Janice in accounting multiple times.


yeah, but Janice was a b&#@%


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

The Daily Show has Spirit Airlines...John Stewart before that had...um...was it Arby's? TGI Friday? something like that?

Those jokes never get old...I love it when they turn to the camera and give the zinger...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

The Danbury saga goes full bore on this week's episode. I won't spoil it for anyone here, just watch (and laugh!)


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The Danbury saga goes full bore on this week's episode. I won't spoil it for anyone here, just watch (and laugh!)


I won't say anything either-but geez, those local clips cracked me up! Especially the kid!

The mayor better not Danbury this!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

No new episode next week (for a few weeks, actually), so we'll have to keep an eye on his YouTube feed to see what the follow-up is!

Love the sign he had made...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

If that was the actual physical sign he rolled in behind him, it didn't look very big.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> If that was the actual physical sign he rolled in behind him, it didn't look very big.


That was an image...but apparently an image of a physical sign, not a CG sign.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was an image...but apparently an image of a physical sign, not a CG sign.


Yeah, I thought it looked like maybe it was just an image on the green screen behind him, but wasn't sure.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1300424290966417408


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

After another bleak week and recap by Last Week Tonight, it was good to finish the show on a humorous note.

Good comeback by Oliver, as Danbury will probably name the sewerage plant after him to get the donations, and if they do pass, Oliver will get Torrington (yes _Torrington_ CT) to take him up on his offer.










"_(Danbury's Mayor) was mum on whether he would accept the offer, but said residents should expect a video to drop on Thursday."_


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And so the saga continues... 

John Oliver may get his sewage plant honor ... or he'll settle for a port-a-potty - CNN


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

This is hilarious. I never understood why he was picking on Danbury in the first place. It seems like he just randomly selected somewhere to rag on.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Oliver is a gem. I really didn't pay him a lot of mind, back when he did some TDS bits, until he covered for Jon Stewart that year when JS was making a movie. That was the point to which I really learned to appreciate him. Some of it's pretty crazy, but he does it well.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

His old “John Oliver's New York Stand-Up Show” shows up on Pluto.tv (streaming) on one of the the Comedy Central channels


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver Gets 3-Season Renewal at HBO


----------



## jdm5 (May 29, 2001)

More fodder for John: Bob Murray, Who Fought Against Black Lung Regulations As A Coal Operator, Has Filed For Black Lung Benefits

(yes I obviously don't want anyone sick or dying, but there is tremendous irony here)


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jdm5 said:


> More fodder for John: Bob Murray, Who Fought Against Black Lung Regulations As A Coal Operator, Has Filed For Black Lung Benefits
> 
> (yes I obviously don't want anyone sick or dying, but there is tremendous irony here)


his karma ran over his dogma...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Is that the guy that has sued (or threatened to sue) John over his "unfriendly" coverage?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Is that the guy that has sued (or threatened to sue) John over his "unfriendly" coverage?


Yeppers.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Connecticut city OKs renaming sewage plant for John Oliver

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1314344415243177985
_The City Council voted 18-1 Thursday night to rename the sewage plant after the comedian...

Boughton said Friday that the feud has been a good distraction from the coronavirus and other troubles of the times. He also said Oliver's promised donations have helped spur local fundraising efforts for area food banks that could end up collecting a few hundred thousand dollars to feed needy families.

The mayor added he will be offering tours of the sewer plant for $500 donations to local food pantries.

"I think it's been a home run. It's been a lot of fun," Boughton said of the spat. "If I can put food on people's table for Thanksgiving by naming a sewer plant after a very popular comedian, we'll do it all day long."_


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Odd that ALS Connecticut didn't get their money yet.

'Much needed laugh': Danbury officially names 'John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant'



> Although Oliver's donations were contingent on the renaming, he has already donated to Danbury teachers' projects on Donors Chose, a crowdfunding site. Boughton said Oliver gave about $30,000 to the teachers, which is $5,000 more than he pledged.
> 
> The Connecticut Food Bank, which is supposed to receive $25,000, did not return a request for comment.
> 
> ...


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

'Last Week Tonight with John Oliver' host visits Danbury for sewage plant renaming

So now that hatchet has been buried, which city is Oliver going after next?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The outfit Oliver was wearing at the naming ceremony was ridiculous. Was that just for comedic effect?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The outfit Oliver was wearing at the naming ceremony was ridiculous. Was that just for comedic effect?


Almost certainly. He had an inflation pump strapped to his back.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> The outfit Oliver was wearing at the naming ceremony was ridiculous. Was that just for comedic effect?


It was an homage to Jude Law's character in Contagion:


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

David Platt said:


> It was an homage to Jude Law's character in Contagion:


Ah the pre-COVID good ole days when I really liked that movie.

Still like it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> Ah the pre-COVID good ole days when I really liked that movie.
> 
> Still like it.


It's interesting to see all the ways it got a pandemic right, and all the ways it got it wrong...

And I think many of the ways it got it wrong, it couldn't have gotten it right without actually living through it. Because who would believe..?


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Last night when they showed the local news stations and their pathetic Halloween costumes-then that one dude was John Oliver! 

He did the drumming on the table, he had the glasses, then - 'STAMPS!' 

I needed a good laugh and man oh man did that deliver!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Regina said:


> Last night when they showed the local news stations and their pathetic Halloween costumes-then that one dude was John Oliver!
> 
> He did the drumming on the table, he had the glasses, then - 'STAMPS!'
> 
> I needed a good laugh and man oh man did that deliver!


Some US Presidents could learn something from how much joy John Oliver takes from people mocking him...


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

The Adam Driver bit over the past year was a bit odd but it's good to see that Driver was a pretty good sport about it. I guess Oliver never asked Driver to listen to or watch one of Driver's performances.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> The Adam Driver bit over the past year was a bit odd but it's good to see that Driver was a pretty good sport about it. I guess Oliver never asked Driver to listen to or watch one of Driver's performances.


I found it amusing that Driver clearly recorded his whole spiel on his own, and then Oliver tried to fill in the gaps as if they were having an actual conversation...and didn't do the greatest job of it. It's pretty obvious which of them is the Oscar-nominated actor, and which one...isn't. 

Ah, John...gonna miss you these next couple of months.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I found it amusing that Driver clearly recorded his whole spiel on his own, and then Oliver tried to fill in the gaps as if they were having an actual conversation...and didn't do the greatest job of it. It's pretty obvious which of them is the Oscar-nominated actor, and which one...isn't.
> 
> Ah, John...gonna miss you these next couple of months.


Great take on what's happening in the election. I wish the professional pundits could put it exactly how John did. I loved the whole "white void" episode ending. I found the Driver bit kind of well silly, but I have all season. Not one of my favorite Oliver bits.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Cool ending!

Yeah, I don't know much about that type of technology but even I could tell that John and Adam were not actually taking to/with each other.

February?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sharkster said:


> February?


It's a bummer having to go a couple of months without John Oliver.

On the other hand, we only have to go a couple of months without John Oliver! It's not like some shows, where there's ten months or more between seasons...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I have a feeling he’ll still be in the white void when he comes back. Maybe he’ll paint during his off time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> I have a feeling he'll still be in the white void when he comes back. Maybe he'll paint during his off time.


I don't know. We've seen Bill Maher and Sam Bee start to do their shows back in the studio.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know. We've seen Bill Maher and Sam Bee start to do their shows back in the studio.


Restrictions in the region just got tighter this week. For example Philadelphia just banned all indoor gatherings and NJ banned gatherings of over 10 people. NYC is contemplating more severe restrictions.

I have a feeling things will be worse by February.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> Restrictions in the region just got tighter this week. For example Philadelphia just banned all indoor gatherings and NJ banned gatherings of over 10 people. NYC is contemplating more severe restrictions.
> 
> I have a feeling things will be worse by February.


I guess the hope is that by February when he comes back, we'll have a vaccine and perhaps thing will open up some.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Given how bad it is now and the rate at which things are going downhill, if things keep getting worse from here until February we may not care whether John is back or not...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Given how bad it is now and the rate at which things are going downhill, if things keep getting worse from here until February we may not care whether John is back or not...


So, you're saying I'll be dead?

Because that's pretty much the only thing that would make me stop caring if John Oliver returns...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

We'll be able to gauge whether John can get back in the studio by watching what happens with Colbert, Meyers, and Fallon. If they can continue doing shows in their studios (or in the same building in the case of Colbert), then there's no reason John shouldn't be able to. On the other hand, if they all end up back doing their shows from home again, then we'll know things have gotten really bad.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So, you're saying I'll be dead?
> 
> Because that's pretty much the only thing that would make me stop caring if John Oliver returns...


Well, you might also be more concerned with quietly hiding from the roving hordes searching for your carefully hidden caches of TP and hand sanitizer.

I wonder if we need a new thread now for "John Oliver vs. Adam Driver" . That was a great bit IMO. You can definitely tell the difference between a "real actor" and ... well ... John. But it was hilarious anyway.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> I wonder if we need a new thread now for "John Oliver vs. Adam Driver" . That was a great bit IMO. You can definitely tell the difference between a "real actor" and ... well ... John. But it was hilarious anyway.


I would argue not hilarious anyway...hilarious because. That was half the fun!

And I may be biased, but I like that the de facto ongoing thread for the John Oliver show has such an absurd title. It's entirely fitting!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

John Oliver Says Adam Driver "Obsession" on 'Last Week Tonight' Sprung From Audience Joke Displeasure | Hollywood Reporter

John Oliver on Wednesday dropped by _Late Night with Seth Meyers_ where he explained the running joke on_ Last Week Tonight_ in which he's uncomfortably obsessed with Adam Driver.

Meyers brought the bit up as Driver finally appeared on the HBO show to faux berate Oliver over his creepy sexual obsession. Oliver explained that originally his "love" for the _Star Wars_ actor was a one-liner from a staff writer. And when it fell flat, he was hooked.

"The water on the seed [of the joke] was feeling real resistance from the audience," Oliver said, noting the first joke happened before the pandemic struck. "It felt like only 40 percent enjoyed it. So we did it as a callback a few weeks later and they weren't really happy to have it back. So, at that point, it became something of an obsession in our staff."

Oliver said the show finally contacted Driver to see if he might come on and play along. He agreed and appeared on the season finally where he told Oliver to knock it off.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Looks like he's back in his white void.


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

He single... He Pringle... He ready to mingle.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

morac said:


> Looks like he's back in his white void.


Did Pringles ever respond?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

logic88 said:


> Did Pringles ever respond?


Yes


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1336432293930557441


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Glad that he's back even though the subject matter for this week wasn't anything that interesting. (Since it's been 24-7 pandemic coverage for the last year.)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

logic88 said:


> Glad that he's back even though the subject matter for this week wasn't anything that interesting. (Since it's been 24-7 pandemic coverage for the last year.)


I disagree about the subject matter as it was all about why the number of new diseases have been increasing lately and what can be done about it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I agree it was interesting but it just wasn't very funny; even the bits that were supposed to be funny, didn't seem funny to me. Maybe I just am not in a place to find the humor yet. I need some humor interspersed in my doomsday scenarios.

Just have to keep watching I guess!


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I expected Oliver to at least editorialize the failed impeachment. It's harder to root for him when he doesn't swing at the pitch.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> I expected Oliver to at least editorialize the failed impeachment. It's harder to root for him when he doesn't swing at the pitch.


I suspect timing was part of it...he used to tape his show on Sunday, but now it's Saturday, and it's possible he literally didn't know the exact outcome yet (I mean, we knew what was going to happen, but HOW it was going to happen changed right up to the end).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect timing was part of it...he used to tape his show on Sunday, but now it's Saturday, and it's possible he literally didn't know the exact outcome yet (I mean, we knew what was going to happen, but HOW it was going to happen changed right up to the end).


Even if he did tape on Saturday evening and knew the actual result of the voting, his staff likely didn't have time to rewrite a whole monologue based on those results. But it's kind of a bummer since most of the late night shows are off this week, so other than SNL we really haven't had any snarky comedic takes on how the impeachment trial ended up.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

morac said:


> I disagree about the subject matter as it was all about why the number of new diseases have been increasing lately and what can be done about it.


I've been reading so much about pandemics that there wasn't any new information presented in the episode. Peter Daszak has been on TWiV several times. In fact because his TWiV interview wasn't released promptly, a new conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID arose.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Even if he did tape on Saturday evening and knew the actual result of the voting, his staff likely didn't have time to rewrite a whole monologue based on those results. But it's kind of a bummer since most of the late night shows are off this week, so other than SNL we really haven't had any snarky comedic takes on how the impeachment trial ended up.


Wouldn't surprise me if his Main Story this coming week derived from the whole impeachment drama...which might be a better thing than having a snap judgement, especially for somebody who's as good at the deep dive as he can be.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect timing was part of it...he used to tape his show on Sunday, but now it's Saturday, and it's possible he literally didn't know the exact outcome yet (I mean, we knew what was going to happen, but HOW it was going to happen changed right up to the end).


Um...I'm pretty sure everyone knew how it was going to happen; with a vote falling short of the two-thirds majority!

Like Trevor Noah says; if you don't know, now you know!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Um...I'm pretty sure everyone knew how it was going to happen; with a vote falling short of the two-thirds majority!
> 
> Like Trevor Noah says; if you don't know, now you know!


Right, but all the drama with the witnesses was going on Saturday, and might not have been resolved by the time Oliver did his show. Which meant he didn't even know if there would have been a vote yet (when it was announced that the Democrats had caved on witnesses, it came as a surprise).


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, but all the drama with the witnesses was going on Saturday, and might not have been resolved by the time Oliver did his show. Which meant he didn't even know if there would have been a vote yet (when it was announced that the Democrats had caved on witnesses, it came as a surprise).


Let me mansplain: You made a comment that - on the surface - could be dissected as incorrect. You knew there was more to the story that makes your comment correct. I knew that you knew that. But I pretended I didn't know that you didn't know so I could point out that your comment was not correct. This is - in some circles - considered funny!

If you don't know, now you know!


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Anubys said:


> Let me mansplain:


I've never heard that term before. I'm not sure why exactly, but I've been snickering about it for a few minutes now. "Mansplain" I repeat to moiself, then, sure enough, I snicker.

If it's yours, I'm going to steal it. If it's not, it's public domain and I'm going to use it by right.

I can't wait to slip it into a conversation first chance I get. "Er, Bob, let me mansplain myself..." (snicker)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hcour said:


> I've never heard that term before. I'm not sure why exactly, but I've been snickering about it for a few minutes now. "Mansplain" I repeat to moiself, then, sure enough, I snicker.
> 
> If it's yours, I'm going to steal it. If it's not, it's public domain and I'm going to use it by right.
> 
> I can't wait to slip it into a conversation first chance I get. "Er, Bob, let me mansplain myself..." (snicker)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Let me mansplain: You made a comment that - on the surface - could be dissected as incorrect. You knew there was more to the story that makes your comment correct. I knew that you knew that. But I pretended I didn't know that you didn't know so I could point out that your comment was not correct. This is - in some circles - considered funny!
> 
> If you don't know, now you know!


Ah, so you were only PRETENDING to be a complete idiot, for the sake of a joke! I get it now!


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Hcour said:


> I've never heard that term before. I'm not sure why exactly, but I've been snickering about it for a few minutes now. "Mansplain" I repeat to moiself, then, sure enough, I snicker.
> 
> If it's yours, I'm going to steal it. If it's not, it's public domain and I'm going to use it by right.
> 
> I can't wait to slip it into a conversation first chance I get. "Er, Bob, let me mansplain myself..." (snicker)


Just ask any woman you know, she'll happily tell you how many millions of times she's been a victim of mansplaining


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Hcour said:


> I can't wait to slip it into a conversation first chance I get. *"Er, Bob, let me mansplain myself..."* (snicker)


Proper usage is only to explain something to a woman, and not mention the term, instead saying "let me explain this to you"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Proper usage is only to explain something to a woman, and not mention the term, instead saying "let me explain this to you"


That only works if Hcour is a woman.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, so you were only PRETENDING to be a complete idiot, for the sake of a joke! I get it now!


I don't have to pretend!

er...um...that didn't come out right...

OTOH, I'm getting credit for inventing the term mansplaining...I can live with that!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

How sad is it that I immediately knew Cop Rock 
(Though I never saw an episode, I remember the ads for it in the 90’s)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> How sad is it that I immediately knew Cop Rock
> (Though I never saw an episode, I remember the ads for it in the 90's)


Yeah, I remember it vividly, although like yo I never watched it.

But even knowing how bad it must have been, I know know it was worse than my worst nightmares...thanks so much, John Oliver!


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

It was also weird to realize that the singing child trafficker was played by the same actor as Mickey's dad on Shameless.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I couldn't get through this week's episode. I just had to turn it off after 5 minutes into the main segment.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> I couldn't get through this week's episode. I just had to turn it off after 5 minutes into the main segment.


The Tucker Carlson story became more and more interesting to me as it went (although I have to admit, I knew very little about Tucker Carlson; going forward, I'm going to understand the stories about him that appear in the news a lot better). My first reaction was "Why on Earth is he wasting a segment on this human cesspool?!?" (a question he even asked himself early on), but it became worthwhile, I think.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

logic88 said:


> I couldn't get through this week's episode. I just had to turn it off after 5 minutes into the main segment.


My thought as well, at first. I don't give a rat's ass about Tucker. He's one of the most irritating talking heads on Fox. Every time I try to watch him (out of a desire to see how all sides view current issues), I get so pissed I have to change channels within a minute or two. If that long.

But...



Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Tucker Carlson story became more and more interesting to me as it went (although I have to admit, I knew very little about Tucker Carlson; going forward, I'm going to understand the stories about him that appear in the news a lot better). My first reaction was "Why on Earth is he wasting a segment on this human cesspool?!?" (a question he even asked himself early on), but it became worthwhile, I think.


This. I kept watching, and it became pretty interesting. I ended up watching the entire segment, and was rewarded at the end, with a dancing Tucker.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm experimenting with AT&T TV and unfortunately there's now way to pad shows so I missed the end (why can't HBO get this scheduling right? The show is pre-recorded isn't it?) I'll go to HBO Max and watch the ending.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> The show is pre-recorded isn't it?) I'll go to HBO Max and watch the ending.


HBOMAX makes the current episode of LWT available at the same time as broadcast air. Kinda nice being unchained from Sunday 10pm slot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> HBOMAX makes the current episode of LWT available at the same time as broadcast air. Kinda nice being unchained from Sunday 10pm slot.


Yeah, I have to start remembering to watch it that way. My first inclination is to watch it via my DVR. Using DirecTV I had it padded. With this, there's just no way to pad.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Tucker Carlson story became more and more interesting to me as it went (although I have to admit, I knew very little about Tucker Carlson; going forward, I'm going to understand the stories about him that appear in the news a lot better). My first reaction was "Why on Earth is he wasting a segment on this human cesspool?!?" (a question he even asked himself early on), but it became worthwhile, I think.


One good reason to talk about Tucker is that he is floating the idea of running for President.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I was fully expecting a clip from Dancing with the Stars but I suppose they couldn't get rights to use it.

I thought Hannity had higher ratings than Tucker. I guess I was wrong.

One thing they did not say was that Fox's ratings have dropped significantly lately to a third place finish in Q4 2020. At least for now it gives me hope that people are getting tired of that side.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zalusky said:


> One thing they did not say was that Fox's ratings have dropped significantly lately to a third place finish in Q4 2020. At least for now it gives me hope that people are getting tired of that side.


What's interesting is that even when Fox was dominating the cable news ratings, that was only because CNN and MSNBC were splitting the vote, so to speak. They still are, but Fox has dropped down to their level (my understanding is that all three are now in more or less a dead heat, with each claiming "victory" based on one specialized metric or another). So the fact that it's a dead heat means that, at least on cable TV, sane people outnumber Foxnuts by roughly 2 to 1.

I wonder, during Fox's supremacy, how they compared to the combined ratings of CNN and MSNBC?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

zalusky said:


> One thing they did not say was that Fox's ratings have dropped significantly lately to a third place finish in Q4 2020. At least for now it gives me hope that people are getting tired of that side.




Rob Helmerichs said:


> What's interesting is that even when Fox was dominating the cable news ratings, that was only because CNN and MSNBC were splitting the vote, so to speak...I wonder, during Fox's supremacy, how they compared to the combined ratings of CNN and MSNBC?


don't forget, fox is now splitting ratings with newsmax and oan, so the playing field is bigger.


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> ​don't forget, fox is now splitting ratings with newsmax and oan, so the playing field is bigger.


This, and there was also a big push away from Fox News after the election because Fox News called Arizona earlier than other news channels. I seem to remember someone on Twitter complaining about Fox News for doing that and turning people to alternative news channels.

Funny, I can't seem to find it now...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> don't forget, fox is now splitting ratings with newsmax and oan, so the playing field is bigger.


I thought those numbers were relatively minuscule?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

eddyj said:


> I thought those numbers were relatively minuscule?


not based on the amount of mentions, both nationally and locally, i've been hearing, though their iptv (comcast, streaming) and online presence probably doesn't track accurately with nielsen - they will, however, show as losses for fox.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> ​don't forget, fox is now splitting ratings with newsmax and oan, so the playing field is bigger.


From what I am reading 45 is no longer pushing an alternative media empire and is really not doing too much of anything and has no machine so to speak. This makes me wonder if OAN/Newsmax will start to fade because of the lack of mentions.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> One good reason to talk about Tucker is that he is floating the idea of running for President.


I think he'd have no chance. Unlike Trump's perfect storm, a combination of the Democratic get out the vote efforts and probably a tiring of TV personalities as politicians will doom his chances.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What's interesting is that even when Fox was dominating the cable news ratings, that was only because CNN and MSNBC were splitting the vote, so to speak. They still are, but Fox has dropped down to their level (my understanding is that all three are now in more or less a dead heat, with each claiming "victory" based on one specialized metric or another). So the fact that it's a dead heat means that, at least on cable TV, sane people outnumber Foxnuts by roughly 2 to 1.
> 
> I wonder, during Fox's supremacy, how they compared to the combined ratings of CNN and MSNBC?


In 2019 (before a lot of election coverage had taken off, Fox was #1, just slightly less than a combined MSNBC (#2) and CNN (#14)

Cable Ratings 2019: Fox News Tops Total Viewers, ESPN Wins 18-49 Demo - Deadline

In 2010, they almost doubled the combined MSNBC/CNN

Fox Utterly Destroys Cable News Ratings Competition in 2010

They have since lost a couple of high profile shows in O'Relly and Beck. But they've been leveraging market share. But I wonder, with a Democratic President if they regain some of their ratings again. Conservative radio, especially Limbaugh had their best days when there was a Dem in charge, because their flock needed to go there to listen to their point of view.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> From what I am reading 45 is no longer pushing an alternative media empire and is really not doing too much of anything and has no machine so to speak. This makes me wonder if OAN/Newsmax will start to fade because of the lack of mentions.


This is what I have been saying. Trump's influence will wane. He has no social media he can really use. He probably doesn't have the money or backers to do his own (I'm guessing that the money he thought he was going to have is not there). Heck, I figured he'd be all over the right wing media, but really outside of showing up and CPAC, where has he been? Outside of crazy state level politicians, and a few crazy Trumpies on the Federal level, I'm not even seeing that much support for him on a national level. I think most of the GOP is railing against the Dems, in the ways they used to pre-Trump.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

it appears msnbc is making ground, too - in february, msnbc won all cable channels with total viewers, rachel maddow won all cable shows, and brian williams won 11pm.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Actually I've been a bit surprised how LITTLE railing against the Dems there seems to be. They're all in on "cancel culture" (as always completely misrepresented and utterly wrong) but there's surprisingly little about, for example, the 1.9T relief plan just passed with 0 Rep votes.

I was sure we'd get the relief package equivalent of death panels but so far... not much...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

madscientist said:


> Actually I've been a bit surprised how LITTLE railing against the Dems there seems to be. They're all in on "cancel culture" (as always completely misrepresented and utterly wrong) but there's surprisingly little about, for example, the 1.9T relief plan just passed with 0 Rep votes.
> 
> I was sure we'd get the relief package equivalent of death panels but so far... not much...


that might have to do with the 76% approval among all americans - including a majority of those on the conservative side - it turns out money is real popular. 

my worry? when things begin to transition to whatever normal will be, what happens to all of the foreclosures and evictions. i fear the worst hasn't even started yet...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> that might have to do with the 76% approval among all americans - including a majority of those on the conservative side - it turns out money is real popular.
> 
> my worry? when things begin to transition to whatever normal will be, what happens to all of the foreclosures and evictions. i fear the worst hasn't even started yet...


Although I saw something interesting (and even a little hard to believe) on the news last night...the total amount of money that is coming to Minnesota through the various relief bills (last year's and this year's) for renter assistance is greater than the total amount of currently delinquent rent. So if they can just find a way to get that money into people's hands (much of last year's still hasn't been disbursed)...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although I saw something interesting (and even a little hard to believe) on the news last night...the total amount of money that is coming to Minnesota through the various relief bills (last year's and this year's) for renter assistance is greater than the total amount of currently delinquent rent. So if they can just find a way to get that money into people's hands (much of last year's still hasn't been disbursed)...


i was under the impression that housing assistance was only for government housing and freddie/fannie?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> i was under the impression that housing assistance was only for government housing and freddie/fannie?


No, the rules (e.g., concerning evictions) only apply to those programs. But the rental assistance money is given to the local authorities to hand out.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Tucker Carlson story became more and more interesting to me as it went (although I have to admit, I knew very little about Tucker Carlson; going forward, I'm going to understand the stories about him that appear in the news a lot better). My first reaction was "Why on Earth is he wasting a segment on this human cesspool?!?" (a question he even asked himself early on), but it became worthwhile, I think.





astrohip said:


> My thought as well, at first. I don't give a rat's ass about Tucker. He's one of the most irritating talking heads on Fox. Every time I try to watch him (out of a desire to see how all sides view current issues), I get so pissed I have to change channels within a minute or two. If that long.
> 
> But...
> 
> This. I kept watching, and it became pretty interesting. I ended up watching the entire segment, and was rewarded at the end, with a dancing Tucker.


OK, I'll give it another shot but I hope I don't break anything when watching the entire segment.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

logic88 said:


> OK, I'll give it another shot but I hope I don't break anything when watching the entire segment.




i finally finished watching, i think you'll be safe.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I'm experimenting with AT&T TV and unfortunately there's now way to pad shows so I missed the end (why can't HBO get this scheduling right? The show is pre-recorded isn't it?) I'll go to HBO Max and watch the ending.


It's so weird how you have to pad some HBO shows now. It never used to be that way.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

(It still tickles me that the general John Oliver thread has what has evolved into such a random title...it just seems so...so John Oliver.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

sharkster said:


> It's so weird how you have to pad some HBO shows now. It never used to be that way.


This is the only show that consistently goes over that I watch. And considering it's not a Live show (like Bill Maher was for example), I don't understand why they can't get this right.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> This is the only show that consistently goes over that I watch. And considering it's not a Live show (like Bill Maher was for example), I don't understand why they can't get this right.


same here, it's been padded 5 minutes for ages - i guess they don't know the exact running time by the time hbo submits the schedule, but oliver could do better, since it happens so often - just log it as 35 minutes each week regardless, and be done with it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (It still tickles me that the general John Oliver thread has what has evolved into such a random title...it just seems so...so John Oliver.)


If you want to tie things together...

Oliver was talking about Tucker Carlson who is on Fox News. Showtime has a mini series about Roger Ailes and Fox News called The Loudest Voice, staring Russell Crowe.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> If you want to tie things together...
> 
> Oliver was talking about Tucker Carlson who is on Fox News. Showtime has a mini series about Roger Ailes and Fox News called The Loudest Voice, staring Russell Crowe.


Oh, come on, you can do better than that!

Push it further! I want to see Q-level stuff!


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Push it further! I want to see Q-level stuff!


Once you've connected Tucker Carlson to a Koala with Chlamydia, your work here is pretty much done.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Tucker Carlson story became more and more interesting to me as it went (although I have to admit, I knew very little about Tucker Carlson; going forward, I'm going to understand the stories about him that appear in the news a lot better). My first reaction was "Why on Earth is he wasting a segment on this human cesspool?!?" (a question he even asked himself early on), but it became worthwhile, I think.


I was very surprised they didn't mention how big of a dirtbag Tucker's father was, so clearly it's the family business.
I didn't put 2 and 2 together when watching The Lady and the Dale on HBO, but when I found out THAT Carlson was Tucker's father and how vile he was when going after Carmichael not because she was a fraud and a grifter, but because he liked going after and exposing Trans women in the 70's it was clear hate and bigotry started at home in the Carlson family.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I need a shower after watching the Tucker segment.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> I was very surprised they didn't mention how big of a dirtbag Tucker's father was, so clearly it's the family business.
> I didn't put 2 and 2 together when watching The Lady and the Dale on HBO, but when I found out THAT Carlson was Tucker's father and how vile he was when going after Carmichael not because she was a fraud and a grifter, but because he liked going after and exposing Trans women in the 70's it was clear hate and bigotry started at home in the Carlson family.


This exactly. When I found that he was Tucker's father, it all makes sense.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

OMG! The Dancing Tucker at the very end-MY EYES! 

But my favorite part was the newscasters bothering the old ladies celebrating 100+ year old birthdays-especially the last one-
"Flossie, are you excited for your birthday party later?"
"NOT AT ALL"
FLOSSIE IS ALL OF US!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, he was right. Plastics WERE the future!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

LWT is off next week, even though they have “More writers than a Jonestown massacre”


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Heh. He always has the best cameos.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

I wonder why he’s still doing shows in the white void? Bill’s been back in the studio for awhile now


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lhvetinari said:


> I wonder why he's still doing shows in the white void? Bill's been back in the studio for awhile now


Bill's never been very big on public health...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I cannot understand what SNL does with their audience. They have groups of 12 or so tightly packed and then separated from other tightly packed audience groups.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Bill's never been very big on public health...


true. 
In an ironic twist, halfway through the plastics episode a horrific smell engulfed my front room. An errant reusable bottle top fell off the top dishwasher rack, and was in the process of burning onto my heating element. Fun stuff!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Bill's never been very big on public health...


Well, he goes on and on about obesity just about every show nowadays.



Ihvetinari said:


> I wonder why he's still doing shows in the white void? Bill's been back in the studio for awhile now


I think Trevor Noah adapted to the pandemic much better than the other late night guys I watch. Colbert and Maher spent weeks letting us know how miserable they were. John Oliver is still in the void to let us know how miserable he is. Trevor and his correspondents do their show from their homes with smiles on their faces. Sam Bee, too.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Well, he goes on and on about obesity just about every show nowadays.


I suspect that may be more about æsthetics than public health...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Agreed that the white void joke is tired. He can stay there, that's fine, but let's give up the discussion of it at the start of every show.

For me, both Trevor and Seth Myers are actually thriving in the new format (Seth moreso since he's back in his studio, his "from home" work was just OK). In a way I'll be sorry to seem them go back to a live audience because I think they're both funnier in this format.

The rest of the late night crew, including JO, IMO are better with a live audience.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Agreed that the white void joke is tired. He can stay there, that's fine, but let's give up the discussion of it at the start of every show.


It's like you don't even know John Oliver...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I think Trevor Noah adapted to the pandemic much better than the other late night guys I watch. Colbert and Maher spent weeks letting us know how miserable they were. John Oliver is still in the void to let us know how miserable he is. Trevor and his correspondents do their show from their homes with smiles on their faces. Sam Bee, too.


I agree. I think TN is even funnier doing his show from his home than he was with an audience. Maybe it's just that he can be more himself, or maybe it's just not pandering to an audience, or maybe it's just that I can decide what's funny without hearing others laughing, but I like his whole show better (and that includes his repertory company as well.

I think Sam Bee has done a good job on her show as well.

Bill Maher's show as kind of terrible outside the studio and even now, with less guests, almost no "A" listters, it's just not as good (and he seems to be harping much more on his pet peeves because of it.) John Oliver's show is still mostly the same, but I agree that the white void jokes are getting old.

BTW, Richard Kind, kind of like JK Simmons, just makes everything he's in better. He's one of those "that guys" that just works for me.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Well, he goes on and on about obesity just about every show nowadays.


Bill says the main reason Covid is killing people is poor diet and constantly rails at doctors like Fauci for not going on TV and telling people to eat better. Basically a holistic approach to Covid, which probably wouldn't do much.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I agree. I think TN is even funnier doing his show from his home than he was with an audience. Maybe it's just that he can be more himself, or maybe it's just not pandering to an audience, or maybe it's just that I can decide what's funny without hearing others laughing, but I like his whole show better (and that includes his repertory company as well.


You can tell how long TN has been working from his apartment by how large his afro is. What's funny is he could get it cut (he hosted the Grammys), he just doesn't.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> You can tell how long TN has been working from his apartment by how large his afro is. What's funny is he could get it cut (he hosted the Grammys), he just doesn't.


I have gotten the feeling that he wants to emphasize that he's African. Back in the 1960s during the Civil Rights era, larger Afros were look upon as a positive message for the black community. Indeed probably 75% of his guests over the past year have been black. So I think he looks at his hair as a thing of pride, and not cut short to look more presentable (less threatening?) to a white audience (and add to the fact that he doesn't wear a suit and just his hoodie). I don't know if there's any type of public acknowledgement of it, but that's just my feeling.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Did you see the other night where they showed a time lapse of Trevor's hair growing? I think they showed one pic a day of the progression-it was hilarious! And powerful!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

morac said:


> Bill says the main reason Covid is killing people is poor diet and constantly rails at doctors like Fauci for not going on TV and telling people to eat better. Basically a holistic approach to Covid, which probably wouldn't do much.


Well if people had started eating better years back it might have helped some - at least with hospitalizations and deaths. But beginning to eat healthier now seems unlikely to make any significant short term improvement to your odds of avoiding or surviving COVID.

However I think there's some preliminary research suggesting that one reason COVID deaths aren't higher in Africa, even in areas with pretty poor use of masks, is that there's so much less obesity there than in Western Europe or the US.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

Jonathan_S said:


> Well if people had started eating better years back it might have helped some - at least with hospitalizations and deaths. But beginning to eat healthier now seems unlikely to make any significant short term improvement to your odds of avoiding or surviving COVID.
> 
> However I think there's some preliminary research suggesting that one reason COVID deaths aren't higher in Africa, even in areas with pretty poor use of masks, is that there's so much less obesity there than in Western Europe or the US.


I've also heard the lower rate in Africa may be partially due to much lower smoking rates (in 2015, only 14% of Africans smoked, compared to 23% in the Americas and 31% in the Eastern Med, one of the hardest-hit regions).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Well if people had started eating better years back it might have helped some - at least with hospitalizations and deaths. But beginning to eat healthier now seems unlikely to make any significant short term improvement to your odds of avoiding or surviving COVID.
> 
> However I think there's some preliminary research suggesting that one reason COVID deaths aren't higher in Africa, even in areas with pretty poor use of masks, is that there's so much less obesity there than in Western Europe or the US.


I read or saw somewhere that the average age and obesity rates of Africans was much lower than in the US. In all honesty, at the beginning of covid I thought Africa would get decimated by it. Surprise! We're #1!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I have gotten the feeling that he wants to emphasize that he's African. Back in the 1960s during the Civil Rights era, larger Afros were look upon as a positive message for the black community. Indeed probably 75% of his guests over the past year have been black. So I think he looks at his hair as a thing of pride, and not cut short to look more presentable (less threatening?) to a white audience (and add to the fact that he doesn't wear a suit and just his hoodie). I don't know if there's any type of public acknowledgement of it, but that's just my feeling.


Nah. I think it's just a covid fro. It's his "white void". Or he just wanted to grow his hair longer.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

For the lazy

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367882850972831746


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I have been amazed at just how many hoodies he has used over the last year.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Agreed that the white void joke is tired. He can stay there, that's fine, but let's give up the discussion of it at the start of every show.
> 
> *For me, both Trevor and Seth Myers are actually thriving in the new format (Seth moreso since he's back in his studio, his "from home" work was just OK).* In a way I'll be sorry to seem them go back to a live audience because I think they're both funnier in this format.
> 
> The rest of the late night crew, including JO, IMO are better with a live audience.


Totally agree. I think Seth Meyers show is much better with him not in a suit and not pandering to the audience. I truly hope he keeps some of this new format when audiences return. This feeling was borne out even moreso when Jimmy Fallon returned to the old format last night with a suit and an audience and Higgins and everything. All I could think was how much better the show was in the more intimate format where he joked with The Roots rather than this new/old one where Higgins repeats every other word Fallon says.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I just don't know how you keep it going with a studio audience. Seth bashing on his writers, doing asides, staring through the silence, going into one of his extra-long bits that you think should end but just get funnier the more he commits to them, etc. is awesome.

For Trevor, the quick cuts and asides which are the funniest thing about his bits are all added in editing. Not to mention he seems to get in about 50% more jokes when he doesn't have to wait for laughter.

I just don't see how they can keep these elements when there's a live audience. Well, I guess we'll see.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> Well if people had started eating better years back it might have helped some - at least with hospitalizations and deaths. But beginning to eat healthier now seems unlikely to make any significant short term improvement to your odds of avoiding or surviving COVID.
> 
> However I think there's some preliminary research suggesting that one reason COVID deaths aren't higher in Africa, even in areas with pretty poor use of masks, is that there's so much less obesity there than in Western Europe or the US.


Hmmm... I'll have to see if I can dig it up but I recently heard on an Economist podcast segment (maybe it was The Jab?) that the #1 predictor of bad outcomes with COVID is age. Obesity increases the risk slightly but it pales in comparison to age. They basically said that they'd rather be young and obese than old and fit, IIRC.

But then again, there's so much that's unknown with COVID that it's a mystery why some countries have done so well. The New Yorker had a long article on this recently.

Why Does the Pandemic Seem to Be Hitting Some Countries Harder Than Others?

Another possibility is neanderthal ancestry.

The major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19 is inherited from Neanderthals | Nature

A genomic region associated with protection against severe COVID-19 is inherited from Neandertals


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

National Debt Episode ("Debt, for lack of a better word, is good.")
Best line: _"I'm not saying there is something inherently wrong with not having sex, that is a personal choice. I have frequently not had sex due to lots of people's personal choices"_


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Because the risk of this discussion becoming too political, I'm not going to respond to the topic of this week's episode, but I do have to say, that I'm starting to not enjoy this show as much as I used to. I think his topics have become too wonky, and there's much less humor. I kind of feel like I'm watching a PBS documentary on the topic than a comedy show.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Maybe my Google Fu is not working this morning, but I find that the current National Debt is ~28T, yet LWT, kept showing the (not a) “clock’ at ~12T.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Because the risk of this discussion becoming too political, I'm not going to respond to the topic of this week's episode, but I do have to say, that I'm starting to not enjoy this show as much as I used to. I think his topics have become too wonky, and there's much less humor. I kind of feel like I'm watching a PBS documentary on the topic than a comedy show.


I feel Oliver was always a deep dive information show with humor interspersed as opposed to a "comedy show".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

He's still whining about being stuck in the void even though there's nothing preventing him from having a non-void set other than his desire to keep complaining about being in a void.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> He's still whining about being stuck in the void even though there's nothing preventing him from having a non-void set other than his desire to keep complaining about being in a void.


That's starting to bug me. Either STFU, or change voids.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> I feel Oliver was always a deep dive information show with humor interspersed as opposed to a "comedy show".


He was in a lot of respects but he always did it with lots of comedy. Now it feels more like I'm watching Frontline on PBS. It's just not as funny as it used to be. Not sure if that's a part of not being in the "writers room" and not being at the studio.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> He was in a lot of respects but he always did it with lots of comedy. Now it feels more like I'm watching Frontline on PBS. It's just not as funny as it used to be. Not sure if that's a part of not being in the "writers room" and not being at the studio.


I kinda like the de-emphasis of comedy if that's what it is. I've always felt that he too often extends and embellishes his jokes too much until they're past clever and are now silly.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I kinda like the de-emphasis of comedy if that's what it is. I've always felt that he too often extends and embellishes his jokes too much until they're past clever and are now silly.


E.g., The Void.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I kinda like the de-emphasis of comedy if that's what it is. I've always felt that he too often extends and embellishes his jokes too much until they're past clever and are now silly.


And that's fine, if that's what you expect. I guess that's why Keith Obbermann bugged me when he was doing straight news on MSNBC. He was this irreverent Sports Center guy and now he's doing news. I just didn't feel the same kind of trust I guess in what he was saying as a news guy. John Oliver is a comedian. That's his strength. And while I like that he takes one topic for a week (which is different than how most of his peers work), I also liked when he made "fun" of said topic. Like what he did with the coal guy. He made him the butt of his jokes. Now, he's just going off, mostly seriously, on things that bug him. It's just as enjoyable and I can get the same information (and usually done by reporters who've done interviews and such) on something like Frontline or a CNN special.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I think came a moment when John Oliver realized he was making a difference. A number of his stories have hit home and effected change.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zalusky said:


> I think came a moment when John Oliver realized he was making a difference. A number of his stories have hit home and effected change.


And he still has the humor and snark in him. He just knows when to use it, and when not to. He doesn't lean on it like he used to. More confidence.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Maybe my Google Fu is not working this morning, but I find that the current National Debt is ~28T, yet LWT, kept showing the (not a) "clock' at ~12T.


That was archival news footage from when they had to add an additional digit to the clock. At the beginning of the segment, Oliver mentioned the $28T figure in his opening monologue.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

logic88 said:


> That was archival news footage from when they had to add an additional digit to the clock. At the beginning of the segment, Oliver mentioned the $28T figure in his opening monologue.


I was referring to the 11.7T archival footage he showed numerous times at the end of the segment (and during the kids skit). What excuse could he have for not showing the $28T (not a) Clock? Not once did he show the $28T Clock.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Pandemic? He is stuck in a void after all; not sure if you heard about the void...?

I actually liked this week's episode better than some previous ones. I thought there was more humor here and I thought he did a particularly good job explaining things. The more I think, when watching an episode, "I wish I could get my inlaws to watch this, maybe it would make a difference" the better I think the episode is.

Of course, that's just fantasy on my part. Nothing will make a difference.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I think came a moment when John Oliver realized he was making a difference. A number of his stories have hit home and effected change.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> And he still has the humor and snark in him. He just knows when to use it, and when not to. He doesn't lean on it like he used to. More confidence.


I get that, but I watch J.O. for the comedy, not his knowledge on a subject. His show it to make me laugh not to inform (though it's great that he does both). And again, if I want straight news or investigative journalism, I'll watch something that specializes in that. Contrast that to what TDS has always been, or even Real Time, they inform, but generally it's a comedy show. I think J.O. especially in his main story of the night has moved off of that. He used to do it much better, but now the show is much more wonky. And really, he's not really doing any type of investigative journalism, he's just looking up stuff and informing us. Yeah, he'll throw in a snarky comment, but in the end it's just not as funny as it used to be.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I don't think there is a show that does a better job of covering the issues. And that has always been the case.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't think there is a show that does a better job of covering the issues. And that has always been the case.


Oh, I can think of a few, but they tend to be more wonky than even this. Frontline does a great job of it, Some of the CNN specials on topics do a great job. But that's why I watch those shows. I like that J.O covers some topics that don't get covered on other comedy shows, but there are times that I roll my eyes, just knowing it's going to be a boring topic and hope that J.O injects humor into making it more interesting. He has been better at it, but now he thinks he's a newsman, no longer a comedian. Maybe, like Oberrmann that's what he's always wanted to be. Anyway, he does cover the issues well, but it's not why I watch.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't think there is a show that does a better job of covering the issues. And that has always been the case.


All those Brexit-centric episodes really held my interest. 

I actually think that Trevor Noah is doing a better job nowadays.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> All those Brexit-centric episodes really held my interest.
> 
> I actually think that Trevor Noah is doing a better job nowadays.


Trevor Noah's Daily Show outside of the studio is much better than Oliver's. I think one thing is that this made Trevor's show someone different than John Stewart. Sure the format is similar but the fact that he doesn't have to play for an audience works for him and he seems much more relaxed. He still is a terrible interviewer, and his guests are much less interesting as most seem to trumpet African American issues these days.

There just feels like there's something different about Oliver's show since the pandemic. And for me it's just too serious now.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> There just feels like there's something different about Oliver's show since the pandemic. And for me it's just too serious now.


I think he's genuinely having less fun. A large part of what makes the show so much fun to watch is the over the top degree to which he is clearly enjoying it, no matter how absurd the topic. But be it the lack of audience, or the topics, or the pandemic, or the void - I just don't think the same level of enjoyment is there, and is shows. Hopefully things get back to normal, and he finds the spark again (It's not gone, it's just not there as much as it used to be).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Trevor Noah's Daily Show outside of the studio is much better than Oliver's. I think one thing is that this made Trevor's show someone different than John Stewart. Sure the format is similar but the fact that he doesn't have to play for an audience works for him and he seems much more relaxed. He still is a terrible interviewer, and his guests are much less interesting as most seem to trumpet African American issues these days.


Trevor's guests may be less interesting to you but not to me. I believe that he's consciously highlighting African Americans who would normally be omitted from other similar programs. I applaud him for that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Trevor's guests may be less interesting to you but not to me. I believe that he's consciously highlighting African Americans who would normally be omitted from other similar programs. I applaud him for that.


I do too. That's his prerogative. I'm just not all that interested. Sam Bee's show definitely skews towards women's issues. Also her prerogative as well.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Speaking of the show being off this past weekend - I forgot that and my TiVo recorded the rerun. (Looks like it was the one from March 21st).
Not realizing it _was _a rerun, I started playing it and was a bit shock he started off with a joke about being surprised Prince Philip (10 June 1921 - 9 April 2021) was still around.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> my TiVo recorded the rerun.


Mine too. Guide data sucks.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

astrohip said:


> Mine today. Guide data sucks.


so does tech support - i honestly don't believe they could be doing worse if they were trying to fail.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Yeah I had that episode, not even realizing it was not new. I started watching and it took me a few minutes to realize that what I was watching I had already seen. For whatever stupid reason I didn't even hear the Prince Philip reference. I just kept thinking 'this sounds familiar' and then when the donkey guy came on I finally got it. d'oh!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Someone needs to watch the most recent LWT episode.

A Black softball player was forced to cut off her hair beads at a game: 'I feel humiliated' (WashPo article)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This past episode really annoyed me, as it just felt like a "me too" reaction to what so much of the press is saying. It's much more complex than just "Israelis killed "innocent Palestinian kids" which is the take that so much of the press has taken too. Sure Israel has defensive weapons and a highly trained military, so they shouldn't use it when Hammas sends missiles their way? Sorry John, you are far from an expert on this and maybe this complex issue is just more than about the "poor Palestinians" and the Israeli thugs, and you should leave it to the experts to handle.

I apologize if this got too political, but this to me is about John not really getting it and painting one side as the "bad guys" no matter how many times he prefaced it with "I don't pretend to understand this", or "Yes, Hammas has shot missiles into Israel too".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> This past episode really annoyed me, as it just felt like a "me too" reaction to what so much of the press is saying. It's much more complex than just "Israelis killed "innocent Palestinian kids" which is the take that so much of the press has taken too. Sure Israel has defensive weapons and a highly trained military, so they shouldn't use it when Hammas sends missiles their way? Sorry John, you are far from an expert on this and maybe this complex issue is just more than about the "poor Palestinians" and the Israeli thugs, and you should leave it to the experts to handle.
> 
> I apologize if this got too political, but this to me is about John not really getting it and painting one side as the "bad guys" no matter how many times he prefaced it with "I don't pretend to understand this", or "Yes, Hammas has shot missiles into Israel too".


I was also a little surprised at his emotion. He often seems...exasperated and annoyed by what he reports, and sometimes flashes of genuine anger will come through, but there was an obvious, deep anger that showed throughout the report. I suspect he for some reason has a personal stake in all this...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I was also a little surprised at his emotion. He often seems...exasperated and annoyed by what he reports, and sometimes flashes of genuine anger will come through, but there was an obvious, deep anger that showed throughout the report. I suspect he for some reason has a personal stake in all this...


I noticed that too. For the first time in this series, I considered not finishing the episode. I was so annoyed by it all. The gun issue was pretty good, but even there he was VERY serious. It's a serious topic for sure, but as I said a few weeks ago, I really don't watch JO for hard news. There's plenty of outlets for that if I wanted it. I like the more lighthearted stuff, or where he calls out people in a humorous way. This show has just become just another in a long line of serious news shows, with an occasional joke. Maybe it's a result of him sitting in the white void. I don't know. (and really, I think it's time for him to get back to an audience even a smaller one like Bill Maher. I'd say the same about TDS, but I actually think Trevor Noah's show has gotten better since he's doing it from home.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Totally agree with everything you said. And more to the point, Hamas shot first. Repeatedly. So what, the victim just takes it? Yet the victim is not totally innocent either, so this really becomes a much more complex issue, certainly more than JO gave it.
> 
> The reality is, Hamas was losing its hold on younger Palestinians. They're tired of all of it. So Hamas does the same thing our Presidents often do... start a war! Ratings go up. And now there's a bad guy who ain't me. And it worked.


It's not just John, it's the press too, who are too eager to paint Israel killing innocent Palestinians. But John is a comedian and I don't expect a 10 minute diatribe from him about this issue, one that he probably doesn't understand as well as he should. There are two sides (actually probably many sides) to this story and John only gave one. John really needs to lighten up.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Totally agree with everything you said. And more to the point, Hamas shot first. Repeatedly. So what, the victim just takes it? Yet the victim is not totally innocent either, so this really becomes a much more complex issue, certainly more than JO gave it.


Well, that goes both ways as well. Israel took some pretty provocative measures leading up to Hamas's rocket attacks (e.g., the recent evictions). It's the same old tit-for-tat that goes back generations, to the point where it's no longer reasonable to say one side or the other "started" any particular round of violence. The problem is there are people on both sides with a vested interest in keeping the violence going.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

This is really getting too political. Personally, I don’t care, but it is against the rules.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Steveknj said:


> &#8230;(and really, I think it's time for him to get back to an audience even a smaller one like Bill Maher.


I hope that with the new CDC rules on masks that HBO and other outlets will allow shows with fully vaccinated staff and audiences soon.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I hope that with the new CDC rules on masks that HBO and other outlets will allow shows with fully vaccinated staff and audiences soon.


I don't get why Fallon is back in the studio with an audience, while Meyers in the studio without an audience, while Colbert is in the building, but not the studio and with no audience (but his wife and staffers laughing in the background) and TDS and LWT are still being done from home with (presumably) no other individuals present. Why are all these NYC-based shows treating things so differently?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm at the point now where I want to punch John Oliver in the head every time he mentions his self imposed void.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I was also a little surprised at his emotion. He often seems...exasperated and annoyed by what he reports, and sometimes flashes of genuine anger will come through, but there was an obvious, deep anger that showed throughout the report. I suspect he for some reason has a personal stake in all this...


A good summary of how I felt about it. First time I can remember where I gave serious consideration to packing it in early.



cheesesteak said:


> I'm at the point now where I want to punch John Oliver in the head every time he mentions his self imposed void.


Agreed.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't get why Fallon is back in the studio with an audience, while Meyers in the studio without an audience, while Colbert is in the building, but not the studio and with no audience (but his wife and staffers laughing in the background) and TDS and LWT are still being done from home with (presumably) no other individuals present. Why are all these NYC-based shows treating things so differently?


NY will adapt the CDC guidelines as of Wednesday. Assuming that also covers NYC, there's no reason any of those shows can't have a maskless audience.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yea I don't even care any more about his show. It used to be fun and now he is just a grumpy old man.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm probably the only one who does NOT miss studio audiences. They make so much racket that I struggle to hear the dialogue.

Of late, I've been deleting more than I watch. That's probably just mostly me, too, as I get tired of hearing the same stuff over and over and over.

I do like Oliver, ever since he took over for Jon Stewart when he was making a movie, but I just find myself getting bored.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

sharkster said:


> I'm probably the only one who does NOT miss studio audiences. They make so much racket that I struggle to hear the dialogue.
> 
> Of late, I've been deleting more than I watch. That's probably just mostly me, too, as I get tired of hearing the same stuff over and over and over.
> 
> I do like Oliver, ever since he took over for Jon Stewart when he was making a movie, but I just find myself getting bored.


I think an audience works for some, and not for others. Watching Bill Maher in his backyard was horrible, but now back in the studio, it's much better. Trevor Noah I like much better in his sequester than I did when he was trying to pander to the audience. I think some are just more comfortable in front of a crowd.

As far as all the NYC shows, I am getting the idea it's just personal preference at this point.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I think an audience works for some, and not for others. Watching Bill Maher in his backyard was horrible, but now back in the studio, it's much better. Trevor Noah I like much better in his sequester than I did when he was trying to pander to the audience. I think some are just more comfortable in front of a crowd.
> 
> As far as all the NYC shows, I am getting the idea it's just personal preference at this point.


Yeah, it does seem that a lot of comedians do need an audience. Not saying that like it's a negative thing or anything, but that instant feedback has to do a lot for you when you're up there telling jokes. Telling jokes w/o any of that probably sucks, especially for those who do stand-up. The laughter is probably a pretty big part of that!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> This past episode really annoyed me, as it just felt like a "me too" reaction to what so much of the press is saying. It's much more complex than just "Israelis killed "innocent Palestinian kids" which is the take that so much of the press has taken too. Sure Israel has defensive weapons and a highly trained military, so they shouldn't use it when Hammas sends missiles their way? Sorry John, you are far from an expert on this and maybe this complex issue is just more than about the "poor Palestinians" and the Israeli thugs, and you should leave it to the experts to handle.
> 
> I apologize if this got too political, but this to me is about John not really getting it and painting one side as the "bad guys" no matter how many times he prefaced it with "I don't pretend to understand this", or "Yes, Hammas has shot missiles into Israel too".


Oliver is never an expert on almost any of the subjects that he talks about on the show so if he "stayed in his lane", there would be no show.

His issue was about proportionality, IMO. Israel has the ability to pin point targets but they are destroying entire buildings to make a point. [Edit: Removed rest of post. Too political.]


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

logic88 said:


> Oliver is never an expert on almost any of the subjects that he talks about on the show so if he "stayed in his lane", there would be no show.
> 
> His issue was about proportionality, IMO. Israel has the ability to pin point targets but they are destroying entire buildings to make a point. [Edit: Removed rest of post. Too political.]


Agreed. The whole episode was basically him railing on the idea that it's a "tit-for-tat" war, when the reality is Hamas sends a bunch of rockets that are largely ineffective and then Israel retaliates with their vastly superior forces and kills a bunch of people and levels buildings.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed. The whole episode was basically him railing on the idea that it's a "tit-for-tat" war, when the reality is Hamas sends a bunch of rockets that are largely ineffective and then Israel retaliates with their vastly superior forces and kills a bunch of people and levels buildings.


with little regard for safety of the press, or women and children - this one's going to sting bibi for a long while.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> with little regard for safety of the press, or women and children - this one's going to sting bebe for a long while.


Actually they did give a one-hour warning before destroying that high-rise where various press organizations had offices, so they did have regard for the safety of the press in that situation. But you're correct they've been pretty callous about women and children as collateral damage.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

logic88 said:


> Oliver is never an expert on almost any of the subjects that he talks about on the show so if he "stayed in his lane", there would be no show.
> 
> His issue was about proportionality, IMO. Israel has the ability to pin point targets but they are destroying entire buildings to make a point. [Edit: Removed rest of post. Too political.]


I agree, but given the circumstances, you can't say one party has an unfair advantage. That's what bothered me. Because that really isn't the issue. And yes, John Oliver isn't an expert in any one subject, but this time, he spoke as if he knew all the nuances of what's going on there (despite him saying to the contrary). It was apparent to me, that he didn't. And he took a side without knowing all of the issues as well. Sorry, I can't accept it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Actually they did give a one-hour warning before destroying that high-rise where various press organizations had offices, so they did have regard for the safety of the press in that situation. But you're correct they've been pretty callous about women and children as collateral damage.


i knew about the warning, but i watched an interview with a member of ap, and he didn't seem to agree that it was enough, saying the one-hour notice barely left them enough time to evacuate their offices, and he was angry about the short warning lead-time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i knew about the warning, but i watched an interview with a member of ap, and he didn't seem to agree that it was enough, saying the one-hour notice barely left them enough time to evacuate their offices, and he was angry about the short warning lead-time.


Sure. Makes sense anyone who had a home or office in the building would be mad they didn't get more of a warning. But the fact there was any warning at all is a gift. Either Israel had evidence Hamas was using the building, in which case it's a legitimate military target and no warning was necessary, or Israel didn't have the evidence and destroying the building was a war crime, with or without warning.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure. Makes sense anyone who had a home or office in the building would be mad they didn't get more of a warning. But the fact there was any warning at all is a gift. Either Israel had evidence Hamas was using the building, in which case it's a legitimate military target and no warning was necessary, or Israel didn't have the evidence and destroying the building was a war crime, with or without warning.


yes, any warning greatly reduced the odds for a successful strike, but with recent questions about the validity of the evidence, or whether or not any evidence existed, we're not hearing the last of this story.

the legitimacy of any target is not the sole deciding factor of whether or not to strike, and this target seems particularly wreckless.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

DevdogAZ said:


> Actually they did give a one-hour warning before destroying that high-rise where various press organizations had offices, so they did have regard for the safety of the press in that situation. But you're correct they've been pretty callous about women and children as collateral damage.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Either Israel had evidence Hamas was using the building, in which case it's a legitimate military target


I have a little bit of an issue with this (and the US does it too). Terrorists hide among the innocent, and destroying any place they use punishes the innocent more than the terrorists (who just move elsewhere).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I have a little bit of an issue with this (and the US does it too). Terrorists hide among the innocent, and destroying any place they use punishes the innocent more than the terrorists (who just move elsewhere).


Which is why they do it, because they know self-respecting nation states will be deterred from attacking that location. But I wasn't giving an opinion of what I think is right or wrong. I was just citing the generally accepted rules of engagement for war. If combatants are using a residential building, or a hospital, or a church as a hiding place, it makes that location a valid military target.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> If combatants are using a residential building, or a hospital, or a church as a hiding place, it makes that location a valid military target.


and if the intel is questionable, and the attacking country refuses to release the intel? as you mentioned, the courts may become involved, and that's not good for bibi.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> and if the intel is questionable, and the attacking country refuses to release the intel? as you mentioned, the courts may become involved, and that's not good for bibi.


I'm definitely not defending Israel's action. Especially since it's been several days and they still refuse to show any evidence that Hamas was using the building. I'm simply stating the portion of International Humanitarian Law that Israel is using as justification.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The thing about "terrorists using it" is scale. If you have terrorists taking over a building, sure, that's fair game. But what if they are on one of 10 floors? Or one apartment? Or one guy on the roof shooting rockets? Knocking down the whole building does not seem reasonable in all those cases. And most of the time, we (the public) does not really know.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For those with access to the political forum:

Israel/Palestine

(Thread started there because, well, it's the political forum)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> The thing about "terrorists using it" is scale. If you have terrorists taking over a building, sure, that's fair game. But what if they are on one of 10 floors? Or one apartment? Or one guy on the roof shooting rockets? Knocking down the whole building does not seem reasonable in all those cases. And most of the time, we (the public) does not really know.


But what if that one floor is where the leadership resides and is the central location where all of the missiles are launched from (which is quite possible, if not probable)? Then what? It's definitely a grey area. Not so easy to make that call is it?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> But what if that one floor is where the leadership resides and is the central location where all of the missiles are launched from (which is quite possible, if not probable)? Then what? It's definitely a grey area. Not so easy to make that call is it?


To me, an easy call. Send in troops, not just kill blindly destroy the building killing civilians indiscriminately. These remote attacks have made it too easy (for the US too) to treat civilians as meaningless collateral damage.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> To me, an easy call. Send in troops, not just kill blindly destroy the building killing civilians indiscriminately. These remote attacks have made it too easy (for the US too) to treat civilians as meaningless collateral damage.


Once boots are on the ground, it's a totally different war and that's considered an escalation.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Good.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Once boots are on the ground, it's a totally different war and that's considered an escalation.


Long range attacks aren't an escalation? Sure looks like one from here.

Whatever happened to the precision Israeli maneuvers like Entebbe?


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> But what if that one floor is where the leadership resides and is the central location where all of the missiles are launched from (which is quite possible, if not probable)? Then what? It's definitely a grey area. Not so easy to make that call is it?


I was listening to a NPR podcast segment and they were interviewing some analyst who said that the Israeli can pin point strikes so precisely that they once shot a missile through an open window to hit an apartment on the other side of the building. (Or at least that's how I recall the segment. I'll have to see if I can locate it again.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

logic88 said:


> I was listening to a NPR podcast segment and they were interviewing some analyst who said that the Israeli can pin point strikes so precisely that they once shot a missile through an open window to hit an apartment on the other side of the building. (Or at least that's how I recall the segment. I'll have to see if I can locate it again.)


Which might have been exactly what they did. But I would imagine that would probably destroy a building as well.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Which might have been exactly what they did. But I would imagine that would probably destroy a building as well.


I'll try and track down the Al-Jazeera footage of the attack but from the stills that I saw, the size of the explosion didn't make it look like a precision strike.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

logic88 said:


> I was listening to a NPR podcast segment and they were interviewing some analyst who said that the Israeli can pin point strikes so precisely that they once shot a missile through an open window to hit an apartment on the other side of the building. (Or at least that's how I recall the segment. I'll have to see if I can locate it again.)


Perhaps we heard the same thing? I recall, many years ago, of a story in which Israel sent a missile in an open office window to hit the wall behind the desk of the man they were targeting.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lhvetinari said:


> Perhaps we heard the same thing? I recall, many years ago, of a story in which Israel sent a missile in an open office window to hit the wall behind the desk of the man they were targeting.


They do that for things like precision assassination attempts. I don't think that's what they are doing currently.

Some of the destroyed buildings have actually been collateral damage. They've been targeting the tunnel system under Gaza, but when the tunnels collapse it takes down any buildings the tunnels are under. That's in addition to just flat out taking out buildings directly.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

lhvetinari said:


> Perhaps we heard the same thing? I recall, many years ago, of a story in which Israel sent a missile in an open office window to hit the wall behind the desk of the man they were targeting.


Could be. I listen to a lot of NPR segments so could be misremembering some details. 

In any event, this topic is a bit radioactive so I'm just going to let it rest. I don't want to get this thread locked.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

logic88 said:


> Could be. I listen to a lot of NPR segments so could be misremembering some details.
> 
> In any event, this topic is a bit radioactive so I'm just going to let it rest. I don't want to get this thread locked.


Indeed, it's getting choppy in here. I'll take it over to the other mentioned thread.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

astrohip said:


> The problem Israel faces with Hamas is they (Hamas) like to hide HQ in non-military buildings. Schools, hospitals, apt blocks. Regular military, no matter what country, would never do this, but Hamas, being a terrorist organization, does this as SOP. So if Israel wants to get at their leaders or infrastructure, they have to attack non-military targets.
> 
> So they make the announcements, give everyone about an hour to evacuate, and then blow up the building. The press coverage sucks, but Israel doesn't give a **** about that.
> 
> ...


Yeah. That raid on entebbe was such a major invasion. That was my point. Israel was famous for precise incursions. This is deliberately the opposite.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

IBTL


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

We should probably make this less political and start talking about the guns segment.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

David Platt said:


> We should probably make this less political and start talking about the guns segment.


Ah yes, nothing says "less political" like "Let's stop talking about Israel and start talking about guns"

Editor's note: it's a joke please don't get the thread locked lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

David Platt said:


> We should probably make this less political and start talking about the guns segment.


just a thought, the religion conversation in one of the covid threads is going really well, too...


----------



## panictivo (Mar 3, 2001)

David Platt said:


> We should probably make this less political and start talking about the guns segment.


I thought the "Stand Your Ground" segment was more interesting. I was unaware of the origin and history of "Stand Your Ground" or the appalling statistics on its application. John Oliver was advocating its repeal everywhere, but I don't see how that is possible, given its popularity with the gun rights crowd. At best, maybe it could be tweaked to address its worst abuses if enough people agree that there have been abuses.

Getting back to the original subject, I wonder what Russel Crowe's opinion is on "Stand Your Ground".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

panictivo said:


> Getting back to the original subject, I wonder what Russel Crowe's opinion is on "Stand Your Ground".


Oh, who cares what goes on in that chlamydia-soaked brain?

Wait, no, that's the Koalas. Never mind...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

David Platt said:


> We should probably make this less political and start talking about the guns segment.


Yep. I just went back and deleted all my posts on this subject. Rob started a thread in the Politics sub-forum.

Back to JO... I have been educated, amused, alarmed, even upset, at some of his topics, but I've always been entertained. Lately... not so much. I find myself FF thru huge segments of his show. He's become too preachy, and less interesting/enjoyable. I don't need an after-school special, or a Jimmy Fallon joke-fest, but I also don't like to be sermonized.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Yep. I just went back and deleted all my posts on this subject. Rob started a thread in the Politics sub-forum.
> 
> Back to JO... I have been educated, amused, alarmed, even upset, at some of his topics, but I've always been entertained. Lately... not so much. I find myself FF thru huge segments of his show. He's become too preachy, and less interesting/enjoyable. I don't need an after-school special, or a Jimmy Fallon joke-fest, but I also don't like to be sermonized.


I mentioned this a couple of week's ago. It's become way too serious and a lot of times it feels like I'm watching a topical hard news shows. There are less and less jokes, less sight gags and more, "lets tell the audience about a topic" Even when we was doing stories such as the one on the coal guy a couple of years ago, the story was filled with jokes. He's just too serious. I don't tune in to his show for serious, I tune in for topical news with jokes and satirical comments, much like what TDS is. It used to be a fun way to end the weekend. Now, unless I'm interested in the topic, it's boring.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I wonder how much of the tone-shift is the result of his no longer pandering to a studio audience? Sitting all alone in that void might be putting him in a crankier, more depressed mood...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I'm going to disagree. I think it is good that he is being serious. The show has always tackled serious topics and sometimes I found the jokes to be jarring in those segments. I do enjoy the more fun parts too, but I do look at this show for some serious discussion.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I don't mind the more serious tone, but I did enjoy the show more when...he was enjoying it more.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

How many of you also watch Full Frontal with Samantha Bee? I've found the tone on that show has also gone from comedy mixed with political messages, to hardcore political messages with the very occasional bit of comedy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> How many of you also watch Full Frontal with Samantha Bee? I've found the tone on that show has also gone from comedy mixed with political messages, to hardcore political messages with the very occasional bit of comedy.


I stopped watching early this season. I was never as into her as Oliver (she's always been more polemical than him), and she just became unwatchable for me.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> How many of you also watch Full Frontal with Samantha Bee? I've found the tone on that show has also gone from comedy mixed with political messages, to hardcore political messages with the very occasional bit of comedy.


I watched the first season of Full Frontal a bit but I can only consume so many late night shows and hers did not grab me. Right now our go to show is the 11th hour with Brian Williams. He sums up the day well with the right amount of humor. He doesn't get into the ranting that most of the others do.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i still have a 1p for sam, and she's still got it - are many lol moments when she's on point - but when she falls into her repetitive, preachy rut, i ffwd to the next segment.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

astrohip said:


> Back to JO... I have been educated, amused, alarmed, even upset, at some of his topics, but I've always been entertained. Lately... not so much.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder how much of the tone-shift is the result of his no longer pandering to a studio audience?


His lack of funny pre-dates the pandemic with me. Past two years. Almost ties in with the ATT purchase of Time Warner.

Past few weeks, I haven't cleared my Sunday nite for LWT. Still haven't seen the last two.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I still look forward to LWT episodes but I also generally watch most of these types of shows (Patriot Act, VICE, Frontline, etc.) even if they overlap in coverage as they all differ slightly in how they cover a subject.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

logic88 said:


> I still look forward to LWT episodes but I also generally watch most of these types of shows (Patriot Act, VICE, Frontline, etc.) even if they overlap in coverage as they all differ slightly in how they cover a subject.


Yeah, my bedroom TiVo is a wasteland of Frontline, Vice News Tonight, Independent Lens, Amanpour and Co., etc that I'll probably never have the time to watch


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

See the pattern here? We are comparing LWT, Sam Bee and others with what is considered SERIOUS news shows. Those, on the outset, were not meant to be thet. They are hosted by comics first of all. And they are not branded that way. Sam Bee at least has bits where they go out and make fun of the serious folks. We hardly see that from Oliver any more.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Hardly mentioned by Oliver is the fact that one side is illegally occupying the land of the other side. That's always been - to me - the one fact that settles the matter of who's to blame.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Hardly mentioned by Oliver is the fact that one side is illegally occupying the land of the other side. That's always been - to me - the one fact that settles the matter of who's to blame.


Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...


LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation! 

Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Anubys said:


> Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).


exactly! just get everyone to agree, and you've solved middle-east peace!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).


The one argument I'd make (and this is bordering on politics) is that there has really never been an independent Palestinian state. At least not for a long time anyway. The Israelis, The British, the Ottoman Turks (who ruled for a LONG time), but who really has a claim? Any and all of the above? None of the above? By using that criteria, European ancestors in the Americas are ALL hear illegally as well. So this is not such a cut and dried argument. But as you say, they should at least be able to participate. In some respects, Israelis of Palestinian descent may have more actual democratic rights than Arabs in other countries do. There are Palestinians elected to the Knesset for example.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Egypt wasn't independent from England until 1922 (I would correct that to 1956) so the independent state argument is pretty thin 

I don't get hung up on the name Palestine because I never thought it belonged to only Moslems who lived there. It belonged to everyone who lived there, regardless of which religion they chose. The main residents were all Semites who converted to different religions.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

OK...I'm sorry...I'll stop now...I just worry that I would be called an anti-semite so I want to make clear what I mean so I'm not falsely accused


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I didn’t know I now have access to the political thread.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I'm assuming this was comedic enough for the recent complainers. 

The Venus Veil (Official Site): World's First Sexual Wellness Blanket | A discreet and convenient way to improve your sexual health and feel like yourself again.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> I'm assuming this was comedic enough for the recent complainers.
> 
> The Venus Veil (Official Site): World's First Sexual Wellness Blanket | A discreet and convenient way to improve your sexual health and feel like yourself again.


I was thinking the exact same thing as he was talking about it. 

(Clooney was also pretty funny! It never ceases to amaze me what people are willing to do for Oliver.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Consider me one of the complainers. This was a much better episode and an example of the type of thing John does best. When he takes on a subject that's not all over the news, but something interesting to consider, makes fun of those engaged in said topic and then parodies the topic to show how foolish the people who engage in that topic really are. I really enjoyed this episode. And the Clooney pieces were fun too!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I didn't find this episode funny at all. I think the more Trevor Noah and The Daily Show rises on my charts the further John Oliver falls.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Good episode. Topical, yet funny. And a subject that should be of interest to most of us who watch JO (local news).

The Venus Veil was great. That pitchperson did a really good job. It's amazing how much bullcrap the local TV stations will let air. Seriously, how does anyone not question that ad, at some point along the line? (Rhetorical question, I know. Money).

Invented 80 years ago in Germany.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Good episode. Topical, yet funny. And a subject that should be of interest to most of us who watch JO (local news).
> 
> The Venus Veil was great. That pitchperson did a really good job. It's amazing how much bullcrap the local TV stations will let air. Seriously, how does anyone not question that ad, at some point along the line? (Rhetorical question, I know. Money).
> 
> *Invented 80 years ago in Germany. *


As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.

It's why I only watch the local news for the weather (as I find them more accurate than watching Weather Channel.)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

The "Main Story"mon local news networks was good (I was surprised how cheap it is to book a placement), but as we've seen many times before on LWT when a line is repeated verbatim on multiple local news stations across the country, Local is not local, and scripts are provided buy the corporate owner (I think LWT did a segment on that awhile ago)

edit: that was easy to find on YouTube


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

The public comments at the San Francisco meeting had me LOLing for real-especially the dude at the end who, apparently, just comes there to sing


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Regina said:


> The public comments at the San Francisco meeting had me LOLing for real-especially the dude at the end who, apparently, just comes there to sing


Wasn't too far from:


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Steveknj said:


> As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.
> 
> It's why I only watch the local news for the weather (as I find them more accurate than watching Weather Channel.)


Didn't John say that these "spots" were scripted by the company paying the local channel (that would include the questions asked)?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying.


The point was that this is paid advertising which is why the host isn't questioning the guest. They are being paid to follow the script.

It's also why customers in fast food ads don't question the quality of the food.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That's the kind of segment we love! More of that!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the kind of segment we love! More of that!


speak for yourself, i want my 7 minutes back - what a total waste of youtube!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hmmm...John Oliver vs Russell Crowe was much more entertaining than John Oliver vs Cheerios.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1399458537781141505

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400107620644450313
(But he tries to make up for it in the follow-ups...)


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hmmm...John Oliver vs Russell Crowe was much more entertaining than John Oliver vs Cheerios.
> 
> (But he tries to make up for it in the follow-ups...)


The replies are awesome. Nothing like wholesome family pics.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Wait a minute (maybe I'm behind in this game) - isn't that the Manson family?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

sharkster said:


> Wait a minute (maybe I'm behind in this game) - isn't that the Manson family?


Yes. John Oliver agreed to tweet out their slogan, "Families make good go round", and then threw in a pic of a "family" for fun. Because, you know, he's John Oliver.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Yes. John Oliver agreed to tweet out their slogan, "Families make good go round", and then threw in a pic of a "family" for fun. Because, you know, he's John Oliver.


And then in the follow-ups (you have to click through to the actual Twitter post) he adds other "family" pictures.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400107635181948948


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400151676439318528


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400151676439318528




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400159429144817664


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hmmm...John Oliver vs Russell Crowe was much more entertaining than John Oliver vs Cheerios.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1399458537781141505
> ...


I get the feeling the Cheerios social media team didn't really think this one through.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> I get the feeling the Cheerios social media team didn't really think this one through.


Or they simply didn't understand who they were dealing with...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or they simply didn't understand who they were dealing with...


or they did, and decided to run with it anyway - i mean, it's john oliver, what could possibly go wro...oh, wait...


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I should go check if Cheerios went through with their additional donation since Oliver did tweet what was asked. In total, No Kid Hungry should get $150K, right?


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I liked this week's episode on PACE. Probably because it was on a topic that I knew nothing about.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

logic88 said:


> I liked this week's episode on PACE. Probably because it was on a topic that I knew nothing about.


Same here. I've never heard of it, not even a little bit. Maybe it's because solar hasn't seen massive adoption up here (well, not compared to CA, the Southwest, and Florida).


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

It did make me think of all these companies like SunRun that want to sell you installation with a lease and of course presume that if you sell the house that the buyer will pick up the lease.
I had not heard of the property tax angle though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Meh, another unfunny (at least for the main topic) episode around a topic I never heard of or care little about.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

zalusky said:


> It did make me think of all these companies like SunRun that want to sell you installation with a lease and of course presume that if you sell the house that the buyer will pick up the lease.
> I had not heard of the property tax angle though.


a couple years ago my neighbor had to pay 25k to move their solar install off the house they were selling to their new house because no buyers would buy the house with that particular string attached.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

These are the types of reasons why I've been so hesitant to go solar. if feels like a game, a scam every time I talk to one of these companies.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> These are the types of reasons why I've been so hesitant to go solar. if feels like a game, a scam every time I talk to one of these companies.


There are different ways to "go solar", and clearly from reading some of these posts here, some homeowners chose poorly.

But there seem to be many of us here who are happy, and whether thru luck or research, have systems that have proven themselves to be successful.

Edit: I just realized this isn't the "Solar Thread", but the JO thread. @Steveknj if you want more solar info, check out the solar thread in Happy Hour.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> These are the types of reasons why I've been so hesitant to go solar. if feels like a game, a scam every time I talk to one of these companies.


That's your problem. You've been talking to these companies...you should be talking to THOSE companies.

(And I'm only half-joking...)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I've heard of health ministries before because they have been advertised excessively on SiriusXM. That John could create his own sounds about right from what I've read about them.

John Oliver's JohnnyCare


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

morac said:


> I've heard of health ministries before because they have been advertised excessively on SiriusXM. That John could create his own sounds about right from what I've read about them.
> 
> John Oliver's JohnnyCare


They advertise like nuts (the Liberty one, I think) on Moody Radio here in Chicago, that's why I've heard of them.

As soon as they mentioned churches and Florida, I figured that's where John was going. Good show.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

morac said:


> I've heard of health ministries before because they have been advertised excessively on SiriusXM. That John could create his own sounds about right from what I've read about them.
> 
> John Oliver's JohnnyCare


I didn't try signing up but it looks like they were serious about sending you 3 band-aids for $1.99. I wonder which intern gets stuck with the packaging and shipping for all those orders that I'm sure will be placed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This is what John does best. He takes an absurd concept, one that's pretty obviously a scam (even if it started out with good intention....though arguable that ever happened here) and just pokes holes in the whole concept until it just a joke fest of laughs. Love Rachel Dratch as his wife. She's perfect playing the mega minister's wife! When John takes on an actual serious topic, and drones on and on about it, it feels like a boring news story and a lecture. This was a great episode.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> This is what John does best. He takes an absurd concept, one that's pretty obviously a scam (even if it started out with good intention....though arguable that ever happened here) and just pokes holes in the whole concept until it just a joke fest of laughs. Love Rachel Dratch as his wife. She's perfect playing the mega minister's wife! When John takes on an actual serious topic, and drones on and on about it, it feels like a boring news story and a lecture. This was a great episode.


I actually thought it was a serious topic for the vast majority of the episode. It didn't get silly until the last 5 minutes of the episode.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

John Oliver's JohnnyCare (Florida residents only)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Tempting!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> I actually thought it was a serious topic for the vast majority of the episode. It didn't get silly until the last 5 minutes of the episode.


I think he threw enough humor in the episode throughout to make it somewhat funny. What he does well is make these people look like fools and jokes. That's really what he was able to do here. Something like the Prison episode is just too serious to crack real joked about. The people causing the pain are serious people. Here? These people are a bunch of con artists and he proved it.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I just watched the episode, earlier this morning. I didn't know about these religion-based "insurance" things. That sounds horrible and, well, not surprising I suppose. Sounds like it's a money-maker and I would imagine that's the point from their end.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

sharkster said:


> I just watched the episode, earlier this morning. I didn't know about these religion-based "insurance" things. That sounds horrible and, well, not surprising I suppose. Sounds like it's a money-maker and I would imagine that's the point from their end.


i wonder if it's a tax-exempt money-grab, too?  i don't remember from the ep...


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> i wonder if it's a tax-exempt money-grab, too?  i don't remember from the ep...


I don't, either, but would be willing to bet that it is.  indeed


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> i wonder if it's a tax-exempt money-grab, too?  i don't remember from the ep...


What was the percentage of the "premiums" that go into the pockets of the people who run them? I can't remember the number but it was over 80...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

sharkster said:


> I just watched the episode, earlier this morning. I didn't know about these religion-based "insurance" things. That sounds horrible and, well, not surprising I suppose. Sounds like it's a money-maker and I would imagine that's the point from their end.


I was email chatting with an old college girlfriend a couple of years ago and asked her if she was on an ACA plan yet as we were both not yet 65 then. I had signed up for the California ACA plan but she was still in Minnesota. She explained that she was on one of these Samaritan religious based plans for hospital coverage. Their pastor has to certify them. You then send $300 checks each month to somebody with a medical issue. If you have a medical issue you have to shop around and negotiate prices. I just sat back and said nothing. What the heck happened to all the girls I used to date!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What was the percentage of the "premiums" that go into the pockets of the people who run them? I can't remember the number but it was over 80...


jo reported 16% went to actual coverage, the rest to administrative costs...


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> jo reported 16% went to actual coverage, the rest to administrative costs...


I was curious so looked up that case.

https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders-2021/ins-19-0109-aliera-companies-20210323.pdf



> The Agreement provides detail regarding the fees that Aliera charges, depending on the product line. For the AlieraCare & InterimCare products, for example, Aliera receives and retains 65% of the total share contribution paid by each primary member. Out of the remaining 35%, Trinity reimburses Aliera for additional costs and expenses, including: 19.6% for "Aliera management fee general overhead ops labor internal sales," 30% for commissions, 2.6% TPA fees, 1.2% provider network, and 0.8% telemedicine. In total, Aliera is reimbursed 54.2% of the 35% remaining in member contributions, receiving almost 84% of the total member contributions. In other words, out of every $100 a member pays in premiums only $16.03 goes towards paying the medical expenses of members.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I find it kinda funny that these religious Christian organizations exclude people for drinking. I'd bet that Jesus and most people way back then were half drunk all the time because they all had to drink a ton of wine and beer because their drinking water was tainted by everybody's poop and pee from upstream from them flowing into the rivers and streams.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

cheesesteak said:


> I find it kinda funny that these religious Christian organizations exclude people for drinking. I'd bet that Jesus and most people way back then were half drunk all the time because they all had to drink a ton of wine and beer because their drinking water was tainted by everybody's poop and pee from upstream from them flowing into the rivers and streams.


be sure not to sprain your ankle while you're dancing, i'm just sayin'...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I find it kinda funny that these religious Christian organizations exclude people for drinking. I'd bet that Jesus and most people way back then were half drunk all the time because they all had to drink a ton of wine and beer because their drinking water was tainted by everybody's poop and pee from upstream from them flowing into the rivers and streams.


I always had this theory (and I'm sure some people here will be mad at me for saying it), that the "Resurrection" was actually a result of the apostles being stoned or drunk and they were hallucinating. Go ahead, prove me wrong!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Considering that Jesus turned water into wine at a party, and there was wine at the Last Supper, it always amuses me when Christians are against drinking.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Considering that Jesus turned water into wine at a party, and there was wine at the Last Supper, it always amuses me when Christians are against drinking.


There's wine drinking throughout the bible, and many religious services include wine. I guess the distinction they make is that drinking wine is not bad, getting drunk from it is bad. But that's crazy in and of itself.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> There's wine drinking throughout the bible, and many religious services include wine. I guess the distinction they make is that drinking wine is not bad, getting drunk from it is bad. But that's crazy in and of itself.


Not really. Many varieties of Christians believe ANY alcohol consumption is bad. Check the Religion section here: Teetotalism - Wikipedia


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Not really. Many varieties of Christians believe ANY alcohol consumption is bad. Check the Religion section here: Teetotalism - Wikipedia


There's religious sects of every religion who think one thing or another is bad  There are so many contradictions in the Bible that if it were written today, it would be considered cultist drivel and would be compared to the stuff that L. Ron Hubbard wrote. Yeah, drinking is bad, but so many biblical characters drank, how do you justify it? My guess is that the religious clergy were respected members of the community and that they saw issues with alcoholism and made it a religious tenet to try and curb it. I'm sure it has little to do with the religion and more to do with society. Bill Maher spoke a bit about it this past week, where he talked about Ken Burns Prohibition series and how in the late 1800s into the early 1900s there was a large temperance movement because alcoholism was a huge problem. Since times were a bit more enlightened, rather than religious leaders, it was the government who decided on temperance.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> be sure not to sprain your ankle while you're dancing, i'm just sayin'...


When I worked for a homecare agency, we provided post-op antibiotics to a surgery center that performed a boatload of ACL repairs. We always asked how the patient tore their ACL. The best story was one patient who tore their ACL doing the limbo at a party in a church basement-G-d was angry-they went "too low"


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Not really. Many varieties of Christians believe ANY alcohol consumption is bad. Check the Religion section here: Teetotalism - Wikipedia


A friend of mine is part of a church that insists that Jesus used grape juice and not wine. That the word wine is a bad translation.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> A friend of mine is part of a church that insists that Jesus used grape juice and not wine. That the word wine is a bad translation.


what's their position on the type of fruit eve gave adam - was it really an apple, or something else? just be sure not to discuss where adam & eve's grandkids came from...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Another thing is how the Universe was created in 6 days&#8230;
&#8230;when it was created in an instant from matter the size of a pea.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Another thing is how the Universe was created in 6 days&#8230;
> &#8230;when it was created in an instant from matter the size of a pea.
> 
> View attachment 60896


The explanation for this that I heard from my Rabbi is that God's "days" are different than human days. God's days could be millions of years in human time.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> be sure not to sprain your ankle while you're dancing, i'm just sayin'...


I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> The explanation for this that I heard from my Rabbi is that God's "days" are different than human days. God's days could be millions of years in human time.


I've heard, but your Rabbi would know better, that the original Hebrew word didn't necessarily mean one 24-hour day, and was often used as a more nebulous 'indeterminate length of times of at least a day'. If true, that would directly support the idea that the Old Testament or Torah wasn't trying to say that God created the heavens and the earth in exactly 144 hours.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

cheesesteak said:


> I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to.


some religions not only frown upon drinking as a sin, but dancing, too - it would be another fake reason to "deny" a "claim" under the fake coverage.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> what's their position on the type of fruit eve gave adam - was it really an apple, or something else? just be sure not to discuss where adam & eve's grandkids came from...


Never actually got into it with him. I try not to with what i consider extreme religious


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> I've heard, but your Rabbi would know better, that the original Hebrew word didn't necessarily mean one 24-hour day, and was often used as a more nebulous 'indeterminate length of times of at least a day'. If true, that would directly support the idea that the Old Testament or Torah wasn't trying to say that God created the heavens and the earth in exactly 144 hours.


Who knows? When I asked the question I was a 12 year old kid and he probably told me what he thought I wanted to hear


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to.


Watch 'Footloose'


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Tony_T said:


> Another thing is how the Universe was created in 6 days&#8230;
> &#8230;when it was created in an instant from matter the size of a pea.



Had no idea Breathed was drawing Bloom County again. There goes my productivity for the day!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Saturn_V said:


> Had no idea Breathed was drawing Bloom County again. There goes my productivity for the day!


He's been doing it on Facebook since 2015
Berkeley Breathed's Bloom County
After 25-year hiatus, comic strip 'Bloom County' returns ... to Facebook


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Tony_T said:


> He's been doing it on Facebook since 2015


Probably why it escaped notice. Don't do FB.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Saturn_V said:


> Probably why it escaped notice. Don't do FB.


He published them in books as well 
Bloom County Episode XI: A New Hope by Berkeley Breathed: 9781631406997 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

I remember seeing that book in my comic book shop. I think IDW took over some of the publishing


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Worf said:


> I remember seeing that book in my comic book shop. I think IDW took over some of the publishing


you're right
berkeley breathed | IDW Publishing
Bloom County Episode XI: A New Hope | IDW Publishing
Bloom County: Brand Spanking New Day Hardcover | IDW Publishing


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)




----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"Because it's English, aging, and I'm told it can be difficult to work with."


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm watching last night's episode now and this is driving me nuts. Who did the voice of the wall behind him in that opening segment? That voice is so familiar but I cannot figure it out.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

sharkster said:


> I'm watching last night's episode now and this is driving me nuts. Who did the voice of the wall behind him in that opening segment? That voice is so familiar but I cannot figure it out.


H Jon Benjamin (Bob's Burgers, Archer)


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

lambertman said:


> H Jon Benjamin (Bob's Burgers, Archer)


Thank You Thank You! I just couldn't quite get there but all I knew was that I *really* knew that voice.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1420152174978473984
(N.b.: It's a joke.)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The long segment on the century of federal and local housing prejudices faced by African Americans was excellent. It helped explain why there is such a huge wealth gap between black and white families. Wealth and assets are passed down from one generation to the next. When the forbearers of the current African American generation were denied access to the same benefits as other Americans, there is far less generational wealth to pass down from one generation to the next and that affects the quality of neighborhoods, educational opportunities, healthcare and access to good jobs in a vicious circle. American history is not all apple pie and mom like lots of influential people pretend. There's a lot of really ugly things in American history and it needs to be taught along with the good parts, not hidden. That's the only way we can avoid doing the same bad things.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

cheesesteak said:


> The long segment on the century of federal and local housing prejudices faced by African Americans was excellent.


I miss this version of John Oliver. More investigative reporting and op-ed than schtick and cut to produced piece.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I thought I knew a lot of what was covered, but in reality, I did not really know just how far it went, especially in terms of how much was caused by the government policies directly.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

It was great for a news/investigative story. For a comedy show? Not so much. I guess I just need to realize that J.O. is no longer a comedian, but now he's an investigative journalist. Which is fine, if that's what you want/expect from him.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

This show has always been about investigative journalism. With a little comedy thrown in.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

eddyj said:


> This show has always been about investigative journalism. With a little comedy thrown in.


Exactly. The daily show borders more on comedy with some news. TWT is sarcastic journalism. Always has been.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Most of the time, the show's deep dive into various topics is informative but has no real connection to me. This one shed a little bit of light as to why I was born and raised in the crappy projects while other people grew up on family owned houses in the nice suburbs.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> The long segment on the century of federal and local housing prejudices faced by African Americans was excellent. It helped explain why there is such a huge wealth gap between black and white families. Wealth and assets are passed down from one generation to the next. When the forbearers of the current African American generation were denied access to the same benefits as other Americans, there is far less generational wealth to pass down from one generation to the next and that affects the quality of neighborhoods, educational opportunities, healthcare and access to good jobs in a vicious circle. American history is not all apple pie and mom like lots of influential people pretend. There's a lot of really ugly things in American history and it needs to be taught along with the good parts, not hidden. That's the only way we can avoid doing the same bad things.


I've also heard a lot about partition actions, which forces sale of land if a single partial owner wants to sell. This can happen even if the vast majority of the owners wants to keep the land.

ProPublica and The New Yorker had a long piece in 2019 about this.

Their Family Bought Land One Generation After Slavery. The Reels Brothers Spent Eight Years in Jail for Refusing to Leave It.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> There's a lot of really ugly things in American history and it needs to be taught along with the good parts, not hidden. That's the only way we can avoid doing the same bad things.


Some people disagree with that.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

robojerk said:


> Some people disagree with that.


you said "people," and i'm not sure the pics you then posted meet the definition...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

"people" said lately on their show that Fauci created Covid.

So, you know, there's that.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

What is the "story" behind this anyways? No I am not watching Tucker Carlson.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

robojerk said:


> View attachment 61611
> 
> What is the "story" behind this anyways? No I am not watching Tucker Carlson.


Fact-check: Did Dr. Fauci fund research that created COVID-19? (msn.com)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Isn't this what Fauci and Rand Paul got into a public argument about a month or so ago? Is this story from Carlson recent, or back from around that time when Rand Paul was pushing this theory?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Isn't this what Fauci and Rand Paul got into a public argument about a month or so ago? Is this story from Carlson recent, or back from around that time when Rand Paul was pushing this theory?


yeah, it was only two weeks ago, july 20:

Fauci blasts Rand Paul's Wuhan lab funding claim: 'You do not know what you're talking about' (nbcnews.com)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So is the Tucker Carlson screen grab above from a recent show or from a couple weeks ago?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> So is the Tucker Carlson screen grab above from a recent show or from a couple weeks ago?


May 10ish
Tucker Carlson Says Dr Fauci Should Be Investigated, Cites Fringe Lies About COVID-19 Origins (Video)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

It's the progression of the lie. They have to deflect from the abject failure to contain the pandemic.

First, attack Fauci because he said not to wear masks (he did so before they got better data and because there was a shortage of masks and he wanted to stop a run on masks so doctors and nurses can have them).

Then say that Fauci funded the lab at Wuhan.

Then progress to Fauci funded the research into Covid.

Then say Fauci funded the creation of Covid.

Then say Fauci created Covid (said on his show on July 28, 2021) Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/tucker-carlson-fauci-created-covid/

Quote: "take it from the guy who created Covid. Watch this" and he shows a clip of Fauci.

Slow-cooking the frog. There is simply no limit to the depravity of that entire ecosystem.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Fauci was incorrect on masks from the beginning but did correct himself. There was a lot of unknown up front. He was also wrong on not testing those without symptoms. That one made no sense to me at the time. Even with the flu, you can detect before symptoms show and you are more likely to effectively combat it then. 

But no one is perfect. There is a lot to pick on Fauci for but there is a lot more to praise him and others for.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Fauci was incorrect on masks from the beginning but did correct himself. There was a lot of unknown up front. He was also wrong on not testing those without symptoms. That one made no sense to me at the time. Even with the flu, you can detect before symptoms show and you are more likely to effectively combat it then.
> 
> But no one is perfect. There is a lot to pick on Fauci for but there is a lot more to praise him and others for.


That's the way science works. You make educated guesses based on data, and then when the data shows your initial theory was wrong, you adopt a new theory based on the new data. Rinse and repeat.

For some reason, certain people seem to not understand this and want to vilify scientists for "being wrong" when that's precisely what scientists are supposed to do.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the way science works. You make educated guesses based on data, and then when the data shows your initial theory was wrong, you adopt a new theory based on the new data. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> For some reason, certain people seem to not understand this and want to vilify scientists for "being wrong" when that's precisely what scientists are supposed to do.


_"the guidelines changed, it's soooooooooo confusing!"  _


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the way science works. You make educated guesses based on data, and then when the data shows your initial theory was wrong, you adopt a new theory based on the new data. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> For some reason, certain people seem to not understand this and want to vilify scientists for "being wrong" when that's precisely what scientists are supposed to do.


Yep. Faith never changes. Science adjusts.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Judge For Yourselves | Background on the Sackler family and the opioid crisis, brought to you by Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

That tree loving dude in last night's episode seriously needs some therapy.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Good segment on COVID and masks.
While there are states/cities/towns without a mask mandate, those that have one are inconsistent. For example, my town recently issued a mask mandate "_&#8230;for all people, regardless of their vaccination status. The Mayor's executive order affects all establishments such as *bars*, gyms, *restaurants*, movie theaters, hardware stores, and supermarkets where physical distancing cannot be maintained. This order will be enforced by the Police Department and the Health Department."_
Now, that sounds good, but when I asked the mayors office, to advise how this will work in restaurants and bars, the response was "*People can remove their face coverings to eat and drink. The change is really about walking in, waiting, and then being seated*."


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> That tree loving dude in last night's episode seriously needs some therapy.


Treehouse Masters - Anyone Watching?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Last night last one “in the void”,
Sept 12th, “in the studio”……”maybe with an audience, maybe not, who knows”.

and just when the last few weeks have been funny with Jon Benjamin as “the Void”


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Are all the late night shows on vacation now? It seems like the Daily Show has been gone for the entire summer.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Are all the late night shows on vacation now? It seems like the Daily Show has been gone for the entire summer.


Trevor took the summer off to reset and rethink the show. They are doing individual pieces on the web.

Jon is only taking off two weeks (I think). Back very soon.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

TonyD79 said:


> Jon is only taking off two weeks (I think). Back very soon.


LWT is back the 12th in the studio, "maybe with an audience, maybe not, who knows"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Are all the late night shows on vacation now? It seems like the Daily Show has been gone for the entire summer.


Last night's episode of Steven Colbert was a rerun, which I found surprising since they just took two weeks off for the Olympics.

All the other network late night shows were new last night. Jimmy Kimmel still with a guest host (Jimmy took the whole summer off). Fallon and Meyers were new. Corden was back last night with a new episode after taking most of the summer off.

Samantha Bee has been off for several weeks. She's scheduled to start back up on Sept. 1.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

…and Conan finished his last TBS show


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Tony_T said:


> &#8230;and Conan finished his last TBS show


that's ok, hbo or sho might pick him up, or at least offer him a special.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Conan already has a deal with HBO Max. Not a talk show, no details yet.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ooh! Minnesota!


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

A) Looking forward to seeing the exhibit at the MBC here in Chicago
B) My belarus bear should be here sometime next week


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't get how John Oliver won this year's Emmy. I thought Trevor Noah's pandemic era Daily Show was a far superior show, especially with four one half hours per week vs one half hour per week.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Conan should have won.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't get how John Oliver won this year's Emmy. I thought Trevor Noah's pandemic era Daily Show was a far superior show, especially with four one half hours per week vs one half hour per week.


I agree, though I think Sam Bee's show was great all around as well. But I do think that anything on premium channels or streaming services has a leg up these days. For some reason they are always assumed to be "better" than broadcast or basic cable. One look at the award winners will tell you that.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

:thumbsup: to Sam Bee. Her really good show gets lost in the mix of the guys' shows.

And Bill Maher's weekly show is a lot more thought provoking than Oliver's Last Week Tonight.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I personally can't take Bee or (especially) Maher. I watched Bee for a couple of years, but she just wore me down. And Maher I've despised for decades.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I personally can't take Bee or (especially) Maher. I watched Bee for a couple of years, but she just wore me down. And Maher I've despised for decades.


I definitely don't always agree with Bill Maher but that doesn't stop me from thinking he's brilliant. I also like the fact that he has an interview guest and a diverse panel on his show instead of it just being him monologue-ing for the entire show like Oliver.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I personally can't take Bee or (especially) Maher. I watched Bee for a couple of years, but she just wore me down. And Maher I've despised for decades.





cheesesteak said:


> I definitely don't always agree with Bill Maher but that doesn't stop me from thinking he's brilliant. I also like the fact that he has an interview guest and a diverse panel on his show instead of it just being him monologue-ing for the entire show like Oliver.


I like people who challenge my way of thinking, but also tend to be on "my side" on most issues. Sam Bee's show usually focuses on women's issues, which is something I don't always think about, so for me it's interesting to get that perspective. Maher, I also think he sometimes makes me think about things differently and there are some things I agree with and some that I don't. I like that he's POV are often different than mine, though we come from the same side of the issues more often than not.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I don’t like Bee’s delivery, always condescending. 
Never liked Maher. On a recent show he says that he got the vaccine “for the team”, even though it’s not needed for the young and healthy (he’s 65)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I don't like Bee's delivery, always condescending.
> Never liked Maher. On a recent show he says that he got the vaccine "for the team", even though it's not needed for the young and healthy (he's 65)


Yeah, was going to bring that up, thought it might be too political. At least he took it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I've seen every episode of Full Frontal (except the most recent two), but it's definitely not nearly as high on my priority list as it used to be. When the show started, it was much more about comedy. Now it's much more about activism with the occasional joke thrown in. Also, I sometimes wonder if the interview subjects, who are on the show talking about serious issues, get annoyed at Sam (or the other correspondents) for making silly jokes just so the interview fits in with the "comedy" show, but yet the jokes take away from the message she's trying to get across.

Basically, I think it's losing its edge.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've seen every episode of Full Frontal (except the most recent two), but it's definitely not nearly as high on my priority list as it used to be. When the show started, it was much more about comedy. Now it's much more about activism with the occasional joke thrown in. Also, I sometimes wonder if the interview subjects, who are on the show talking about serious issues, get annoyed at Sam (or the other correspondents) for making silly jokes just so the interview fits in with the "comedy" show, but yet the jokes take away from the message she's trying to get across.
> 
> Basically, I think it's losing its edge.


I think that also describe John Oliver, which used to be much more on the comedy end of things and all too often has become one long story about a topic with very little comedy. I think The Daily Show has mostly stayed true to its roots, with a little more emphasis on African American culture now than before. I do wonder, since these shows are taken as much more than just comedy shows now, that this is intentional, and that the comedy is being downplayed to some extent. These hosts feel they have a pulpit and now want to use it to further their own causes. I don't think that was the original intent.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I don’t think any of them have really changed but the lack of audience has made them seem more serious. As has our perceptions.


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

Second attempt at posting the picture - in other news, it has arrived

https://i.imgur.com/lJP1C0m_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

A lot of people in Zumbrota are going to be wondering what these people were smoking...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

What a bizarre ad. Why would the LWT writers think that was a "very good script" for a local car commercial? And I'm not clear on whether the wild tone change when it cut to the guy in the pickle suit was part of the script or if that was the dealer ad libbing.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What a bizarre ad. Why would the LWT writers think that was a "very good script" for a local car commercial? And I'm not clear on whether the wild tone change when it cut to the guy in the pickle suit was part of the script or if that was the dealer ad libbing.


I have to agree. It needed something in the middle to bridge the couple, to the car dealership, or something - to even pretend to work.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> What a bizarre ad. Why would the LWT writers think that was a "very good script" for a local car commercial? And I'm not clear on whether the wild tone change when it cut to the guy in the pickle suit was part of the script or if that was the dealer ad libbing.


I think that was all part of the point.

And I'd bet the car dealership knew exactly what they were dealing with. Probably saw the show and jumped on.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I think that was all part of the point.
> 
> And I'd bet the car dealership knew exactly what they were dealing with. Probably saw the show and jumped on.


Yeah, I mean it's...John Oliver! What would they expect?

Well, if it were me I would expect something like that. Something very...John Oliver.

According to Oliver in the segment, they got a number of dealerships taking them up on the offer, and had to choose one (possibly because "Zumbrota" was the funniest name?).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

One thing I've only just noticed is that HBO Max has started dropping the show at 10:00 (Central) even when it airs on the mothership later (like tonight at 10:10, or last week at 10:20). For kicks, tonight I looked for it a couple of minutes before 10 and it wasn't there, but at exactly 10 it was.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Season Finale.
The celebrity cameos were fun,
and be sure to stand by for the post credits premiere of White Void Tonight with The Void


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Hard to believe it's the season finale already. John has to be the laziest "late night" host ever: he does one show a week and takes a quarter of the year off. Oh well. We'll still watch next year .

Maybe Jon Stewart is vying for his crown though since he only does one show every _two_ weeks.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Hard to believe it's the season finale already. John has to be the laziest "late night" host ever: he does one show a week and takes a quarter of the year off. Oh well. We'll still watch next year .
> 
> Maybe Jon Stewart is vying for his crown though since he only does one show every _two_ weeks.


And half of it is just tape of his production meetings! 

(OK, maybe not half...)


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

A much less spectacular finale than last year.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

series5orpremier said:


> A much less spectacular finale than last year.


That studio audience must be exhausting for the poor guy...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That studio audience must be exhausting for the poor guy...


it is, taping a live show while you're performing is probably one of the most stressful jobs there are, that's why the time is limited, and it pays so well for those who do it right.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

So what exactly does John Oliver do the rest of the time? I mean, he's probably well paid enough that he doesn't NEED to work the rest of the year, but I would think he does just because. He seems to have small roles in TV and movies but there must be more he does during his off time.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Worf said:


> So what exactly does John Oliver do the rest of the time? I mean, he's probably well paid enough that he doesn't NEED to work the rest of the year, but I would think he does just because. He seems to have small roles in TV and movies but there must be more he does during his off time.


Given the nature of the Main Stories he covers, I suspect they work pretty much year-round...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Worf said:


> So what exactly does John Oliver do the rest of the time? I mean, he's probably well paid enough that he doesn't NEED to work the rest of the year, but I would think he does just because. He seems to have small roles in TV and movies but there must be more he does during his off time.


He and his staff spend the entire off-season watching local news shows (and Fox & Friends) 24-7, to find segments for: *And Now This...*


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

LOL! I remember a Cap'n Crunch video game in my niece's cereal box-no violence that I recall-but I thought, "WOW! Really?"


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Hmmm. Do I venture out to gaze upon these masterpieces in their physical form?

'Last Week Tonight' host John Oliver takes his bad art to SF


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)




----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Heh...that was hilarious!

I never read the book, mostly because I saw a few interviews with Brown in which he was a pompous git pretending that the core matter of the book was factual (I say "pretending" because I suspect he's like Rush Limbaugh or Steven Colbert...somebody playing a role that deep down inside he doesn't really believe). And in the immortal words of Harlan Ellison, "I'm opposed to anything that keeps people stupid."

In the comments for this video, a number of people defend the "Apple" riddle because it's a very small part of the book (apparently "Apple" is the combination to a puzzle box that leads to another puzzle?) and because if you get the combination wrong the puzzle box will self-destruct. Which would be a valid criticism if the characters spent the pages before the answer is revealed saying "Well, the obvious answer is 'Apple,' but maybe it's actually a trick question? Can we take that chance?" But I get the very strong feeling that no such conversation ever takes place... 

A number of other people propose that Oliver should regularly do pop culture reviews of this nature. Now THAT'S a notion I can wholeheartedly endorse!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

*Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!*


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Back with an audience this week!! Much better than the white void.


Spoiler: Not sure if this should be spoilerized as the topic doesn't say spoilers



Some good points made on the CRT topic. The Debbie Downer news guy bit was funny.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He's had an audience for a while now.

Spoiler tags? Seriously?!? Are you afraid you'll give away the plot twist?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't always find LWT to be Emmy worthy but John's take down of the fake anti-CRT sentiment overtaking this country was brilliant.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't always find LWT to be Emmy worthy but John's take down of the fake anti-CRT sentiment overtaking this country was brilliant.


The best was his point that the "leader" of the anti-CRT movement's real endgame funding private schools with tax money, or the so called "school choice". I am sure if you did more digging on the guy (who's name escapes me) you'll find he's probably on the board of several private (most likely Christian) schools. Most of what he talked about I already knew. And if I go deeper into this it's political (though it shouldn't be) and not for this thread.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

All topics are more enjoyable when John's having fun. Many of the episodes of the last two years were missing that 'special something', as if the show just wasn't as much fun to make during the height of the pandemic restrictions. Either that, or he was just burnt out for a while.

He seems mostly back to his over-the-top enthusiastic state - which is what the show runs on. Hopefully back with an audience, minimal restrictions, he'll be able to maintain it...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

This week's episode was an instant classic. Saying goodbye to "business daddy," getting quoted in OAN's lawsuit against former "business daddy," and potentially blackmailing members of Congress!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

The entire ATT/DirecTV/OAN segment was great. My favorite...

"Which quite frankly, is two more bars than you ever had"


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

What made that episode even greater was that there were no references to the British monarchy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The answer was right in front of her all along. She loves extra meatballs.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He really went to town with the Korean show parody...I actually ended up fast-forwarding past it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He really went to town with the Korean show parody...I actually ended up fast-forwarding past it.


hmm, it was my favorite part of the segment, most of the rest of the monologue i already knew.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> hmm, it was my favorite part of the segment, most of the rest of the monologue i already knew.


The first one (the real one) was fine. But the second one (the parody) felt as long as a real Korean TV series...i.e., 16 hour+ episodes. And it really wasn't any funnier than the real one.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)




----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

This Web Extra was funnier than the recent (meant to be funny) episodes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Another Web Exclusive that was (IMO) better than the past episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Is a marriage performed by Steve Buscemi really legal?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Is a marriage performed by Steve Buscemi really legal?


Only if you are marrying produce


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1556569672853725184


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Yep. That’s what’s happening. If people aren’t watching Discovery+ because HBO is better, then we’ll just burn down HBO so they’ll have to watch us (“…wait. there are other streaming services they can watch?”)

HBO was the best of the best. I’ll miss you, as we devolve into mediocrity.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1556569672853725184


Is that clip from a past episode, or a preview of tonight?

I ask, because I was kinda surprised we haven't seen him comment on HBO Max's state of affairs yet, and I'm wondering if somehow I got bored with a segment, my attention drifted, and I missed the whole joke...


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

kdmorse said:


> Is that clip from a past episode, or a preview of tonight?
> 
> I ask, because I was kinda surprised we haven't seen him comment on HBO Max's state of affairs yet, and I'm wondering if somehow I got bored with a segment, my attention drifted, and I missed the whole joke...


I remember seeing it in an episode. (I think it last week's; but it might have been the one before that)

Edit - remembered that I have 'recently deleted' and very little new recording to overwrite them. It was at the 22 minute mark of the 8/7 episode and the whole slam was just a 15 second digression from the monkeypox segment


----------



## lhvetinari (Jun 24, 2019)

kdmorse said:


> Is that clip from a past episode, or a preview of tonight?
> 
> I ask, because I was kinda surprised we haven't seen him comment on HBO Max's state of affairs yet, and I'm wondering if somehow I got bored with a segment, my attention drifted, and I missed the whole joke...


Last week’s episode I’m pretty sure


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

kdmorse said:


> Is that clip from a past episode, or a preview of tonight?
> 
> I ask, because I was kinda surprised we haven't seen him comment on HBO Max's state of affairs yet, and I'm wondering if somehow I got bored with a segment, my attention drifted, and I missed the whole joke...





Jonathan_S said:


> I remember seeing it in an episode. (I think it last week's; but it might have been the one before that)
> 
> Edit - remembered that I have 'recently deleted' and very little new recording to overwrite them. It was at the 22 minute mark of the 8/7 episode and the whole slam was just a 15 second digression from the monkeypox segment


august 7th ep, the tweet is dated august 8th.

i posted as i remembered the quip but realized when i saw the tweet that it hadn't been shared here.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1556569672853725184


This tweet in response to that tweet gets the Dumbest Tweet of the Day Award:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1556601681458200576


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Save Johnny’s Trees


Feeling bad about global warming? Offset yourself!



project.oliversoffsets.org





I bought an offset, so now I’m green! 😁


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> View attachment 74546


Yep, there was another quick dig at them last night. I assume that'll become a running theme.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

He did the same with the AT&T Corporate Overlords, so this is not unexpected.
Letterman also did it with GE (many, many years ago. I remember he went to the GE head offices with a gift basket.

I should see if that’s on YouTube.

edit:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zaslav and Discovery had to know they'd get this kind of jabbing from JO just like he did to AT&T. I'm sure they're totally fine with it.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Zaslav and Discovery had to know they'd get this kind of jabbing from JO just like he did to AT&T. I'm sure they're totally fine with it.


Or they would have stopped him from doing it.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Save Johnny’s Trees
> 
> 
> Feeling bad about global warming? Offset yourself!
> ...


Did you actually? I ask because I went to the website, and it says all their offsets have been sold. This means either:

A) They didn't actually let anyone spend any money, they just set up the organization and website, but weren't going to actually accept anyone's money.
B) 10,000 people were willing to sacrifice 1$ for comedy.

And I'm honestly torn as to which I believe...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

kdmorse said:


> Did you actually? I ask because I went to the website, and it says all their offsets have been sold.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Free shipping! What a deal!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

kdmorse said:


> Is that clip from a past episode, or a preview of tonight?
> 
> I ask, because I was kinda surprised we haven't seen him comment on HBO Max's state of affairs yet, and I'm wondering if somehow I got bored with a segment, my attention drifted, and I missed the whole joke...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> Did you actually? I ask because I went to the website, and it says all their offsets have been sold. This means either:
> 
> A) They didn't actually let anyone spend any money, they just set up the organization and website, but weren't going to actually accept anyone's money.
> B) 10,000 people were willing to sacrifice 1$ for comedy.
> ...


Are you really torn? There's no way they didn't get 10K people wanting to each spend a dollar within minutes after the first airing ended.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I bought my shítton of offsets Monday morning, so it did take over 12 hours to sell out.

”Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive” 😁


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I’m now Carbon Neutral! 😎


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------

