Hope for Humanity!

Okay, at Samizdat, we're folks who have a bit of a jaded view of the human populace. But we like to celebrate victories, even if we find them to be rare among the stories of today.

For example, the adage that "[insert destructive trait here] is human nature" is a way we rationalize war, rape, hegemony, and violence, et al. Well, apparently science has proved this adage wrong!

Being hunted brought evolutionary pressure on our ancestors to cooperate and
live in cohesive groups. That, more than aggression and warfare, is our
evolutionary legacy. Both genetics and paleoneurology back that up.

That's from "Beyond Stones & Bones," a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley. Read it. It'll be good for ya.

The article's subhead is, "The new science of the brain and DNA is rewriting the history of human origins." And though human nature is not the article's primary focus, it feels good to know that one of the strengths that sets our species apart is the ability to trust each other and form lasting emotional bonds. Rather than the traditional view of "hunting prowess and the ability to vanquish competitors was the key to our ancestors' evolutionary success," it was all about brother/sisterhood.

So, when someone laments about the sad reality of the human condition, learn 'em about the evolutionary evidence to the contrary. Unless, of course, you're in Cobb County, Georgia.

If you can't beat 'em...

One week after Samizdat defends our beloved Daily Show, along comes... The Half-Hour News Hour. We could link to the TV blogs that have clips, but we care about our readers. We couldn't, in good conscience, directly link you to such a devastatingly painful teaser clip. You'll have to google it.

In a nutshell, The Half-Hour News Hour is a Fox News production. After months of the channel's talking heads trying to marginalize the Daily Show / Colbert Report phenomenon, Fox News has taken a different tack: Let's make our own Daily Show!

After viewing the preview clip leaked to the Internets, we at Samizdat would like to point out a few things:

• Linking a Marion Barry reference to Barack Obama is many levels of bad writing. For one, few people under 25 really remember who Barry was. The only reason to use it seems to be, "Let's find another black politician who was in a cocaine scandal!"
• In other words, it's usually a bad idea to make your reliance on his skin color, for humor, so transparent.
• Oh, yeah, ditto on the "BO" thing. Wow. What is this, the seventh grade?
• I understand that Fox News is a conservative bastion. And I understand that this was pitched as a Daily Show for conservatives. But, so far, the show looks more like an attempt to disguise slinging mud at non-conservative folks as satire.
• Yes, there is a difference.
• While we're on the topic, there is a difference between "not conservative" and "liberal." Conservative/Liberal is not an either/or proposition. Shows like the Daily Show recognize this.
• Laugh tracks are bad news, folks. While the spattering of audience laughs may have been real, the canned laughter in the segment piece was... well, it made a painful piece torturous.
• Then again, the producer (Joel Surnow) is the same guy behind 24. Maybe torture is the show's intent.
• The hosts? A reality/game-show host and a TV actress whose been on Best Week Ever. Not to dig on working actors, but... We're not exactly talking about the gold standard, here.
• Oh, and apparently Brian Unger is a correspondent. Yes, the same guy who left during the Daily Show's transition to Jon Stewart.
• Finally... what's with the name? I realize Fox News viewers would never dream of watching Canadian TV. But, couldn't you come up with a name that wasn't ripped-off from a popular Canadian news parody show (This Hour Has 22 Minutes)?

Oh, BG News, Why Dost Thou Hate the Daily Show?

And why doesn't anyone in your newsroom know enough to double-check the spelling of Jon Stewart's name?

Anyway, while ranting about a columnist's current excuse for a column, Friend of the Show Jeff (the God of Biscuits) mentioned this column, an older treatise whose title is, "John Stewart contributing to voter apathy."

And now, for my response:

Before we go over loaded terms (such as "indoctrinated"), the ill-advised attempt to define Stewart's humor, or the fact that his name is spelled "Jon," let's look at what reality says about youth voter apathy.

According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the under-30 vote was up. Sharply, from the 2002 mid-term. Estimates measure this upward trend in terms of 2 million more voters, and a 4% jump (20 to 24) in eligible voter turnout.

Are these the same youth voters who are "indoctrinated" by the Daily Show's negativity? And while we're at it, let's remember the loaded value of that word: despite what it means, the last few years have seen "indoctrinate" turn into a way of saying: Your thoughts are wrong, because they're different than mine! Stop listening to other people on TV or in the classroom! Listen to the ones I agree with!

I guess a new word was needed. Methinks that "liberal" got worn out by abuse and overuse.

As for Jon (no "h") indoctrinating viewers, well, what's he indoctrinating them with? Is he a "savvy and astute political satirist," or is he the guy you turn to for "a good fart joke?" As a former Opinon and Page 3 editor, I find these two to be very different comedic approaches.

Or, is it that the author wants it both ways? He can't dismiss its effect on popular culture (Fox News tried, failed). But he does want to marginalize the show's content. The problem comes from the proof. One can say the show is lowbrow humor, but I can then point to a beautifully-produced segment where John Oliver (with the "h") describes the ad campaign from "existential vacuum that is today's Democratic Party."

This is a show of fart jokes?

Even then, the author states, "but if I am looking for unbiased, factual reporting, his show is not exactly the best source of information."

Funny. That was the topic of a paper presented at the Popular Culture Association's 2005 conference: "Faking the News: Journalism’s Response to The Daily Show," by Lauren Feldman. In summary, the paper examined the phenomenon of bias and the Daily Show. That is, because the Daily Show wears its intentions on its sleeves, viewers find it to be a less-biased source than "real" news.

Really, this isn't surprising. CNN is owned by media-overlord Time Warner, and everybody "knows" it's liberal. Fox News is on a crusade to paint (MS)NBC with the same brush. And Rupert Murdoch mentioned this past week, in Switzerland, that he tried to use Fox News to set the nation's agenda to be in favor of the President's Iraq plan.

With such shining paragons of "unbiased," is it any wonder that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have become such important fixtures in the media?

Oh, and in case I haven't said it yet... Jon Stewart is spelled without the "h".

Samizdat Holiday Award for Creative Stupidity

Is it a bad thing to be completely oblivious to current events? Is there any real harm in not knowing historical precedents or pressing contemporary news? Apparently, the answer is 'yes,' and not merely in an abstract manner. The following Chicago Sun-Times article explains the concrete dangers of not knowing shit:

Woman hospitalized after Trivial Pursuit game

While most college students can earn an intoxicated trip to the hospital without any help, these folks were creative about it. There's nothing like punishing a wrong answer with substances, the intake of which make the respondent even more likely to give a wrong answer.

Christianity: Built Upon the Bones of Pagans

Is that a headline, or what? Bet you think I'm going to start off on a rant. Something about how Christianity is so infused with pagan traditions, there might as well be little difference, right?

Nah. I mean, I could, but I'll be honest: that headline was slightly misleading. It's my terrible way of spotlighting this Newsweek article. The article explains how the Vatican is built on top of pagan bones. Literally, I mean. The Holy See has been excavating the Necropolis of the Parking Garage (Necropoli dell'Autoparco) for the last few years, and will soon open it to paying visitors. That's right, after you're done repenting your sinful ways, you can visit a grave blessed by the drunken revelry of Dionysus/Bacchus.

Seriously, check the article out. Some highlights:

Walking among the exposed bones of any ancient graveyard would be chilling enough. But when it’s a pagan necropolis directly beneath Vatican City, arguably Christianity’s holiest shrine, then the situation redlines right into completely unnerving. Or it would be if it weren’t so enthralling, especially for anyone who has ever pondered Roman Catholicism's pagan roots.

Again, this could be an entire Samizdat episode.

John Paul himself was a student of Rome’s pagan roots. But when he was succeeded by the more conservative Pope Benedict XVI, the plan was nearly derailed—until the Vatican's official archeologists insisted that the Holy See carry through the plans to honor the former pope.

One more reason I don't dig the new Pope...

"But there are many pagan aspects of all things modern, and when it comes to archeology, especially religious archeology, there is really no room for distinction."

Amen! Preach on, sister!

...nearby, the tombs... are decorated with obviously pagan mosaics elaborately depicting, among other things, a drunken Dionysus, the god of wine and fertility, being held aloft by a satyr.

Ha-hah! Go Dionysus, you old so-and-so!