Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Credentials of the 'Daily Show' Corespondent Used to Attack Judge Nap

As part of Jon Stewart's attack on Judge Napolitano's views on Lincoln, he brought on Larry Wilmore, who he identified as the Daily Show's "Senior Black Correspondent." Here is some background on Wilmore's extensive study and commentary on Lincoln and the Civil War years (via Wikipedia)
Beginning in the 1980s, Wilmore appeared as an actor in several small film and television roles, including a recurring role as a police officer on The Facts of Life. In the early to mid-1990s, he was on the writing staff of the talk show Into the Night With Rick Dees, the sketch comedy show In Living Color, and the sitcom Sister, Sister, where he portrayed a bus driver in one episode. Wilmore went on to be a writer and producer on a series of sitcoms, including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and The Jamie Foxx Show.
In 1999, Wilmore co-created the animated comedy The PJs[3] with Eddie Murphy and was Executive Producer until its conclusion in 2001. He subsequently co-created[3] and produced The Bernie Mac Show, and he won an Emmy for writing the pilot episode. He also created and produced Whoopi, with Whoopi Goldberg. From 2005 to 2007, he was a consulting producer for The Office and made an appearance on the show as Mr. Brown, during the episode, "Diversity Day" as a diversity consultant.[2][3] 
In 2006, Wilmore began appearing regularly on The Daily Show, where he is billed as the "Senior Black Correspondent" or a derivative form of the title, such as the "Senior Executive Commander-in-Chief Who Happens To Be Black Correspondent" following the election of Barack Obama.[2] His work on the show frequently centers on humorous observations of the Black experience in American society.[1][2] In January 2009, Hyperion published Wilmore's I'd Rather We Got Casinos: And Other Black Thoughts, a political humor book described by Booklist as "a faux collection of articles, essays, radio transcripts, and letters exploring the more ludicrous angles on race." Wilmore originated the titular phrase I'd Rather We Got Casinos in a January 2007 Daily Showappearance.[4]
Wilmore has continued to make occasional acting appearances, including a role as a minister in I Love You, Man (2009) and a supporting role in Dinner for Schmucks (2010).

In 2011, Wilmore began a recurring role on the ABC comedy Happy Endings, where he played Mr. Forristal, Brad's (Damon Wayans, Jr.) uptight boss

13 comments:

  1. I am not very much concerned with Stewart's attempt at humor, mostly because most if his arguments are banal and pedestrian, not very well though out. What can you expect from a guy whose most clever question to libertarian philosophers like Paul or Napolitano is "How can you object to government which is accountable to voters yet advocate for businesses which are accountable to no one?" the kind of loaded question that carries the same intellectual weight as "but who would build da roadz?!?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, but....but...
    Jerry Wolfgang thinks the Daily Show has thoroughly discredited every point made in Thomas DiLorenzo's book. So it MUST be true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course he doesn't have credentials. It's a comedy show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just one more point. It doesn't matter what a person's credentials are. It doesn't matter whether they have a Ph.D. after their name. The only thing that matters are the arguments. Are they sound? That's it. Instead of attacking the credentials, attack the arguments.

      Delete
  4. Tell that to JW for whom it is a source of truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely Anonymous 3:04. You've perfectly identified the problem I have with John Stewart. It's comical how often someone will cite a Stewart line when debating a given topic. His veneer of intelligence allows all the JWs out there to deceive themselves into believing Stewart is a font of knowledge and wisdom, when in fact he's just a clown masquerading as an intellectual heavyweight.

      He can indeed sometimes be funny, and he does appear to be smarter than the average college graduate. Perhaps if he were less constrained by the lowbrow standards of his chosen medium, or if he were able to demonstrate greater integrity (which would likely come at the cost of viewership), he might be capable of producing something both insightful and amusing.

      But instead, like O'Reilly or Limbaugh, he would rather just pander to his crowd.

      Delete
  5. John Stewart is your usual dipshit leftist. No logic, no reason, no brain. Don't argue with morons. It's a waste of time. Next....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we not do the same thing to others that is done to us? Categorizing people into left or right is a typical ineffective response in trying to rationalize and refute ideas you disagree with. Calling John Stewart a "dipshit" doesn't help anything when trying to dispel myths, it only polarizes views. And certainly John Stewart is not a dipshit. He may have ideas that you don't agree with, but please don't dismiss him.

      During the primaries when Ron Paul was running, John was bringing up the hypocrisy of Ron being the "unamed" candidate that was in second or third place. He at least wanted to hear what Ron had to say, and agreed with a lot of it.

      Ad hominem attacks do nothing to help educate those whose minds we need to reach in order to correct fallacies or propaganda. We like to dismiss people instead of understanding where they are coming from and why. When we do that, we become no better than those who are labeled as using "no logic, no reason, and no brain."

      When trying to educate people you need to see them as reasonable, intelligent, human beings. You need to give them the benefit of the doubt you want from them. You also need to understand most people are a product of the state propaganda and education system. They have been directed as what to feel and think by the state and its actors for most of their lives. They haven't taken the "red pill" yet. No one is going to listen to you when you start off the conversation calling them names.

      Delete
    2. "Categorizing people into left or right is a typical ineffective response in trying to rationalize and refute ideas you disagree with."

      If you don't think that guy is a Leftist then you're only fooling yourself.

      "Ad hominem attacks do nothing to help educate those whose minds we need to reach in order to correct fallacies or propaganda."

      Most can't be reached. Most are too cowardly or stupid.

      "When trying to educate people you need to see them as reasonable, intelligent, human beings."

      Most people aren't.

      "You also need to understand most people are a product of the state propaganda and education system."

      So am I. Didn't take me long to figure it out (if a person doesn't have the internet then I give them a pass. It's VERY difficult to find the truth without it. But people on the internet can simply click a mouse button and there it is).

      "They haven't taken the "red pill" yet."

      And the vast majority of these fools aren't ever going to.

      "No one is going to listen to you when you start off the conversation calling them names."

      I don't really care. Almost none of them will listen anyway.

      As I always say, if people want the facts it's available at the CLICK of a MOUSE BUTTON. It's not rocket science.

      Delete
    3. "Categorizing people into left or right is a typical ineffective response in trying to rationalize and refute ideas you disagree with."

      Leftist or rightist are merely labels we use for arguments we've made plenty of times. These labels describe a set of ideas that are almost always the same no matter when one sees them, and so generalizing them by label is justified.

      "Calling John Stewart a "dipshit" doesn't help anything when trying to dispel myths"

      No it doesn't. But it relieves stress. And most of us spend plenty of time trying to dispel myths, usually without success with "leftists". Just because we call someone dipshit sometimes, doesn't mean we don't also spend time trying to dispel myths.

      "He at least wanted to hear what Ron had to say, and agreed with a lot of it."

      Let me ask you. After four years of Obama, did Stewart vote for Ron Paul? If not, then how much did he really agree with, considering that Obama is Bush the second?

      "Ad hominem attacks do nothing to help educate those whose minds we need to reach in order to correct fallacies or propaganda."

      In all my attempts at employing cold hard logic and facts, not once have i seen a dent in an opponents dogmatic beliefs in the state. I myself was a "dipshit" until i simply decided to read some material and open my mind to it. No debate converted me. No opponent reached me. I simply rationalized everything no matter how wrong i was. My interest was in winning debates, not in seeing the truth. Only my own search broke me out.

      "We like to dismiss people instead of understanding where they are coming from and why. "

      We know where they're coming from. Most of the time it is simply envy. I can see it in the people around me. Success and wealth causes the green virus of bitter envy. Others have something they don't and they resent it. Of course propaganda plays a role. So does simple ignorance. I don't think any *justified* reason can be found with limousine liberals like Jon Stewart and other celebs.

      "When trying to educate people you need to see them as reasonable, intelligent, human beings. You need to give them the benefit of the doubt you want from them. "

      You're right. Except that as some point you simply cannot evade the fact any longer: they're terminally stupid and they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. A guy like Jon Stewart MUST have his day filled with information and news, and for years and years. Yet this has not flipped the light switch of his brain. We have people to see, places to go. Some people are a waste of time and it saves frustration if you know when to realize it.

      Delete
    4. "In all my attempts at employing cold hard logic and facts, not once have i seen a dent in an opponents dogmatic beliefs in the state. I myself was a "dipshit" until i simply decided to read some material and open my mind to it. No debate converted me. No opponent reached me. I simply rationalized everything no matter how wrong i was. My interest was in winning debates, not in seeing the truth. Only my own search broke me out."

      This should be highlighted in bold and underlined.

      Notice what he said here:

      "I myself was a "dipshit" until i simply decided to read some material and open my mind to it."

      It proves a point I keep pounding on. You can debate until you're black in the face but it won't do any good. They want to be RIGHT. This type of ego trip is pointless to argue with. People must be willing to simply click their mouse buttons and open their pea-sized brains. Once they do their brain can begin to expand and THINKING finally enters the picture.

      I've never seen anyone converted while debating which is why I stopped doing it completely. Now just call them on their laziness and dishonesty while mocking them. That's all they deserve until they put their petty little egos aside and begin THINKING and stop being lazy or always wanting to be right.

      Delete
  6. Nursing homes have a bad popularity of having employees who are cool and uncaring to their residents but this is usually not the case. Those that do have these issues usually take care of these issues after the control and employees get breeze of them. Many of the control and employees are usually very honest with their connections and treatment of the residents.

    ReplyDelete