Why America needs Jon Stewart

This one cracked me up when I saw it..

Playing devil's advocate here, just a bit.... So why should employees be able to sue a company when other employees commit crimes against them? I mean, if they cover it up or ignore it... sure, but this instance seems that it should have been a cut and dry criminal matter, not a corporate one. Admittedly, I don't know much about the story beyond what they said on TDS... and it's horrendous... and I hate most of what Halliburton/KBR do in pursuit of profits... but I REALLY don't understand. Press charges, sue the perpetrators in civil court, and if there was a cover-up by all means prosecute the company... but arbitrarily allowing victims to sue the company just because of something another employee did to them? Don't get it. ACORN was another matter.. that was systemic and clearly sanctioned on some levels. I REALLY hate Halliburton, but I'm not to the point of saying they sanction rape.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when Jon Stewart seems to provide the most legitimate of any of the newscasters...

I agree, FIB. Unfortunately, it's been that way for awhile. Even Jon Stewart laments that so many people feel they can trust him more than the "real" journalists. I do.

I'm scared to comment...the timestamp will give my trolling way. So I'm "cutting edge" when you agree with me, and a "contrary caricature" when you don't. I can live with that. And I love Gran Torino. Sometimes it takes the crazy old codger to get things done. Bottom line...you made the claim that American needed Jon Stewart because he covers what the conservative media refuses to. Stewart's link is titled "Rape-nuts" and makes the insinuation that Republicans are pro rape. You can deny it, but that was the message you posted. I disagreed because I don't like bullshit "feel good" laws and TV performances by congressmen who claim to be doing something when they are only driving a larger wedge between the two parties supporters. That was actually that voice of reason that you seem to desire, but you apparently cannot her it because it is buried in criticism of something you have embraced. Along with an anti-Glenn Beck jab and a favorable reference to Obama's potential for uniting the country. I really don't know what else you want from me, comrade. Oh, and I don't wear panties. Boxer briefs. Quite comfortable and they don't ride up.

I couldn't agree more that it should have been covered by Fox, and I would love to know why it wasn't. That isn't like them, even though they are known to lean to the right, it is by far the most balanced of all of the major news networks. However, Fox not covering this story does not equate to the literally dozens of stories of corruption on the beltway that CNN ignores every single day. Or the witch hunt by the white house against Fox news simply because they wont kiss the president's ass. The likes of which have not been seen since Nixon. Honestly though, Democrat or Republican who gives a rat's ass? Look at what's going on in the white house and to the first amendment. They keep playing the people against each other while your liberties are stealthily being widdled away. How about the big vote on net neutrality on Thursday that could allow government to control the entire internet. Yeah, don't see that on CNN ethier.....gotta save room for stories about "Babies feelin' Beyonce's groove" and the Gosslin divorce.

@chilligan if the company could be shown to be negligent in background checks on employees or dismissive of complaints, then denying the right to prosecute the company is wrong. though i didn't think you could waive your rights, even by signing a contract saying you wouldn't sue. though maybe it's just for determining civil responsibility. given how lawsuit happy you guys are, it's almost reasonable. @azure government controlled or private corporation controlled. take your pick. as long as the government's control extends only to saying that others shouldn't control it either, than that's ok. unless there's something else in there that i haven't read about up here in the great white north

Net Neutrality for the Obama administration has taken on a whole new meaning and in it's most base form is an attempt to "Make sure that every state,city and municipality is providing free broadband internet to everyone". Sounds good eh? Until you think about how much something like this will cost the tax payers, as well as the repercussions on the stability and accessibility of the net as a whole. Not to mention that whole pesky free market thing, you know where a company is allowed to rise or fall upon it's merits and abilities? Or the fact that if the net is government controlled, then it is much more likely to be heavily censored. And of course run into the ground like every other government controlled service *cough* post office, medicare, medicaid , social security *cough* . http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/277425-Obama_Committed_to_Netwo... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10187067-38.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlLehrvpf44

i know our countries both get crappy ratings for high speed / broadband penetration, but it makes sense when you consider the vast size of our geographies. i'm all for government regulation of industries. i'm against control and censorship. I hate unions with a passion though, and I firmly believe that statute law should cover the responsibilities companies have to even conduct business in the first place. Fuck un-regulated free market bullshit; it allows greed to prosper. And while the companies do eventually go under (unless saved by bailouts *cough*), they create too much of a burden on society and the people who's greed was responsible aren't adequately held to account. Censorship bad, regulation good. Lastly, because my org behaviour course recently covered communication and barriers to communication, I'd like to clarify that I agree with you and appreciate your added comments on the net neutrality bit. Much thanks for the discourse.

No, but you can call me a wiener.

I have to admit, I would have voted against it too. first, any $2 lawyer could beat that fine print and net a multi-million dollar pay out. Second, this looks like a gateway bill to me....if they cay decide this, then its only a few jumps away from the government deciding how much money a contractor can get paid, what kind of health care they must take, or any stipulations on who qualifies for a contract. and yeah, I'm a contract accountant/negotiator/enforcer and I see contractors try to pull this crap every day.

@Plato I said that I could see litigation against the company being justified if it was something they had ignored or tried to cover up. Background checks though? C'mon. Whose to say the rapists in this case had a record? Does that mean the company isn't liable or that they can't hire felons to do jobs overseas in warzones? Which is worse? If no one hires felons, then recidivism goes through the roof. But that's a completely different topic. @azure Uhm... states, cities and municipalities providing internet... Been to a library lately? It's already done. That's not the same as the government controlling the internet. It's funny that after an 8 year span of the last administration systematically tearing down civil liberties with things like the Patriot Act, now Republicans are up in arms about government over-regulation. @Automan What's wrong with the government deciding stipulations on who qualifies for a government contract?? Considering that's what we're talking about here: Halliburton/KBR

@Chilligan You really need to follow the links and read the information. Public libraries providing computers is not what they are talking about. Honestly read the links because at present you're very ill informed and speaking from a position of ignorance.

Might be a bit late, but I think we DO need Jon Stewart... Guess what? We need CNN, FOX, MSNBC, liberal radio, conservative radio, Rush, Beck, Coulter, and whoever else you want to fill in the blank here.... Know why? Because sadly, many people need to sincerely expose themselves. I have been a staunch Republican since I could vote...always voted party line. This election was the first time I changed that. I did not do it because I necessarily believe much of the democratic platform, but because I had hope. I listened to him talk and my head told me it was impossible for him to do the things he said he would do, but a small part of me asked "what if?". (plus I could not in any right frame of mind elect Sarah Palin as a VP). A large part of me was then (and is now) scared to death that he will change our country in ways that cannot be unchanged down the road. I was scared during the campaign, and I am more scared today. All that said, I think it is important to follow all viewpoints. Watching only CNN or watching only FOX is not the move of a conscientious American. If anything, you should be paying the most attention to the viewpoint you disagree with most and challenge your own thinking. This is what debate used to be about. I choose to watch them all because I don't need affirmation from a party source. I don't want to be saying "right on!!" like a sheep after a viewpoint has been made. I want to say..."hmm...I hadn't thought of it like that".

We don't need Beck. Please. I beg you. It's just demagoguery. Yes, you are right, people need to understand it for what it is and learn to ignore people like him. I would add reading. Watching is too limited. Too selective.

I thought any contractual obligation that was in direct contradiction to established law was void anyway.

So why the claim that only Stewart covered this? It was on CBS and a lot of other sites. I have not checked FOX but I'm pretty sure the case has been discussed there too if not Frankin's play. The statement in the Stewart report "...agree not to sue if they are raped by co-workers" is interesting. But I want to see the text of the agreement. I've been googling and all I can find is a lot of histrionics and that KBR required employees to sign an agreement that any claims against them are to go to arbitration. Does the agreement specify "rape" as these idiots are implying? All I can find it that it doesn't require secrecy, it doesn't prevent criminal prosecution of the rapists, and it doesn't prevent her from filing civil claims against the rapists. This is a case of corporate rape? Rape is such a great word. It evokes such emotion. "Forced arbitration clause buried in her employment agreement". OMG...the government must protect me from signing agreements that I don't bother to read. Sounds a lot like the arbitration clause in your credit card agreement. Did your ass hurt after reading it? What happened to her was horrific. But it was not a right-wing-conspiracy like the blogosphere is trying to make it (RepublicansForRape.org), and it was not ignored by the media. And I'm not defending KBR...it sounds like they fucked up big and if I was on the arbitration panel I would likely hold them responsible (based on the information I have read). But to claim that the Republicans who voted against this amendment are "pro-Rape" is asinine. Stewart is an entertainer not a news source.

Oh, and Amercia "needs" Jon Stewart as much as they need another entertainer...Rush Limbaugh

"AmerCIA" had to be Freudian.

You stated that the Daily show was the only news source to cover this. It is on CBS and others. So you are wrong. Steward deliberately misstates the issue for comedic (or perhaps sarcastic) effect. This is not news, it is entertainment. And republicansforrape? Lets just start democrateatbabies for gods sake. This is somehow the acts or reasonable people? You accuse FOX of distorting the news. Yet you distort and advocate an entertainer as a news source. And I'm the caricature? Whatever. I'm short, fat, ugly and I have a small dick. Feel better? Cuz I could really give a fuck if you can't handle a contrary opinion.

Contrarian views are not allowed with this administration. If you disagree, you are "Un-Patriotic" or "Racist" or both. Hmmmm... wonder where I heard those phrases before (with the exception of the racism)... oh yeah... from the loonies on the Right when Bush was in office. Amazing at the role reversal and how the exact same phrases are used for the exact same reason. Don't disagree with the Democrats. Just do what they say, not what they do.

Kwazy, I don't believe in big government and have no faith in congress to fix anything given 40 years of warnings and having had both parties in control at some point. We suffer from "other-peoples-money" disease combined with a massive "get re-elected at any cost" motive. There is no plan, no foundation; everything is for short term personal gain and history and human nature be damned. Add to that the Rush Limbaugh's and Jon Stewart's (and god...Glenn Beck...makes me retch) and there is no dialog, no intelligence, no thinking in the process anymore. Some republicans voted against a feel good bill offered up by an ex-comedian. The response is to claim they are pro-rape rather than note that they believe (right or wrong) that the existing laws and procurement regulations are sufficient and we don't need to pass a law every time a tragedy occurs. That is not being a blind sheep. So give me something to get behind. We roll over to Russia hoping they will help keep nukes out of Iran and Russia thumbs their nose because they want turmoil in the middle east because it gives them more hard currency for their oil. We piss off Pakistan and reinforce their belief that the US cannot be counted on in a pinch. We back a closet dictator in Honduras who illegally tried to change the country's constitution and was rigging the vote with help from Chavez, we allow China to dictate our foreign policy because they now own us...what the hell am I supposed to be happy about? I don't want Bush back, but Obama is unbelievably inexperienced and governing by popularity polls. We need leadership, and we have a man with the oratory skills to pull the country together if he just had a plan, but he's like watching a ping-pong ball bounce from position to position. The president is "taking on" FOX news? Is that really what a president should do? The President claims to be bi-partisan but then ignores at least 3 republican proposals to fix healthcare while falsely claiming the republicans have offered nothing? Congress is trying to move Medicare doctor reimbursement increases "off the books" so that Obamacare looks cheaper, something that would get a CEO put in prison. But it's just another day for congress...keep the people stupid and pissed off and we can do whatever we want. Do you even know about these things? Do you understand how damaging and polarizing knee-jerk legislation is? Can you look at the multiple performances of Al Franken and not see that they are just that...typical C-Span posturing? He knows he isn't doing anything useful. You want me to stop being contrary, give me something to be positive about.

So it is OK for you to voice your opinion of those congressional pro-rape republican bastards but when I voice my opinion and try and bring about what I perceive to be positive changes by informing ignorant people who get their news from Jon Stewart of what else is going on in our government, I should just quite because it is hard and frustrating? Interesting concept. But I'm a stubborn bastard and I'll keep trying to get the word out about stupid laws, stealth taxes, and oh so creative accounting methods the bastards use. But why do you care? It's my frustration, my effort. If you want me off you blog, fine. Just say so and you can have your opinion free Kool-aid zone. But what I do on my blog is my business. I'm you are reading enough to accuse me of mother-henning it, you must troll it a lot.