Start at around 7 minutes in (although of course the rest is funny too).
Obviously this could be on Cafe Society, so what’s the debate?
Well, two things:
(1) Anyone disagree with Jon and Charlton’s point?
(2) Why is it that the most meaningful and moving and honest discussion of so many issues today comes from a comedian?
What does Heston say? Can’t watch at work.
Brief synopsis for those of us who can’t watch vids at work, please.
After last seeing Charlton in Michael Moore’s crockumentary, I’m pleasantly surprised to learn he’s still lucid enough to make public appearances, especially those with with wits required on one like Jon’s show. Constrained at work, I too await a synopsis.
Can’t be viewed outside the States.
Heston’s been dead for years, dude.
The video is a standard Daily Show piece. It talks about the conservative stupidity they’ve tried to ride this week with the mosque near ground zero and uses Heston’s speech after Columbine to drive the point home. For those who can’t recall it was an NRA meeting in Denver, and some liberal groups wanted them to move the meet because of the proximity.
Heston made the point that you can’t judge all gun owners by the actions of a few miscreants. Steward agreed and said he himself was wrong on the issue at the time.
It’s a very good clip, make an effort to see it when you can. Also, *crockumentary *is an extremely lame dig.
Summary: Several minutes of mocking of Fox and Friends for trying to link the Cordoba Initiative to terrorists via vague assertions written on an index card. Stewart then inverts that by linking Fox News to terrorism through Alwaleed bin Talal’s investment in NewsCorp. After that, Stewart compares the “ground zero mosque” controversy to the furor that surrounded the NRA’s national convention in 2002, which was held in Denver shortly after the Columbine shootings. He says they’re similar in that in both cases a group was being blamed for the actions of a few individuals and asked to move away, and he says that’s wrong. (He includes a few excerpts of Heston eloquently saying the same thing.) So Stewart says he might’ve been one of the people who criticized the NRA for having its rally in Denver, and he was wrong to do that because the NRA is not responsible for what happened at Columbine.
Heston makes the point that the NRA was not associated with the psychos who shot up Columbine, and didn’t have to move a subsequent meeting out of nearby Denver CO. At the time Stewart had taken the tactic of an emotional appeal to those who made the phony connection.
“Steward agreed and said he himself was wrong on the issue at the time.”
So convenient, isn’t it? My point still stands. If Pastor Hagee decided to build a cathedral in the middle of Baghdad where a lot of Muslims died in the war, people will say that Pastor Hagee is an insensitive arrogant prick. So are the Muslims who insist on building that mosque.
That’s not a point. That’s a desperately grabbed straw.
There are already Christian churches in Baghdad. Now, if Mr. Hagee decides to build a cathedral in the middle of Baghdad to honor the victory of Christian soldiers, that might be considered just a tad insensitive.
Why is it the lowest denominator that gets to decide? Those other countries where everyone now wants to build temples and churches are not the US. They are less free than this country.
Maybe the mosque builders are being arrogant.
I say - lets fight this with the free market: put up a barbeque joint and a strip club right next door.
PS: I believe there is already a strip club and a betting joint right next to the ground zero site - how are those better?
“America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction…”
Going by the summaries, I actually think that’s a very good comparison. The NRA had nothing to do with Columbine and people that asked them not to hold that rally were reacting emotionally and blaming gun owners in general for a senseless act by a small group. It’s not much different than blaming the entirety of Islam and trying to stop them from building a mosque near ground zero, is precisely the sort of emotional over-reaction, just from the opposite side of the political spectrum.
I’m glad to see that Stewart changed his mind on how the NRA behaved at the time and hopefully more people will follow suit in seeing that a large group shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of a small number, particularly when those groups actively denounce the actions taken by those people.
Now, if only I could use this logic to convince some of the people I know that the mosque is, if anything, a spit in the face of the Islamic extremists, not something to be hated and fought against.
ETA:
I’ve read that there’s already another mosque that is roughly the same distance from ground zero, but I don’t have a source for that right now.
I can’t watch the video either right now, but from what people are saying, Stewart is acknowledging that when people get emotional about a subject they tend to turn their brains off, and that this is true for the left as well as the right…is that a fair synopsis? So, in hindsight, those folks (well…some of them at least) who wanted the NRA to move off were wrong, and these folks who don’t want the mosque on ground zero are wrong, and will realize that down the road in hindsight as well…correct?
If so, I agree completely. The folks who are protesting against the mosque on ground-zero are letting their emotions rule them on this issue, and are doing something that runs counter to American ideals. Whether they realize that down the road I can’t predict, but hope springs eternal…
-XT
Snipped
Are you saying that because there is already one there, that there shouldn’t be a second. Or are you saying that there is already one and thus shut up and quit arguing?
I with you if its the second one.
I’m not convinced it’s a fair comparison. The NRA, as an organization which agitates for the unrestricted ownership of firearms, is in some small part indirectly responsible for the Columbine shootings. The Cordoba Initiative does not appear to be in any way responsible for 9/11.
Basically, yes.
On a personal note: I’m amazed at all this rhetoric and insinuation suddenly sprouting wrt this Muslim center. Some of the stuff is so over the top that if true (which as far as I’m aware, it’s obviously not; that is; it’s mostly just utter lies made up just to drive people crazy), not only shouldn’t the center not be built there, it shouldn’t be built anywhere in the US and the people responsible should already be in jail or deported. It’s gone so far beyond “it’s disrespectful”* it’s completely ridiculous.
I’m not sure it is. I very much respect his broader point about not holding large and diverse groups responsible for the actions of lunatics, but in the particulars there are some important differences: the NRA meeting was 10 days after Columbine, and the September 11 attacks were 9 years ago. By the time 51Park is built it’ll be more like 13 years. The NRA wasn’t asked to get out of the neighborhood forever, they were asked not to hold a temporary gathering so soon after the shootings. And it’s actually relevant to the Cordoba Initiative’s mission to be close to the WTC site. The NRA didn’t chose Denver to make a point; they selected it for whatever factors that normally go into choosing a national meeting place. I admit moving a natinoal meeting that had been planned for years with that short notice would have been difficult, so I’m not trying to reproach the NRA - but I’m not sure it’s exactly the same thing.
Not really. The NRA is also heavily involved in gun safety education and keeping them out of the hands of minors, responsible ownership, and other such things. You can be critical of them in that they are against gun control in the form of less restricted gun ownership for American Citizens, but to imply that they are reckless about their beliefs is a bit overboard.
And in that incident in question, I don’t have a cite handy but if my memory is correct, that particular NRA event was pretty somber thanks to the recent shooting.
(I am not a member of the NRA, but I am from an area with high gun ownership rates)