The Unnecessary Anti-American Comedy of John Hodgman
Comedy, like a newborn infant, can capture our love by being adorable and wondrous. At other times, tantrums and a biting nature can signal a troubled future to come. For “funnyman” John Hodgman, something similar happens. His cherubic face and mundane disposition draw us closer. Yet once there, his angry wit is surprisingly unsettling. He confuses us by being nonspecific. And then he outrages us by never quite being honest. After prolonged exposure, we should be questioning his ultimate agenda on the national scene. Why is he here? What is it that he’s pushing? Sadly, for many young people today, the right moment to ask these questions has come and gone.
America has gorged itself on the meal that is John Hodgman without truly understanding the subversive, anti-America foodstuff that has been crammed down our gullets. He is an unhappy man. He is a voracious man. He is the type of comedy star whose insatiable appetite has pushed him to cross far too many media platforms. Yet everywhere his message is the same. He seeks to radicalize the geek, to turn nerds into social engineers who agitate for liberal redefinitions of traditional institutions. The precarious state of the U.S. economy is a consistent target of his disdain. He mocks America and its religion while offering no constructive alternatives. He is a man without faith whose atheistic, technophilic worldview provides a saggy and somewhat grotesque comfort to the young, lost and lonely. In essence, he is the lame duck hero of our future’s laziest, self-hating anti-heroes.
Mr. Hodgman first crept up on the national consciousness by representing the typical PC user in tv spots made by Apple, Inc. The ads ran for years, through many different iterations and were highly successful. Each advertisement was crafted to make PCs (and thereby their fans) look antiquated and weak. Hodgman played the role to a T. With bland clothes and a cloying voice, he turned many away from products manufactured by traditional American companies such as Compaq, IBM, Dell and Microsoft. In the process, he mocked the straightforwardness of Fortune 500 corporate style– the yeoman-like glory of consistency and reliability as personified by the gray-colored computers that powered America through the worst moments of the Cold War, 9/11 and beyond. In their stead, Hodgman and his comrades in this underground “fanboy” movement proposed the far less reputable flashy toys by Macintosh (whose parent company, Apple Inc. is an avowed supporter of liberal causes, including “homosexual” rights).
By playing such a role, and playing it for millions of dollars over many years, Hodgman seemed to hypothesize that hardworking, traditional Americans who aspire to the Puritan ethic of sobriety and loyalty were less admirable than the creative, shaggy-haired obsessives who inhabit the underside of our culture. At the zenith of Apple’s television campaign, Hodgman was this country’s top pitchman for the idea that geek culture can be redeeming and fulfilling. He posited that computer-based neurological indulgence will mean more for America’s future than the muscle-building hard work that has historically made this nation so great.
High on this first addictive taste of fame, John Hodgman next moved to cable tv to expand upon his message. He joined the cast of comedian Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and quickly became a regular on the liberal news program. Away from expert makeup artists and the possibility of endless reshoots, Hodgman looked nervous and awkward on live television. You imagined him sweating profusely under those cheap suits as he stumbled through arcane interpretations of outdated economic theory. His bitter, confused silences drove audiences to pity him. Crushed by their disinterest, he sought refuge in big words and complex monologues in an effort to appear intellectual. But the sad reality of watching this pudgy man squint and rotate his head back and forth as he followed complicated words on a teleprompter only made the entire scene far more pathetic. One has to wonder if Jon Stewart kept him on “The Daily Show” as a foil to his own hyperventilating Jewish histrionics.
From the beginning, it was a haphazard dance between Hodgman and Stewart. The intellects of these two men never quite matched. Stewart is far more of a comedic “ham,” a scene-stealer who knows a goofy face can win over an audience. Hodgman is patient and persistent, trying to garner attention through an assault rifle attack of leftist factoids, shot to the brain instead of the heart. He drones on at times and appears so bland that many cannot bear the sight of him. For others, however, they find his countenance unassuming. They fail to see the incredible self-satisfaction and egomania of this media mini-phenomenon. He does not wear his big-brain ideas like the feathers of a peacock, but with that smirk you can tell he believes he is the smartest man in the room.
Behind the scenes, Hodgman chafed and seethed under Stewart’s mercurial management style. This competitiveness often boiled over to on-air segments, where he seemed to prop up the aging icon Stewart while secretly undermining and discrediting him at every turn. Towards the end of their relationship, Hodgman openly sneered at Stewart’s amateurish grasp of issues and rewatching their exchanges today, on topics ranging from art authentication to economics, can still make you cringe.
Desperate to expand his bona fides beyond Stewart’s schmaltzy liberalism, Hodgman then turned to two grand dames of the underground geek “culture” movement: folk musicians Jonathan Coulton and John Roderick. Both men, despite being openly lascivious and unkempt, served as mentors to the uptight Hodgman. They taught him the power of endless internet promotion no matter how pointless or frustrating. With their assistance, he published two books (“The Areas of My Expertise” and “More Information Than You Require”) to give himself a grander title beyond, “former Daily Show correspondent.” Along the way, Mr. Hodgman refined his routine. He mimicked the style of a “wonk,” becoming an obsessive’s obsessive, so obsessed with being obsessed that reason and facts flew out the window. He simply wrote to write, spoke to speak. There was no content to his words. They were there to fill up space and promote the man that John Hodgman had become. And the man he is still becoming today.
This leads us full circle to the question: Why is John Hodgman here? Is his comedy even necessary or relevant? As we struggle through one of the greatest economic crises in years, as our country faces some of the most dire moral issues ever faced by any society, as global terror threatens to wipe any semblance of Christianity clean off this earth, should we really give a man like John Hodgman a moment on the national stage? He does not present anything positive or helpful to America. He does not contribute to our understanding of ourselves, nor does he promote the ethical wisdom so necessary to guide us in these perilous times. He is ultimately an antithesis to the various theses of American primacy. He is a void, nihilism boiled down to one-liners and monotone haughtiness. He is like an eddy off the main stream of America. If it we not for the fact that our children could get caught up in his circular, self-absorbed logic, we would completely ignore him. But the danger is there. Floating off course from a normal life, a child could so easily get spun around by Hodgman’s ever-spiraling delusion, forced to gulp down big mouthfuls of his fraudulent intellectual satire, weighed down by his fleshy smiles… And once you’re that deep, what is left? You raise a pale arm to the sky, frantically waving for attention. But who is there? Who will notice a lost soul so far off the main stream? Sadly, the nihilism of John Hodgman has grown just so great that he would not even lift a finger to save that drowning child.
http://www.areasofmyexpertise.com/
- Sinful
- Suspicious
- Scared
- Sad
- Amused
- Laughing Out Loud
Author: Stephenson Billings
Stephenson Billings is an Investigative Journalist, Motivational Children's Party Entertainer and Antique Soda Bottle Collector all in one special, blessed package! Facebook me here or Fanmail me: StephensonBillings@yahoo.com !
6:58 pm
What are you bitching about now Stevie? That some dude from a commercial is more popular than you? That the commercial is really about tech preferences and people who are more laid back might like Apple’s products more? That he’s on a show that you don’t like?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
6
4:20 pm
I have no interest in popularity and this is not a contest. I am merely sharing my faith and pointing out an issue that I think it vitally important for parents today.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
54
1:43 am
No, you’re doing more than simply ‘sharing your faith’. You are showing yourself to be one of the more credulous people to ever grace the internet. The John Hodgeman you are railing against is a Character – you know, as in not real. The Character ‘John Hodgeman’ thinks he is smarter than everyone, the Character ‘John Hodgeman’ is prissy, awkward and snide. It is amusing to me that you seek to tear him apart without realizing that you might as well be tearing apart a court jester for being too goofy. Do you also think that Stephen Colbert is actually a conservative? He isn’t you know, shocking I’m sure.
I notice that you tell your readers about some kind of ‘behind the stage’ tension on the set of the Daily Show – a tension between Stewart and Hodgeman. How did you come by this information? How is it that you seem to be the only one who knows? Could it be that you are perhaps making anwarranted assumptions based upon your own dislike of Hodgeman? Wouldn’t that make you a liar – you fabricate a story which serves your interests but fails to reflect anything that actually happened? Isn’t there some kind of law or scripture forbidding a person from Bearing False Witness? Maybe you should pray on that.
Stewart’s ‘Jewish Histrionics’? Interesting target for criticism. Tell me, will you also chastise Wyatt Synac of the Daily Show for being too Uppity? Maybe criticize Samantha Bee for working outside the home?
Instead of spending all your time casting stones at other people, maybe you should be reflecting on whether you are without sin first? Or is that just another part of the Bible you claim to adhere to but ignore when it’s inconvenient – like the Slavery, genocide, or inscest?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
3
9:45 am
Edwin, I would challenge you to understand when a character represents some deep-seeded truths about a person and it’s painfully obvious to me that Hodgman plays a character on TV. If you had bothered to read my article, you would realize this is beside the point. The relevant issue I am addressing here is that Hodgman represents something much larger than the poor man’s comedian he plays on Jon Stewart’s show. It goes far beyond that, and ultimately the man is empty. He represents a deep chasm of emptiness and that troubles me. The “character” issue is so insipid, I am surprised you devoted so much time to it. Hodgman has many other works– movie roles, books, etc. that are not connected to his Daily Show persona.
As for the confidential sources of my information, I am sorry but as a professional journalist you are way out of bounds to question me in this way. You have no conception how the media works, clearly. Why don’t you go back to your shallow worship of Colbert et al, and leave the larger cultural issues to those of faith and insight.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
42
9:50 am
“As for the confidential sources of my information, I am sorry but as a professional journalist you are way out of bounds to question me in this way.”
Actually he’s well within his rights, just like I’m well within my rights to see proof that you’re a “journalist”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
2
2:13 pm
“As for the confidential sources of my information, I am sorry but as a professional journalist you are way out of bounds to question me in this way. You have no conception how the media works, clearly. Why don’t you go back to your shallow worship of Colbert et al, and leave the larger cultural issues to those of faith and insight.”
Nope, sorry. I am in no way ‘out of bounds’ asking you this question. In fact, since you are making fairly contentious claims about this person, I am almost obligated to ask you how you came by that information.
“My Shallow Worship of Colbert”: I love when supposedly devout Christians prefer to utilize ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of a critique. But hey, I guess actually addressing why it is that you feel you are justified in judging others is outside your purview.
You condemn homosexuals, you mock Stewart’s ‘Jewishness’, and you attack a person who you don’t actually seem to know. I thought that Christ told his followers to ‘love thy neighbour’, and to ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you’? So I guess that you love your neighbours only if they’re Christian, and I can only conclude that doing unto others in your case indicates that you would like people to unfairly judge and condemn you for living a life they feel is wrong.
Praise or Condemn:
24 
4
1:28 pm
Edwin, I am not going to lower myself to your level. Sorry.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
25
7:22 pm
“Comedy, like a newborn infant, can capture our love by being adorable and wondrous.”
Um…newborn infants are ugly as shit. Seriously, we have home video of me when I was a few days old, and I was butt ugly. I looked like a miniature sumo wrestler. My parents thought I looked like Buddy Hackett and that when I cried I looked like a “foam pumpkin”. I’ve never seen a newborn human that didn’t make me wince from its sheer ugliness.
“He confuses us by being nonspecific. And then he outrages us by never quite being honest.”
That should not be two sentences, it should be one sentence with a comma in place of the period in the middle. It sounds awkward as two sentences, particularly because the second sentence begins with an “and”.
“Why is he here? What is it that he’s pushing?”
Hodgman’s role on the Daily Show is obvious. The real question is why are YOU here?
“Sadly, for many young people today, the right moment to ask these questions has come and gone.”
Have you ever heard the expression “Making a mountain out of a molehill”? That’s EXACTLY what every single one of your “articles” is doing.
“He is an unhappy man.”
And what makes you think that? Last time I checked, Hodgman was in the comedy business. You, on the other hand, devote your life to hating on people. It’s YOU who is unhappy.
“He is a man without faith”
And that’s a problem because…?
“he turned many away from products manufactured by traditional American companies such as Compaq, IBM, Dell and Microsoft.”
Yes, because Steve Jobs is just soooooo Japanese…
“whose parent company, Apple Inc. is an avowed supporter of liberal causes, including “homosexual” rights”
Homosexual is a very real and accepted word, thus no need for quotation marks. Okay, “Stephenson”?
“He posited that computer-based neurological indulgence will mean more for America’s future than the muscle-building hard work that has historically made this nation so great.”
You seem obsessed with “muscle-building” hard work. Exactly what sorts of “muscle-building” jobs have you held over the years, Billings?
“You imagined him sweating profusely under those cheap suits”
Um, no. Just because YOU were fantasizing about his pores doesn’t mean that the rest of the world was.
“His bitter, confused silences drove audiences to pity him.”
Once again, no. That was simply part of his act.
“Crushed by their disinterest, he sought refuge in big words and complex monologues in an effort to appear intellectual.”
Once again, NO. Are you a psychologist? No? Then stop pretending that you know what goes on in this man’s head.
“But the sad reality of watching this pudgy man”
Since you apparently know so much about this man, you should also know that he’s not as fat as you are. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Pudgy.
“They fail to see the incredible self-satisfaction and egomania of this media mini-phenomenon. He does not wear his big-brain ideas like the feathers of a peacock, but with that smirk you can tell he believes he is the smartest man in the room.”
Didn’t Elizabeth Lovett already give you a link explaining the saying “pot calling the kettle black”? Perhaps you should review it.
“Behind the scenes, Hodgman chafed and seethed under Stewart’s mercurial management style.”
Either provide a link with proof of that or show us your license from the American Psychiatric Association. Or just shut the hell up and stop making unfounded assumptions into the psyches of people you don’t know.
“while secretly undermining and discrediting him at every turn. Towards the end of their relationship, Hodgman openly sneered at Stewart’s amateurish grasp of issues and rewatching their exchanges today, on topics ranging from art authentication to economics, can still make you cringe.”
That was THE ACT. Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
“He simply wrote to write, spoke to speak. There was no content to his words.”
Sounds like you two would get along great, then.
“He does not present anything positive or helpful to America. He does not contribute to our understanding of ourselves, nor does he promote the ethical wisdom so necessary to guide us in these perilous times.”
Neither do you. All you do is complain, complain, complain. Show me ONE positive “article” of yours.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
5
12:28 pm
Speaking of making molehills into mountains…
Praise or Condemn:
4 
9
4:29 pm
Claire, please try to avoid the profanity if you want anyone here to take you seriously. It undermines the value of your argument, though I do appreciate the moments of your childhood you shared with us. It is always fun to look back on the crazy creatures we were as infants!
- Your grammatical notes are incorrect. You can start a sentence with “And”. It is done for dramatic effect.
- You state Hodgman’s role on the Daily Show is obvious– what is it then? And didn’t he quit?
- You other notes seem to be focused on my prose style and not anything specifically spiritual or political. I do not know how to answer them without simply repeating myself. I write with a certain type of journalistic flair, meant to evoke imagery of the things I am talking about. You may resent that, but it does keep you reading my work and returning again and again.
- Positive articles: there are many! Stephen Balwdin and Jonathan Saffron Foer profiles, the ministry of James Hartline, JONAH, etc. etc.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
45
6:44 pm
“though I do appreciate the moments of your childhood you shared with us.”
I should have figured you’d use the description of me as a newborn as jacking material. Freak.
“- Positive articles: there are many! Stephen Balwdin and Jonathan Saffron Foer profiles, the ministry of James Hartline, JONAH, etc. etc.”
The vast majority of your “articles” are negative rants about one aspect of society or another.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
4
8:35 pm
//- Your grammatical notes are incorrect. You can start a sentence with “And”. It is done for dramatic effect.//
Someone failed English 101.
//I write with a certain type of journalistic flair, meant to evoke imagery of the things I am talking about. //
Which includes butchering the English language as well as bringing about your greatest fetishes.
Praise or Condemn:
12 
7
10:05 am
Wikipedia: Yes, you can start a sentence with “And”
Praise or Condemn:
3 
6
10:30 am
THAT’S your source? Some random ass person on wikianswers? Wow…
Praise or Condemn:
8 
2
10:58 am
‘cuz, ya know, a wiki never lies. It’s not like people can put up false information on a whim, right? That’d be just preposterous!
Praise or Condemn:
6 
1
8:38 pm
“He does not present anything positive or helpful to America. He does not contribute to our understanding of ourselves, nor does he promote the ethical wisdom so necessary to guide us in these perilous times.”
I like this little sentence
Billings TELL ME what christian did to HELP humanity ? WITHOUT using the Bible ?
even if he bashed on People Owning a PC ( I feel concerned ) I didnt care since 1 its a comedy and 2 he has the right of Freedom of speech (first ammendment) you should read it sometime )
Praise or Condemn:
17 
5
4:22 pm
You have to understand that the culture war is about far more than a simple comedy routine. it’s about expressing the nature of our souls, our hopes and dreams. When you have a man who influences young people today is such a negative, nihilistic direction, that is a concern for every Christian parent. This issue is about things that seem to fly above your head, my young friend.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
31
10:35 pm
Something stands out to me about Stephenson Billings. He seems somehow different from your other writers. Is he not aware of something that the other writers on your site are aware of? Some divine truth, perhaps?
Praise or Condemn:
6 
4
12:53 am
Yes, Stephenson is a fascinating, stimulating,and endearing individual. For a generation that doesn’t know whether they are allowed to to agree, disagree or laugh until Jon Stewart makes the appropriate designated stupid-face, Stephenson Billings is the antidote. We will be looking to him for perspective and enlightenment long after Stewart has been reduced to doing his schtick in off-strip Las Vegas lounges and Native-American casinos.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
25
4:22 pm
Thank you for your kind words and continued support my friend.
Praise or Condemn:
5 
23
3:53 am
this post facinates me… mainly because billings is once again back to disagreeing with himself.
you still don’t understand the concept of someone haveing a difrent openion than you have do you? you still don’t grasp the concept of comedy that’s for sure.. comedy is not reailty. and stop projecting your own ideas and ilsusions on us. we didn’t have tyhat expirience that was only you.
“Mr. Hodgman first crept up on the national consciousness by representing the typical PC user in tv spots made by Apple, Inc. The ads ran for years, through many different iterations and were highly successful. Each advertisement was crafted to make PCs (and thereby their fans) look antiquated and weak. Hodgman played the role to a T. With bland clothes and a cloying voice, he turned many away from products manufactured by traditional American companies such as Compaq, IBM, Dell and Microsoft. In the process, he mocked the straightforwardness of Fortune 500 corporate style– the yeoman-like glory of consistency and reliability as personified by the gray-colored computers that powered America through the worst moments of the Cold War, 9/11 and beyond. In their stead, Hodgman and his comrades in this underground “fanboy” movement proposed the far less reputable flashy toys by Macintosh”
i’m sorry but are you condeming the man for saying his product is better than that of his competition in a cormercial…. what the fuck is the matter with you? you can’t even grasp the concept of a cormercial?
“Is his comedy even necessary or relevant?”
i don ‘t know. is your bloging even necessary or relevant?
” should we really give a man like John Hodgman a moment on the national stage?”
yeah like allways fuckl free speech right? it’s only for the people who think the same as you. god damn freaks thinking free speech covers things you don’t say it covers right?
well once again we know you are against free speech thanks for once again proveing that.
“He does not present anything positive or helpful to America. He does not contribute to our understanding of ourselves, nor does he promote the ethical wisdom so necessary to guide us in these perilous times”
just because that’s the case for you doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone.
he’s far more productive than you are. come with one argument against him that is neither a baseless asumption or something that can’t be used by us against you.
Praise or Condemn:
8 
2
1:20 pm
okay, “Motivational Children’s Party Entertainer” is really creepy.
Praise or Condemn:
5 
2
4:23 pm
I think I’ll go masturbate.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
2
9:46 am
Adminstrators, is it possible to delete the above comment? It is offensive.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
19
9:52 am
Oh, go blow yourself, Billings.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
2
7:49 pm
Spoiler Alert!! Stephenson Billings IS John Hodgman. Has to be. The last line in the piece is vintage Hodgman: “Sadly, the nihilism of John Hodgman has grown just so great that he would not even lift a finger to save that drowning child.” Nice work, Mr. Hodgman!! Plus, don’t you think the ‘photo’ of Mr. Billings looks suspiciously like Daily Show correspondent John Oliver in a Jon Lovitz hairpiece?
Praise or Condemn:
19 
3
8:14 am
From reading this post, it is clear the author does not get comedy. Much that he describes about Hodgeman is part of his skit. He is–after all–an actor.
And why does this site run ads for Dirty Shirty? Basically you run Hodgeman down for the way he earns a living while you are helping a site whose main business is selling tramp clothes.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Praise or Condemn:
9 
3
11:42 am
Later in Matthew, this passage I find entirely more relevant:
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.”– Matthew 7:15-17.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
6
1:00 am
Aren’t you a little ugly to have opinions on things.
Praise or Condemn:
6 
4
1:56 am
Unnecessary analysis of comedy from someone clinging to irrelevant, false, dogmatic fantasies for comfort; a sky wizard fairy tale believer who doesn’t quite get it blithering about whether satire is a requisite element in a world where the followers of Christ rape children and devote their time to a thinly veiled revelation that they would prefer not to hear from those who don’t praise their phantom, or who might be Jewish.
Those damn atheists and Jews, eh? If only you could find a way to get them to tithe. Keep up the good work. Your shabby con for filthy lucre based on invisible threats and promises, frightening small children, and yammering foolishness to the gullible is apparently not quite fulfilling, and thus your need to attack your intellectual betters.
Praise or Condemn:
11 
2
9:49 am
I am sorry but your reply is neither constructive nor intelligently constructed. A pure example of the shallow worldview and poor education of the liberal elite in this country who approach so much that they do not understand with outright hostility and childishness. If you wish to engage I ask that you do so politely with an acceptance that this is a Christian website for adults and parents dealing with the troubling cultural issues of the day. God bless.
“Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.” –Deuteronomy 31:6.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
9
2:06 am
At no point in you inane rant is there anything even close to an accurate or fair portrayal of Mr. Hodgman and his work. You seem mindlessly obsessed by things that are figments of your imagination. You assert that Mr. Hodgman has some liberal plan in mind with the PC vs. Mac ads but you only show you own crazy man filters. He is an actor, reading lines someone else wrote for him to sell a product. That you are able to turn that into some cryto-liberal plot truly makes me scared for your mental stability.
I could go on and on point-by-point but there is no need to do so. Please print out your article and bring it to any qualified Metal Health professional (Christian or otherwise) and they will know how to help you right away.
Please get help.
Praise or Condemn:
11 
2
9:50 am
Hello, if you feel there are inaccuracies in my reporting, you would be serve us all better if you’d take a little time out of your precious schedule to point them out. Otherwise, ad hominem attacks serve no one’s interest here.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
6
2:23 am
Excellent post!
…I think so, anyway. There’s a law somewhere that says that you can’t tell satirical fundamentalism from the real thing. There’s another law somewhere (OK, this one I made up) that says that this distinction is immaterial anyway. Hilarious read regardless!
Praise or Condemn:
7 
1
9:52 am
Don’t pull that New York Times garbage on us. We’ve been through that looking glass and have come out the other side unscathed.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
9
2:50 am
I can’t tell if you’re really the loon you seem to be, or if you’re an Andy Kaufman-level comedic genius — taking things so far beyond the pale but at such a slow pace that nobody knows how ridiculous you’ll get until it’s too late.
Praise or Condemn:
14 
1
9:54 am
I am a Christian and a believer in the righteousness that God has granted the United States of America. I find it rather unnerving that your types of people will harass someone like me for that. How sad.
“But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear what they fear ; do not be frightened.’ Take Courage.” –1 Peter 3:14.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
7
9:57 am
“I find it rather unnerving that your types of people will harass someone like me for that. How sad.”
I find it rather unnerving that your types of people will harass homosexuals for being who they are. How sad.
Praise or Condemn:
9 
1
5:28 am
Sooooo…what exactly qualifies you as an “investigative journalist”? Your lack of “investigative” skills disqualifies you from the former; your biased opinion disqualifies you from the latter.
Let’s run down some actual facts. (Facts that require no “investigation” beyond a quick visit to Google.):
* Hodgman was previously a book editor and literary agent. He needed no one’s (particularly little-known singers) help to get his book published.
* His first book was published BEFORE the Apple ads.
* His first book was published BEFORE he began regular appearances on the Daily Show. In fact, Hodgman first appeared as a guest on the show promoting “The Areas of My Expertise” at least TWICE before joining the cast of the Daily Show several months later.
* Hodgman has never purported to be an expert on economics, politics or anything else aside from “hobo history”. (To understand that last reference, you’d have to crack one of his books which might actually qualify as “investigation”.) The various titles ascribed to Hodgman on the show (e.g. “Chief White House Fromage Correspondent”) are CLEARLY intended as parody of the various titles given guests on Fox, CNN, et al.
* There is no possibility of “on-air” tension between Stewart and Hodgman as Stewart is Managing Editor of the show and approves all on-air segments, including script approval. If Hodgman did anything to “undermine” or “discredit” Stewart… or even strayed from the script… it’s highly unlikely Hodgman would remain a cast member.
* Hodgman remains a member of the Daily Show staff, appearing on 2 different episodes of the most recent “new” episodes. (The show has been on hiatus for the past week as most of the writers traveled to Los Angeles to accept an Emmy for their work.
* Hodgman himself confirmed his continued employment DURING the aforementioned Emmy telecast when, as the show’s announcer, he referred to Stewart as “my boss”.
Now for the subjective:
* Anyone with even the slightest intelligence can quickly surmise that Hodgman’s “facts” are far from factual. When Hodgman claims “the hobos” assassinated a US President in the 1800′s and replaced him with one of their own, everyone in the audience (aside from a “Motivational Children’s Party Entertainer”) understands that fact and fiction are being jumbled purely for comedic effect.
* The future of this country (and the world) lies not in “traditional” blue-collar America but increasingly in the “fanboy geek” of technology. Societies, economies and governments around the globe have moved far beyond rocks and sticks. In fact, it’s the “traditional” American drive for innovation that has made this country one of the world leaders in technology.
This mocking of technology is particularly hypocritical and laughable coming from a “writer” (and I use the term loosely) on an INTERNET website. (Tell me, did you bang this piece out on a typewriter? No, you composed it on modern technology.)
* In any debate between Microsoft and Apple, there is only one company with the title “far less reputable”: Microsoft. The company’s hardware and software are riddled with security flaws and prone to errors. Microsoft itself admits its’ products are rushed to shelves before testing is complete. (Side note: IBM got out of the PC business long ago. That’s another fact you failed to “investigate”.) Apple’s computers are widely recognized as stable and reliable. That Bill Gates (Microsoft’s founder) stole the idea for Windows from Steven Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Apple’s founders) speaks volumes. (Again, you’d have to do a little “investigation” to uncover this fact. Or, simply watch a TV documentary made 20 years ago.)
You, like most other self-proclaimed “journalists” on the Internet are too lazy, too ignorant and too sloppy to be taken seriously. As another comment wonderfully points out, your commentary is best read as if Hodgman himself wrote it. Even by op-ed standards, it’s horribly written, rife with inaccuracies, falsehoods and outright fabrication.
Imagining it spoken by John Hodgman, it’s mildly funny but still one of his weakest works.
Praise or Condemn:
22 
1
10:01 am
Hi Brad,
Thank you for taking the time to comment and for providing your analysis. I have to heartily disagree with you on several points, that much must be obvious. First of all, I do not need to be subjected to your Liberal litmus test to be qualified as a journalist. My work speaks for itself and you have outed your own bias from the start.
Furthermore, I find your pettiness throughout a bit pedantic. Please try to engage with me on the level I have written this article– the small minor details are no where near as significant as the genuine issue of America’s cultural crisis. Are you not worried for the young people today? For those golden calves they worship so readily? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Do you even know the healing power of His Love?
I will tell you that it is an amazing thing to have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. He died for YOUR sins and mine, for all of our sins and he is there to forgive us, give us eternal redemption. Do not be so afraid that you would throw all that away. It is truly a transcendent and life saving experience. Well, God Bless my friend and I hope some day you are able to open your heart to the love and peace that awaits all of us if we only try.
“Will your courage endure or your hands be strong in the day I deal with you? I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it.” –Ezekiel 22:14.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
13
10:29 am
//First of all, I do not need to be subjected to your Liberal litmus test to be qualified as a journalist.//
So you took your own test which was “spell your name correctly” and passed with flying colors, right?
//My work speaks for itself and you have outed your own bias from the start.//
You’ve outed your bias from the start, how the hell is your information the least bit credible?
//Furthermore, I find your pettiness throughout a bit pedantic. Please try to engage with me on the level I have written this article– the small minor details are no where near as significant as the genuine issue of America’s cultural crisis.//
So you’re running away (again) by saying that there are worse issues out there. You’re an incredibly retarded individual, aren’t you?
//Are you not worried for the young people today? For those golden calves they worship so readily? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Do you even know the healing power of His Love?//
Clearly YOU haven’t, and you don’t so much as ‘worry’ as ‘hate the fact that things aren’t the same as they were 50 years ago’. I bet you seethe with anger when you see a black man and a white man hanging out together in a public place, segregation should be legal again! Douche bag.
//He died for YOUR sins and mine, for all of our sins and he is there to forgive us, give us eternal redemption.//
Funny how you’ve slowly started changing ever since people started calling out your bullshit. Maybe within the next 5 years, we can get you to admit that you’re a fucking lunatic. Even then, you’ll still be contempt at pointing out other people’s flaws before your own.
Praise or Condemn:
8 
3
10:33 am
Oh Christ on a stick, there he goes with his “he died for YOUR sins” shit…
Praise or Condemn:
6 
3
7:41 am
Mr. Billings suffers from an ignorance so profound it has to be actively maintained, but then again there’s a lot of that on this website. Everything that is wrong with religion can be found here in abundance. It’s sickening to a rational person.
Praise or Condemn:
8 
2
9:09 am
“In essence, he is the lame duck hero of our future’s laziest, self-hating anti-heroes.”
Somebody’s proJECTing.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
1
9:40 am
I don’t normally respond to sites like this, but this is TOO FUNNY! You’re trying to do a hit piece on the “I’m a PC” guy? Get a life, loser!
Praise or Condemn:
6 
2
10:06 am
I know a lot of John Hodgman fans are reading this, and it’s surprising to me that they don’t recognize an elaborate piece of satire when they see it. This essay is clearly not meant to be taken seriously. The first clue is that the author has the timeline of Hodgman’s career exactly backwards. The author’s credit at the end should have been what really tipped you off…
Stephenson Billings is an Investigative Journalist, Motivational Children’s Party Entertainer and Antique Soda Bottle Collector all in one special, blessed package!
Not hilarious, but fairly sound satirical structure, sub-Onion.
Praise or Condemn:
5 
3
11:48 am
Dan, I have addressed similar accusations in the past and must again repeat that you are wrong and your comments childish. If you’re not mature enough to realize that there are serious issues facing America today, then I suggest you go elsewhere. And criticizing my writing style with your own insipid and facile response is not only deflection, but failed deflection at that.
God bless.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
5
12:22 pm
How is he wrong? Because you said so? What evidence do you have that proves that you’re right? What non-biased information do you have?
Oh that’s right, you make it all up when it comes to information. If not that, then you go to a sister site that hates things as much as you do and use them as a reference.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
2
10:17 am
Are you kidding me? So wait, you’re saying that because he pushed for apple, he is a radical gay activice? So lets follow that logic further shall we? Well I suppose that we should start with some of the most obvious: You are an american, some americans enjoy haveing gay sex with horses, so you must enjoy gay sex with horses. In the middle ages christians would kill and torment people that are diffrent then them selves to prove a point about how being diffrent was a mark of evil…well looks like you are keeping that vaulted tradition alive and well.
I’m not sure what your masterplan is for your hoped for master race, but I am glad that we do not live in the america you envision. Oh and apple inc. is an american company dipshit.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
1
11:46 am
Leave Mr. Billings alone! He is not misguided or Cruel liek a lot of you Liberals want to say! Stephenson is a smart man, and he has the love of Christ in his heart. So maybe he’s touched children inappropriately, he is still a great writer and a true gentleman! Lets raise a non-alcoholic toast to this Man of Faith!
Praise or Condemn:
6 
6
11:58 am
Thank you for the support!
Praise or Condemn:
3 
6
12:21 pm
Blind man goin’ to Hell.
Praise or Condemn:
6 
3
12:10 pm
This is the best unintentionally funny article I’ve ever read. I’m not so sure yet that John Hodgman didn’t write it himself.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
1
12:15 pm
The author of this article needs to get on some antidepressant meds, STAT.
Praise or Condemn:
4 
1
12:18 pm
“should we really give a man like John Hodgman a moment on the national stage?”
Your story about him seems to indicate that we should.
Praise or Condemn:
5 
1
12:28 pm
I have recently discovered this site thanks to Fark.com, and I have been blessed with my new favorite comedy site.
Where exactly in the Bible does God grant righteousness to the USA? Or is this simply another belief that has to be taken without the support of empirical evidence?
I tend to leave Christians alone because as individuals, I have found many to be caring, thoughtful individuals who don’t focus on trying to convert me. None have tried to kill me in the name of their faith yet, so I have that going for me, which is nice.
I do take umbrage with the notion of faith attempting to bring down or mass-censor ideas contrary to their own in the name of “protecting the family”. If you’re a man and your house is brought down by a television comedian, then clearly you have failed to properly defend your family from the dangers of a worldview contrary to the one you set.
How strong is one’s faith if it is never tested? If you flinch at every rub, how will you be polished? If you as a man challenge your family to face the cultural views contrary to what they’ve grown up with, then maybe they can take the next step of loving their neighbor, as a great character in the Bible commanded.
Praise or Condemn:
7 
1
1:35 pm
Hello Byron,
I think you have failed to comprehend the impetus behind my article: I am warning parents to be more careful about the people they expose their children to. It’s a basic element of good family control. I’m not sure why that unnerves you so deeply, but my argument is quite logically spelled out above so it’s not clear to me how you came to misunderstand it so profoundly. Just please try to read it again and maybe you’ll absorb more of my argument this time.
As for the teachings of our Lord and Savior, there is of course no mention of the United States of the Bible per se, but Biblical teaching does encourage us to live by faith and we will be rewarded in His glory. America has been that shining beacon on the hill for a long time now and by His grace we have been able to spread truth and freedom throughout the world. Some say we have the Divine behind us, others would not go so far, but there is truth that our lands are blessed and are people often wondrous and righteous. I think embracing faith and trying to live the best life you can are noble, beautiful goals. Don’t you?
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
1:49 pm
I find it funny that people are so upset. I mean, this whole place has GOT to be joke because no one with a sound mind can actually believe anything anywhere on this website! I will never convinced that this website is for real. It’s too nutty! Thanks for another silly article to laugh over!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
2:51 pm
“He mocks America and its religion while offering no constructive alternatives.” How DARE you suggest that there is a constructive alternative to religion! Oh… yeah. There is. Doesn’t Hodgy already stand up for atheism? And y’all don’t like it?
Geez, make up your mind.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
2:52 pm
“He mocks America and its religion while offering no constructive alternatives.” How DARE you suggest that there might be a constructive alternative to religion! Oh… yeah. There is. Doesn’t Hodgy already stand up for atheism? And y’all don’t like it?
Geez, make up your mind.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
3:57 pm
This reads like something John Hodgman would write about himself. Very suspicious
Praise or Condemn:
6 
0
9:21 pm
we the people, here in the conservative mecca that is boston, hereby disown john hodgman for his percieved anti-american gayness, his overt liberal nerdness, and his crimes against fashion.
he may be from here, but nothing in the bible says he has a right to “always be from” here.
we are nominating justin long to replace john with the moniker of “local boston boy” because he is cuter.
that will be all.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
0
9:06 pm
“Stephenson Billings” – do you find it more funny or sad that people rant in these responses without thinking there might be a touch of irony in the article. While “your” original story lamenting the very existence of Hodgman didn’t move me one way or another (let’s suppose that Hodgman’s support of Mac products is indeed anti-uhmerican, which seems no less plausible now that apparently supporting the development of a Mosque is anti-uhmericun), but what’s really disturbing is people’s responses to your article. yeesh…
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
1:38 pm
No need to put my name in quotes, Andrew. I do find the engagement with our visitors enthralling and hope that in some measure they see the beauty of Christian living and the moral dangers that we face every day in our society. As I have repeated many time, I am most concerned about parents getting the right information about the perilous times their children face. It’s up to the journalists to inform the public of clear and present dangers and I feel best when I have communicated that worry successfully.
I am sorry that I failed to “move” you, but maybe you’re not the correct target audience for this piece, maybe you’re already too fully wrapped up in a lifestyle that most would object to and you feel some need to spread your hate far and wide…
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
9:15 pm
lolque?!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
9:23 pm
i think you miss the point.
john hodgmen doesnt actually exist. he is a figment of our collective imaginations. he represents everything that we love and hate about ourselves. in that respect, i offer, that john hodgmen is really a doppleganger for humanity.
Praise or Condemn:
4 
0
1:39 pm
John Hodgman doesn’t speak for me, nor does he represent me in any way.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
10:56 pm
Probably the most irrelevant article ever written. I came here from Fark, and could’ve sworn this was an Onion piece until I saw the URL. What’s next, a two thousand word deathmarch of an article about Stephen Colbert’s compassionate conservatism?
Jesus wept, you seriously missed the mark.
Praise or Condemn:
5 
1
11:00 pm
jesus is about to weep all over texas!
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
1:42 pm
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
12:56 am
Hmm. I don’t think that this is satire; it’s just someone eloquently expressing an unpopular opinion and getting lambasted for it (unpopular “free speech” will bring that).
I can’t say that I agree with the author on the whole, but I see a vague outline of where he’s coming from (it’s difficult to adopt someone else’s worldview…). There is indeed a kind of “lots of words signifying little” quality to a lot of Hodgman’s writing in particular. That’s part of the attraction as well, at least for those who enjoy searching for the nugget of gold hidden within. Though with Hodgman, it’s not always there – sometimes it’s just a play on expectations.
I guess that Hodgman’s worldview, which will come out through any artist’s works, may have some negative traits that could affect people who listen to/read him.
What I don’t get is why the author chooses to devote so much time and effort to analyzing Hodgman. The man’s audience and influence is, after all, fairly limited – his brand of humour & personality is quite niche, especially in the current state of mainstream culture. Big explosions are the norm, not subtlety. Duke Nukem is by far the more influential of the two. So whatever bad influence Hodgman might conceivably have on society seems to be quite small, limited to the tiny portion of people with patience and a liking for subtlety.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
1:44 pm
Thank you ESN, for the thoughtful and poignant comment.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
10:19 am
Kudos for honoring John Hodgeman with your article. He’s a wonderful fellow, and his knack for satire is a national treasure that’s truly under-appreciated.
When I read your article, I was a little confused as to whether it was meant to be satirical in its own right, or was serious. I’m guessing from your responses to comments, that you were probably serious (it would have made for poorly written satire). Taken in that vein, I’d commend yo you to do some fact checking on some of your info about Hodgeman, the companies that employ him, and “his agenda” as you make a number of mistakes and are misleading (for example, you single out Apple as promoting a homosexual agenda and hold up Microsoft, Compaq, and Dell, which, frankly, are far more fervent supporters of equality and civil rights for homosexuals).
Also, you harp on the canard of “traditional institutions” and equating that with contemporary “Christian fundamentalism”. Obviously, the two are very distinct. The practices of contemporary self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are a tremendous departure from Christianity as it was observed and practiced prior to the 19th century. Implying otherwise is disingenuous. Assuming that your article is not satire, the content of your article, the prejudicial invectives and the dispersions, might be considered by traditional Christians downright anti-Christian. The very notion that you’d do so with an epithetical accusation that he doesn’t properly give his fealty to the state would be apostasy, just as it would, ironically, be an insult to the ideals of our founding fathers.
I’d ask that you reflect on what you’ve written a little bit more. The Bible implores you not to bear false witness, not to judge, to not share your allegiance to God with allegiance to country, and to not make idols — all of which seem to be done in one way or another in this piece.
“It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
– Augustine of Hippo, 408 AD
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
1:49 pm
Augustine, the liberalism and indulgence of 19th-century Catholic practice is not relevant to the questions at hand, nor is it so meaningful for contemporary faith. You’re far out of your league there and I suggest to contain yourself on topics you have a grasp of. There are no factual errors in my reporting and I suggest you use a bit more tolerant tone if you want people to respect your agitated opinions. As a whole, I found your comment one of the most poorly conceived and rudely expressed in this section today. You clearly have a bit of childish anger in you and it shows in your facile attempts at prose. Best of luck with your life and I do hope some day you can redeem the heinous errors of your ways. God bless.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
2:32 pm
//There are no factual errors in my reporting//
Other than, ya know, every thing you type up because you lack the basic fact-finding skills a high schooler needs just to write a report for class, let alone claim they’re an investigative journalist.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
3:20 pm
I see where Augustine’s coming from. For example, you say “he turned many away from products manufactured by traditional American companies such as Compaq, IBM, Dell and Microsoft”. In fact, Compaq is a brand, not a company (it operated as a company from 1982-2002 when it was purchased by HP), but Apple is a company founded 5 years prior to Compaq. Apple is a US company, has a higher percentage of US employees than any of the others except, possibly, Dell. But the implication is that Apple is morally deficient because of it’s policies regarding gay employees (namely, it has no special policy); without recognizing that Microsoft has offered benefits to gay partners of Microsoft employees for 20 years, has its own gay community within Microsoft (GLEAM), and has supported pro-gay-marriage political campaigns for years. IBM, HP, and Dell offer similar benefits and support. If you hate queer-folk, you need to do your homework. All of the companies you list have more or less the same policies with regard to homosexuals these days.
Also, there’s all sorts of little errors. For example, Hodgeman was a regular on the Daily Show BEFORE he was cast in the Mac commercials. Not that it bears too much on your commentary, but the post is riddled with factual inaccuracies of that nature. There’s also the ad hominem attack on his TV persona (and employers) while ignoring him personally. But, I don’t think you’re article is so much about Hodgeman as something else that you are struggling to articulate.
Oh, and I don’t think Augustine was talking about “liberal 19th century” Catholics (the specific denomination) or catholics (all denominations). I think he was talking about the rise of what most people call Christian fundamentalism. Historically speaking, he’s over-simplified, but he’s pretty much on the mark. The anti-modernist evangelical Christianity that adheres to the doctrine of inerrancy traces its roots to British dispensationalism in the 1830′s and the teachings coming out of the Princeton Theological Seminary in the mid-19th century. It coalesced into it’s own theological “branch” of Christianity between 1910 and 1925 and popularized through carefully organized evangelical “revivals” during that time. Most protestant denominations developed “fundamentalist” churches, and a number of new bible colleges were founded. So, Augustine’s more or less correct. The “fundamentalist” view of Christianity, in the modern sense of the term, is pretty new — it’s been around for about 100 of Christianity’s 2010 years of existence. In fact, it’s most notable in the traction that it’s had. There’s plenty of instances in Christian history that these radical new interpretations of Christian scripture and dogma haven’t gone over too well.
I like the quote from Augustine of Hippo, but it’s taken out of context. St. Augustine was one of the most influential theologians of the 5th-century Christian church and founder of the Augustinian Order. The quote comes from his treatise, ‘De Genesi ad literam’. Specifically with this quote, he’s admonishing Christians that the book of Genesis is to be taken metaphorically and not literally. According to Augustine, Christians that espoused the literal view drew scorn when the biblical text contradicted common sense and observations of nature that where accessible to Christians and non-Christians alike. The argument being, I suppose, that the metaphorical interpretation carried the spiritual message just as well as the literal meaning, and it was beyond scorn and reproach.
I’m sure it was taken out of context on purpose, but the point’s still probably a valid one.
I think it’s ironic that you use the word “liberal” with a negative connotation. Jesus was executed for being a liberal. Love your fellow man, God welcomes all people that seek him, don’t dwell on the faults of others but gather together to do good and become better, give the government their do and God his, women receiving religious education, et cetera — piles of scandalous social liberalism there.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
12:38 pm
Just another typical Christiofascist hate screed.
Your idiotic diatribe can be boiled down to just on line;”I don’t understand it, so I hate it, just like Jesus hates it.”
Everything you idiots disagree with, or just don’t like or understand, is an evil out to devour us all, and mebbe kick Baby Jesus for shits and giggles.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
0
6:50 pm
“Billings”, it’s actually quite brilliant. You are outing yourself as John Hodgman and no one is getting the joke. I guess that’s the point though isn’t it? The article is shamelessly littered with links to your books, folk music friends, links to the “media mini-phenomenon” and “endless internet promotion”, swipes at Jon Stewart. You even end the article with a picture of yourself and a link to your site! Brilliant! I also believe you are The Comedian and Claire. The answer to the question of “Why is John Hodgman here?”: to mine gold for his next book. Bravo Mr. Hodgman!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
8:23 pm
Hey Claire and Comedian, apparently you are both me and altogether the three of us are some creepy tv guy named John Hodgman! “Laughing out Loud!”
Praise or Condemn:
3 
0
8:54 pm
I thought I was John Stewart.
And again, Stevie, lern 2 interwb, k?
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
10:27 am
You are the unemployed and elderly version of Jon Stewart.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
7:10 pm
This is a garden of misinformation. To wit: “Desperate to expand his bona fides beyond Stewart’s schmaltzy liberalism, Hodgman then turned to two grand dames …..with their assistance, he published two books to give himself a grander title beyond, “former Daily Show correspondent.”
In reality, Hodgman’s first appearance on the Daily show was to promote his book, which he had already written.
The laughable viewpoint of this article aside, it makes no effort at all to stick to a verifiable timeline. It’s as if the author thought God told him he
could cobble together scraps of unrelated information and call it a creed.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
1:35 pm
For the betterment of society at large, you should refrain from ever writing another word. I don’t like you using my name to invoke hatred toward any group. I think maybe you should brush up on the bible, and not just the parts that condemn homosexuality.
By the way, I don’t care who you’re attracted to, so long as you’re not hurting anyone.
That is all.
GOD
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
8:40 am
Please don’t blaspheme.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
7:52 am
Until the comments I could not tell if this was supposed to be a joke or not. The most amusing thing is, this article reads like a segment from one of Hodgeman’s own books. Taking something intended to be ridiculous and amusing (the Hodgeman character) and treating it as though it was serious.
It’s just as ridiculous as calling the daily Show a leftist news program. The Daily Show is *not* news, it’s entertainment, Hodgeman is *not* ane expert meant to be taken seriously, he’s a comedian.
Anyone who does not see this has completely missed the point.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
8:39 am
Eli, I doubt Hodgman has the direction or passion this article offers. Most of his work is so dry and droll, that only the most urbane of inner-city hipsters can understand his irony. As for the Daily Show, it is well known that Stewart has a huge lefty bias. I myself have written about this problem. Look at his debates with Bill O’Reilly! The anger he shows towards Fox and conservatives is palpable and obvious. For you to claim otherwise just shows how out of touch you are with mainstream America. It’s symptomatic of why Liberals continue to misunderstand Sarah Palin’s vision for the future.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
2:03 pm
You have, again, missed the point entirely. I am not arguing that Jon Stewart is not liberal. I am stating that the Daily Show is not a news program, and is not to be taken seriously. Just like Hodgeman. Stewart himself has lamented publicly and repeatedly that there is a certain segment of the population that actually sees the Daily Show as news and not just entertainment, or commentary on the news. You have fallen into the same trap as those people. These are both comedians doing a routine. And, I’m sorry to tell you this article sounds *exactly* like something Hodgman would have written about himself. Taking him this seriously is as absurdist as listening to him tell deadpan the story of how hobos overthrew the US government in the mid 1970′s.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
2:16 pm
Eli, in fact I have argued quite successfully that his show is consumed as a news program by his audience (and this makes the question of his underlying intentions moot).
http://christwire.org/2010/08/aging-liberal-jon-stewart-struggles-to-stay-relevant/
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
2:18 pm
Eli, in fact I have argued quite successfully that his show is consumed as a news program by his audience (and this makes the question of his underlying intentions moot).
Praise or Condemn:
3 
2
2:40 pm
The quote you supply does not, in fact, make the point at all that his program is consumed as news. It only points out that you and unnamed, unsourced, unquoted “others” do not find him funny. That is irrelevant to the current conversation. This is not a successful argument. Indeed, if it was a successful argument, you would not even need to tell me beforehand that you have argued “quite successfully”.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
2
4:19 pm
That quote is from my own article, you imbecile.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
3:56 pm
This is the funniest thing i have ever read in my entire life.
i needed a laugh, thank you.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
0
10:02 am
This piece just shows how out of touch you are, and how antiquated your beliefs are. Wow, you just don’t have a clue. You do what all religious apologists do: You attack with no evidence, nothing to back up your claims. God help you.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
3