How is "Rally to Restore Sanity" any different from a politician saying "My platform is good government" instead of providing the detail? ...

Because he’s a comedian?

Have you even read what it is for? He wants to bring people in to discuss politics in an adult way, without yelling extremes and emotional attacks. No one has a solid solution to all of the world’s problems…..but having an atmosphere to discuss things can be beneficial.

@Blackberry I don’t see an answer there.

@perg again, who would be against “to discuss politics in an adult way, without yelling extremes and emotional attacks.”. The other side can also say the same thing. He has ½ hr/day 4 days a week?,for however many years. Instead all the frivolous adolecent vulgar stuff that takes takes up a lot of his shows….One day rally???? That is a joke. People have drunk the Kool Aide.
Talk to me about his interview with Serena Williams by the way.

@flo I think @Blackberry answered your question quite well. If you read any newspaper or watch any newscast these days, obviously there’s an abundance of people who are not willing “to discuss politics in an adult way, without yelling extremes and emotional attacks.” Holding a rally will physically demonstrate that there is a large number of people who are willing to show by their presence that they are tired of the overweening rhetoric and half-truths that are coming out of all sides.

Plus it sounds like fun. Anyway, that’s why I’m going.

OOPS I switched your names @perg and @Blackberry.

It is a chance to spotlight the extremes of behavior and the shrillness of the right wing. Like today on Facebook someone posted this old bromide about Nancy Pelosi and the $00 million airplane, which has no substance.

My sister was flipped off by a Republican candidate for Congress earlier this week.

I think there is every need to show that there are people other than Tea Party types who will make the effort to go to Washington D.C. to show support for sanity.

Of course it’s a joke, it’s American Politics.

Somebody please explain his interview with Serena Williams. That is just one example.
By the way, please tackle what I put forth. Who wouldn’t claim to have sanity? It is a meaningless statement.

I think he’s saying that people need to be rational and stop being so… insane about stuff. You know, the rallies where people protest how a soldier died in the war, Westboro people, that kind of thing. Besides, when did he say that he was not for good government? I missed that.

No offense, but personally, I wouldn’t say that a completely stable person would be saying that Obama is a Muslim version of Hitler… I mean, seriously?

I’m a huge Jon supporter. The Serena interview was one interview – have you seen his Crossfire interview? Thats still relevant today! He’s actually very intelligent, and maybe @Blackberry sort of stole my answer. xD

@perg: Maybe I’ll see you there!

@The_Idler But British politics aren’t a joke…?

Also, read this answer . It actually has some really good insights.

And I don’t know if this would be considered sane… I don’t know the story completely, but really? Stomping on someone’s face who didn’t agree?

@papayalily
Much less so, but I didn’t mean to imply that British politics isn’t a joke, no way…

@The_Idler : I think that its kind of funny how they watch the prime minister and his family walk out of their house in a sort of “walk of shame”...

@marinelife

“My sister was flipped off by a Republican candidate for Congress earlier this week.”

Which candidate flipped her off?

Okay. Stewart and his fans want to “restore sanity.” Beck and his fans want to restore “honor.” Who doesn’t like sanity and honor? Of course everyone will say they want those things, and they might even believe that their actions reflect sanity and/or honor.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And even though I’m not religious, I’ll pull out Matthew 7:16, to wit: “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

Beck claims he wants honor, but do his actions reflect honor to you? Passing on gross misrepresentation and out-of-context quotes as fact and proof of wild conspiracy theories? Doesn’t pass the “honor” test with me. Negatory. (Although I’m sure it does to some of his fans. Somewhere.)

Does the national conversation that Stewart advocates represent an actual return to sanity? I think it does. Fact-based, non-wild, reasonable discussion that aims to get us to listen, stop flinging monkey poo, and be rational for a change. This passes the “restoring sanity” test for me, much more than the “honor” that Beck claims. And the rally will help show that there are people out there interested in this, in a very physical way, much as a response to Beck’s rally.

And that is how they are different.

@laureth I was watching a segment last night (from a couple weeks ago, I think) in which he pointed out that the candidate who wore a Nazi costume was a history buff who did reenactments of all kinds. Stewart was saying that the 24 hour cable news was portraying it as some worship of Nazis, and I thought it was great that he was standing up for a person’s right to reenact the sordid details of history. I often worry about people taking my love of history out of context, and I know I’m not the only one. I like how he was trying to say that there was a totally reasonable, sane explanation for something.

@flo: Why ask a question when you’re not willing to seriously reflect and consider the responses?

That’s exactly the reason for the rally.

You bring in the interview with Serena Williams, but it’s clearly not relevant to the discussion you started, and moreover clearly intended as a backhanded ad hominem attack.

This is what is meant by “sanity” in the case of this political event. Perhaps Stewart is attempting to demonstrate that there is a group of people who not only see through the bullshit, but reject it, even as they are fatigued by the vocalisations of a tiny minority.

@flo says: “Who wouldn’t claim to have sanity? It is a meaningless statement.”

Of course it’s meaningless. And of course everybody says they’re sane. But they’re not acting sane, that’s the point. @laureth answered it quite well so I will simply refer you back to her statement above.

@flo your confusion is that you think Jon Stewart’s rally is for or against one of the “sides”. It’s not. It’s against the fringes. BOTH fringes. Both the left-wing nutcases who claim that 9/11 was an inside job by Cheney and Halliburton, and the right-wing nutcases who claim that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist planted in the US 40+ years ago.

Of course no one would claim to be against sanity. It’s simply painfully obvious to those of us in the middle that the fringes ARE against sanity.

@perg exactly. It’s not a matter of who wouldn’t “claim” to have honor or sanity, it’s about whether or not people actually exhibit it. The tide seems to be pushing a group of extremists who are determine not to compromise into congress. If this happens the effect will either be them breaking their campaign promises or them grinding government to a halt.

Politics is compromise and the insane rhetoric that’s flooded this election is as good a thing to rally against as anything I can think of. Partisanship (and campaign finance) are ruining this country and paralyzing the government. I think what Stewart is doing is going above and beyond the call of a late night talk show host when it comes to the “meaning” of it all. If it served no purpose but to get out the vote it would clearly be a nobler thing than a simple rally to promote a book or a partisan viewpoint.

To answer your primary question, “How is the Rally to Restore Sanity” be any different from a politician saying “My platform is good government” instead of providing the detail? ...” Obviously the difference is that Stewart is a political satirist, not a politician. He doesn’t have a “platform.”

And why hold the rally? As Jon Stewart him said, it’s kind a little “Woodstock, but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement.” It’s a Woodstock for fans of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert aend like-minded people. Why hold the rally? Because it’s a great venue for a political satire and for fans of Stewart and Colbert, and if you are a fan, and I am, I suspect it’s going to be a hell of a lot of fun.

He does use his show to express what he thinks but that doesn’t mean he necessarily has to confine himself to that. Glen Beck gets plenty of on camera face time. Did you have similar concerns about his rally?

And, if Stewart and Colbert and the people involved in organizing the rally have secured the proper permits and permissions to hold a rally on the mall in D.C. then that’s all they really need to do. They’re not required to provide any particular content; they are not required to provide a five year plan as to how they would implement any particular agenda, they are not required to convince you or anyone else of anything in particular. They just get to have the rally.

At the core of the Rally to Restore Sanity is that the fringes ignore the majority of people in the middle, who align less by party and more my values. Just like there’s more to sexual orientation than gay or heterosexual, there’s more to political posturing than Tea Bag/Liberal Democrat. There’s a solid block the middle whose concerns aren’t addressed by the fringes.

@Brian1946 It was John Koster in Washington State.

I never meant to give the impression that I am for the Glen Beck et al’s side. Maybe I should have mentioned that. All I am asking is, specifically, what exactly is he proposing? Not in relation to this the Glen Becks but just him? Has anyone answered that?
-When you look at the women TV anchors, who are being used as manequins, and worse. Has he or other talkshow hosts been saying “stop demeaning women”?
-Has anyone above explained the Serena Williams interview? Why not? Because people have drunk his Kool Aide.
-How many guests have there been on his show who simply are the opposite of sanity?
@lillycoyote ”...of Stewart and Colbert, and if you are a fan, and I am, I suspect it’s going to be a hell of a lot of fun.” Fun, that is my point. nothing to do with restoring sanity.
How much time is spent with juvenile humor on that show, and Colbert’s, and maybe other shows. By the way Colbert pointed out to a guest that he has a egg shaped head. Explain that. I am sure that is supposed to be funny. And he complained to another guest that he didn’t dress up for the show, twice, no less. I never watched a Glen et al’s shows. but from the clips that I see they are far from impressive “Muslims did the 911…”.

Because not a single person enjoyed themselves at Glen Beck’s rally.

No; it was all po-faced seriosuness for every second. ~

No-one suggested you were a teabagger. However, you still haven’t demonstrated the link between the rally and Stewart’s interview with Williams. How is it relevant to this discussion? Why?

I made an error above. Please read “Has anyone above refered to the Serena Williams interview?..”, explained, would mean there is an explanation for that, which there isn’t.
@the100thmonkey You proved my point. (EDIT: It is all about like going to party.)
What is your own assessment of the Serena Williams interview (put question mark here). Either you see it or you don“t. The link is him calling for sanity and his practice re. sanity.

_How much time is spent with juvenile humor on that show, and Colbert’s, and maybe other shows. By the way Colbert pointed out to a guest that he has a egg shaped head. Explain that. I am sure that is supposed to be funny. And he complained to another guest that he didn’t dress up for the show, twice, no less__.

@flo What you need to remember is that both Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s show are broadcast on Comedy Central!!! We all vary in terms of what we find funny. If you don’t think they programs are funny then simply don’t watch them. Do you know how much crap there is on TV that’s supposed to be funny but I don’t think is funny at all? A lot, I assure you. And what I do is not watch the crap that that supposed be funny but isn’t to me; that’s supposed to funny but is just stupid and juvenile.

And personally, I think Glenn Beck is kind of wingnut, kind of nut case, and some of his fans are too. If I were going to hold a rally that was, in some respects, a counterpoint to his “Rally to Restore Honor” or whatever the hell it was called I might call it a “Rally to Restore Sanity” too.

It’s satire.

In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—“in satire, irony is militant”[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing

Source

Many politicians are trying to promote a certain ideology of one form or another and get people to think in a certain way whereas Stewart is merely trying to get people to think period; something the general public seems increasingly reluctant (and possibly even unable) to do these days.

@lillycoyote, it is disappointing when people run out of argument they go to “if you don’t like then don’t watch it.” , or “it’s satire”. Those are just two examples of hiding places. I notice you didn’t put that argument in your 1st answer, because you felt you have substance to put forth.
Should Stewart, and others who don’t like what they see just stop looking at whatever they are critiquing, by your logic? We should not have this exchange then, all the Q&A should be what people agree about?
-You too didn’t address the Serena williams interview.
-You didn’t address my ”-When you look at the women TV anchors, who are being used as manequins, and worse. Has he or other talkshow hosts been saying “stop demeaning women”?

@flo it is disappointing when people run out of argument they go to “if you don’t like then don’t watch it.” , or “it’s satire”.

WTF? That’s not running out of arguments, that’s answering your question. It’s satire. I don’t know what the hell the rest of that stuff is – is there some point that you’re trying to make?

@syz Oh…. I see your point. Very thoughtfull. That is a lot to chew on. I take back everything then. Why didn’t I think of all that?? EDIT: He must be proud to have you as an endorser of his show.

I am on the fence over whether this question is actually a legitimate request for answers from someone who doesn’t “get it” or just trolling.

There are a lot of disenfranchised people who like a good laugh, and the Rally to Restore Sanity is a way to show how many people feel that way. If you honestly don’t see the point of this rally, then my question is whether you see the point of any rally.

Both @Blackberry and @laureth gave excellent answers that cut to the heart of your question, yet it seems like you are looking for an argument instead of an answer. Ironically enough, that is the sort of behavior that this rally is against; it is a cry for calm rationality instead of pointless bickering.

@jerv yes, you are right. @syz‘s “WTF…I don’t know what the hell the rest of that stuff is…”, (emphasis mine). is a perfect example of “calm rationality instead of pointless bickering.”

Let’s change the “argument”, to “counterpoint”.
Let’s note that there is no hint of aggression or intimidation in @Blackberry‘s and @laureth‘s answer. You mentioned them.

___“If you honestly don’t see the point of this rally, then my question is whether you see the point of any rally.“___ Martin Luther King’s March for example is a rally that I see a point in. Not someone who would:
-endorse a movie “actor” of dagerous stunts, just by having him as a guest,
-more than endorse the athlete who threatened an official on the tennis court,
and on and on, and on. There is not satire.

Re. ___”...whether this question is actually a legitimate request for answers from someone who doesn’t “get it” or just trolling“___ My OP is a statement if I don’t find an answer, and it is a question if I end up learning something new, and changing my view. As for “trolling” that is name calling, instead of answering the items point by point by point.

@flo So, you do not see a point in calming down, examining things rationally, and discussing them civilly as opposed to what our nation does currently? Or do you not see the point in a bunch of people getting together in a show of “We’re concerned and we want you to know how many of us there are, so we’ll all gather in one place for a little while.”?

You came across (at least to me) as quite argumentative and and aggressive in the way you presented your counterpoints; enough so to honestly raise that question in my mind. I mean, it really seems to me that you have some sort of axe to grind here; some sort of visceral hatred of Jon Stewart. And I don’t see how it’s name-calling if I merely state how I feel or a concern that I have.

See, I have a roommate that likes to get into yelling matches over semantics and syntax, and will parse and pick apart anything and everything you say, turning “Good morning” into a 2-hour argument over subjective morality, and some of your responses really do remind me of him. If you act like someone who constantly is looking for a fight then how else am I supposed to think?

@flo.
Look, there’s no point in us even answering your questions when they are 1) irrelevant to your original question, 2) complete flame-bait and uninformed nonsense and 3) just completely ridiculous because you’re not willing and/or able to handle responses to your own question.

Would this be trolling? Maybe.
Did you even watch the rally? I doubt it.
Are you willing to look at the responses again that @the100thmonkey, @jerv, @lillycoyote, @syz, @BarnacleBill suggested? No? Then don’t argue your side pointlessly when it doesn’t have a bit of background to support it.

good grief.

Would a modicum of evidence be welcome here?

From this NPR blog post from the reporter covering the rally:

Stewart’s sincere speech at the end of the rally seemed designed, on the one hand, to give some purpose to the endeavor, which genuinely had, up until then, been almost entirely a comedy show and almost entirely apolitical.

But it was ultimately more reassurance than challenge, telling the crowd that they’re all perfectly fine and need to do nothing different, because everything is fine except the media and pundits. (A community, that is, of which Stewart apparently doesn’t see himself as a part, even when he takes 15 minutes to speak mostly seriously to many, many thousands of people about what’s wrong with the country, which he says is… pundits.)

@laureth He is a pundit, but he’s a significantly less crazy one. He uses comedy instead of shock and fear to ensure ratings. I’ve never seen him pick on all pundits, just the crazy ones.

(I agree, @papayalily – I was mostly just quoting.)

Just to make a correction:
His own actions on his show:
-more than endorse the athlete who threatened an official on the tennis court,
-endorse a movie ‘star’ of dagerous stunts, encouraging dangerous behaviour adding to the number of injuries, and worse, just by having him as a guest. No satire there.

These are examples of a pundit not practicing sanity but calling for sanity. And on the other side not practicing honor i.e knowingly brushing everyone with the same brush “Muslims did the 911“and calling for honor.
By the way whose industry is filled with insanity and *dishonor? Stewart’s and Glen Beck’s, et al’s The entertainment industry. Maybe not contributing to the dumbing down of the population, “Jershey Shores”....is a better way to go?

Everyone thinks their position is the sane one, the honorable one. So whoever calls for “Rally to Restore Honor”, Rally to restore Sanity” is implying “the other side is not sane, honorable. So, it is not exactly friendly, is it?

EDIT: @troubleinharlem “when did he say that he was not for good government? I missed that.” Is that what the OP says that I said he said?

@flo Don’t take this the wrong way, but the vehemence with which you are protesting may lead some to question your sanity. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is shake your head and walk away. I find myself doing that a lot these days as the world seems to be going insane around me.
Let us not forget that Jon Stewart is a media personality and a comedian. He makes his living from getting people to watch him. In effect, the whole rally thing is just a guy doing his job.

@jerv You wrote …shake your head and walk away.” It is my OP, rememeber? You can be the one to do that. You can, can’t you? Like you wrote before when someone doesn’t like a show they can stop watching it. In this case responding. But I don’t need you to stop posting, because I don’t feel threathened by it.

@flo You are confusing me with somebody else (specifically, @lillycoyote); I never said that, and I would appreciate it if you could keep your facts straight.

And yes, I can walk away, but am making a conscious choice not to. See, you asked a question and seem to not understand the answers given. I am not the best at judging motives (us Aspies are not great at reading people) but to me it seems like that is because you don’t want to “get it”; you have no interest in understanding.

I merely want to either make you understand (after all, the whole point of a Q&A site like Fluther is to answer questions in a manner which the OP can understand, and clarify if/when they don’t) or get you to admit that you never really wanted an answer in the first place and render this whole thread moot. Either way will get closure, and that is what I am after here; closure (preferably without a moderator stepping in).

@jerv Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely on your side, but you actually are the one who said ” shake your head and walk away.”

You said it here:

@flo Don’t take this the wrong way, but the vehemence with which you are protesting may lead some to question your sanity. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is shake your head and walk away. I find myself doing that a lot these days as the world seems to be going insane around me.

I said:

@flo What you need to remember is that both Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s show are broadcast on Comedy Central!!! We all vary in terms of what we find funny. If you don’t think the programs are funny then simply don’t watch them. Do you know how much crap there is on TV that’s supposed to be funny but I don’t think is funny at all? A lot, I assure you. And what I do is not watch the crap that that supposed be funny but isn’t to me; that’s supposed to funny but is just stupid and juvenile.

Just correcting that, in the interest of truth, the only side any of us should be on.

@lillycoyote I was referring to the statement, “Like you wrote before when someone doesn’t like a show they can stop watching it.”. I never said anything about stopping watching; that was you.

Oops! So very sorry @jerv! Really I am! You’re absolutely right. I thought that my brain had healed enough from beating my head up against this particular wall that I could think clearly, but my gray matter is obviously still more than a bit jellied. Apparently my recovery is not at all complete. I’m going back to the sanitarium now. My sincerest apologies. :-)

@jerv I should have stopped a few posts back after my:

@jerv yes, you are right. @syz‘s “WTF…I don’t know what the hell the rest of that stuff is…”, (emphasis mine). is a perfect example of “calm rationality instead of pointless bickering.”
I thought that would have been an aha! moment.

Sorry for switching you and @lillycoyote

@flo Thank you for that. That little moment of calm rationality is what this country (and this thread) needs more of,

@jerv by “stopped” I meant stopped responding to your postings.

http://www.fluther.com/100621/dont-charities-and-political-parties-etc-have-to-know-that-the/

Sanity would be refusing to be a party to reducing the office of the presidency by having him on ones talkshow, whether it is the “Daily Show” or “The View” or….

Sanity is not swearing like a shock jock and end up alienating a lot of people for nothing if it is to help the country.

@flo : Who are we talking about again? I don’t know that Jon Stewart alienated anybody, much less the whole country. Besides, who cares if he swears or not? He’s a comedian, not a politician.

Did you even watch the rally?
You would see that it wasn’t really about politics.

Sanity is not going on ad nauseum about how much you hate a comedian or how stupid they or their shtick are. Your history demonstrates that you have an axe to grind.

Sanity is not going on and on and on and on and on and on about something that you seem to not understand as if you actually do know what it’s about.

Sanity is not flogging a dead horse.

BTW, regarding the “alienating” comment, are you saying that you are insane? I mean, you seem to be alienating quite a few people here, which appears to me to put you in the same league minus the profanity.

@jerv: If I could give you a billion lurve things, I would. Amen to that, brother!

I second @troubleinharlem, Great answer @jerv. That sums this whole business up pretty well.

@jerv it’s a shame… you had 3 great answers there and I could only give you 1…

At some time in the futurer, I expect to see “I was just callinging “Rally to Restore Sanity” as a saire, not seriously . I was trying to show how ridiculous the “Rally to Restore Honor” was. But then people took it to be for real, and I couldn’t tell them….” Jon Stewart

@flo The thing is that there are a lot of people who share the sentiment that things are too crazy and unreasonable, but noe of them really did anything about it, like organize a rally where disgruntled people could gather under one banner in an organized show of strength.

Whether it was intentional or not (and I believe it was intentional),Jon Stewart raised that flag for people to gather under, and that lit fires under a lot of asses and gave some sort of outlet where they could say what many were thinking.

Actions do speak louder than words, so a rally made more sense than just another episode of The Daily Show or just another blog post. Which gets more coverage; some sound from a box and/or some pixels on a screen, or thousands of people gathered in one place waving signs? Which gets a message out more effectively; a little coverage, or a lot of coverage?

Example of one’s own action: People who don’t keep their house, their yard clean, and who litter wherever they go, complaining that the city is not keeping the streets clean.