Case in point: back in September, Stephen brought in some “pretty beer girls” to serve the troops during a special, week-long military appreciation edition of The Colbert Report, culminating in a guest appearance by Vice President Joe Biden as a hot dog vendor:

This was followed the next day by a sexy dude dressed in a hot dog suit, “for the lady troops”:

Naturally, PETA was not pleased:

[Neither was I - that is, when I watched the show many a month later (it aired when I was on vacation in NY) - but I didn't see fit to write a press release about it. It doesn't take a marketing genius to know that the general public will view this as so much opportunistic bandwagon-jumping and/or an "attack" on the troops. YOU MUST SUPPORT THE TROOPS AT ALL COSTS! BY WHICH I MEAN NEVER EVER NEVER QUESTION A MOVE MADE BY THE U.S. MILITARY! Like duh.]

Anyhow, I promise to be better in keeping up with this stuff in the New Year. In this vein, I come bearing two more recent clips:

On Monday’s show, Stephen did an “exposé” of Caboodle Ranch, “The Enemy Within.” Located in Lee, Florida, the 30-acre feline rescue group provides sanctuary to 650 cats – and counting. Founder Craig Grant hopes to expand the rescue to over 1,000 cats before the end of 2011; as Stephen points out, “that’s three cats for every throat in the town of Lee.”

SCARY!

Also on Monday, The Daily Show featured a piece on San Francisco’s Happy Meal “ban” (scare quotes because it’s not a ban per se; toys in kid’s meals are still allowed, just as long as the meal in question meets certain nutritional requirements). Libertarians especially will enjoy Aasif Mandvi’s interview with San Francisco Councilman Eric Mar, which includes a rather sizable nailing (starting at 3:02).

Regardless of your opinion on this specific piece of legislation, it’s largely symbolic; a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed. While advertising targeted at children is problematic, the so-called “Happy Meal Ban” still fails to tackle much larger issues, many of which are structural in nature: artificially cheap meat, dairy and egg products due to taxpayer-funded subsidies, both overt (farm aid) and hidden (lax environmental regulations and enforcement); the concentration of cheap, fast food joints in low-income urban areas, coupled with the dearth of grocers in the same; inadequate school funding – again, particularly in low-income areas, which lack the tax bases of wealthier districts – that in turn negatively impacts the school lunch menu; cultural attitudes which hold that children inherently dislike healthy foods, particularly fruits and vegetables, thus acting as self-fulfilling prophecies; etc., etc., etc.

That said, this nerd would love a Crappy Meal, preferably with a Hillary Clinton action figure. The recording should play nothing but her shrill, castrating, cackle of a laugh, which in its bitchy abandon is music to this man-hating feminist’s ears. It can even double as a rape defense device, seeing as how the mere sound of Hill’s voice has the power to make a man’s junk shrivel up and fall off. Better than a rape whistle, yo.

That’s my take, anyhow. What say you?

—————–

Videos in this post:

The Colbert Report, Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Been There, Won That – Joe Biden & Yogi Berra
Joe Biden serves hot dogs to the returning troops, Stephen introduces the greatest toilet on Earth, and Yogi Berra determines when the Iraq war will be over. (09:07)

The Colbert Report, Thursday, September 9, 2010
Been There, Won That – Jim Webb
Stephen thanks the veterans with a sexy hot dog man and tries to get them jobs, with Jim Webb’s help. (07:16)

The Colbert Report, Tuesday, September 14, 2010
PETA Criticizes Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden handed out hot dogs to America’s returning troops, not meat. (02:34)

The Colbert Report, Monday, January 3, 2011
The Enemy Within – Caboodle Ranch
In Lee, Florida, Craig Grant trains his 650 cats to take over America’s government, law enforcement and failing schools. (05:32)

The Daily Show, Monday January 3, 2011
Daily Show: Mandvi – San Francisco’s Happy Meal Ban
After San Francisco bans toys from Happy Meals, Aasif Mandvi introduces kids to the brand new Crappy Meal.

Even before the flakes settled, right-wing pundits were pointing to the snowstorms that have slammed the East Coast this year as evidence that “global warming”

[CLIMATE CHANGE! Temperatures may or may not rise depending on one's geographic location, air and ocean currents, etc. In fact, some scientists worry that melting polar ice caps might actually plunge the northeastern U.S. and northwestern European coasts into a mini-ice age. Global warming does not mean that every location on earth will resemble a sauna! End: rant.]

is a hoax and/or has been definitely discredited. Naturally, these gleeful squeals of triumph are usually accompanied by multiple smug, self-serving jabs at Al Gore. (Because the man IS global warming itself, dontchaknow! And I say this as a vegan with her own complex, ambivalent feelings towards the meat-guzzling Gore.)

Anyhow, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a little fun at the expense of these climate change deniers – and in back-to-back shows, at that. While I don’t have time to type up transcripts, I have embedded the videos below, after the jump. (Too many videos on the main page makes Firefox crash. I blame Comedy Central and its clunky video formats. IBCC!)

In an upset, I think The Daily Show staff did a better job lampooning this story than did The Colbert Report. Although, they were short one Snoopy sketch….

 
Videos in this post

The Daily Show – Wednesday February 10, 2010 – Unusually Large Snowstorm
Aasif Mandvi freezes in New York, Sam Bee feels the heat in Australia, and Jason Jones reports on the darkness everywhere.

The Colbert Report – Wednesday, February 10, 2010 – We’re Off to See the Blizzard
Based on the latest data from the Dopplest 9000 radar, Stephen can only assume that the sun has been destroyed. (04:09)

“For my next bit, I shall kick a puppy. Bolstered by your applause, I may urinate on it as well.”
——————————

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) appeared on The Daily Show last night, ostensibly to discuss health care reform. At one point, the conversation turned towards politics, with Stewart referencing Weiner’s failed 2005 mayoral race against Bloomberg, as well as his decision not to run in 2009, after Bloomberg successfully petitioned the NY City Council to extend existing term limits. The conversation quickly devolved, with two generally progressive men comparing Bloomberg to an enslaved animal, and snickering over animal abuse culminating in murder:

Stewart: Are you – uh – running for mayor? My feeling was you could have defeated Bloomberg in this cycle – uh, but, you did not run. Are you gonna run the next time

Weiner: I could have – I would’ve beaten Bloomberg like a rented mule, [cue raucous audience laughter] but I decided, I uh…[pause for audience cheering; Weiner laughs, Stewart nods head in agreement]

Stewart: Okay, how much does it cost to rent that mule? Because…

Weiner: It’s an expensive mule.

There’s so much speciesism packed into these four (three, really) short sentences; where to begin?

- Mocking abused and enslaved animals? Check.

- Making light of animal abuse? Check.

- Intimating that you yourself would like to beat an animal to death? Check.

- Objectifying a sentient being by referring to him/her as an “it”? Check.

- Unquestioningly referring to an animal as rentable property? Check.

As much as I dislike similar expressions (e.g., “I don’t have a dog in this fight.”; “Let’s kill two birds with one stone.”), comically joking about “beating a rented mule” has got to be one of the worst of the bunch. The image conjured up by this phrase – that of an exhausted, elderly “pack” animal, already worked to the brink of death, being bought, paid for, and used like a punching bag on which to take out one’s frustrations – is pitiful and sickening. To laugh at such misery and suffering is…well, it’s fucked up. Serial killer fucked up.

To be fair, I doubt that Weiner, Stewart and others who callously employ these phrases spend much time deconstructing the comparisons they’re making. But ignorance isn’t an excuse. And words matter.

Video after the jump (fast forward to 4:30 for the fauxgressive bravado):

Alas, Jon Stewart/Comedy Central/the Daily Show interns found this “punch line” so hi-larious that they actually featured it on the video blurb and description.

After watching this interview, I find myself wanting to hit someone, but it sure as hell isn’t an innocent mule, rented or otherwise.

—————–
Videos in this post

The Daily Show – February 4, 2010
Anthony Weiner: If Anthony Weiner had run for mayor of New York City, he would have beaten Mike Bloomberg like a rented mule. (6.52)

Oh, how the writers at The Colbert Report continue to warm my heathen vegan feminist cockles! (Dear mystery vegetarian/vegan on Stephen’s staff: Call me, mkay?)

Tuesday’s episode of The Colbert Report featured this hilarious send-up of Glenn Beck & Co.’s recent gold investment advertising-slash-infomercial media blitz. While the entire six-minute segment is amusing, gold obviously isn’t our primary focus here; no, the trenchant-as-hell bit starts at 4:15:
 

 
For those who aren’t card-carrying members of The Colbert Nation, allow me to set the bit up for you. “Prescott Financial” is a spinoff of “Prescott Pharmaceuticals,” a spoof company that “sponsors” a long-running segment on TCR, “Cheating Death with Dr. Stephen Colbert, DFA.” In “Cheating Death,” Stephen reports on actual medical stories, which are then used to promote medical breakthrough products offered by Prescott Pharmaceuticals. Ridiculously fake medical breakthrough products, with equally ridiculous and fake side effects, that is.

Likewise, in this fake ad from Prescott Financial, spokesperson John Slattery recommends investing in gold as a safeguard against the coming apocalypse. While gold’s appeal may be “elemental” (A! U!), even this most precious metal’s value is limited. For example, you can’t eat gold. Thus, Slattery recommends rounding out your portfolio with women and sheep as well as gold doubloons and bricks.

Here’s a transcript of the “commercial,” for those who can’t view the video. (But if you can, you must!)

Hello, I’m John Slattery for Prescott Financial.

The global economic crisis has left investors with few places to safeguard their wealth. It seems no investment is safe. Except one: GOLD. Gold is the only investment that will never lose its value because…IT’S GOLD. [Holding up brick of gold.] Look at it. It’s shiny.

Yes, after our propped-up banks fail, gold will be the only law in the afterscape. So ask yourself: When the shit goes down, what do you want in the briefcase handcuffed to your arm? [Holding up a black briefcase handcuffed to his wrist and winking.] GOLD.

But even gold can take you only so far. To ensure the survival of your bloodline, you’ll want to diversify your portfolio with…WOMEN. They have agile hands, a strong work ethic, and can be traded for potable water and ammunition. Or: GOLD.

But you can’t eat gold – and shouldn’t eating women be a last resort? That’s why Prescott also recommends: SHEEP. [Cue: A live sheep on a rope tether. Baaaaa!] Excellent pack animals, that produce fine wool for warmth, their bones can be fashioned into tools. Not to mention, they make a fine companion if someone steals your women. I named this one GOLDIE.

GOLD. WOMEN. SHEEP. Will you be ready? Call Prescott today.

Most likely, viewers who think of nonhuman animals as “livestock” and “natural resources” to be exploited will only guffaw at the absurdity of investing in women; sheep, not so much.

After all, humans invest in nonhuman animals every day: Tyson, Proctor & Gamble, your local “zoo,” etc., etc., etc. Animal exploitation is a matter of course, a way of life. And, while women, people of color, and impoverished people have also been bought, sold and traded in a similar manner throughout human history and in various cultures, largely we like to think of this as occurring in the distant past – a curious practice of a bygone era. We’re more “civilized” than that, right?

Except that humans are still bought, sold and traded in these “modern” times, and in industrialized nations as well as developing ones. (See: sexual slavery; human trafficking; and the FLDS church – for starters.) Even modern-day marriage is a vestige of a system wherein women were considered property to be transferred from their fathers to their husbands. The property status of women is still reflected in societal attitudes towards spousal rape (e.g., that it’s not possible for one spouse to rape another, because marriage involves the contracting of “conjugal rights”; that spousal rape is a “lesser” form of rape, etc.).

Anyhow, perhaps it’s just because I’m motivated to read the spoof commercial in such a manner, but it seems that TCR is linking the objectification of nonhuman animals and women by placing them both in the same category as an actual object, i.e., gold. The concept of “women-as-investments” is silly because we know that women are sentient, emotive, intelligent, individual beings. But so, too, are nonhuman animals: sheep, cows, pigs, chickens, fishes – all develop relationships with other animals, all give birth to and nurture their young, all are capable of forming and acting on thoughts, and – perhaps most importantly – all are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. The idea of eating women (even women that/whom you own) is abhorrent; a last resort. Why, then, should it be any different with nonhuman animals?

Women are not objects, tools or pieces of property. Neither are sheep.

While The Colbert Reports rarely fails to make me swoon, this recent segment from The Daily Show had me yelling at the teevee.
 

Now, my thoughts on in vitro meat are complex and conflicted; I understand and sympathize with both sides of the vegan divide. Still, I find Jon’s mocking tone – not to mention, his insistence that lab-grown meat is science solely in service of humans, rather than the 10 billion nonhuman domesticated land animals slaughtered for food every year in the U.S. – is somewhat offensive. (Eliminating factory farming is akin to sausage and pancakes on a stick? For reals!?) Nonhuman animals – you know, the “meat” – were completely invisible to the discussion. Absent referent much, Jon?

————-

Videos in this post

The Colbert Report, Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Prescott Financial Sells Gold, Women & Sheep – John Slattery for Prescott Financial urges you to diversify your gold portfolio with women and sheep. (06:15)

The Daily Show, December 2, 2009
We Did It! – Artificial Meat – Scientists create artificial meat that’s five years away from being suitable for sausage. (03:10)

On Wednesday, journalist Peter Laufer appeared on The Daily Show in order to discuss his newest book, The Dangerous World of Butterflies: The Startling Subculture of Criminals, Collectors, and Conservationists. While the material might seem rather lighthearted – especially in comparison to his previous subjects, which include neo-Nazism, illegal immigration and the Iraq war – the illegal butterfly trade is nothing to scoff at, as he explains:
 

 
Naturally, even the so-called “butterfly huggers” (e.g., the North American Butterfly Association, the International Butterfly Breeders Association) view butterflies as a collection or a part of nature or ecology as opposed to the many individual beings that they are. Or, put another way, butterfly conservation is more about environmental protection than animal rights – or even welfare. Even so, The Dangerous World of Butterflies sounds like an interesting read, since butterfly collecting isn’t normally a “hobby” that’s equated with danger (nor are butterflies the first group of animals to come to mind when one thinks of wildlife “poaching”).

During the interview, Jon wonders why one might want to collect butterflies, due to their short life spans of a week or two. According to Wiki, this is a bit of a misconception:

It is a popular belief that butterflies have very short life spans. However, butterflies in their adult stage can live from a week to nearly a year depending on the species. Many species have long larval life stages while others can remain dormant in their pupal or egg stages and thereby survive winters.

Butterflies may have one or more broods per year. The number of generations per year varies from temperate to tropical regions with tropical regions showing a trend towards multivoltinism.

Not that the butterfly’s life span really matters – for, as Laufer explains, it’s not the aim of collectors to house a population of living butterflies. Rather, collectors view butterflies as objects to be exhibited, much like artwork. In this way, the appeal of “owning” the corpse of a butterfly belonging to a protected or endangered species is much like that of owning a stolen piece of art.

As morbid as this attitude is, I’m not sure it’s all that different from that of butterfly conservations, who view their objects of admiration as pieces of a whole, cogs to be manipulated and controlled in order to achieve a desired result. A thousand Schaus Swallowtails, for example, aren’t significant as a thousand living beings, but as representatives of an endangered butterfly species. To conservationists, the beings are all interchangeable members of a species, much as their corpses are interchangeable pieces of valuables and artwork to poachers and collectors.

Videos in this post

The Daily Show – June 17, 2009 – Peter Laufer
Peter Laufer sheds light on the villainous subculture of poachers who steal endangered butterflies and sell them for big money. (5.13)

First, the bad news: That rider to the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights, introduced by asshat extraordinaire Tom Coburn, which would allow visitors to carry loaded guns in national parks? Passed both the House and Senate – with the help of plenty of Blue Dog Dems, natch.

But on the bright side, Stephen and his fiancé, Sweetness, can take that honeymoon in Yellowstone that they’ve always dreamed of:
 

 
Also, this provides our park rangers an excellent opportunity to earn some extra funds, to prop up the crumbling national park system.
 

 
$20k on AK-47′s, anyone?

Videos in this post

The Colbert report – Monday, June 1, 2009 – Guns in National Parks
Thanks to Tom Coburn and the NRA, campers need no longer live in fear of being carjacked by a bison. (02:30)

The Daily Show – June 2, 2009 – Money Shot
Josh Gad explores the exciting investment opportunities in semi-automatic weapons.

Journalist Bob Woodruff made an appearance on The Daily Show last night in order to promote his latest project, Earth 2100:
 

I find it interesting that Stewart and Woodruff open the discussion with a clip of Earth 2100 that invokes the anecdote of the frog submerged in a pot of boiling water: namely, if you put a frog in a pot of water that’s already boiling, she’ll jump right out, having sensed the heat and danger. But if you place her in a pot of cold or lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature, she’s none the wiser, and will remain in the deathtrap until she becomes frog soup. In this metaphor, humans are the frogs, and the pot is earth.

Which is all fine and good, except according to Snopes, this is a folk tale:

Like a fable, the “boiled frog” anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it’s based upon something that is literally true. But it is literally true? Not according to Dr. Victor Hutchison, a Research Professor Emeritus from the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Zoology, whose research interests include “the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behavior”:

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

The “boiled frog” legend is a ubiquitous one – one that, given its falsehood, is both speciesist and completely inappropriate for what I assume is supposed to be a scientific documentary. The latter point is a given, but allow me to explain the former: central to the anecdote’s premise is the idea that a frog is so utterly stupid that, given subtle but entirely discernible cues, “it” would remain oblivious to the increasing danger and allow “itself” to be boiled alive. “Let’s not be like those lesser animals!” the tale cautions. Except. In denying climate change and poo-pooing slight increases in average global temperatures as “insignificant,” the human species is actually exhibiting less sense than Dog gave a frog. The frog isn’t earth’s complacent village idiot – we are.

Also of note: Jon alludes to the presumed vivisection which led to the “discovery” that frogs might allow themselves to be boiled alive, given the right circumstances. Both Stewart and Woodruff appear to think that such gruesome experiments probably took place years ago, in the distant past. Except.

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

While I can’t locate citations for these experiments, Wiki suggests that they’re more recent debunkings of “research” performed in the late 1800s (“research” on which the legend is apparently based).

So, yeah, we boil frogs alive – or attempt to, anyway. And that’s not even the worst of it.

Anyhow, back to Earth 2100.

The show strikes me as a prequel to Life After People – which I blogged about last week – albeit with a contingency plan. Of course, all the lifelines in the world won’t help unless we’re willing to avail ourselves of them.

From ‘Earth 2100′: the Final Century of Civilization?:

It’s an idea that most of us would rather not face — that within the next century, life as we know it could come to an end. Our civilization could crumble, leaving only traces of modern human existence behind.

To change the future, first you have to imagine it.

It seems outlandish, extreme — even impossible. But according to cutting edge scientific research, it is a very real possibility. And unless we make drastic changes now, it could very well happen. [...]

In the history of Earth, there have been five mass extinctions in which at least half the species on the planet disappeared. Scientists believe the extinctions were brought on by natural disasters — massive volcanic eruptions, rapid climate changes and meteors hitting Earth.

Today, scientists say we are in the middle of a “sixth extinction” — and for the first time, it’s being caused by one species — us. It seems inconceivable that we could do so much damage to our planet that we actually cause society as we know it to collapse. But historical precedent shows that it is, in fact, a very real possibility.

“Every society that collapsed thought it couldn’t happen to them,” says Joseph Tainter, an expert in anthropology and societal collapse. “The Roman Empire thought it couldn’t happen. The Maya civilization thought it couldn’t happen. Everyone thought it couldn’t happen to them. But it did.”

These populations grew too much and exhausted their resources — and their climate suddenly changed. People were forced to fight each other for what little was left or face starvation. Entire societies broke down.

“Civilizations in the past have lost the fight,” says climatologist Heidi Cullen. “They have collapsed as a result of the inability to deal with several different events going on at once. I think the takeaway is that honestly, we are not that special.”

Earth 2100 covers the obvious suspect (climate change) as well as water scarcity, oil and fuel depletion, national security, migration patterns, drought, flooding, mass (non-human) animal (species) extinctions, and other global crises. If you’re as cynical as I, probably you’ll read this as Exhibit #23,386,982 in favor of VHEMT.

Anyhow, if this all sounds interesting, Earth 2100 airs tonight on ABC at 9 PM ET – so set those timers!

There are also a number of clips available on the show’s website, so check it out.

In an entirely unrelated matter, I’m supremely disappointed that The Daily Show didn’t so much as mention the murder of Dr. Tiller on Monday’s episode. Granted, I didn’t expect them to devote a segment to it – nor would such a segment have been appropriate, unless conducted with righteous anger and a complete absence of humor, which Jon rarely deals in – but I had hoped for a mention of the crime, or at least an “in memoriam” graphic to close the show. But nada on what amounts to an atrocity committed against women everywhere. Fauxgressive much?

Videos in this post

The Daily Show – June 1, 2009 – Bob Woodruff
Bob Woodruff lays out the worst-case scenario for the future of our civilization in “Earth 2100.”

Tom Coburn is fast becoming my pick for Douchebag of the Week.

See, for example, minute 2:30 of this Daily Show clip:
 

 
Coburn’s complaints re: CAFE standards: “What if you want to drive a gas hog? You don’t have the right any longer in this country to spend your money to drive a gas hog?”

Yes! And should I be struck with the desire to toss a barrel of arsenic in my pond, who is the government to tell me I can’t? It’s MY arsenic and MY pond, goddammit, and my grandfather fought and died in WWII so that AMERICA THE FREE would remain FREE from this sort of BIG GOVERNMENT FASCISM.

What’s better/worse, Coburn defends the “right” of individuals to pollute and consume to excess while also working to strip women of the right to bodily autonomy and privacy. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and supports the death penalty for medical doctors who perform abortions. (Nor does he care to reduce the need for abortion by increasing the availability of and access to contraception.)

In Tom Coburn’s mind, a person has a greater “right” to decide what car to drive, than a person woman* has to decide whether or not she will lend her body and organs to another being – a potential being, which in its early stages exists as a tiny clump of cells – for nine months.

Car purchase > Bodily integrity

Seriously, what a douche.

And before the anti-choice, “but what about teh babybeez!?!1!” crowd jumps on me with the inevitable “How can you support animal rights and abortion?” “gotcha” question, see this FAQ by Gary Francione (question #11). I agree with 99% of it, save for the very last sentence. (No medical procedure should be foisted upon an able-minded adult without her consent, and besides, the whole late-term abortion controversy is a red herring anyhow.)

If a chimpanzee were to decide to abort the fetus living inside her, I’d be the first to support her right to do so. (That would be an apples-to-apples comparison, by the way.)

Filed under “intersections” because this is just one of many examples of privileged white dudes who, while decrying their perceived “lack of rights,” show little consideration for those different from themselves – in this case, the earth and all who live on it, particularly fertile women.

Oh, and can we stop using “hog” (and any and all variations of “pig”) as an insult, please?

Notes

* Note that no so-called “pro-lifers” clamor for legislation that would force the parents – mothers and fathers – of real, live babies and children to donate expendable body parts (bone marrow, blood, a kidney, a portion of the liver, etc.) should their offspring need them in order to survive. Tellingly, this moral mandate only applies to pregnant women.

Videos in this post

The Daily Show – May 20, 2009
Auto-Neurotic Gas Fixation
President Obama implements a national fuel efficiency standard, but it may endanger the lives of your family.

The (d)evolution of animal agriculture sounds so much more insidious (and comical, natch!) when applied to human vs. non-human animals!

(Cue fetus frenzy at 1:10.)
 

 
If only they could grow in vitro embryos. Oh, wait.

Videos in this post

March 16, 2009 – Stem Sell
John Oliver does his best Bush impression to prove science is undermining America.

Liam Neeson was on The Daily Show Thursday in order to promote his latest movie, Taken (which – and it pains me to admit this after sitting through his idiocy – doesn’t look half bad). In case you hadn’t heard, Neeson recently penned a letter to the New York City (City?) Council in opposition to recent legislation which would ban the horse carriage “biz” in NYC.*

Host Jon Stewart begins the interview by asking about Neeson’s efforts to “save” New York City’s carriage horses. By “save,” I mean continue to enslave and exploit. It’s tradition, dontchaknow!

Cue the stupid:
 

 
While I’ve enjoyed TDS off and on for years, I’ve always found Stewart’s interview skills to be, shall we say, somewhat lacking. And yet, with only a minimal grasp of the issues – and playing the most amiable Devil’s Advocate ever – Jon p0wns Liam. He offers up the rather commonsense observation that the horses would probably be happier in a more pastoral setting (as opposed to the stables next to his studio), where they’d be able to roam free without worrying about dodging NYC traffic. How about we build a home for the horses in Central Park, where citizens can “enjoy” them in a more natural environment, he suggests? A nice “compromise,” no?

In response, Neeson insists that the horses are treated well, blah blah blah, it would be irresponsible to lay off 400 workers while the economy’s in the toilet, yada yada yada, insert your standard appeals to tradition here, and – here’s the kicker – the horses actually prefer working a 9 to 5 job and spending all their off time confined to tiny little prison cells! They’ve been bred over thousands of years to love the city life! They get holidays off, yo! Hey, those stables are so clean and warm and comfy, I’d even live there, Neeson cries with glee.

Honestly, he comes off as borderline batshit.

Post-interview, Jon works in a nice little stab at Neeson’s expense. It’s not on the Moment of Zen video clip (damn you, Stewart!), but it involves a joke about Monday’s guest, Jimmy Carter, who’ll be coming out in favor of horse meat sandwiches.

Notes

* When it’s you vs. Alec Baldwin, and Alec Baldwin looks like the sane, kind, compassionate party in the dispute…well, that’s not a good sign, brother.

(Clip from the January 22, 2009 show.)