Login |  Register




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090326 14:04 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:31
Posts: 306
Location: Japan
Stephen Colbert has a large number of viewers and he sometimes takes advantage of them for various projects, like editing Wikipedia or getting a bridge in Hungary named after him.

Of course, the news that NASA was holding a poll to name the final module of the International Space Station came out. Such a chance could not simply be allowed to pass! So he galvanized his faithful viewers and had them write his name in. If he won, the Colbert Module would immortalize him for however long it took for the station to fall out of use and be destroyed. I guess he'd outlive it -- that's not much immortality...

But he won!


Of course, NASA doesn't really want to name the station module after him. Come on, Colbert? It sounds like a cheese -- hardly a name to inspire extraplanetary fervor in anyone. Still, it was a fair (?) vote, and the results have to be acknowledge.

So there's a rumor that they may compromise.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 07:17 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090301 04:38
Posts: 268
Location: Cleveland, OH
I know Panda and I already discussed this on MSN messenger, but I'd like to say this is just awesome. I know I'm a bit biased because I like Stephen Colbert, but hey, a write in a vote is a write in vote.

Best thing about it is that most people put "write in" shit on votes, always assuming that no write-in will EVER get enough votes to actually make a difference. In effect, the write in vote is a cop-out, half-assed thing today. To see it actually succeed means that the vote-holders need to put their vote system where their mouth is and accept the results. Now, of course, this is assuming there were no major restrictions on the write in vote. Ignoring the obvious restrictions like "no swear words, ethnic or racial slurs, body parts, etc...", if there were no restrictions on being named after a person, I feel that NASA needs to bite the bullet on this one.

In conclusion, I at least hope there can be a compromise; hopefully they don't throw out the name outright.

_________________
Bro locks got shoots. U can shoots bro. Drop ya rofl.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 16:38 
Forum Underling
Forum Underling
User avatar
Joined: 090326 04:00
Posts: 69
Location: Between atei and nemesis
Write-in votes are democracy at its finest.

Really, though, if Stephen Colbert ever went crazy and started a cult, he could probably get a lot of people to drink the kool-aid. For a satirical television personality, he has a rabidly devoted collection of followers.

_________________
"Sophocles wrote about men as they should be, but Euripides about them as they are" -Aristotle, Poetics 1460b35


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 21:39 
Deserter
User avatar
Joined: 090226 22:52
Posts: 103
I'm a big Colbert fan myself. I don't really understand the fanaticism though. I thought it was just for hyperbole's sake, but do people take it seriously? Either way, Colbert definetly deserves his name on the station. The other names were terrible... crap like Discovery and Pride or equally overused words. Could you get any more cliche', what-so-ever?

I'm still a bit dissapointed Colbert didn't make a serious run for the presidency. I would have voted for him.

_________________
"If I could take it all back now, I wouldn't. I would have did more shit that people said that I shouldn't." - Marshall Mathers

"I hardly ever leave my house or my neighborhood really, and that's not a sad thing." - Fiona Apple

"It's alright, ma. It's life and life only." - Bob Dylan


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 22:36 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:31
Posts: 306
Location: Japan
You would have voted for a carefully-scripted artificial personality crafted for comedy? Sounds more like fanaticism than common sense.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 23:19 
Deserter
User avatar
Joined: 090226 22:52
Posts: 103
Scott wrote:
You would have voted for a carefully-scripted artificial personality crafted for comedy? Sounds more like fanaticism than common sense.


Haha, I knew you would say that. ;)

The thing you aren't taking into consideration is the type of person am: someone who despises society for every second of every day. My agenda is dyscordian. I firmly believe that politics itself is a carefully-scripted, artificial institution. Under the circumstances, I'd much rather vote for someone who is both overt in the fact that they are fake, and unencumbered by overwhelming corporate grooming: if Colbert was elected President, mightn't he make a joke of it, and have the balls to take serious chances that bought-and-paid-for (not to mention well-groomed for politically-correct thinking) politicians would never dream of? I prefer that fate over pretending that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have said a single sincere thing to the public for the entirity of their political life. That's the beauty of shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Amidst the jokes, they expose some of the illegitimacy. One of my favorite moments was when they showed Obama's inauguration speech next to Bush's... and they said basically the same thing. Change? Hahahahaha. Hilarious.

But it's not even driven by the fact that I believe politics is a humurously insincere affair no more legitimate than the mafia. The main thing that makes me want to make a mockery of politics by electing Colbert is because politics doesn't really effect me and it is given so much undo credit. People put such a large amount of importance on it, while it effectively becomes a ballet or staged wrestling show, something to make adults feel important. The balance of powers does quite a good job of keeping everything very mild, and politicians don't have the balls to try and cause significantl changes. Don't get me wrong, politics effects some people desperately, especially people fighting in current wars. But *me*? Politics doesn't effect me. I'm pro-abortion, but unless I become famous, I'll never even have sex. I'm pro-gay rights, but I'm not gay. Even legalizing weed would scarcely change any of my habits, it's not like I don't smoke it already. Small little changes in policy and taxes don't concern me, considering money itself doesn't much concern me, and choosing which politicians get elected doesn't even decide what small adjustments will occur; Dems vote against abortion, Repubs raise taxes. More than anything, it's a part of a complicated web that we only have a minor sliver of control over and only in a rather vague, roundabout way. It's mainly a ballet, with tiny bursts of actual accomplishment here and there. For somebody fighting in Iraq? Sure, pay attention to politics. For someone under the radar like me? Doesn't make a difference enough to be worth concern. Electing Colbert would be the ultimate statement of politics' absurdity, and it'd be nice to have someone in there who I actually give a damn enough about to even register to vote. I'll take crafted for comedy over crafted specifically to fool us any day. And when push comes to shove -- what makes my opinion superior to other people? If I'm a democrat, roughly 50% of America believes that doing the opposite of my agenda will be better for EVERYOnE. We put up such harsh party boundaries and bitch about it, but if 50% of the populous believes in one course of action, how bad could it really be? There are special circumstances like violent uprisigs, but outside of that I don't really see a need for everyone to get so hot headed over politics... it's pretty much ego when it comes down to it. Somebody believes in themself so much that they believe the world will literally crumble if the other 50% get their way. Who's the perfect symbol to prop up for the stupidity of party politics? Colbert.

The reason I don't understand the fanaticism towards Colbert is because I highly doubt there are legions of people out there who feel the same way that I do. If there were, my music would have more fans, for one thing. I'm sure there are people who agree with me, but I doubt discordian anti-politics has anything to do with people wanting to name space stations and spiders.

_________________
"If I could take it all back now, I wouldn't. I would have did more shit that people said that I shouldn't." - Marshall Mathers

"I hardly ever leave my house or my neighborhood really, and that's not a sad thing." - Fiona Apple

"It's alright, ma. It's life and life only." - Bob Dylan


Last edited by IfTheLightTakesUs on 090327 23:28, edited 1 time in total.

Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090327 23:27 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:31
Posts: 306
Location: Japan
Quote:
unencumbered by overwhelming corporate grooming


The man works on TV. I don't see how that is, in any way, unencumbered by corporate grooming.

Quote:
if Colbert was elected President, mightn't he make a joke of it, and have the balls to take serious chances


I doubt he'd know where to begin. I doubt he has relationships with other people in different parts of the system. In case you missed it, the government has three branches and an elaborate series of checks and balances; even if he were elected and he tried to do something extreme, for better or for worse, it probably would get killed in the legislative branch.

It sounds more like you'd want to vote for him not because of who he is, but just for the sake of bucking the curve and "sticking it to the man". That's a terrible way to choose a path for four years.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090328 03:35 
Deserter
User avatar
Joined: 090226 22:52
Posts: 103
Scott wrote:
The man works on TV. I don't see how that is, in any way, unencumbered by corporate grooming.


True, but that's part of the point. I think I remember him having Doritos sponsor his campaign. It's not only hilarious, it also addresses the fact that rea llife politicians are every bit as corporate as that, they just hide it better. Instead of being sponsored by Doritos, Obama was sponsored by pharmecutical giants and the other masters of industry in the US. Frankly, I'd much rather have somebody sponsored by Doritos.

The corporate grooming of a politician and the corporate aspects of a TV star are very different, which is a point Jon Stewart constantly makes in his arguments against political pundits. A politician is trained to be a two-faced insincere diplomat, posing as the real thing. A TV star is overtly unreal and doesn't have to please *everybody* like politicians are taught to.

Quote:

I doubt he'd know where to begin. I doubt he has relationships with other people in different parts of the system. In case you missed it, the government has three branches and an elaborate series of checks and balances; even if he were elected and he tried to do something extreme, for better or for worse, it probably would get killed in the legislative branch.


Yeah, I mentioened the balance of powers. It's a beautiful system and it's one of the reasons that politics has no need for my input. But the president does have unique and consequential powers, for example the power to issue executive orders. If Colbert had the mind to, heck even if Obama had the mind to (not that he would, because he's a politician), very dramatic changes could be made post-haste. And even if it's only a matter of time before the other branches catch up and reverse the changes, even trying them out momentarily would shake up the system and give some ideas a chance that in our system either never will or won't for decades.

Quote:
It sounds more like you'd want to vote for him not because of who he is, but just for the sake of bucking the curve and "sticking it to the man". That's a terrible way to choose a path for four years.


Nah, that's not what I said, though I did focus on the ideas more than Colbert himself. To sum up my reasons... Colbert isn't a politician, he's a person who has proven that his TV comedian persona allows him to be a hundred times more real and more serious than all these highly inhibited, people-pleasing politicians. Colbert and Stewart constantly display how the fact that they're essentially TV clowns lets them be blunt and say things that a "serious" politician never could; it's a facade but it's a much more promising facade than the straight-faced lying of every major candidate the democrats and republicans have. The second core reason is that Colbert is a symbol (a satire, in fact) of the biggest problems with politics today. People demonify the opposing party and shamelessly engrandize their conflict instead of being serious and looking at it as humans with opposing but not-world-destroying ideas. Electing him would be an acknowledgment of those problems, and since he's a satire of what's wrong with politics, even as a scripted personality, he likely has at least a cursory knowledge of what those issues are. More than anything I think politics coudl use people who are not part of the political machine. And as conspiracy-theory as it may sound, I doubt there are very many poli sci people who would sincerely deny that there is a powerful political machine at work in the US. I mean, with this many people it's pretty hard to have a sincere system. It takes corporations to make anybody stand out.

Besides, I don't think who becomes president is very important. Most presidents are too timid to try anything drastic what-so-ever. I even have doubts that Colbert would have the balls... But he would have a better likelihood than most, and he'd have a better chance at winning than Ron Paul, who is the only other guy from the last election that I think might have had the conviction to change things.

_________________
"If I could take it all back now, I wouldn't. I would have did more shit that people said that I shouldn't." - Marshall Mathers

"I hardly ever leave my house or my neighborhood really, and that's not a sad thing." - Fiona Apple

"It's alright, ma. It's life and life only." - Bob Dylan


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090328 19:38 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090301 04:38
Posts: 268
Location: Cleveland, OH
IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
I firmly believe that politics itself is a carefully-scripted, artificial institution.


IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
It's a beautiful system...


How are these statements reconciled?

IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
...very dramatic changes could be made post-haste. And even if it's only a matter of time before the other branches catch up and reverse the changes, even trying them out momentarily would shake up the system and give some ideas a chance that in our system either never will or won't for decades.


It's usually a really bad idea to make rapid changes with little to no input from others and little to no planning just to "shake things up". :? Especially when the changes will likely be felt not just nationwide, but globally...

_________________
Bro locks got shoots. U can shoots bro. Drop ya rofl.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Stephen Colbert... Station?
PostPosted: 090329 01:41 
Deserter
User avatar
Joined: 090226 22:52
Posts: 103
Kashi wrote:
IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
I firmly believe that politics itself is a carefully-scripted, artificial institution.


IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
It's a beautiful system...


How are these statements reconciled?


Current US political climate and the foundations of the US government are not one and the same. The founding fathers did a genius job of crafting this system of government. The two party system of dummy plug robots we have today is atrocious, but the government was set up so succinctly that the astounding incompetence of our current political system doesn't adversely effect me. The balance of powers is genius. Running the government through corporate lobbying and bold-faced deception is despicable. They two aren't particularly related. In today's world, the government itself is only a small part of our "politics."

Quote:
IfTheLightTakesUs wrote:
...very dramatic changes could be made
post-haste. And even if it's only a matter of time before the other branches catch up and reverse the changes, even trying them out momentarily would shake up the system and give some ideas a chance that in our system either never will or won't for decades.


It's usually a really bad idea to make rapid changes with little to no input from others and little to no planning just to "shake things up". :? Especially when the changes will likely be felt not just nationwide, but globally...


Who said anything about doing anything for the sake of shaking things up? Your idea, not mine. Furthermore who said anything about there not being planning or input from others? Twasn't me. These changes should involve minimal input from "Big Oil" "Big Pharmecuticals" or "Big (anything)" and they certainly shouldn't be put through the traditional channels. But by no means does that mean *any* of this is being done without careful consideration and varied input. The thing is, there are more ideas out there than just the one or two middle of the road choices a democrat or republican would consider. In many cases, the research is already done. Our hypothetical Obama/Colbert/Ron Paul doesn't need to throw a secret think-tank tonight if he wants to consider legalizing marijuana or prostitution. Even though mainstream politics has a tiny scope, there are organizations who do the research for a plethora of alternative concepts. The 'shaking' I propsed is not the goal of the exercise, it's a result of how well the new policies will work out, giving previously unpopular ideas legions of support.

Maybe ya'll should gimme the benefit of the doubt more often. If you ever think I'm being contradictory, 99.9% of all cases I either flubbed up trying to express a complex idea or you merely misread what I said. I could be right, I could be wrong, I could be mentally retarded, but none of my ideas are ill-prepared or under-thought. I know my writing style is dense, but it certainly seems like everybody is assuming the worst when I say something that they think might seem vaguely incongruent. I'm surely taking things too personal but so be it, it is what it is. I just think there are kinder ways to have a discussion.

_________________
"If I could take it all back now, I wouldn't. I would have did more shit that people said that I shouldn't." - Marshall Mathers

"I hardly ever leave my house or my neighborhood really, and that's not a sad thing." - Fiona Apple

"It's alright, ma. It's life and life only." - Bob Dylan


Profile  Offline
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Panel

Top You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
 cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Dizayn Ercan Koc