Jon Stewart in Egypt causes controversy for the dumbest reason possible (Like Usual)

June 23, 2013

Jon Stewart, during his working summer vacation, visited his friend and fellow TV satirist Bassem Youssef in Egypt h/t EOZ
So what could be the problem?
Egyptian paper Al Mesryoon complained about this appearance, because of a comment he makes early on about not working. He says “As you know my people like to wander the desert, that’s what I’m doing now…it’s been two weeks, I’ve got 38 years and 50 weeks left.”
Al Mesryoon, hilariously, says that Stewart was making fun of …the Koran!
You see, the Koran says that the Jews wandered 40 years in the desert because of their sins. How dare Jon Stewart mock the Koran! And to add insult to injury (a topic covered in the interview,) Stewart makes fun of Cairo traffic!

Dhimmi Stewart just doesn’t get how cursed everyone thinks he is in Egypt because of his arrogance… might be a good idea to not watch someone who is so completely oblivious that he has has feminists writing his jokes. That’s Benghazi for humor… or maybe Tahrir Square.


Audiences Fleeing MTV, Comedy Central

November 5, 2012

Two of the most prominent channels on your cable or dish system are suffering from significant audience decline.

Here’s a hint: one channel features a “news” duo who famously tilt to the left, while the other is known for foisting The Situation and Snooki on an unsuspecting public.

Comedy Central’s prime-time audience fell 19% in the four weeks through Oct. 21, while MTV’s viewership declined 32% in the same period, according to Nielsen.Signs of slight ratings erosion were evident at both channels earlier this year, but the recent numbers show a much greater decline. So far this year, Comedy Central’s average daily viewership is down 10% while MTV’s is off 18%. Nickelodeon’s audience, meanwhile, is down 23% for the year to date although the drop-off in September was narrower than in previous months….
MTV’s ratings falloff has come even before the channel loses its popular “Jersey Shore.” The reality show is in its last season and the network hasn’t developed any monster hits to replace it.

that would explain why the show is attempting more balance. It might be too little too late… and also no… not really


Jon Stewart In 2000 Interview: “I Would Say I’m More Of A Socialist”

May 25, 2012
fsfsfscThis is the same guy who swore to Bret Baier he wasn’t a Leftist? He’s a snide arrogant guy. Do you think he would want to increase the freedoms for people around him? Think about it

Copyright Tail Trying to Wag Internet Dog

April 16, 2011

A possible landmark copyright case is now before the 2d Circuit, Viacom et al. v. YouTube. On behalf of 44 co-signatory law professors, Annemarie Bridy and I wrote an amicus brief urging the court to affirm the lower court’s decision that YouTube is immune from copyright claims unless it has item-specific and location-specific information about infringing postings. The brief — which I think turned out quite well, and is, at the very least, a good example of decent legal prose — is available here. Briefs submitted by other amici (and there are lots of them) are available here.

I’ve reprinted below some of my comments from earlier postings about the case. I could be falling prey to a common syndrome: when you work as an advocate for one side in a case for a while, you begin to believe that you have truth and justice firmly on your side, that the opposing position is outrageous and contrary to all common sense and moral principle . . . . But I really do think this one matters, for the future of the Net.
It was a bit more of an adventure submitting this brief than it should have been — the 2d Circuit does not treat its “amici” in a very friendly fashion. Not only must you be admitted to the 2d Circuit bar to submit an amicus brief — no temporary admissions pro haec vice are permitted — but you also have to be sure to be hooked up to the latest version of the court’s electronic filing system; not huge problem, i suppose if you’re a lawyer or law firm practicing frequently in front of the 2d Circuit, but not something that a law professor, even if admitted to the court’s bar, is likely to be current with. And even if the parties themselves require electronic filing, the court does not — so in addition to getting all the aforementioned ducks in a row, you have to comply with the court’s rather arcane printing rules and deliver 6 hard copies to them. Seems all a bit overly formalized, and a means to discourage, rather than encourage, participation — I mean, they don’t have to even read the briefs that are submitted, so why make it so hard for people to submit them?
And one little humorous side note. As noted here, YouTube has changed its “repeat infringer” policy. The Copyright Act requires, as a pre-condition to asserting the immunity from infringement claims provided in section 512, that a service provider

“has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and

YouTube has had such a policy for a while — more or less a “3 strikes and you’re out” kind of thing. [Indeed, one of the truly outrageous things I learned while working on this brief is that Viacom itself was actually thrown off of YouTube as a “repeat infringer” because its marketing department had posted thousands of files for promotional purposes, and its legal department issued hundreds of “takedown notices” with respect to many of them]. But now they’ll let you come back onto the system if you go to “copyright school” — watch a video and take a copyright exam [The video is pretty good — good enough that I couldn’t tell whether it was YouTube’s copyright school or a parody of same . . .]
[thanks to Ben Mishkin and Steven Kim for pointers]
***********
from earlier postings

YouTube successfully defended itself against infringement claims brought by a host of content providers by asserting the “safe harbor” provisions of sec. 512(c) of the Copyright Act, and the case concerns the interpretation of that provision. The section 512 safe harbors have been of prodigious importance — by giving providers of online applications and services a defense to infringement claims arising out of their users’ activities (e.g., user postings of infringing files on YouTube), it has enabled the (astonishing) growth of “user-generated content” or “Web 2.0″ sites over the past decade — YouTube, Facebook, Craigslist, Tumblr, Twitter, Myspace, Blogger, and on and on and on. At the absurdly high volume at which these sites operate — 250,000 words a minute posted on Blogger, 40 hours of video a minute on YouTube, etc. — the liability risk without a safe harbor of some kind is truly astronomical, running into the billions of dollars a day. So you don’t get a YouTube, or a Facebook, or a Blogger, etc. without something like sec. 512; it’s no accident, as I’ve pointed out before, that all of the largest Web 2.0 sites on the global net are based here in the US. And, among other things, if you don’t have a YouTube, or a Facebook, or a Twitter, Hosni Mubarak is still the President of Egypt.
So there’s a lot at stake in how the 2d Circuit — widely regarded, along with the 9th Circuit, as the source of the most important copyright doctrine — interprets the statute. Precedent up to now (mostly in the 9th Circuit) has (correctly) given service providers very broad protection under the statutory immunity; to make a very long story short, the service providers (like YouTube) have no duty to find infringing material that may be present on their site, or to do anything about infringing material on their site, unless and until the existence of the infringement(s) is brought to their attention by the copyright holder. Once they receive such a notification from the copyright holder (through a detailed set of procedures laid out in the statute), they have to act — removing or disabling access to the offending material (and informing the user that they’ve done so). But without receiving the notice of infringement, they’re under no duty to act, and they’re within the safe harbor if the copyright holder subsequently asserts a claim against them.
The content providers don’t like it, needless to say. They’d like YouTube to, say, take down everything uploaded to the site that is labelled “The Daily Show,” for instance, or “Lionel Messi’s Fabulous Goal vs Arsenal,” on the grounds that they should know of the infringing nature of the postings, without having to be specifically informed of that by the copyright holder. If you want to know why that’s both wrong (as a matter of statutory construction) and absurd (as a matter of public policy), read the brief. [It’s pretty short — 18 pages or so of text — and the prose, of course, is crystalline).
If the 2d Circuit endorses the 9th Circuit position — and I fervently hope that it does — that battle, at least, is probably over; there’s not much copyright doctrine out there where the 2d and 9th Circuits are in agreement but some other circuit (or the Supreme Court, for that matter) takes an opposing view.


Don’t Judge a Comic Book by its creator’s appearance on The Daily Show

March 3, 2011
apparently this was edited out:
the artist responded,
“What’s wrong with Batman in
WW2 recruiting a German Batman
without any mention of Nazis?”
when asked
“What’s wrong with a Muslim Batman?
Nightrunner is a citizen of France,
a Sunni Muslim,
and 22 years old living
in the Clichy-sous-Bois
of Paris who is phenomenally
well trained in parkour.
…A comic artist did a response to Batman allowing a Muslim Robin by creating a former Muslim Superhero who fights against the Jihad and the media hazes him with it’s oil money enabled hostility to anyone who questions tolerance to Muslims who believe it is their right kill us.  Batman and most Superheroes were created by Jews, but sadly Time Warner the producer of CNN and other media that has been gliding Obama’s fictions to the mainstream is hostile to our lives and overly friendly with government.

I knew it was only going to get worse at DC Comics: in his continuing efforts to form Batman Inc, Bruce Wayne recruits an Algerian Muslim living in France, in Clichy-Sous-Bois, where the Muslim riots grew out of in 2005, over the death of 2 delinquents who electrocuted themselves by stupidly entering a power station, and the blame was laid upon at least 2 policemen who weren’t even at fault and didn’t even know they were there. How about that, Bruce Wayne goes to France where he hires not a genuine French boy or girl with a real sense of justice, but rather, an “oppressed” minority who adheres to the Religion of Peace. And this is a guy whose very parents were murdered at the hands of a common street thug!

And reading this review, it may be just the beginning of the problems:

Bruce reveals that he’s aware of some bizarre assassinations taking place in Paris, and he wants to help. Still dubious, the cop shows Bruce a letter giving clues to the next murder, and Bruce deducts that a Muslim diplomat was the target of the assassin.

Really? Not a cartoonist like Kurt Westergaard or Lars Vilks?

via fawstin.blogspot.com
via gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com via ibloga.blogspot.com
G.I. Joe fought fictional terrorists called Cobra.  They never dealt with real terrorists in fear of offending anyone, but the media will enable a lie like Islam completely.


Meet Andy Khouri, a showbiz writing variant on Edward Said

March 3, 2011
photo

Andy Khouri Jihad Enabler Center via flickr.com

People with long memories may recall the case of the late Edward Said, a Columbia University professor and contributor to The Nation, not to mention an anti-Israelist, whom Prof. Justus Weiner discovered a decade ago had faked his autobiographies. Said was an Arab of Christian faith, and sadly, left-wing faith, who took the side of the Islamic entity that wants to destroy Israel and refused to recognize the Jewish inheritance of the Land of Israel.
I thought about this while looking at the works of a writer for the AOL-owned Comics Alliance named Andy Khouri, who wrote an obnoxious, unhinged rant a few months ago where he seethed with rage he probably won’t admit that people like me and Warner Todd Huston would ever dare criticize his favorite other religion (which he rather predictably confuses with race) when DC Comics and British writer David Hine did their propaganda stunt in Batman, and this week has written another entry for them where he talks about a podcast they have of an interview one of their writers did with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. His current blather is actually amusing in a sense, since it’s fairly erratic as his seething apparently got the better of him.

another hipster asshole.


Everybody doesn’t have to pay their taxes… except this guy

October 31, 2010

Here is the deal. He’s an adult. Everyone else is children because we think our taxes are too high. So the new rule is any large corporation that proportionately financed Obama in the last election and this guy… is going to be taxed. Everyone else is free to watch this guy make a new sign.

via news.nationalpost.com