What’s your point?

Ever since I put up my post (and made a video) suggesting Sheryl Crow should shut the fuck up, I’ve been formulating what I want to say about climate change “skeptics”. Skepticism is a good thing generally, being naturally skeptical will protect you more often than it will hurt you. Blind faith is far more likely to do you damage than healthy skepticism.

But I use the term “skeptic” loosely when describing climate change deniers because I strongly suspect that a significant majority of them aren’t true skeptics – they simply don’t care to know the truth about climate change. I’d also divide this “don’t care” brigade into two groups – those who believe the prevailing scientific consensus about climate change is probably true but still don’t care and those who don’t believe but don’t care to discover what the truth might be (as if there is a simple and all-encompassing truth on the topic).

Here’s the cynical part of me talking (yes, I know, the cynical part of me is clearly at least 90% of me. Shut up. Do you like how I have conversations with you, dear reader, as I type? I’m clearly insane. Unless that’s what you were thinking. That would make me psychic. Are you freaked out yet? Oh god, I’m getting off track.) The cynical part of me says the loudest voices speaking out against the scientific consensus of climate change are nothing more than paid shills for vested interests in governments and energy companies.

This scares me because the people running these companies aren’t stupid. I think the majority of them realise serious problems are coming, it’s incredibly unlikely that such a large body of scientific consensus would be utterly wrong (although it may well prove to be wrong in some important aspects.) It’s just that… well, they don’t give a fuck.

Either their thinking is literally “I’ll be dead before the worst hits, so I don’t give a fuck,” or they assume we’ll find some way to cope or some magical technological breakthrough will save the day (which may well happen) so they care more about their short term profits than they care about the prospect of long term damage. 

To defend themselves, they use their positions of power to sow seeds of doubt. Sometimes they make points that are true in isolation. These points don’t refute the concept of climate change but they pretend that they do. Sometimes they distort sort-of true statements to an absurd degree. Sometimes they tell outright lies. The thing I’ve noticed that all these approaches have in common is a tendency to focus on isolated aspects of the arguments supporting the notion of climate change without addressing the overall issue.

They pretend that by picking on these isolated issues they have refuted climate change in its entirety when they’ve done no such thing. They’re not even close, in fact they’re deliberately avoiding dealing with the larger issues. In my opinion, they do this because it isn’t possible to successfully discredit the full body of scientific knowledge on climate change so they spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the minds of the public.

The concept of FUD will be familiar to people who work in the IT field. Microsoft are past masters at spreading FUD to undermining competitors although they’re far from alone in the practice. When you can can’t take an opponent head-on, chip away at the edges and hope people start to lose faith.

For me, one of the best ways to counter FUD is to ask the person spreading it: “What’s your point?” And keep asking. If someone can’t clearly explain to you why they’re pushing a particular view it’s usually a good sign they aren’t being honest. 

When someone says “there is dissent among scientists,” ask: “What’s your point?  Are you saying because you can show there isn’t 100% consensus that you have conclusive evidence that climate change is not a serious problem?”  The argument here seems to be, as Stephen Colbert said, “Why can’t the 5% of dissenters have 50% of the time?”

When someone says “there are other important problems that are killing people now, like malaria,” say: “What’s your point?  Are you saying we must ignore climate change to deal with malaria?  Because I’m not saying we have to ignore all other problems and focus solely on climate change.  Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?  Why can’t we do both?”

When someone says “Al Gore wants us to give up our lifestyle because of global warming but he lives in a big house that uses lots of electricity,” say: “What’s your point?  Are you saying if you discredit Al Gore (despite the fact that the story was mostly a beat-up that omitted important facts and was laced with outright lies) you have proven that climate change is not an issue?  The worst you can do there is paint Al Gore as a hypocrite which does nothing to undermine the scientific consensus about climate change”

When someone says “if global warming is real, why is it so cold today?” say: “Shut the fuck up!”  OK, you could say “What’s your point?  Are you saying that the sum total of scientific thought on the issue of climate change is that it will always be warmer everywhere?  If so, you’re a fucking moron.  Shut the fuck up.”  But that would waste time.  With some people it’s much more efficient to go straight to shut the fuck up.

There’s a lot more I plan to go into on this topic, particularly an exploration of some of the worst, most evil lies propagated by climate change deniers.  The most dangerous position to take on either side of the argument is an absolute one that allows for no further discussion, hence my strategy of asking “What’s your point?”  The subject is not closed because someone makes some grand pronouncement that they think resolves the situation conclusively – the issue is far more complex than that.

There’s no single cause of climate change and there’s no one solution.  There isn’t even really a single thing called “global warming”.  You can’t point at a specific thing and say “that’s global warming” (an attitude spoofed hilariously on South Park).  There isn’t a convenient end point to discussions of climate change and I deeply distrust anyone who makes sweeping statements that suggests they are the holder of ultimate knowledge.  It’s important to at least listen to people when you disagree with their position.

But it’s even more important to realise when they’re talking shit.  That’s my point, what’s yours?

Advertisement

John Stewart is Ripping Me Off!

Well, not really. But I did just see on The Daily Show that he did the exact same joke about that scumbag Republican Mark Foley that I did the other day for The Angry News video “Republican Sex Shenanigans.” He used the line that Foley had sponsored legislation to protect minors from online predators “so he could have them all to himself.”

Quite frankly, this rocks. It might not have been the best joke in the world but it was good enough for the Daily Show. That makes me think I might have a future.

Coincidentally, this really illustrates the pointlessness of the non-story from a few weeks ago where some people were saying The Colbert Report ripped off ZeFrank. It’s simple folks – if you come up with an obvious joke about a current event, you won’t be the only one who comes up with it.

Stephen Colbert, ZeFrank, a doughnut and a predictable backlash

Long-time readers of this blog will know I’m a big fan of Stephen Colbert, having formed the Church of Colbert earlier in the year after being simply overwhelmed by his ballsiness in ripping on George W Bush at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner.  While Bush was sitting about an arm’s length away from him.  Go and watch it on Google video if you’ve never seen it – it’s astonishing.

More recently, I have become a fan of ZeFrank, an online video blogger funny type dude.  ZeFrank’s “The Show” is, for my money, far and away the best work of its type being done online.  If anyone thinks they’ve found a video blogger funnier than ZeFrank I’d love to hear about them.

Anyway, this week, Colbert finds himself embroiled in an Internet storm-in-a-teacup involving ZeFrank and a doughnut.  Sharp-eyed WordPress blogger Kleinschmidt who has an interest in mathematics noted that ZeFrank and Colbert made essentially the same joke about the Poincare conjecture, illustrated with a doughnut.  ZeFrank’s show featured the joke before Colbert’s.  He made a good natured joke about the cynic in him thinking Colbert had ripped off ZeFrank but acknowledging that in all probability it was a coincidence.  The blog linked to above contains links to both videos so you can see them for yourself.

Then BoingBoing picked it up and ran with the rather more sensational headline “The Colbert Report rips off Ze Frank? For shame, if so.”  This in not a rip on BoingBoing, I’m a big fan and they did leave the question open ended.  Then they went and included a reader comment that basically said Colbert does this all the time as you’ll see in the following quotes:

“this isn’t the first time I’ve seen Colbert “ripping off stuff” from the Internets… It’s like he takes the stuff that, say, received 1,300 diggs that day and does the same thing on show and passes it off as his own… Now I wish I had a bunch of examples to give you to back up my point, but I don’t. I know, bad me.”

So essentially they decided to reprint someone’s opinion slagging off Colbert when that person admits to having no objective measurement for what he’s saying, just his opinion.  Well, I guess that’s what blogging is all about – slinging shit at other people.  The overall tone of the BoingBoing piece was reasonable enough but this reader comment was just bullshit.

Let’s see if we can objectively recap what happened.  ZeFrank does a daily show where he gives humourous takes on current events.  Colbert has a daily show where he… you guessed it… gives humourous takes on current events.  They both make an incredibly obvious joke about a current event.  The fact that ZeFrank got his version out first does not give us a straight line to Colbert ripping him off.  Admittedly, if I did a joke on my blog and then saw the same joke on a TV show a day later I’d be pretty spaced.  I might even suspect I’d been ripped off.  To his credit, ZeFrank doesn’t seem to be making a big deal about it.

If you think about it, for this story of a deliberate rip-off to be true, The Colbert Report’s writers, producers and Colbert himself would have to be stupid enough to think they could steal from one of the most popular video bloggers on the net and get away with it.  Possible but not very fucking likely.  And seeing someone big-note themselves and go on about how Colbert is unoriginal just pisses me off.  It’s an absolutely predictable backlash against someone who’s popular – it always happens.  Someone tries to build themselves up by tearing someone else down.  Real responsible, BoingBoing. 

Like I should complain.  I say worse things all the time.

Funny Search Results

One of the things I do while obsessively trying to broaden my blog readership, spread the angry meme and take over the world is check to see what search terms land people on my blog.  Predictable enough, many of the searches include some variant of "angry" but some of criteria that result in search engines pointing people here are more intriguing, if not downright funny.

No surprises that writing about Stephen Colbert in the last week has been good for attracting readers although this has more been the case with blog aggregators like Technorati than search engines like Google.  I hope I haven't been too cynical on this front – the longer pieces I've written have been heartfelt and I've kept the jokey littering of Stephen Colbert keywords and tags to a minimum.  Except then.  That double reference to Stephen Colbert was a little gratuitous.  So was that.  Anyway, join the Church of Colbert.

Some other search terms that have given me a smile (or puzzled me) are:

"Words to use when angry" – I hope they meant angry words to use for venting, they're in the right place for that.  If they were looking for calming words, they're shit out of luck.

"How to calm angry teenagers" – ummm, sorry, you fucked up there.  I'm no help to you on that front.

"Why does a year have 365 days?" – this one threw me for a while.  Then I worked out it was from the blog title.  There were four variations on this so I suspected this may have been some sort of school project somewhere.  If that was the case, those kids were probably all suspended for visiting an obscene site.

"guys fucking parents" – oooookay.  I really don't think I want to meet that person.

Search engines are weird.

Stephen Colbert Nude Sex Teen Orgy

I was reading Mutant Cat's blog and decided I could one-up her on the attention grabbing post title.

So aside from silly search engine manipulation games, I wanted to alienate some readers today.  Well, actually I don't really want to alienate readers but I suspect my angry rant today can't help but put some people offside.  The reason is statistically, it's a safe bet that at least 25% of people reading this blog are smokers and there's no nice way to say this: smoking is really fucking stupid.

I recognise that the previous sentence is technically inaccurate: there are potentially many nice ways to say smoking is stupid.  Fucked if I can be bothered coming up with one though.

Smoking is expensing, stinky, disgusting, insulting and offensive to people around you, destroys your quality of life and ENDS UP FUCKING KILLING YOU!  Usually in a slow, painful, disgusting manner.  There is no rational defence to smoking.  It isn't a personal choice that you should have the right to.  Unless you want to limit your smoking to a closed room somewhere AND NEVER FUCKING DO IT IN PUBLIC WHERE I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT!  Seriously, if you want to assert your right to smoke do it in your own home and don't interfere with my fucking right to breathe!

And fuck the idea of smokers' rights!  What about axe murderer's rights?  Axe murderers kill way less people than smoking (like, several million less) but the law is all over axe murderers.  The best I can hope is that bans on smoking in public places continue to spread.  Count yourself lucky smokers, axe murderers aren't even able to indulge in the privacy of their own homes without "the man" getting all up in their face.

The only downside to banning smoking in public is that prohibition gives it an aura of rebellion.  To really fucking stupid people.  I might add that these stupid people are often very intelligent in almost every other aspect of their life but they make this one really dumb choice.  I remember a quote from Timothy Leary where he said something along the lines that when he was once told it was illegal to smoke in an airport, he blew smoke in the person's face saying he was "proud to be a criminal".  And if I'd been there I would've been proud to smack him in the fucking mouth for saying something so irredeemably stupid.

If you want to make me really angry, proclaim that you're a radical lefty while smoking.  Yeah right, you're radical.  While supporting some of the biggest most corrupt corporations on the planet who kill people with their lies, coerce third world farmers into growing the cash crop of tobacco rather than food that might actually keep people alive and refuse to accept their moral responsibility for marketing a product whose sole side effect is death.  There is no safe level of smoking.

The only justification I'll listen to from a smoker is "I got suckered into smoking and now I'm hopelessly addicted to this disgusting habit and I'm incapable of giving up."  Anything else is bullshit.  And the only justification I'll accept from someone who insists on screwing up public spaces with smoking is "This is a suicide attempt – I want you to strangle me."

The Church of Colbert

One week on and Stephen Colbert is no less a god and the US media and right wingers are no less a pack of weenies. So I have decided to make it official.

I am convening the international inter-faith non-demoninational Church of Colbert.

He is the god of all who want to stand up to bullies and the patron saint of bravery. You don't have to renounce any other faith to join the Church of Colbert just take the daily challenge:

Did I do anything today that measures up to facing down the president of the United States and calling him a lying sack of shit to his face?

I know for myself the odds are the answer will always be no. But keep trying. Maybe you can do better.

What’s in a Name?

OK, I've had enough with the cynical exploiting of the fact that Stephen Colbert is the number one topic in the blogosphere at the moment. I've said all I need to about Stephen Colbert. Just because mentioning Stephen Colbert means that new people might find my blog I'm not blogging about Stephen Colbert today.

Stephen Colbert.

What I really want to blog about today is how some parents make me angry because of the stupid names they choose for their kids. Now, a lot of people will say names are a personal thing and there is no right and wrong. To a degree, they're right. Names are personal – for the kid. I have a simple rule when choosing kid's names: will it get the kids beaten up at school? This is not even a recent problem – anyone remember Johnny Cash singing "A Boy Named Sue"? If you can't honestly answer that the name isn't going to result in noogies and swirlies for years on end, then you're staring down the barrel of a cheap-ass nursing home. Kids will get their revenge, it's only a matter of time.

But if you really want to make me angry, spell a name wrong. My daughter has a traditional Irish name that a lot of people seem to have a real fetish for spelling wrong. They don't spell it "differently", they don't spell it "creatively", they aren't being "individual" – they're wrong! I could spell "chair" as "Khaiyre" and that wouldn't make me creative – it would make me a bad speller.

It's bad enough calling a kid Salange, Jayleen or Shaniqua (all real names of people I've met) but spelling names wrong is opening up a world of pain. These sorts of names don't make your kid "memorable" to people, at least not in a good way. People don't remember made-up names and they don't remember how to spell misspelled names. People will end up having conversations about that go "And how about whatshername, you know, Weirdy McWeirdname."

And you get to look forward to a lot of christmases alone wondering why your kids never visit. It's because they're in bars abusing their stupid fucking parents for ruining their lives. And they're looking for the shittiest, most disease ridden nursing home in the world to lock you away in.

To end on a light note: have you ever met someone with a funny name and you realise the parent probably didn't consider it was funny? Because their parent's minds weren't as twisted as yours? I went to school with a girl called Kerry Hunt. If that isn't funny to you, look up spoonerism on Wikipedia.

The Colbert Report and The Daily Show

After my earlier post on Stephen Colbert making George Bush his bitch, I spent a while ruminating. And I realised there was something else I was angry about. Why is it that the only source of honesty and real insight in American media is from a fucking comedy show? How is it even possible for public discourse to sink so low that the most intelligent, incisive take of current affairs is from a bunch of funnymen? (I'm not absolutely sure but I think most if not all of the cast of these shows are men)

I don't understand how those sad, pathetic, toadying jellyfish masquerading as journalists in the US media can look at themselves in the mirror.

We're slightly spoiled in Australia because along with the commercial drivel we have the flawed but reasonably objective and intelligent news and current affairs services of ABC (about a billion miles removed from the American ABC) and SBS. Mind you, we are cruelly abused by the total lack of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.

I want to highlight two particularly good clips featuring Jon Stewart (host of the Daily Show) that you can find on Youtube (and probably other places but I find it easiest to find videos on Youtube.)

A quite famous piece that is not actually from the Daily Show is when Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire", ostensibly to promote the Daily Show book America – Democracy Inaction. In a move not totally dissimilar to what Colbert did to Bush, Stewart took the show's hosts off-guard and went for their throats. The format of Crossfire (it's been taken off air now – maybe because Stewart made them look like idiots) was two talking head bickering over current events. One was a loudmouth right wing dickhead wearing a bow tie and the other supposedly represented the left but was a pathetic weenie (right wingers feel free to say this is a fair representation of all lefties – my witty rejoiner is "fuck you in the neck with a butter knife").

Instead of getting some free publicity Stewart spent time upbraiding them for what a travesty and a waste their show was. In his words, he wanted them to "stop hurting America." They were completely incapable of dealing with this – he totally showed them up for the chumps they are. Search for it with the keywords "Jon Stewart CNN Crossfire" and you'll find it.

Another piece you can find is the Daily Show's first broadcast after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The show didn't broadcast for a week or two after the attacks (I think most people were finding it more than a little difficult to think of laughing at the time). It was clearly difficult for Stewart to do the show and it is a bit difficult to watch but it's incredibly moving. Use the keywords "Jon Stewart Daily Show September 11" to find it.

What watching this brought back to me was the intensity of feelings at the time, I'd almost forgotten that. At the time I thought it was actually possible some good might come of the attacks. I hesitate to even mention good in relation to those barbaric acts (pick whatever the worst eternal punishment offered by your belief system may be – that's what these scum are experiencing now). There were actually two positive things I thought might come of all the pain and sadness.

One, the people and politicians of America might come to understand what's known quite well across Europe, Africa and much of Asia: political and military decisions can have very personal repercussions. And sometimes you can suffer terrible, terrible losses from attacks on your own soil. I think places that have been largely spared destructive international wars on their own soil, like Australia and America, can be very detatched from that possibility.

The second thing was that it seemed like this was such a terrible, previously unimaginable thing that everybody was going to pull together. Differences would be forgotten and decent people would pull together for mutual support. It was strange that something so sad could generate such positive feeling. And then Bush and his cronies went and fucked it all.

Watch the clip. It will break your heart.

Angry at Stephen Colbert

I am soooo angry an Stephen Colbert today. Angry because I can't see him on TV and angry because he has more guts than I'll ever have. Now, non-US readers may need some background, so here it is:

Stephen Colbert gained fame on the Daily Show, which is an amazingly funny spoof news show and also possibly the only trustworthy news source on US television. And I can't damn well watch it in Australia because nobody screens it not even the 70 cable channels I pay and this pisses me off soooooo much. But anyway, Colbert now has his own spin-off show, The Colbert Report. Which I also can't watch. fuckshitpissbuggercockbite

In this show, Colbert achieves the seemingly impossible task of creating a character with his own news/talk show who is more ignorant, self-obsessed and in denial of truth than Bill O'Reilly. Oh, and the fucking cable service here shows Bill O'Reilly. So I can subject myself to 24 hours of Fox News but can I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Nooooo. God hates me.

If it wasn't for Youtube I'd never get to see any of this. But Youtube got blocked at my workplace which may or may not be directly related to me watching gigabytes of Daily Show clips and 70-odd episodes of Red vs. Blue during my lunch hours. I am totally getting broadband at home so I can see all this stuff via BitTorrent.

Anyway, Colbert's in the news a bit at the moment because he performed at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night. This is a cute little event where Washington journalists, the president of the day and a few notables get together and have a good old laugh. There are normally some good natured jokes at the president's expense and he laughs along to show what a great guy he is. But last Saturday, someone booked Stephen Colbert as the main performer.

This is either the work of an idiot or an evil genius. Possibly an idiot, because if they thought Colbert was going to go easy, they were dead wrong. Possibly an evil genius because they knew what Colbert was going to do and they let him loose. Either way, I reasonably sure that the person who booked him is unemployed today. There's a transcript at the end of this post, it's long but it's worth reading.

What Colbert essentially did was rip W and the gutless media new arseholes. And he did while standing only metres away from Bush. And I assume a bunch of secret service agents. Who had guns. And were probably a hair's breadth from whacking him. I am in absolute awe of this man. The guts required to face off the president of the United States is almost beyond my comprehension.

Lord knows, nobody else has done it.

The real travesty is that the mainstream media are almost completely ignoring this. They keep showing Bush being pally with this look-alike and not even mentioning Colbert. The message: the prez is a great guy who can take a joke, there is no dissent, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When it is mentioned the comments are along the lines of "Colbert crossed the line" and "The president wasn't laughing/was offended."

I hate it when people go in for overblown hyperbole about the power of the internet in general and blogging specifically, but it was reasonably accurate when a poster on the Huffington Post said "Back before blogs and C-Span, we wouldn't even know about it"

The thing is, he didn't get a lot of laughs during the performance and I'd say there are two reasons for this. One, he was also attacking the pathetic, spineless media who made up most of the audience and two, it must have been really uncomfortable to sit in the same room as Dubya while this was going on. read the transcript and decide for yourself if it's funny:

"Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I've been asked to make an announcement. Whoever parked 14 black bullet proof S.U.V.'S out front, could you please move them. They are blocking in 14 other black bulletproof S.U.V.'S and they need to get out.

Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents' Dinner. To just sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face.

Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. Will be right over with a cocktail.

Mrs. Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brain backs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact (police). We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that's not true. That's but you looked it up in a book.

Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert report, I speak straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term.

I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.

My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how "the Washington Post" spins that one tomorrow. I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.

In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible — I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's not butter. Most of all I believe in this president.

Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass — it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

Folks, my point is that I don't believe this is a low point in this presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback.

I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied, his corner man, Mick, who in this case would be the Vice President, and he's yelling cut me, dick, cut me, and every time he falls she say stay down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky he gets back up and in the end he — actually loses in the first movie. Ok. It doesn't matter.

The point is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite powered car.

And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.

And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story, the President's side and the Vice President's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the affect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.

Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.

Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer. By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be on my show. I was just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday for you? I've got Frank Rich, but we can bump him.
And I mean bump him. I know a guy. Say the word.

See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld.

Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire. C'mon, we've got a stop loss program, let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. C'mon.

Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier.

Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.
Justice Scalia's here. May I be the first to say welcome, sir. You look fantastic. How are you? (imitates hostile gestures Scalia was reported to have made)

John McCain is here. John McCain John McCain. What a maverick. Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you wasn't a salad fork. He could have used a spoon. There's no predicting him. So wonderful to see you coming back into the republican fold. I have a summerhouse in South Carolina, look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light.

Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city. Yeah, give it up. Mayor Nagin, I would like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., The chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of corruption. It's a mallomar is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.

Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife. Pat Fitzgerald is not here tonight? Dodged a bullet.

And we can't forget man of the hour, new Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Secret service name, Snow Job. What a hero, took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq. Got some big shoes to fill, Tony. Scott McClellan could say nothing like nobody else.

McClellan, eager to retire. Really felt like he needed to spend more time with Andrew Card's children.

Mr. President, I wish you hadn't made the decision so quickly, sir. I was vying for the job. I think I would have made a fabulous press secretary. I have nothing but contempt for these people. I know how to handle these clowns. In fact, sir, I brought along an audition tape and with your indulgence, I'd like to at least give it a shot. So, ladies and gentlemen, my press conference. "

After this Colbert ran a video. Go look on Youtube, I'm sure you'll find it.