Jump to content
saoirse

The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore

Recommended Posts

Between the Texas School Board stranglehold on textbooks and rampant school shootings, we're doing a bang up job for the next generation's education, now, aren't we?

 

Back in the day, youth would be holding protests, peace rallies, sit ins; they'd be organizing busses to transport everyone in Alabama to the 4 remaining DMV offices ... they would be involved and very vocal.  I would like to think they would also VOTE in every election.  But maybe memory wears rose colored glasses (like some of us did, at the time).  Heavy sigh.

Each shooting that comes down the pike just crystallizes the "gun rights" propping up (and the lies used to support the point of view) more and more. It doesn't seem to be like gay marriage, where there was a sea change (albeit one that's STILL hardened the opposition to it so that utter nutters like Kim Davis can call for actively breaking the law and have almost half support that).

 

I truly wish we had a way to send messages through time to the Founding Fathers to get the language that's been perverted and deliberately misinterpreted so much with the Second Amendment right in the first place. Although a few of them really DID think "militia" meant every homeowner having his own personal gun, I doubt even they thought it meant that they'd be used for anything other than home defense and (if we're being honest about the Founding Principles) armed rebellion against the government if they became tyrants. To them guns were tools of everyday life. They're not anymore. If the people need to rise up against a tyrannical government, it wouldn't simply be with personal weapons anymore anyway. It would be with information and control of that. This is where the gun nuts don't get the true intent of what was done. It wasn't legal protection so they could hide weapons in their pants and kill each other. It was legal protection so that people had a way to defy corrupt leadership. The tools change to do that.

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Between the Texas School Board stranglehold on textbooks and rampant school shootings, we're doing a bang up job for the next generation's education, now, aren't we?

Well, with respect to the shootings at least, yes.  Yes, we are doing a "bang up" job.  ;-{

 

And like LA Dreamr, I was all "WTF Larry?"when he was asking if anyone could imagine someone saying Hillary isn't "woman enough" to be president.  One doesn't have to imagine it.  I've heard some of her detractors manage to imply that she's a man hating LEZBO  and that she's an insatiable man chaser in the same conversation. I could probably come up with an example of her being both those things in the same sentence if I had recordings of some of the diatribes against her and could stand to listen to them.  After Larry's "defense" of Hillary the night before, I was shocked that he seemed so oblivious to the attacks on her woman-ness over the years.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Back in the 90s, I went to a few gun shows with the (ex) old man, and Bill & Hillary targets were all the rage.  I'd hazard a guess that Hillary targets are all the rage again, in those peculiar circles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
I doubt even they thought it meant that they'd be used for anything other than home defense and (if we're being honest about the Founding Principles) armed rebellion against the government if they became tyrants

 

Home defense, but also homeland defense.  The Founders did not want a standing military, so the citizenry had to be available for summons when an army was needed.  They had  just experienced what amounted to an occupying force of Hessians, and they felt a standing army could be used to intimidate the populace.  Somewhere along the way, someone figured out that the benefits of a standing army might outweigh the possible disadvantages, especially if it's a citizen force rather than a mercenary force.

 

But American history is about George Washington and the cherry tree, not the Federalist papers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Home defense, but also homeland defense.  The Founders did not want a standing military, so the citizenry had to be available for summons when an army was needed. 

 

Exactly, and this is the point that is too overly looked when the NRA and (most) Republicans blather on about their precious Second Amendment. The newly minted nation did not have the desire (or the financial resources) to install a professional full-time military. If there was a need to defend the country from renewed aggression from the British, the idea is that citizens would come forth with their own weapons, as they had during The Revolution. But this would be a"well regulated militia," under the supervision of government appointed officers. How can Second Amendment absolutists  say that the Founders intended there for there to be no limits on gun ownership when the word "regulated" is right there?

 

Kudos to Larry for stepping up and speaking his opinions in no uncertain terms on a range of critical issues, from gun violence to the idiotic spewings of Ben Carson. I would love to hear what Jon Stewart would've done with Carson, but at least we have Larry calling out the hypocrisy of his "rush the shooter' macho BS in light of his Popeye's chicken story. And I liked his line about an 84 year old Australian white guy deciding who's really black.

Edited by bluepiano
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion of Nancy Pelosi just shot upwards when she jettisoned all those nimrods from her hypothetical balloon.

 

I found the panel discussion frustrating: I get that we have expectations for a black potus, but how can he effect change in all the thousands of municipalities/states? That's why you gotta turn out for the local elections, fellas. That's where the mischief happens.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Pelosi didn't seem to get a few of Larry's jokes. Sanders rolled with it better. I don't really believe the democrats are that serious about gun violence either. I get more of an "well we want to do something about it, but the republicans will block it so oh well." The only thing about "Boehner resigning so they won't shut down the government" is that the freedom caucus' mission statement is essentially: block block block. They're still going to try to shut down the government. And Boehner really resigned because when the republican congress people have to go into the primaries, they won't have to face the "why did you vote for the speaker" question that might cost them the seat. Quite a different motivation.

 

The panel was quite good, but I think they were a little naive too. Obama's main goal was to pass the ACA before they lost a precariously thin majority. Yard made a good point that after the reelection, it was basically settled that the congress wasn't going to do anything but block Obama, so he could have taken the gloves off a little earlier. However, he still needed to be "nice" because he knew the Iran deal needed to pass in a couple of years too. Obama's speech after the last shooting was probably his most fiery. 

 

Jeezy was good too. Obama is supposed to be everyone's president. And where I am now, on the radio, there's *plenty* of people who say he's not. It's been nearly 7 years and talk radio hacks are still on about how Obama isn't a real president. Excepting the fact he won 2 national elections going away.

 

Anyone who is president is really limited in what they can actually do. 

 

That's why you gotta turn out for the local elections, fellas. That's where the mischief happens.

 

I wanted Larry to ask if any of them voted in 2014. Because Obama can't do anything with this congressional makeup. And *no one* came out to support the democrats in 2014. It's on you guy too, you know. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I wanted Larry to ask if any of them voted in 2014. Because Obama can't do anything with this congressional makeup. And *no one* came out to support the democrats in 2014. It's on you guy too, you know.

 

Or more importantly, 2010, because that's when so many states went red and gerrymandered the shit out of them that's going to continue to affect Congress for another 4 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can't imagine Jesse Ventura doing well in a national race, if only because of that rocking back and forth in the chair thing he was doing. Well, that and fifty frillion other reasons. Libertarians are so clueless about how the world works, it's often almost adorable.

 

Holly Walker, on the other hand, would make a fine president! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Do the libertarians have the national infrastructure to get Ventura's name out there though? And get lots of people to his appearances? *If* Ventura was on a debate stage with Trump and Clinton, I think he could actually hold his own because he's at least a shade less cray than Trump. He has actually held a high level office. In the end, he'd probably be taking away votes from the republicans, so they'd be firing on him constantly.

 

I also disagree that the people showing up to the Sanders' events are people voting for him. Largely, they're younger people, and younger people don't vote in the primaries. 

 

He did make a good point about how two thirds of voters *didn't* vote in 2014. I've been harping on how the low voter turnout is at the democrats' feet. It wasn't because people were bored, it's because republicans whipped up a froth of anger to get uneducated voters to vote against their own interests, with the promise of what? Electing people who won't protect them against mass shootings and want to take away any financial help they might need? Oh, but you can keep your guns. We'll make sure of that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone who is president is really limited in what they can actually do.

 

Something Trump supporters, and possibly Trump himself, have not gotten wise to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's the same thing as Romney "I'm repealing Obamacare on day one." No, you're not. You're not going to repeal the Iran deal either.

 

Trump knows what he's doing. Why be overly specific on any policy positions. You just need to convince people you know why they're mad and just let it rip. Because then you can always blame it on Congress. They've been talking about it on the show on the panels. 

 

One thing I don't think they get: everyone thinks if they were president they can just bully the world into doing what they want. "Oh, Putin wouldn't be flying those planes on my watch, I'd tell him." You'd tell the former KGB agent what, that would make him back down?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Daily Show and Nightly Show should coordinate a little more. Two segments dealing with the same debate audience member using the same jokes seemed like overkill.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think most of the "main" news of the day is a good fit for TNS anyway. If they're going to cover the debate, they did a good job with the republican debates when they did a bit about how it took longer to cook the pop tart than the time spent on race. 

 

TNS could make the point that neither party really cares that much about race or poor people. BLM had to practically sneak up on Clinton to get her to address racial problems. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Daily Show and Nightly Show should coordinate a little more. Two segments dealing with the same debate audience member using the same jokes seemed like overkill.

 

Last night, I watched:

 

--Colbert's extensive debate coverage

--Seth Meyer's extensive debate coverage

--The Daily Show's extensive debate coverage

--The Nightly Show's extensive debate covearge

--Jimmy Kimmel's not-that-extensive debate coverage.

 

They mostly told the same jokes, jokes that seemed to be already exhausted  on many blogs in the hours after the debate.

 

But I agree, there should be more coordination. I wonder if there is actually somebody who compares notes. There has to be, right?

Edited by nowandlater
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Daily Show and Nightly Show should coordinate a little more. Two segments dealing with the same debate audience member using the same jokes seemed like overkill.

 

 

They mostly told the same jokes, jokes that seemed to be already exhausted  on many blogs in the hours after the debate.

 

But I agree, there should be more coordination. I wonder if there is actually somebody who compares notes. There has to be, right?

 

And if you stuck around for @Midnight, they also featured a bit on the same audience member. I guess a guy that looks like a cross between Dumbledore and Gandalf inspires these guys. I myself was waiting for a GRRM joke, maybe that was on one of the shows I haven't yet watched...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Last night, I watched:

 

--Colbert's extensive debate coverage

--Seth Meyer's extensive debate coverage

--The Daily Show's extensive debate coverage

--The Nightly Show's extensive debate covearge

--Jimmy Kimmel's not-that-extensive debate coverage.

 

They mostly told the same jokes, jokes that seemed to be already exhausted  on many blogs in the hours after the debate.

 

But I agree, there should be more coordination. I wonder if there is actually somebody who compares notes. There has to be, right?

 

You know you're a masochist when you watch :

--Colbert's extensive debate coverage

--Seth Meyer's extensive debate coverage

--The Daily Show's extensive debate coverage

--The Nightly Show's extensive debate covearge

--Jimmy Kimmel's not-that-extensive debate coverage.

 

:-D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so the other guys used the same jokes too. I just remember a time (less than two year ago) when the CC late night shows would at least have different comedic takes on the same topic because the people on those shows knew they worked best when they complimented the other, not parrot.

Share this post


Link to post

The geek in me was pleased Steve Kornacki brought up that the ratings for the debate, although nowhere near Clown Car levels, were still a yoooge record breaker for a dem debate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Right after I watched the panel discuss whether women getting angry was a good thing, I saw this summary of recent research. Ladies, we're screwed.  Also, for all the 'all my bosses are women' mewling the dude did, I'm willing to bet my money that all of those bosses make less money than he does. (Television producers generally do make less than the stars of their programs, up to the showrunner level.) "But they tell people I'm bad in bed!" is not pay equity, fella. You're not adorable playing that card.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Do actors negotiate deals themselves? I thought agents did it. 

 

Walker and Yard are the two strongest people on this show, whether on the panel or in their skits. 

Edited by ganesh
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Do actors negotiate deals themselves? I thought agents did it.

Walker and Yard are the two strongest people on this show, whether on the panel or in their skits.

I can imagine scenarios where agents and lawyers would council a client that "This is the best you're going to get," or "You don't want to make these people mad enough to never hire you." Point is, it's not as cut and dry as an actress sicking her dogs on the patriarchy in charge of not paying her enough. Sometimes her dogs are unwilling to go to bat 100%. It seems counter-intuitive that people who are paid a percentage of income would drop the ball for a client, but it happens all the time. Many people just want to get shit done and work on the next deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Agents are part of the patriarchy too oftentimes. Since they often represent more than one client, if a studio says "take this cut here for Client Girl and we'll take care of Client Boy in our next project", well, that's going to sway many a negotiator.  Recently didn't Rose McGowan's reps drop her because she tweeted some smack about a sexist Adam Sandler project? (Yes, I know that's redundant.) The more this stuff gets publicized, the more likely it will be to change.

 

Because I am an Old, I was unfamiliar with this Raury person. I kind of liked his performance.

 

Again: Yard kills it on the panel. I totally want to get 'Cracker Tracker' for my phone.

Edited by attica
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

For me that "Cracker Tracker" riff was the most hilarious few minutes I've seen  on TNS, and indeed some of the funniest stuff I've seen in all of TV  land for quite some time.  I want Mike Yard to  be my next door neighbor.  He just gives off this vibe of being a totally decent down to earth human being, and a heck of a lot of fun, and really  smart all at the same time.   Who knows, maybe he's a total jerk in real life, but I heart the personna I see on TNS.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Cracker Tracker needs to happen. I think it's a great idea, and it even should be called that. Any business that would treat part of its clientele that way deserves the derision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just dropping in to say how much I'm loving TNS these days - where once The Daily Show was the first thing I played on my DVR while getting dressed in the a.m., now it's Larry Wilmore, even before Colbert's Late Show. Yard, Walker, Albanise, Velez -  they've all gelled to form a terrific comedic force that is capturing my jaded little heart.

 

I want to see Emmys en masse for them next awards season.

 

ETA: Hey, Hooper, I'll go in with you on a group home next door to Mike Yard! :)

Edited by A Boston Gal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't go so far as calling this show "Enmy Worthy" yet. I will go so far as to say it is climbing quickly from the depths of the Bill Nye rock-bottom of a few weeks ago. At this rate it will be Emmy worthy soon.

On a related note: how is it that Ricky Velez still has a job there?

Edited by revbfc
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

His pieces in the street can be funny. He's just not a good panelist.

 

That rapper on the panel last night was really cool though. When the show brings on people I don't know much about, that's when I like it better. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone else always find it a little odd when rich people get together and complain about rich people? I mean I realize the kind of wealth they were talking about on last night's panel is exponentially more than any of them have, but still. Come on, Jeff Daniels, movie star of three decades! When was the last time you pinched a penny?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is a good example of a topic that's just not good for the show. Biden not running is a fairly bland and tepid topic not particularly interesting to anyone beyond political junkies. It's kind of a waste of what was a good panel. 

Share this post


Link to post

On the other hand, Holly's description of how it all worked on Scandal delighted me. And Terry Crews can just come by to smile, jerk his pecs, and harsh on Mickey Rourke. I'm okay with that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think they were complaining about rich people, but about rich people who pretend wealth is a burden comparable to poverty.

 

I have found the panels to be getting better lately. I don't know if it's the mix of guests, better moderation, or more prep, but I'm finding them much more watchable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, I think Holly and Mike Yard are definitely keepers.  Enjoy their segments and their time on the panels. 

 

Paul Ryan is a schmuck.  He deserves to be the Mad Hatter running that giant Tea Party over there.  Must be nice to get something you overtly deny to others less fortunate than yourself.  And that clip also confirms what I have known for quite some time -- MIka is a waste of space.

 

Have not been a fan of RIcky Velez.  Don't like him on the panels.  And for me anyway, that "RIcky's World" or whatever that was, was a complete waste of basic cable network time.  That's 2-3 minutes that I shall never get back again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the big problem with Ricky (and many young comedians) is they have an attitude of "I'm cool, you're not." Not a great starting place. Great comedians can at least get a person to come along for the ride, but Ricky hasn't really found a way to connect. Honestly, he needs to fail for a little while, learn how to act like an adult, drop the posing, read a damn book not penned by Dr. Seuss, and get curious about the universe he lives in.

Edited by revbfc
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think he thinks he's cooler than everyone else, but he thinks it's cool to not to know a lot of politics, etc., and makes jokes on that. It's the wrong demo for that though. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On the other hand, I am wondering why there was a graffito that read "Bea Arthur" in the opening shot of "Ricky's World." That seems random and awesome!

 

Me, I'm on "Elijah's" side; I sorta suspect the white church was burned as a way to deflect attention to the racial aspect. I'll be pleased to be proven wrong, but I'm suspicious until then.

Edited by attica

Share this post


Link to post

Have not been a fan of RIcky Velez.  Don't like him on the panels.  And for me anyway, that "RIcky's World" or whatever that was, was a complete waste of basic cable network time.  That's 2-3 minutes that I shall never get back again.

Right? I've enjoyed some in the past, but that one was a dud in every way. When he turned that in, Larry should've just had the panel go two segments instead and never run it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That panel ruled. Who doesn't love Lucy Lawless? Both of the women were hilarious and engaging. Get out there warrior-princessing!

 

They were right though, if Pelosi was up there saying she wants to spent time with her family, she'd be drawn and quartered.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think he thinks he's cooler than everyone else, but he thinks it's cool to not to know a lot of politics, etc., and makes jokes on that. It's the wrong demo for that though.

Check out his Twitter feed sometime. It may change your mind about that.

Share this post


Link to post

No, thanks. I use twitter for work. If he can't be funny on the show, then maybe he needs a better platform for his style. The burden isn't on me to seek that out for him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

No, thanks. I use twitter for work. If he can't be funny on the show, then maybe he needs a better platform for his style. The burden isn't on me to seek that out for him.

He's actually worse on Twitter. The "change your mind" bit was in reference to you writing that he didn't think he was cooler than everyone else.

Edited by revbfc

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×