Russell Brand

[Max Soren]

I didn't watch the VMA awards and never do.  Because I agree with Courtney Love that such things are too urban.  But I did read a lot about the show on the news today and I also saw a clip of Rusell Brand on YouTube.  I had never heard of him, but supposedly he is a famous comedian in the UK.  What an incredibly unfunny and offensive jackass he is.  Rarely have I ever detested someone so instantly.  He kept making idiotic political jokes and jabs against chastity.  Finally, one of the other celebrities on there told him that not everyone wanted to be a slut.  Since discussions of politics is prohibited here, I can't remark on any of that that he discussed, except to say that I really don't need such an unfunny bastard from England to tell me what I should be doing in my own country.  Believe me, I like Europe a lot and have traveled there a lot.  But with possibly one exception, I never met any other Europeans as offensive as this Russell Brand jerk.  Not funny. 

[Dave W]

I've seen him before, unfortunately. He was introduced on Letterman a few months ago as an "actor and comedian." I couldn't figure out where the "comedian" part came from. He just came across as a smarmy creep.

[Nocturnal]

They were talking about it on the radio yesterday and wondered how many people passed over the offer to host before it fell to this guy. I wasn't familiar with the guy and don't think (based on the clips I've seen) that he's on his way to becoming a household name over here. What I did see wasn't funny.

[OldManC]

I followed a link to an MTV website where there were 4000+ comments on the debacle. I was amazed at the vitriol being heaped on Brand and MTV in general. I wouldn't have thought of MTV viewers as caring all that much about political or moral issues, but Brand really struck a nerve. I guess he won't be back next year. 

[Max Soren]

I followed a link to an MTV website where there were 4000+ comments on the debacle. I was amazed at the vitriol being heaped on Brand and MTV in general. I wouldn't have thought of MTV viewers as caring all that much about political or moral issues, but Brand really struck a nerve. I guess he won't be back next year. 

Oh, MTV has invited him back for next year.  Don't worry.  But to be honest, there are way worse people than Russell Brand running around.  Some of them may be people who run MTV, considering the atrocities that are committed against music every day by that channel. 

I suppose I should note that after seeing Brand on another show later my opinion of him changed to a degree.  When he stays away from the topic of politics, he can even be funny.  Not to say that I'll ever be a fan, but things have to be taken into context.  Overall, though, British humor just doesn't work for me and never has.

[uwe]

Ok, I wanted to know what the fuss was about, so I watched this:





Is that what you guys are getting excited about? 


A few comments, not all of them serious:

1. He's allowed to say - even in public - that he prefers Obama just like Ted Nugent could have said McCain. If you invite Russell Brand to moderate you are not inviting him to please everyone.

2. As a Briton he's allowed by nature and heritage to comment on US politics as from his point of view you never gained independence and never will. His attitude is like the Catholic church's toward protestantism: You can give yourself another tag, but you can never leave the club.

3. The "is it a boy, is it a girl ... come on it's a publicity stunt" was in poor taste towards that pregnant girl.

4. The joke about being dragged to a Republican Convention as the best safer sex message ever was hilariously funny though, even if vitriolic. Unfortunately it overstayed its welcome when he went on and on about it. He should have dropped that dam buster of a comment and then moved on - as is Brit tradition be it in night raids on unsuspecting rural towns or other.

5. Russell Brand is only medium-funny, but there seems to be a general US perception that any low or dubious pc comment on an Academy Award or MTV Awards show immediately turns the whole thing into a scandal of gargantuan proportions while the rest of the world stands by scratching its head. Why not invite the Dalai Lama to moderate your Awards in the future then? Tape his nipples first though.

Uwe

[Max Soren]

It was his creation of a false dichotomy which I found most offensive.  Either you vote one way OR you will be considered, blah, blah, blah.  Also, he is feeding on the frenzy going on in the American media which is nothing but blatant sexism.  This has been going on for months, but in recent weeks it has taken a turn for the worse.  His worst comments were actually cut by MTV.  They were horrible.  However, since they weren't aired, I don't know if that makes much difference.  The main problem in all of this is that the U.S. is in the middle of the worst mudslinging I've ever personally witnessed in any presidential campaign.  People's nerves on edge, including mine.  If people actually said what they were thinking, even on a message board as stable as this one, that just probably wouldn't be a good idea, in my opinion.  The point is the political polarization in the U.S. is pretty bad and has greatly intensified in just the past few weeks.  I've followed politics very closely even since I was very young, and what we are experiencing now is unprecedented in recent history. 

[uwe]

My impression - from overseas - is that there is less mudslinging going on between Obama and McCain and that they at least keep some kind of decorum? I remember worse from as far back as Bush Senior ./. Dukakis and Bush Junior ./. Kerry was no warm cherry pie either.

I still don't see McCain as the arch-conservative, God-loving warmonger he now has to depict himself in part to please party folk. Look at the man's voting and political work record in Washington - he is the antithesis to extreme and actually a careful man who believes in old-fashioned, conventional bit-by-bit politics (nothing wrong with that). Realpolitik we call it here.

Likewise, I find efforts to present Obama as a left winger minorities-only serving radical laughable. This man's career has middle of the road written all over it, in the early seventies radical blacks would have described him as an arch-Uncle Tom. It is also - in a positive sense - a very American career. Not too many sons of African fathers get a stab to lead a Western Democracy, there is some fulfilled American Dream in there. You should be proud of that whether you are a Democrat or not.

European view is that no matter how much you mess up your election this time again (careful with those voting machines, shall we send German engineers over?  ), you'll end up with something better than you had in the last eight years. And that is a good thing because the US is better for itself and the world if it acts in accord and consultation with its allies. Both Republican and Democrat presidents have shown that.

And of course Dave's watchful eye is again all over this thread  which has become - shock, horror, gasp! - political. I haven't given up the idea that people who can agree on the qualities of a Thunderbird here might also be able to disagree in a reflected and polite matter whether Obama or McCain should be the next US President. With the US election on everybody's mind in the next couple of weeks, I find it artificial to keep the Outpost Café "politics-free". If someone oversteps the mark, we can always have his post wiped, but certainly one thread - you don't have to look at it if you don't want to be bothered - should allow a discussion among friends.

Uwe   

[Dave W]

Nothing can sour people on each other faster than political arguments. Not even religion. Even people who have been friends for years through bass forums. I've seen it damage other forums. Not here. We're an international forum anyway.

That said, there's nothing about this campaign that's unusually bitter or more partisan, it's been more civil than some I remember. Do some reading about the history of presidential campaigning in the US. It's always been this way and sometimes much worse. The first presidential candidate to hire a "consultant" for the purpose of spreading vile rumors about his opponent was Thomas Jefferson.

[Max Soren]

Unfortunately, American campaigns have always contained mudslinging and tempers have flared from the first.  Many examples could be given of course. 
The list would be endless.  Certainly, the 19th century had one bitter campaign after another. 

In the 20th century, at least by the time of the Cold War, it seems that things had calmed down a lot to me, at least in terms of mudslinging.  Maybe that was because both Democrats and Republicans were always aware that they faced a common enemy.  There was definitely way more bipartisanship in Congress than there is now.  Even after the Cold War, things remained kind of calm for a while--I refer of course to the 1992 and 1996 elections.  Maybe there was a lot of tension in 1992, but I didn't really see people getting all that angry.  The 1996 campaign was extremely boring and if anyone actually got angry, I'm not aware of it.

The 2000 election definitely marked a turning point.  Partisanship emerged in a way like I had never personally seen.  The 2004 campaign was probably even worse.  All I'm saying is that the way things look to me, things are probably even going to get worse in the 2008 campaign than the last one.  I believe the polarization is very bad and the distortions, generalizations, animosity, and personal attacks are unlike anything I have ever seen.  It is possible that the reason it seems so bad to me is that usually I'm able to maintain quite an objective and even detached perspective, but this time people are just going too far with their insults, in my opinion.  This is the first campaign in my life where I've already felt personally insulted several times.  This is really something new to me.  I didn't know I was even capable of getting emotional about politics.  But I was wrong.  I believe Dave was correct in saying that politics is potentially the most divisive topic on earth.  My understanding of that truth, however, is quite a bit greater than it was even a few months ago. 

[Essential Tension]

Russell Brand upsetting or offending people is not new, he's been doing it for a some time.

Brand in clear over Brits gags

[OldManC]

Anyone who thinks U.S. elections have been more rancorous over the last 20+ years has obviously never studied the history of U.S. elections:

... Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward...


http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

 

And as far as Russel Brand goes Uwe, I think it came across more as someone from 'outside the family' coming in and slinging mud that wasn't his to sling, so to speak. As much as we fight amongst ourselves, I think we, as Americans, still feel that unity when we're backed against a wall. Even a non funny rhetorical one.

[Max Soren]

I'm not planning on getting into any kind of debate on politics, but I do think I have to try to clarify a point that I made earlier.  I was trying to say the polarization in American politics which seemed to intensify around 2000 seems to be getting even worse.  I wasn't saying that there hadn't been problems earlier in American history.  I am well aware of bitterness which has often been there in American campaigns even from the time of the Early Republic.  It is true that things cooled off for a time during the Era of Good Feelings, but from the mid 1820's onward things have often been heated.  Certainly, the election of 1860 is possibly the most obvious example.  After the Civil War, partisanship continued and there was much partisanship throughout the 20th century.  What I was trying to say in an earlier post, though, is that during the Cold War there actually was more bipartisanship than usual, probably because many Democrats and Republicans felt that the Soviet threat meant that politics should be left at the American shore.  Many political scientists have pointed this out.  Although there are many exceptions which could be noted, it does seem to be true.  All I was trying to say is that in the last few years polarization seems to be worse.  Maybe this is all based on subjectivity and personal observations as much as anything else.  But to me personally things certainly do seem to be getting worse, especially in the current campaign.  All my life, I have freely discussed politics with just about anyone.  But this time things are just different to me.  There are just too many personal insults being hurled around all over the place, as I've already stated in an earlier post.  That is my perspective on the matter.  Also, I find myself often agreeing with the policies of one campaign but disagreeing with their attitude and vice versa.  It's stuff like that that makes things kind of complicated. 

[nofi]

i'm just glad we never stick our noses in someone elses business.   

[uwe]

Brand is a poet, gotta remember that one:

"... time to find out who has pierced the hymen of awareness to ejaculate success into the uterus of popular culture"

Only a covert anal sex reference is really missing or it could start a thread here.