home

Saturday Night Open Thread: SNL and Dana Carvey

Dana Carvey hosts SNL tonight. Jon Lovitz appears during the monologue. Mike Myers shows up in the opener to do Wayne's World (video here.) Carvey also brings back The Church Lady.

Justin Bieber will make a (not very) surprise guest appearance (as part of the Church Lady skit) and Linkin Park is the musical guest.

It hasn't started here yet, but that's what's running on Twitter right now, and the reviews are good.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Ed Sabol Elected to NFL Hall of Fame | Super Bowl >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    From David Letterman: (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:45:04 AM EST
    "The good news is Hosni Mubarak may step down.  The bad news is he's going to be replaced by his idiot son,
    Hosni W. Mubarak."

    thread cleaned of spat (4.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 12:57:03 AM EST
    between two commenters. It's not about either of you. Stick to the topic and lay of insulting each other please.

    I love this song (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    It's almost 11:30 PM (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 01:32:48 AM EST
    and according to the internet weather, still 66 degrees out. I'd kinda have to agree with that as I'm walking around in a tank and barefoot in the yard . . . I'm so confused!!! I should be freezin' my behind off!! Not that I'm complaining though :)

    SNL disappointing to me (none / 0) (#3)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 06:34:46 AM EST
    Dana Carvey's talents under-used.

    Linkin Park: posers with too many keyboards.

    Just saying.

    Were (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    Wayne and Garth broadcasting their public access show from the retirement community?

    Parent
    I watched for 40 minutes (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    Didn't find anything funny.  Went to bed.

    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    When even bringing back Carvey and Meyers and more cannot rescue SNL, well, that is how bad a once-great show has become.

    Parent
    Weak writing (none / 0) (#27)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 04:07:58 PM EST
    and what's her name does the same joke (the too much much routine) in every bit.

    Then again, as my father said to me many times, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (usually after I criticized either Lawrence Welk or LBJ)

    Parent

    Reports coming out of Egypt (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    has the Muslim Brotherhood becoming part of the negotiations.

    The end for any hope of a democracy in Egypt is beginning.

    I think the odds favoring a democratic (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    government went down when "we" got foursquare behind Suleiman, our government's favorite, go-to guy for torture and rendition.

    And yes, I am aware that Hillary Clinton is playing a major role in that support, and it's more than disappointing, on a lot of levels.

    Parent

    My niece arrived in Cairo, coincidentally, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    the morning the demonstrations started, to begin a few months' assignment teaching English, while on leave from her regular gig at a California community college.  She went out into the demonstration a few times and then she and her husband (back home) decided she had better get out, which fortunately she was able to do.  Two long stories based on interviews with her are in yesterday's (i.e., Saturday's) and today's (i.e., Sunday's) Ukiah [CA] Daily Journal.  Sounds like she showed a fair amount of courage and curiosity, and that her sympathies are in the right place.

    Parent
    Stop with the Faux Noise (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    reports already. Geez, you should get spot after Beck.

    Parent
    Yes, because they've come out (none / 0) (#5)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    against the upcoming elections in September.

    Not.

    Reporting from Cairo --
    The outlawed Muslim Brotherhood joined talks Sunday with Egyptian officials in efforts to calm days of street protests and negotiate the possibility of a transitional government to run the country until September elections.

    The Brotherhood's participation in resolving the crisis around President Hosni Mubarak is another dramatic sign in recent days that Egypt is on new political terrain. The government for years has labeled the popular Brotherhood a terrorist organization, closing its offices and arresting thousands of its members.

    ............................................
    In Munich, Germany, on Sunday, the AP reported that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Obama administration would withhold judgment on the Brotherhood's decision to enter a dialogue with Mubarak's regime.

    Click or LAT Me

    Really scary, PPJ.

    Parent

    The Muslim Brotherhood (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    is not interested in democracy. It is interested in establishing a Islamic Theocracy.

    You can try and disagree with every comment I make with all the links you want but being naive does not equal being correct.

    Parent

    According to Christine Amapour (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    The MB has stated that they don't plan to run candidates in this election, or take any Cabinet positions in the next 5 years.

    That sounds to me like an imminent take-over, to me.

    You can try and disagree with every comment I make with all the links you want but being naive does not equal being correct.

    Naive is thinking that spending billions of dollars in two overseas wars will defeat the spectre of Radical Islam.

    Keep trying to reframe my position, PPJ, you only make yourself look silly by comparison.

    From a non-Leftist who can't be accused of being a naif:

    So, whatever our differences in historical interpretation or foreign policy tactics, we agree with our skeptical comrade that the United States must support the Egyptian awakening, and has a paramount moral and strategic interest in real democracy in Egypt and freedom for the Egyptian people. The question is how the U.S. government can do its best to help the awakening turn out well.

    In his column, Krauthammer refers to the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions. They all turned out badly. But before 1789 was 1776. After 1917, there was 1989. And after 1979, there was also 2009, when the Obama administration shamefully and foolishly did nothing to help topple the most dangerous regime in the Middle East.

    Furthermore, in the last quarter century, there have been transitions from allied dictatorships to allied democracies in Chile, South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia, to name only a few. The United States has played a role in helping those transitions turn out (reasonably) well. America needn't be passive or fretful or defensive. We can help foster one outcome over another. As Krauthammer puts it, "Elections will be held. The primary U.S. objective is to guide a transition period that gives secular democrats a chance."

    Now, people are more than entitled to their own opinions of how best to accomplish that democratic end. And it's a sign of health that a political and intellectual movement does not respond to a complicated set of developments with one voice.

    But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.
    .................................................
    Conservatives are used to focusing on the downsides of situations. And there are potential downsides ahead, to be sure. But there is also a huge upside to a sound and admirable outcome in Egypt. American conservatives should remember our commitment, in the words of Federalist 39, to "that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."

    Egypt turns out to have its votaries of freedom. The Egyptian people want to exercise their capacity for self-government. American conservatives, heirs to our own bold and far-sighted revolutionaries, should help them.


    Click or Weekly Standard Me

    "Hysteria is not a sign of health."

    I'll have to use that as my new tag line.

    Thanks as always for the feedback, PPJ.

    Parent

    Maybe the MB are worried (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    that within the fraud they didn't win too many seats last elections? and want time to regroup.

    I think I would like a tag line that echoes what a BJ commentor wrote......

    Conservatives are upset about Sharia law because of copyright infringement.

    Parent

    Cute (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    and yes, Conservatives are just so into stoning and honor killing...

    Wait, that is a Not.

    Parent

    Re: Christian Reconstructionists (none / 0) (#21)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 12:21:57 PM EST

    According to sociologist and professor of religion William Martin, author of With God on Our Side:

    "     "It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality ... in all points of history ... and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike... It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership--James Kennedy is one of them--who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'"[17]

    Click or Wiki Me

    Parent

    Too easy (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    Yep, Christians are not at all oppression focused with their primative thinker obsession over gender roles and they NEVER murder others because they won't follow lizard brain rules.

    Wait, they are trying to redefine rape.

    I could list dead wives, gays, doctors but we're not allowed to do long comments.

    Isn't it one of the signs of fundamentalism when someoen believes their personal whatever that espouses the oppression of women (others) is real/better than someone else's whatever that espouses the oppression of women (others)?

    Parent

    If you and Harry want (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    to claim that our religious rights have a moral equivalent in people who believe in Shari law be my guest.

    we all need a belly laugh from time to time and you have provided it.

    Parent

    PPJ, there have been (none / 0) (#30)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:24:15 PM EST
    people who have set bombs in abortion clinics, killed doctors who provide abortion services,  but since nobody has had their head cut off in the name of Jesus, they don't count as violence from the Religious Right because?

    Thanks again for the laughs, and be sure to check under your bed tonight for jihadis.

    Parent

    If you don't understand the difference (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 11:57:09 PM EST
    between a few nutcases and terrorists there is nothing anyone can do for you.

    I actually feel sorry for you.

    Parent

    Nice and condescending, PPJ (none / 0) (#35)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 02:29:36 AM EST
    Thanks as always for the feedback  :-)

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    The MB has stated that they don't plan to run candidates in this election, or take any Cabinet positions in the next 5 years.

    Because people in politics can always be taken at their word.

    Wait until September and see.

    Parent

    I didn't vouchsafe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    that their word is reliable, but in light of the current political developments there, political lying might not be an effective tool if the elections are to be held in September.

    "Hysteria is not a sign of health."

    Parent

    Who's hysterical? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    Maybe you.  It's Sunday - you need to calm down apparently.

    They are saying what is politically expedient today. I believe them as much as I believe American politicians who say things like "No, it's too soon for me to run," which would be, not at all.

    I'd place money that they run candidates for Parliament this year, if not a candidate for the presidency.  

    Parent

    It's not all about you (none / 0) (#14)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    it's my new tag line.

    They are saying what is politically expedient today. I believe them as much as I believe American politicians who say things like "No, it's too soon for me to run," which would be, not at all.

    Actually, from a strategic POV, it would make sense not to get involved in a transitional government in case things go badly.

    Perhaps they realize that going from a banned group to a political party running candidates overnight might be too much for the Egyptian people right now, and that they need to have time to build up a respectable party organization before participating in Egyptian democracy.

    One could argue that they are making a promise to America because they know that any aggressive move on their part would set American policy against them, and don't want to walk in that particular minefield yet.

    But, hey, on the bright side, there's a new tag line for the 2012 elections:

    "Who lost Egypt?"

    "Hysteria isn't a sign of health."


    Parent

    C Amanpour today (none / 0) (#15)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    had interesting panel. Consensus was that Egypt has ability to demonstrate a different way forward from non-theocratic autocratic rule -- different from adopting theocratic rule. Panel included two Egyptian journalists.  

    Parent
    If you believe in (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    consensus study Karl Popper.

    Parent
    Re: Popper (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 12:24:40 PM EST

    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. -- In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.



    Parent
    If PPJ quits his lies (none / 0) (#34)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 02:28:21 AM EST
    I'll cease telling the truth about him  :-)