Blogs > JON STEWART JUSTIFIES WRIGHT ON 9/11

May 1, 2008

JON STEWART JUSTIFIES WRIGHT ON 9/11

Protective of my blood pressure, I've stopped watching the Daily Show but curiosity about his response to Obama's press conference led me to risk it yesterday. I was shocked to discover what an ignoramus he is. I am not just referring to his beginning the monologue with the news that two American servicemen returned from Djibouti. Djibouti? He kept repeating the name in wonder. His obvious, if erroneous, implication being that the place which controls the passageway from the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean has no strategic value and, therefore, the idea that any American soldiers were ever there is ridiculous.

Then came some inane comedy wannbe entitled"Land of the Spree" starring Aasif Mandvi. I would not have minded it had it not included Aasif brandishing a large MACHETE. Sorry, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing funny about machetes as weapons of choice. It is the weapon of choice of genocidal Africans. It was used to murder over a million Rwandans and, more recently, thousands of Kenyans. Next, Jon will use crematoria for his comedy routines.

But it was in his attempt to validate the Rev. Wright's pronouncement that 9/11 represented American" chickens coming home to roost" that his ignorance reached its peek. To my surprise, Newt Gingrich failed to set him straight. Jon said:

Don't preachers by their nature believe in a causality that God lifts his veil of protection based on our actions? Isn't it by the nature of preachers to believe such things? Don't white preachers have similar beliefs? But when they counsel a candidate no one really focuses on them?

The short answer is that I most certainly hope not. Such a theology would mean that slavery, not to mention Jim Crow and all other African and African American misfortunes, was nothing more than African" chickens coming home to roost" and the Holocaust Jewish" chickens coming home to roost." And, yes, the death of a child is its own or his parents'" chickens coming home to roost." It is the simplistic theology adhered to by Job's friends and strongly repudiated by God.

That Jon Stewart will try to sell his audience the notion that such a crude answer to the problem of"why bad things happen to good people?" is mainstream is truly disturbing. That he would do so for ideological reasons would be even worse. Let's hope he is simply an ignoramus who fails to understand the implications of his own pronouncements. Unfortunately, his audience thinks him not only clever but knowledgeable. Hence, the sad and dangerous rub.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

E. Simon - 5/1/2008

What is an "inordinate number" of blacks and what "inordinate number" of whites obviously agree with Falwell nonetheless? There are many white liberals that agree with Wright's statements; what does that say? Why is everyone so paranoid that black liberation theology will become the new American creed should Obama become president? Only in a warped and still no less racist society could American whites fear oppression from the likes of Wright and, by undue extension, Obama. And Robertson's political endorsements/proteges would have been no more responsible for Robertson's remarks had he never apologized for them now, would they? Do you hold Giuliani accountable for what Robertson said? Come on now. Be sensible.

Judith Apter Klinghoffer - 5/1/2008

Robertson apologized - 1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/ 2. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/world/main1206289.shtml

Falwell apologized - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/ We are waiting for Wright's apology. In the meantime, talk shows receive an inordinate number of calls from Blacks arguing that he merely told the truth. Yes, it may be about race but not the way you describe it. The opposite is true.

E. Simon - 4/30/2008

Good post. And Stewart is much more inane than anyone will make a case for - certainly not his fans. But as a journalist - even as a pretend journalist - he has a right to ask probing questions that don't necessarily represent his own views. He is asking if retributive punishment is not what preachers, or at least many of them, believe and teach - not what they or he or we should believe. And who doesn't believe that Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's significant and numerous political associates are treated with gentler gloves than Wright's? If you think it's not because of race, then you're kidding yourself.