Thank you. I too watched that hideous skit and could not believe my eyes. Not only did SNL bash Gwen Ifill to "balance" their Tina Fey debate skit, they put this filth on for further balance.

At the point when George Soros walked out I think I briefly passed out, overwhelmed by drink and all the Goebbelsian humor.

Another Jim Downey special?

So, now you finally admit that we Deutschen have a sense of humor: the Fourth Reich is coming, and right to the bastion of the Internationale Judentum, Amerika!
Ha, ha, ha.
As the Great German poet said, he who laughs last.

To me it seems like this is what happens when SNL gets worried about whether they're "balanced" enough. That same worry (plus lazy writing) made the opening VP debate sketch much less funny than it could have been. Lazy writing factors in here, too -- I'd like to think nobody considered what this would look like on the air, they just congratulated themselves for making a "bold" and "balanced" joke. Or maybe this is a glimpse at the real Lorne Michaels agenda. Or just what happens when an established money-making machine tries to imagine what people not rolling in dough are thinking. Or all of the above?

Yeah, I was kinda taken aback by this skit too, and especially the Soros bit, what does he have to do with any of this?

Was there a real press-conference with Bush, Pelosi, and Frank?

The crack at Gwen Ifill in the earlier skit was fair, I thought. I started disliking her back in the late 90's, when she and her Washington Week in Review cronies made fun of antiglobalization activists (I forget the details, but it was irritating enough for me to send her an angry email).

I would in theory approve of a SNL skit that connected the leaders of both parties to Wall Street. But this skit--what the hell were they thinking?

WOW, Hits it on the nose....Don't it? See ya'all in the bread line in 2010.....Suckers !!!!

History repeats itself - the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

History repeats itself - the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

Uhhh....See?

Wow, I can't get video, but this sounds terrible. Are you absolutely sure it wasn't a try at satire that misfired (i.e. rememeber the wonderful 30s, when everything was the fault of the Jews).

I haven't watched it in years because, well, it's just not funny anymore, but this sucks.

This is humour? Disgusting.

To be fair, can material still be anti-Semitic when it's played (in part) by Jews and written by Jews? I dunno about the SNL writing staff, but I'd be surprised if none of them were Jewish.

I remember the actual Pelosi-Frank press conference being much funnier than this skit, and almost as offensive.

But I understand SNL's difficulty here. They had two possible gags, and the one in which leaders of congress give each other hand jobs for screwing the taxpayer was probably deemed more offensive to the God-fearing American public than a stream of racist, homophobic non-sequitur.

SNL just ain't funny anymore. The bite is gone. The early verve is missing. The writing is dull.
If you go through an anthology of American humor and read the likes of Thurber, Benchley et al, you soon discover that humor can be like poetry: the right words in the right order. No more at SNL.
But it's hard to stay funny and sharp for long. Look at Mel Brooks: funny in Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie, then mostly junk.
Pretty much true of most creative spirits: two good novels, then crap (Mailer...except for the journalism). Rare exceptions exist, like Roth.
Still, who's around to capture the lethal insanity of today's elites? No Btruce. Sahl or Nichols & May. Same in the area I know, the cabaret scene once thriving in Berlin and Vienna.
Today? Global humor, which is as funny as Jerry Lewis or exciting as Seinfeld.
Of course, the audience might no longer be there for the old SNL or comedy of the Sixties. Today the audience seeks comfort in its humor. And that's a humor-killer.

Wow... You linked to Michelle Malkin's blog. That was a huge surprise. I understand why, but for a second I thought I was caught in some sort of cross-blogisphere, bipartite nexus.

...dizzy...

...creepy...

SNL just ain't funny anymore.

True, but Fred Armisen is good.

As long as the so-called progressives keep collaborating with the Wall Street fatcats, they deserve to be skewered.

Of course, it could have done without the "poor people are too stupid to deserve homes" and "Democrats did it" canards, and "Scary Jew Banker Who Runs the World Buys White Woman" was way out of line.

Also, I didn't realize the Sandlers were actual people. Do you think maybe captioning them as "people who should be shot" was maybe too edgy? And by "edgy" I mean "potentially tortious if not in fact criminal".

Man, that's a twisted view of Jewish self-interest. It's hard to imagine Kissinger as an Everyjew, no? Look, these monsters have agendas, which benefit them (or perhaps they just enjoy the taste of blood). Killing Muslims does not promote Jewish well-being.

Not only did SNL bash Gwen Ifill to "balance" their Tina Fey debate skit

Huh? Ifill should not have run the debate, and she allowed Palin to walk all over her just so she could avoid more noise about her (latest) conflict of interest.

S.o.O.:
Neither is Jon Stewart or Amy Goodman or Naomi Klein or Zelikow or Perle or Feith or Adelson or Abramovitch or Sembler or Lieberman or George Soros or Seymour Hersh or Noam Chomsky or Hannah Mermelstein or Phil Weiss or Bob Dylan or Uri Avnery or David Duchovny or Roman Polanski or Sarah Silverman or Gilbert Gottfried, representative of all Jews. Your point?
The twistedness of the view you're saying I have residing in what, exactly?
Is it really necessary to talk about the diversity of Jewish presence in the world? Can we get beyond that anytime soon? I think it would help everybody involved, which is everybody.
I'm seeing a mounting tide of what could easily become primitive irrational bigotry, outside the media, two blocks over from Main Street, which isn't going to be balanced by thoughtless fundamentalist Christian devotion to an idealized Old Testament Israel, coupled with what Matt Rothschild on Democracy Now! today was unequivocally calling a police state unfolding in the US before our eyes.
What's ahead won't be one thing at a time, and the very real danger is we'll fragment, or remain fragmented, at precisely the time we'll need to be as together as we can get.
Ignoring the hinky bullshit isn't going to do it.

Ignoring the hinky bullshit isn't going to do it.

It's a strategy that works quite well and has fairly simple basis; the interests of the poor and the pedestrian masses seldom intersects with the interests of the moneyed elite and the hypereducated.

We might as well refer to those that are so detached from the common experience as if they were saurian overlords whose visibility is to be reserved for foil tinhat wearers. I also thought that SNL was getting ahead of sub rosa zeitgeist it in their "we're so hip and NY edgy" posture.

You get double good plus points for using hinky in a comment though. Long been one of my favorite words.

To be fair, can material still be anti-Semitic when it's played (in part) by Jews and written by Jews?

Can the Republican party fairly be called anti-gay since there are the Log Cabin Republicans, after all? Can they be called the party of reactionary racists since you can always find a J.C. Watts, Colin Powell, Armstrong Williams, et. al. to put in front of a camera? What do you think?

Roy, you could just say that the economy and the government are run by the rich and for the rich--there's no need to drag in what sounds like traditional antisemitic paranoia. Yeah, some rich people are Jews and some are gentile. What are you trying to say?

Roy, I'm simply taking issue with your usage of "self-interest." The neocon agenda can't be Jewish self-interest, since it doesn't benefit Jews. Jews don't benefit from the demonisztion of Iran or the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan or the raids on Pakistan. With the possible exception of the settlers, Israelis don't derive long-term benefit from the oppression of the Palestinians, either, American Jews even less so. Many are raised to believe such things, but it doesn't make them true.

Like Donald Johnson says, I think it's better to just treat these as people as representative of the rich. The question of how to persuade many American Jews not to unquestioningly support the Israeli government actions is important, but separate from the elite policy consensus in general, which is the work of all sorts of jerks.

I think you're all overreacting - Soros is played as the European aristocrat, not a Jewish stereotype. You only find it anti-Semitic because you know he's Jewish. Barney Frank is played as a fool, not a gay stereotype. You only find it homophobic because you know he's gay.

Stretching it a bit to think the Soros in the skit is anything like that German cartoon you posted, Jon. Then again, I guess everyone is Hitler, right?

S.t.O.:
Many are raised to believe such things, but it doesn't make them true.
Like Donald Johnson says, I think it's better...
And there you go. All tidied up.
Other people have opinions, but sometimes those opinions are wrong.
But why stop at "representative of the rich"? When you're looking to I.D. what's happened here and who's done it, I mean.
Why not just say "humans", or even "mammals"?
Mammals did it out of paranoically excessive self-interest.
But it can't be mammalian self-interest, since it doesn't benefit all mammals, right?
So it must be something narrower.
Or, gosh oh gee, maybe it was like a mistake?
Those silly mammals thought they were advancing their own interests and instead they pulled the plug at the bottom of the sea that's going to mean the end of everything.
The fact that - whoever the real actors are who've created the present circumstance volatile as it is - they share qualities and aspects of identity with a near infinite number of other creatures and things means they can be named however you want.
So then we're all free to pick how narrowly we make the distinction.
Some of us are a little concerned that this police state thing is being overseen by Chertoff and Mukasey, one the head of the Dept. of Homeland Sekurity, the other the Attorney General of the US, both Jews. And that pesky Negroponte, with the blood of Central American campesinos all over his hands, what's he up to, where's he working today?
But only anti-Semites pay attention to the ethnicities of public figures, yah?
Some of us are a little concerned that George Bush has been a beard for the neo-cons so-called from the get, used and set up for just exactly the cathartic elimination he now seems destined to undergo, barring sudden surprises like a domestic incident that requires martial law and suspension of all citizen rights and privileges, which if it happens will be overseen by Chertoff and Mukasey, as befits the grave responsibilities of their respective positions in an emergency.
Others aren't concerned so much about those things.
Some of us are concerned that Paulson may be another beard, though admittedly a richly rewarded one. The head of Goldman Sachs while all this vampire greed was happening was raised as a Christian Scientist, after all. A WASP, though an outlier.
Others aren't concerned about that at all.
Free country, right? Think what you want.
Oh, wait, yeah, that's what we were talking about in the first place wasn't it?
-
Donald Johnson, I am saying what I'm trying to say - it is being said, it is here being said right here - it is being placed in front of the reader in mostly one or two-syllable words for just that reason, so as to be read. I even edited it a couple times.

Some of us are a little concerned that this police state thing is being overseen by Chertoff and Mukasey, one the head of the Dept. of Homeland Sekurity, the other the Attorney General of the US, both Jews.

Roy, this is becoming creepy. The pattern recognition software that came with your monkey brain is steering you wrong.

Maybe Paulson plans to convert after the takeover. (damn! at his age YOU know that's got to hurt)Being a Jooo, myself, I freely and proudly admit to being a life long member (in good standing I might add) of "The Conquer The World Club". (I "may" owe a few back dues) I would have joined the "Illuminati Club" but it seems they don't allow those of the Jooooish Persuasion.

If there's a conversation here it's stalled pretty much exactly where every above-ground conversation about the Iraq invasion being anything more than a war for oil got stalled back in 03 and 04.
Any suggestion that Israeli interests, furthered by highly-placed dual-loyalty Jews in the Bush Administration, had a lot to do with Bush's decision to invade, was met with pretty much the same polite disdain and patronizing dismissal from reasonable correspondents, Donald Johnson among them as I'm sure he will recall, and vicious accusations of anti-Semitism by the not-so-reasonable.
But never, as is obvious now, by accurate rebuttal, because there wasn't any.
Because it was true.
So you're going to have to do more than call this creepy, or twisted, or etc. whatever. At least to maintain my interest in a dialog.
Which is maybe not a priority.
So there we go.

I should add that cross-eyed nonsense like Myers' above has been a steady feature of this non-consensus disagreement-whatever all along.
And if you look at it clearly, Myers' vulgar schtick exemplifies what I was saying above, something that SNL's writers could have been attempting, and certainly is to a degree what Stewart does fairly often. Get in front of the accusations, caricature them, make them ludicrous, own them sardonically, and thus by implication prove they're wrong.
Without addressing anything at all.

Roy, a Walt and Mearsheimer type argument about the Israel lobby would probably get a respectful hearing here. AIPAC, neocons (of varying ethnicity), Christian Zionists--a lot of people in these groups have a racist attitude towards Arabs and obviously this has a huge influence on what gets said in this country about the I/P conflict. As for Iraq, I don't think that concern for Israel was the chief cause of the invasion of Iraq, but it played a role. There's nothing crazy about saying that someone's ethnicity or religion could influence how they see the world in a really negative way--it's why religious and ethnic conflicts are so tough to resolve.

But you're going way beyond that with your "theory" above and you seem to have no sense of why you creep people out. You know, one reason a lot of us are slightly leery of these sort of thing is that there is a 2000 year old tradition in the West of assuming that fiendish Jews are plotting against "us". And we all know where this kind of thinking leads. In all your concern about the ethnic identities of this or that powerful person, you might want to spare a thought for what might happen if your theory became widely accepted. As it happens we have some historical examples when it did.

As for our history, yeah, I remember a lot of dark talk and hints from you about the dark shadowy forces that really controlled history, like you were some sort of Deep Throat on a cosmic scale, with insight into the deep conspiracy hidden to lesser mortals without your insight. (The patronizing didn't flow in one direction, as I recall). And a lot of us at that other blog wondered just who you thought the conspirators were, though I guess we all suspected who you meant.

Roy: And there you go. All tidied up.

Was that too simple? War on the Muslim world not in anybody's interest, excepting perhaps politicians and defense contractors? Enthusiasm for things not necessarily aligning with self-interest? I'm confused. At the time I wrote "twisted," that was my only point.

As to the rest, there are evil "pro-Israel" associations like AIPAC in plain sight, so I don't see the additional explanatory power of a deeper conspiracy.

Roy, a Walt and Mearsheimer type argument about the Israel lobby would probably get a respectful hearing here.
Donald that you could say this now with a straight face is more disheartening than anything else you bring in response to what I said.
I don't think that concern for Israel was the chief cause of the invasion of Iraq is sort of disheartening too, but not so much. More dispiriting than disheartening, if that registers. We're talking about a hugely complex series of preparations and processes leading up to the actual beginning of active hostility. Of course there were a bunch of motives, including outright military hunger for conflict. Saying it was one thing, or another, is inaccurate and absurd from the distance we're looking at it. The lion's share was out of men like Wolfowitz and Perle and Feith etc., and there's that Zelikow back in there too.As opposed to General Anthony Zinni, who you may remember was reviled all over the map as an anti-Semite for suggesting that was what was up.
When I wrote "I'm seeing a mounting tide of what could easily become primitive irrational bigotry, outside the media, two blocks over from Main Street" did that register?
Is it unclear, twisted, creepy? What you're afraid of is already here, and it's getting stronger all the time, but it's not showing up anywhere you're looking. So you can still pretend it's something we have to guard against, and we can do that by allowing questions and arguments about this volatile subject to be rebutted by sarcasm and scorn. Because that's all they deserve.
In case you're unclear about why that lead quote from you is so disheartening:
MOst of the responses here to what I've said are virtually note for note identical to responses to the question of Israeli/dual-loyalty influence on the Iraq invasion going in, back in 03 and 04. As I already said.
Identical, right down to Myer's "Jooos" - all sardonic and stuff.
Note for note, identical.
Didn't help much then, and it isn't helping at all now.

Roy Belmont: 2 es no s. Then UR saying I'm NOT a member in good standing?

With or without the dropped s's, you're a tribe of 1. A unique individual, a nonpareil sui generis one of a kind. And a CAPITAL fellow.
Which doesn't mean you can't affiliate and share affinity with anybody or anything you choose or see fit to.
Sadly that doesn't erase the sad truth that sardonic humor - by itself - won't get the job done, though. Not for me, anyway.
These things need to get talked about in basic simple language, in public places where open minds can work together, and they aren't being.

Young people are the problem too. After all, aren't all 20-somethings just a bunch of reckless and stupid slackers?

I don't even know anyone that age who has bought a house!

I'm not familiar with Barney Frank. Is he retarded?

First of all, Bush was the person portrayed as the lead idiot in this skit. Second, that was funny. Third, the rest was funny too.

Too many people are always looking for a reason to be offended, and see the world where the jokes are only funny and not tasteless if they are poking fun at the other side. Lighten up people. The Palin/Fey skits are great. This one isn't in the same league but it satire, people. If you don't think it is funny, don't watch.

I had no idea George Soros is Jewish. Same with the Sandlers. The wikipedia page on the Sandlers doesn't even mention it, with the exception of the categories list at the bottom, one of which is "American Jews". The "should be shot" remark I could see as being over the line, but otherwise I thought the skit was funny. The white couple who were trying to flip properties was spot on, were you offended by that? I think you are seeing antisemitism where you want to find it. Sexist? If the Speaker of the House was a man, would you blame men for the problem? "Shiftless blacks"? The other dude wasn't black, he was plenty shiftless. I have to agree with Stefano Demero on this one.

I didn't see SNL's skit since I don't have (can't afford) cable and because my TV is broken (can't get NBC and can't afford a new TV). But is everyone who hates this skit so naive as to think the Democrats (like Barney Franks) had absolutely nothing to do with the economic meltdown and the subprime lending schemes? Is it only the Republicans fault? You really need to get the facts straight. I know many partisan Democrats revere Bill Clinton but his administration laid the groundwork for this mess we are in. He did sign the Republican sponsored bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act, the one that kept banks and investment firms separate. His neo-liberal ideolgy and globalization ideolgy also did much to get us where we are now. As long as you believe the two aprties are fundamentally different you will be screwed again and again. Both parties serve the interests of the top 4% in this country (just ask Gore Vidal). The rest of us matter only on election day when the candidates through us crust of moldy bread and tell us its a gourmet meal.

"too poor to fail"

too poor: EXACTLY.

Roy Belmont: I see UR point, Roy. Pretty much everyone hates Jews at one time or another, tribal wise, of course. I see the young men in Israel rioting against the Palestinians on YOM KIPPUR no less, so them Joooz kinda chap my hide too. All that old John Birch legend stuff is just myth but I bet I could find 50 people, easy enough, all of whom would testify with fact and anecdote proving every word true. I satirize because I KNOW nothing's going to change YOUR mind.

is everyone who hates this skit so naive as to think the Democrats (like Barney Franks) had absolutely nothing to do with the economic meltdown and the subprime lending schemes? Is it only the Republicans fault?

No, of course not. But the sketch wasn't about Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It was about Barney Frank, Herbert Sanders and George Soros, who as individuals had very little to do with this. Frank had the most, but even here the idea that he had some kind of significant influence when the Democrats were out of power—which is when the problem was generated—is ridiculous.

Moreover, the people who WERE individually most responsible—George Bush and Alan Greenspan—are either mostly (Bush) or completely (Greenspan) missing from this sketch.

And in any case, the real trouble is not individuals, but an ideology—which is right-wing, no matter how many Democrats were pushing it.

The fact that Frank is gay doesn't mean that any mockery of him is "gay bashing". The sketch clearyl made fun of him, but his sexual orientation wasn't any part of it.

Nor was there (unless I missed it) any mention or reference to the Jewish-ness of any of the other people in it.

Hey, they made fun of Bush too. Was that Christian-bashing? Was it misogynistic because Pelosi was in there?

The common thread, indeed, was the liberal-ness of the people mocked (Bush excepted). The sketch definitely blames liberals.

You can like or dislike this sketch for any number of reasons, but cries of "gay bashing" and "anti-semitism" is just plain crying "wolf". You diminish those problems when they rear their heads for real.

Mel Brooks knew how to do it. Think of the scene in "Blazing Saddles," when he, as the Yiddish-speaking Indian Chief says of the Black couple and their son: "...they darker than us."
Humor has to dare. The SNL skit parades stereotypes in front of us, some rather nasty, and does a creditable imitation. Not really funny, no turning things upside down, no exposing of stupidity or malice. Holding up a mirror is not comedy, not really. The audiences laugh today because Tina Fey get's Palin's mannerisms right. Good for her, but where's the humor?

Think of the scene in Silent Movie where Marcel Marceau speaks one word, the only word in the movie.
Myer:
You "satirize because [YOU] KNOW nothing's going to change [MY] mind"? About what?
About the need for open dialog about things that are powerfully volatile and threaten all of us?
About the way bigotry can be fed by silence as much as by demagoguery and rant?
What exactly did I say here, that you heard?
Did you hear me say I thought it possible that SNL's skit was something like what Jon Stewart does every once in awhile? Where he gives out with some essential anti-Semitic claim and owns it, turns it by irony and sarcasm.
Do you think I'm attacking him for doing that?
Why would you think that?
Do you realize you pretty much delivered a tight little example of what I was suggesting?
Can you even see that's what you did?

Meyers - Myer.
Meyer.
Sorry, it's not intentional.

Roy Belmont: Don't worry about the spelling, Roy, nobody gets it right the first time. If U want to discuss the great Jew conspiracy to control the world, it doesn't bother me in the least, heard it ALL my days. The best theories I've heard come out of Mein Kampf by A. Hitler. He makes a very believeable case in the matter. If YOU are really worried that the ever incompetent Chertoff or the totally corrupt Mukasey are going to rule over YOU and YOURS with the iron fist and jackboot of Jewish police oppression, then buy a firearm. Its OK to do, its in the US CONSTITUTION for just such occasions. (2nd Amendent) If I may suggest, NOTHING SEZ NO like a 12 gauge pump.

I thought this was one of the most blatantly vile things I have ever seen.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01rfrance.phtml

Full of lies and extremely hateful. I never ever thought I would see this on mainstream TV. Disagreeing with France on the war is one thing. But this was a disgusting low that effectively made me stop watching SNL.

Come on Roy, what exactly are the "powerfully volatile things" that "threaten us all?"
Let's have a list of, say, 57, and explanations of why they're so "powerfully volatile" and how they "threaten us all."
God is in the details.

Uh, the Sandlers really did make billions selling their bank, which specialized in subprime loans and offered "Skip a Payment" as a feature, to Wachovia, which pretty much killed Wachovia.

Sorry if you don't like them being criticized. Tough. They don't get a "Get Out Of Mockery Free" card just because they're Jewish.

Dunno why Soros was there, though.

In its context:
About the need for open dialog about things that are powerfully volatile and threaten all of us?
About the way bigotry can be fed by silence as much as by demagoguery and rant?

You're blinded by your own sensibilities, so you expect those phrases to be racist or bigoted. Because your bias doesn't allow you to see me as seeing bigotry as threatening to everyone. Because I'm a bigot. Because only a bigot would say the things I've said.
Which is sort of like what that anonymous source told Ron Suskind a long time back, you'll keep responding to "reality", while they, the real villains, will keep creating it.
I guarantee you any Reich, of whatever flavor, that rises up out of the chaos we're entering will have come for me long before they begin to worry about you.

Wow! Everyone is really pissed off about a sketch that I thought had its tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek. I was under the impression it was making fun of the Republican lies and distortions about the reasons for the economic collapse. Also I also don't think SNL tries to be balanced about making fun of both parties. The Republican party is a failure the McCain campaign is a failure and SNL has been pointing that out. Obama 08!