Last Saturday, SNL ran a funny skit about the passage of the bailout bill. It poked fun at the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank, George Soros, and others. (Transcript and screenshots here.) Now the skit has vanished. (It used to be here.) It is the only skit from last week's show that is no longer available on SNL's website (or other sites at which SNL skits are available), and questions about the skit have apparently been removed from NBC message boards. It's also been pulled repeatedly from YouTube due to copyright concerns.
What's going on? Michelle Malkin suspects that NBC was subject to political or legal pressure, possibly from Herbert and Marion Sandler, a couple portrayed in the skit who owned a mortgage company that aggressively promoted subprime mortgages and was sold to Wachovia for over $20 billion in 2006. Even if the Sandlers objected (see also here), I see no reason for SNL to pull the skit. If, as Jeff Mapes suggests, it was pulled because the skit identified the Sandlers as "people who should be shot" in text along the bottom, that could be easily scrubbed. And if SNL pulled the skit for such reasons, why wouldn't they release an explanation? Perhaps one will be forthcoming.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I do not think any reasonable person would view the skit as "inciting violence" against the Sandlers. But even if the brief appearance of one line of text could be viewed in such a fashion, it would be easy to remove without deleting the entire 6-7 minute skit.
SECOND UPDATE: According to this story, NBC edited the skit to take out the screen shot calling the Sandlers "people who should be shot."
Related Posts (on one page):
- The
MissingEdited SNL Skit: - The Missing SNL Skit:
What is up with our society? Why does everyone seem to think it is appropriate to incite violence. Yesterday we saw Palin not condemning the suggestion that Ayers or Obama should be shot, and today we see Adler outraged that NBC (rightly in my opinion) pulled a video off its cite that was advocating the shooting of two citizens.
Weird.
They are public figures. It would have to be malice - which means basically completely false - to be libel. Well, not reckless diosregard is a defense. If false but NBC can't be blamed then they could be blamed for not pulling it.
But this is clearly parody anyway. Would anybody believe because of the skit that George Soros has converted all his Dollar holdings into Swiss francs? Or that Nancy Pelosi had whispered to Barney Frank that "he doesn't know" (George Bush doesn't know when Nancy Pelosi contradicts him that is right)
Nobody would expect the SNL description to be comopletekly accurate. Were they called as witnesses ? The only thing people might believe is that they did not lose money. Nobody would think the amounts are correct.
What you are observing is the simple fact that most people are capable of easily distinguishing between a figure of speech and a genuine incitement to violence.
and that party wins the election,
is the party owner the King, and the President actually a Prime Minister?
Just sayin'
Legal obligation? Probably not. But an obligation to their viewers/customers? Maybe. There's certanily nothing wrong with pressuring NBC and SNL to explain their actions.
The skit is very funny, and it makes important points about the present crisis that the Democratic Party does not want made. This raises the very strong suspicion that it is being spiked for the same reason that ABC has withheld the movie "Path to 9/11." Politics has trumped not only art, but also the company's economic self-interest.
SNL did not suggest that Todd Palin was molesting his children. The skit you refer to was mocking/attacking the NY Times/mainstream media for willing to believe/claim anything about the Palins and Alaska. Some reporter throws this out as one of the wacky ideas. Another keeps asking about polar bear attacks. For the record, Kathryn Jean Lopez loved the skit, and her endorsement means little in my book, but for once it accurately reflects what that skit was targeting. That CNN (and perhaps others) ran stories on the Todd Palin/molestation angle means they either didn't see or didn't understand the skit.
Please
Bit torrent isn't for everyone, but it is a lot easier than you think. You'll need a good client link uTorrent or Azureus, but it is real easy to set up. The torrent has a very healthy swarm of seeders right now, ready to distribute the file. Once widely distributed, it isn't coming down.
Also, the file is small enough to fit throught most email gateways. I'm not suggesting you spam everyone in your address book with it (please, don't do that)... but you can email it to your parents and a few close friends, probably.
If you can't find the debate skit, just watch the actual debate. They're just about the same.
The skit was funny, and it cut pretty hard against everyone.
Why Kent sees some conspiracy is beyond me.
More people will now see it than had they left it alone, and more people will now know who the Sandlers are because of it. Had they let it be, nothing would have happened.
But I do want to know beyond conspiratorial conjecturing.
Or, of course, for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, which has been warning of the problem of credit-based currency and other securities for decades.
Here is the Wikipedia article on Herb and Marion Sandler.
Then Soros pulled it, because he is connected to everything, and then Pelosi did not appreciate something or other.
You can download and install a free bittorrent client called utorrent (the leading letter is actually the Greek letter mu).
However, the Firefox browser lets you download the file from the previously provided link. . Just select "Save page as" to save it to your local disk.
In one of the SNL anthology shows a while back, Lorne Michaels commented that when SNL skewers Democrats he almost always hears about it. They feel betrayed and surprised as they think SNL is "on their side." He never hears from Republicans as they often expect the ridicule.
And interestingly, for the record, just the other day, i watched an old Wayne's World where they mocked Chelsea Clinton as a dog, or something to that effect. They cut it out, both the moment they made the joke and even the words on the babe countdown they were holding up.
So obviously they could do that if they wanted to.
I am guessing that someone at NBC realized this might actually hurt their guy.
A previous poster says:
"Huh? Anti-Semitic? How on earth could anyone infer that?"
Let's see. The villains are Jews. The subtext is straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For you it is not antisemitic, but the anti Semites out there will understand what's being said and others will be more receptive to the message of those who spew such nonsense.
I did some research. Lorne Michaels has given to McCain and Obama (and Nader, and Dodd). SO I take back my comment about him.
It's not the viewers' fault the perps are Jewish.
Somebody asked up thread if there are certain individuals against whom nothing can be said, no matter how legitimate, because of their membership in an Accredited Victim Group.
Does this get deep-sixed when, if the perps were atheist it would fly?
Um, no. How about Baptists? Yeah. That would work.
Here's Mark Kleiman making the argument that it is.
I would have a problem if they picked a fake person and named them Herschel Schwartz and he had a keepah and was a dangerous lender.
Saying the sketch is anti-semetic is like saying . . . is like saying Dangermouse and Smokey think the Warren Court was the best period of the Supreme Court.
In any event, wouldn't it be interesting if McCain brought it up at the debate, moderated by NBC's own Tom Brokow?
I don't think so. You're letting your imagination run wild here. Even if under some bizarre logic we could call the skit anti-Semitic, so what? That's no justification for censorship. No one in his right mind would think this satirical venue in any way constitutes incitement to violence.
The skit is:
1. Funny
2. Makes an important point.
3. Portrays the characters as the buffoons they really are.
4. Might actually start people thinking about how both political parties have failed them.
Your comment inspires me to share it agressively.
BTW I'm Jewish.
Soon Free Republic will start having trouble posting stuff, then it'll be Michelle Malkin. Then...well, I'll just say post now, while you still can!
When a mob war starts, you make sure to pay your protection money to all parties. The worst thing is to find out what you weren't supporting the winner.
Kleiman is already beating a retreat. Read this.So now the issue isn't so much ant-Semitism, but an attack on "liberals and Democrats" (he really means socialists and fellow travelers) and in his own words we see that's actually worse than anti-Antisemitism.
SNL bailout skit
Jews Against Calling Stuff Anti-Semetic When It Is Plainly a Parody on People Who Happen to be Jewish. You can also refer to us as JAM! Jews Against Morons.
It is non-partisan with a few requirements:
1) must be Jewish; and
2) must abhor real Anti-Semitism; and
3) must abhor people who say stuff is anti-Semitic that is merely parodies of people who happen to be Jewish.
I can't believe this thread is real.
Kent, bear in mind I have a pretty high tolerance for satirical humor and am not taking a position that this skit was anti-Semitic. I was just noting that I had heard this position taken and could imagine that if enough people were expressing this claim, it could affect NBC's decision to take the video down.
And then, there is tragi-comic self-parody on a different scale altogether.
My guess is that it is the anti semitism charge that scared SNL-I don't think they would have folded to a "You are picking on democrats" charge, but I could see running scared from the anti semitism.
However I didn't see anything anti semetic and if somebody think it is, they probably need to learn how to laugh at satire.
My guess is that it is the anti semitism charge that scared SNL-I don't think they would have folded to a "You are picking on democrats" charge, but I could see running scared from the anti semitism.
However I didn't see anything anti semetic and if somebody think it is, they probably need to learn how to laugh at satire.
You also had the huge problem of funds, firms, and what not over investing in mortgage backed securities - knowing that they were risky. Then we got the consumer borring issues, and lax accounting schemes.
Thus, we are here because of a tangled web that includes lack of oversight, deregulating, federal banking regs that set ceilings rather than floors so states can protect citizens against predatory practices, wild speculators, etc. Fannie and Freddy were problems, and Dems were wrong with how they treated them, but they are hardly the only reason why banks and financial institutions are failing today. I wish it was that easy.
Add up the amounts Michaels has given to Democrats, and to Democratic organizations.
Now do the same for all the Republicans and Republican organizations he has donated to.
Which one seems to be a tad bit larger?
I suspect that Michaels merely donated to McCain to try and get the most moderate Republican nominated. He hasn't donated to McCain since the primaries.
The Fannie and Freddie aspect, however, was positively huge, was mammoth.
See reports here and here, the latter a lengthier pdf doc. Excerpt from the former:
"In June 2003, in the wake of the failures of Enron and WorldCom, Freddie’s board of directors suddenly dismissed its three top officers and announced that the company’s accountants had found serious problems in Freddie’s financial reports. In 2004, after a forensic audit by OFHEO, even more serious accounting manipulation was found at Fannie, and Raines, its chairman, and Timothy Howard, its chief financial officer, were compelled to resign."
My point was that I was calling him a Republican, and graciously took it back noting that he gave to Ds and I's too.
Are you joking, like a parody of all those racism charges?
Per Son
Well, the official story was that Chelsea was just a teenager and thus it was cruel. And since I agree, I accept that. I didn’t intend to insinuate an agenda, just to point out how easy it would be scrub out an offending moment.
I agree that there were huge problems at Fannie and Freddy, and am not quite sure why Raines is not in jail, but I honestly see them as players in a giant web.
As for some of the Dems who felt Fannie and Freddy did no wrong - I'll give you this: I can come up with many excuses for Biden's gaffes, but when Maxine Waters talks - I cringe and shove a Twix in my mouth.
A dog whistle argument. Code words that only the "right" people can understand.
You know the "real" Protocols are not a dog whistle at all. They are openly anti-semitic.
Anything is sharper than Kleiman's argument. But Heer's argument is little better. It boils down to Lorne Michaels is an evil right winger, who like all right wingers, is hopelessly anti-semitic.
BTW, Kleiman's blog is called "Reality Based Community"? Too funny because "reality" has nothing to do with his screed.
Yes, a wider or giant web is the right way to frame the Fannie and Freddie aspects, though the latter arguably comprise anywhere from 25% to 40% or more of the fiasco. Additionally, if Fannie and Freddie would have been properly addressed even as late as 2003/2004, it probably that other, related, systemic problems would have been addressed as well, either as a direct or indirect result of addressing Fannie and Freddie.
But yes, a wider web is unquestionably at issue. Indeed, it's arguably systemic not only within finance and the economy more formally understood, but within the body politic - i.e. the nation, the demos - more comprehensively understood.
You seem blissfully unaware of the past history of anti-Semitism.
The skit blamed the Jews for the financial crisis. They are portrayed alternately as people who should be shot and people who are masterminds of world finance that manipulate the rest of us (and who buy women).
Sure there are plenty of Jews who are in the financial world and have made lots of money. Sure everybody should be subject to criticism.
But with distinct echoes of past slanders against the Jews this is not as funny as it is disgusting.
For example, did anyone see Andy Sandberg make out with that dog a while ago? I nearly wet myself. Yet that vid is not on the site.
So consider that before jumping to conclusions.
Perhaps your beef is with the Sandlers for playing the part--in real life--that feeds into the stereotype and validates the views of jew haters.
Does Tom Delay know about this? Was the Hammer broken or neutered? Were there bills proposed that the Democrats defeated in up or down votes?
The Mansourian candidate is supported by American-hating Israel-hating Islamic-activist terrorists.
Wake up.
And since most of you never heard if the Sandlers (and maybe not even Soros) before this SNL skit, you better start wondering about exactly how uniformed you are.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030929.html
We disagree with you and it is because we are ignorant?
I can't speak for everyone but I am quite aware of the history. I was pretty well aware before I got married but having a mother-in-law who fled Germany in 1938 made it more personal.
I just don't see every unflattering reference to Jewish people as anti-semitic. The Sandlers were not slammed because they were Jewish, they got slammed because they helped creat the mess.
The skit hit various people including Jews. If it was only about Jews, you might have a point. It was not, it was an all purpose slam.