Jon Stewart Flips on Historian Who Confirms US Might Be on the Brink of Revolution: ‘I Was Trying to Be Delicate!'
While talking with Duncan and 'Andor' showrunner Tony Gilroy on Thursday's episode of 'The Weekly Show' podcast, Stewart built up to his big question of how close the United States really was to a second revolution with his guests. Duncan and Gilroy's answers did not alleviate his fears.
More from TheWrap
Brendan Fraser Dramedy 'Rental Family' Sets November Release at Searchlight
7 Best Horror Movies Streaming on Netflix Right Now
Guy Ritchie Drops Out as 'Road House 2' Director
Jon Stewart Flips on Historian Who Confirms US Might Be on the Brink of Revolution: 'I Was Trying to Be Delicate!' | Video
'I have a hard time doing this, not looking at the present and gathering up those ingredients – that Tony you put into this brilliant show about a revolutionary and Mike you put into deconstructing – and not look at the ingredients of this moment and not think 'boy we are in a tinder box,'' Stewart said.
Duncan interrupted and burst the host's bubble that the U.S. was very much on a brink of a revolution and it was not going to take much more pushing after just six months under Trump.
'A historian of revolution has just told us we're in it,' Stewart exclaimed. 'I was trying to be delicate.'
'Yeah, dude, people are flicking matches at a tinder box right now,' Duncan continued. 'Whether or not it's going to go off, nobody knows but yeah, dude, we're there. We've been there for years.'
He continued: 'My point is that if something broke out tomorrow it would be the easiest thing in the world to explain the big major structural forces, and individual incidents, that brought us to this point.'
For Gilroy, he pointed to the unfortunately prophetic nature of his Star Wars series and the response it garnered from many who asked him how close he thought the U.S. was to something similar.
'People talk about the predictive quality of the show, and as it started to click out all these things started happening,' he said. 'We had Ghorman and the mineral rights and that happens right when Greenland happens. Then we have the immigration issue and we have ICE, we have the Senator Oran arrested from the Senate at the same time as Padilla is being arrested.'
Watch the full conversation between Stewart, Gilroy and Duncan in the video above.
The post Jon Stewart Flips on Historian Who Confirms US Might Be on the Brink of Revolution: 'I Was Trying to Be Delicate!' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
‘Who speaks for the Jews?' The ADL, some say. Wrong, say others.
In a time of escalating global crises, including Israel's devastating siege of Gaza, which the UN has called Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Phillips argues that disproportionate criticism of Israel reveals latent antisemitism. But this ignores both the extraordinary scale of suffering in Gaza and the billions in US military aid that make this war possible. Holding a US-funded ally to account is not bigotry — it's our moral responsibility. Advertisement Today, perhaps more than ever, we need principled, not punitive, leadership from the ADL. Sandy Light Cambridge Caroline Light Belmont Miriam Cubstead Watertown Caroline Light is a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in women, gender, and sexuality studies at Harvard University. The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the university. Advertisement 'The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark' against hate My compliments to Colette A.M. Phillips for writing 'In defense of the Anti-Defamation League.' She is spot-on: Whatever the targeted group, violence can materialize from lack of education, prejudicial upbringing, or visceral hate, as shown, in the case of Jews, in Pittsburgh (mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, Oct. 27, 2018); Boulder, Colo. (fire attack June 1 of this year on a group marching in solidarity with the hostages taken from Israel on Oct. 7, 2023); and Marietta, Ga. (the conviction in 1913, and subsequent lynching in 1915, of Leo Frank). The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark against people who have hate issues. It tries to raise awareness that there are better ways to bring respect and understanding for all people when there is division in society. Edward Sloan North Andover 'I have never felt represented or protected by the ADL' As a Jewish person who believes that all lives are sacred, including those of Palestinians, I have never felt represented or protected by the Anti-Defamation League. While in principle the ADL allows that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the organization has not afforded the same benefit of the doubt to pro-Palestinian protesters as it has done, for example, to Elon Musk for giving what appeared to be Colette A.M. Phillips argues that, since Israel's actions in Gaza have generated more protest than other atrocities around the globe, this protest must be a 'fig leaf' for antisemitism. This argument ignores both the scale of devastation — Gaza has been cited as Advertisement But for me, the reason to protest goes deeper. Growing up Jewish, I was told not only that Israel is the sacred ancestral home of our people but also that we have a special responsibility to ensure that what happened to us in the Holocaust does not happen to any people. When I see mass atrocities being committed by the country that is said to be my home, how can I remain silent? Ben Allen Boston 'The ADL is now a partisan organization' I am a Jewish American and found Colette A.M. Phillips's op-ed very disturbing. Despite claiming that 'criticizing a government is fair game,' she then says much political criticism of Israel is not fair game. Instead, she establishes an impossible test for permissible criticism: that the speaker must prove their criticism is not 'selective.' People have countless reasons for caring about some issues more than others. It has never been right to censor speech for its selectivity nor the imputed motives behind selectivity. Yet Phillips wants us to believe that in the case of Israel, we should reduce all special concern to hidden antisemitism. This is trying to win an argument without making it. Phillips falls back on the exhausted argument that 'we have learned to listen' to the oppressed. They decide what counts as bigoted. Even if true in principle, Advertisement Alex Gourevitch Cambridge The writer is an associate professor of political science at Brown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the university. 'All of us are capable of monstrous acts' I was raised with awareness of antisemitism — my grandparents fled the anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, and many family friends were German, Polish, or Austrian survivors of the Holocaust. In 1980, my junior high school in Arlington was one of the first cohorts to use the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum. We studied the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the war in Cambodia. It was painful to hear specifics of the slaughter of Jews and of the passivity of bystanders who knew but did not act in opposition. However, in studying the Holocaust in the context of these other atrocities, it was always clear that this particular history was part of a much larger pattern of cruelty and resistance. As Jews, our suffering was not something that made us 'special'; rather, it was a dramatic example of recurring human barbarism. The ADL's defense of fascist acts is a bitter irony. Those who claim Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza are willfully ignoring mass starvation and heartless slaughter. It feels excruciating, but we must be honest that Americans, Israelis, Jews, indeed all of us are capable of monstrous acts, and we must put aside our pride and act with determination to stop the horror. Julia Halperin Jamaica Plain
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I no longer identify as Nigerian, Badenoch says
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her passport since the early 2000s. Badenoch, who was born in the UK, grew up in both Nigeria and the US. She returned to England aged 16 because of Nigeria's worsening political and economic climate, and to continue her education. Speaking on former MP and television presenter Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, she said she was "Nigerian through ancestry" though "by identity, I'm not really". Last year, Badenoch faced criticism from Nigeria's vice president who said she had "denigrated" the West African country. Badenoch, who lived in Lagos, spoke at length about her upbringing on the podcast. "I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I'm very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is." On not renewing her passport, she said: "I don't identify with it any more, most of my life has been in the UK and I've just never felt the need to." "I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents... but by identity I'm not really," she added. Badenoch said when she visited the country when her father died she had to get a visa, which was "a big fandango". She said her early experiences in Nigeria shaped her political outlook, including "why I don't like socialism". As a child "I remember never quite feeling that I belonged there", she went on, saying she recalled "coming back to the UK in 1996 thinking this is home". At the end of last year, Badenoch was criticised for saying she had grown up in fear and insecurity in Nigeria, which was plagued by corruption. The country's vice president Kashim Shettima responded, saying his government was "proud" of Badenoch "in spite of her efforts at denigrating her nation of origin". A spokesperson for Badenoch rebuffed the criticism. Badenoch stands by Nigeria comments after criticism
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Economy Updates: After a Weak Jobs Report, Trump Fires That Agency's Commissioner
President Trump said on social media on Friday that he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were 'rigged' and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month. In a long post on social media, Mr. Trump said he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis in 2024. Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner for the bureau, confirmed late Friday that Dr. McEntarfer had been fired and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as acting commissioner. The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump's policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was 'doing GREAT!' Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, echoed Mr. Trump's concerns about Dr. McEntarfer in a post on social media. 'So you know what I did?' Mr. Trump later told reporters, as he claimed the numbers were 'phony.' 'I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.' Dr. McEntarfer was appointed to her post by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2023 after a long career at the Census Bureau and other agencies, where she served under presidents of both parties, including Mr. Trump. Among the Republicans who voted to confirm her as commissioner was Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator. The firing prompted swift criticism from economists, former government officials and others, who said the removal would further erode trust in government statistics and make it more difficult for policymakers, investors and businesses, who rely on having dependable data about the economy to make decisions. In addition to the monthly jobs numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for producing data on inflation, wages and other aspects of the economy. William W. Beach, who led the bureau during Mr. Trump's first term, criticized the move to fire Dr. McEntarfer on Friday. 'It's unfortunate,' he said. 'This could set a precedent where bad news on many different fronts is a reason for dismissing a person.' Mr. Beach, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019 and remained in the role for the first two years of the Biden administration, said he had never felt pressure to manipulate the data under either president. Even if there were such pressure, he said, there is 'no way' the commissioner could interfere in the revisions process, which is conducted by career employees. Erica Groshen, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, called the decision 'a terrible precedent.' 'I hope will be reversed because it undermines the integrity of our statistical system and really all of government data and science,' she added, calling it 'a very sad day.' Dr. McEntarfer's tenure got off to a rough start last year when the agency made a series of missteps in which Wall Street firms had access to data before the general public. But none of those incidents involved issues with the statistics themselves. Mr. Trump and his top aides have made a habit of attacking government agencies, researchers and watchdogs when they have produced findings that the president does not like. That has led to concerns that Mr. Trump could seek to interfere with the operations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other statistical agencies, particularly if the economy begins to take a turn for the worse. Until now, however, most experts on the statistical system said they remained confident in the data produced by the agencies and had seen no evidence of political interference in their operations. Current and former agency staff members consistently echoed that message — in part, they said, because they trusted Dr. McEntarfer and her counterparts at the other major statistical agencies to protect their independence. 'If that pressure got too great, you would see people resigning rather than shape the numbers,' Mr. Beach said. Economists across the ideological spectrum said Mr. Trump's move to oust Dr. McEntarfer was likely to erode public confidence in the data published by the administration. 'If you want people to stop trusting the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firing the person who is confirmed by the Senate to make sure those numbers are trustworthy is a real good way to do it,' said Martha Gimbel, the executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, who served in the White House under Mr. Biden. Dr. McEntarfer could not immediately be reached for comment. On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that employers added only 73,000 new jobs in July. It also notably revised data for the previous two months, reducing the number of jobs created by 258,000. While revisions to previous months are common, it was an unusually high number that came as a surprise. It suggested the labor market was not as resilient as it had seemed earlier this summer. Shortly after the numbers were released, Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered an explanation for the jobs revision that was much different from Mr. Trump's. On CNBC, he said much of the change was the result of 'quirks in the seasonal adjustment process' and even the president's own policies, particularly on immigration, potentially affecting hiring numbers for May and June. He made no mention of any concerns about manipulated data as he sought to recast the slowdown in July as a 'pretty decent' jobs report. By evening, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, sought to frame the firing as an attempt to restore 'trust' at the statistics agency. Unlike Mr. Trump, who described the revisions as politically motivated, Mr. Hassett said its jobs figures had been 'awful' for some time. 'I think it is a good time for a fresh set of eyes to look at what the heck is going on,' he told Fox Business. In his social media posts on Friday, Mr. Trump provided no evidence that Dr. McEntarfer had injected political bias into her agency's data. And his criticisms contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Mr. Trump complained about not just the latest jobs numbers but also a set of revisions from last year. The bureau, like other statistical agencies, routinely updates its figures to incorporate data that wasn't initially available or to reflect information from more authoritative sources. Last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said employers had added roughly 818,000 fewer jobs over a 12-month period than previously believed. That announcement was part of a normal annual revision process, although the change was unusually large. (It was also preliminary — the final figures were revised down by just under 600,000 jobs.) In a social media post on Friday, Mr. Trump said the revision was made 'right after the election.' In fact, the announcement was made roughly two and a half months before Election Day. Indeed, Mr. Trump posted about the revisions at the time, calling them a 'MASSIVE SCANDAL.' To the agency's defenders, however, the twin revisions show that it operates without political bias and was willing to announce politically inconvenient news under presidents of both parties. 'President Trump is completely wrong in asserting there's been any sort of anti-Trump bias in the labor market data,' said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'I think that assertion is wholly unsupported.' Mr. Strain said that government data is revised frequently, and that doing so reflected a 'standard' practice to ensure its quality. In this case, he acknowledged that the change was 'historically large' but 'doesn't smell fishy.' Federal statistical agencies have faced mounting challenges in recent years as Americans have become more reluctant to respond to the surveys that are the basis for much of the nation's economic data. Shrinking budgets have made it harder to make up for falling response rates, and to develop new approaches to replace surveys altogether. Those concerns predate the current administration, but have grown worse since Mr. Trump returned to office. The statistical agencies have struggled with staff attrition as a result of the president's freeze on federal hiring, combined with the buyouts he offered early in his term. The president's budget also proposed further staff and funding cuts. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was reducing its collection of data on consumer prices in response to resource constraints. Economists warned that, over time, such cuts could erode the reliability of the inflation data that Federal Reserve policymakers rely on when setting interest rates, and that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits, among other uses. Asked about those cuts on Wednesday, Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said policymakers were 'getting the data that we need to do our jobs.' But he stressed the importance of the federal statistical agencies. 'The government data is really the gold standard in data,' he said. 'We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it.' Sydney Ember contributed reporting.
