Jon Stewart: Occasional Arrogant Buffoon

How do the f#$k does Jon Stewart think he is?

That was the thought that went on over and over in my head as I watched Comedy Central satirist Jon Stewart interview - or, more properly, lectured with trash talking-points - CNBC host and former hedge fund manager Jim Cramer.

s jon stewart obama bitter large n66nA 19672

Jon Stewart is very angry that Jim Cramer had made some admittedly horrible calls on the market. Cramer, for instance, once advised his "Mad Money" audience to buy BearSterns stock days prior to the legendary bank collapsing and sold - via Federal Reserve intermediary - to Goldman Sachs. And many more other bad calls.

Stewart's mockery of camera in the three days leading up to the interview were warranted and quite humorous. And his angry may even be justified; though I think since Cramer is not responsible for the bad investment that his audience makes since he dispenses advice, but they must ultimately be held responsible for their decisions to heed such calls. But in the liberal world of Jon Stewart, personal responsible is a non-existent concept. And he set his guns on CNBC generally and Cramer specifically.

Being a good sport, Cramer came on the show tonight. Stewart though did not reciprocate respectful behavior.

If Jon Stewart had just asked Cramer a few questions on his bad calls and his previous endorsement of legal but purposefully deceiving investment strategies. But instead on went on a self-righteous, patronizing and grossly ignorant rant that exemplified Stewart's pompous perception of himself.

Stewart is a comedian, and with Cramer he positioned himself beyond his actual understanding of the topic. There is much critic, but I'll just make a few and I recommend you watch it. First, Stewart tells Cramer that his failure to properly critic the market's excesses isn't a "fucking game" as if it were CNBS' job rather than the Big Government Stewart loves so much to monitor Wall Street.

Then Stewart makes the absurd and ignorant assertion that 35/1 odds is an entirely unreasonable leverage and immediate proof, almost anyway, that an investment firm is cooking the books. Question: How the fuck does Stewart know that 35/1 or 35/whatever is unreasonable? What? Does Stewart think he is now in a position to judge the solvency of banks based on their published leverage? Apparently so. Then Stewart made the case that whenever an investor is posting 10-20% yearly returns that also reason enough to expect suspicion. Who does this guy think he is? It appears that he has self-appointed himself to the position of deciding what is an appropriate return or not.

[The Huffington Post.]

Stewart brought the interview to close by making the assertion that getting rich through investment is wrong, quite nearly a form of unholy Stalinism, and that actually "work" is the way to getting rich. Stewart's contention is that it almost immoral and unAmerican for anyone to seek to get rich through investing rather than raw work. Alright. Then why is he not faulting those who invested rather than the investors who only serve as facilitators? And what kind of non-sense is that? Why is it wrong to make money, if not a living, through providing capital so that businesses can be started and expanded. That is where most investments go, there are, duh, invested in firms. Does a arrogant buffoon like Stewart not understand this simple fact?

Jon Stewart is funny and I like him a lot and watch his show frequently, but tonight his arrogant demeanor underpinned by great ignorance and Marxist dogma is proof that Stewart should leave the moral lecturing to others and stick to what he knows best: make quick jokes like the comedian he is.