For me at least, the blogosphere continues to be a source of inventive language use, expansion of the rhetorical device of wordplay and, of commentary.

Buck Naked Politics has some fun while reminding us about how some writers become stern and humorless when the footwear is on the Other’s foot.

You must watch this video of the Comedy Central Daily Show with Jon stewart, the total comedian extraordinaire.

A number of witticisms are woven through this Comedy Central piece.  Visuals, puns, sight gags all find their ususal place. Then Jon takes it up a notch:

The best moment of that clip comes at 3:10 when Jon looks off to a side, as if to look at a section of the choir  audience and says, “You’re allowed to laught at him”.  Jon’s face is percious, mimicking one who is  totallly sold on the leader, now stricken by horror , oh my gosh, that could’nt just be!   Were comedy to be equated with blashphemy, this could be the beginning of the new Inquisition. One doesn’t question or laugh at the leader?  You can almost see the youngun, head down, obedient,  visions of Bart Simpson mumbling “the leader m’am” in the Movementarian episode, (Simpsons 9-13, The Joy of Sect).

Stewart is not done yet. And then this “By the way, the spirit of reform of public finance system is Obama’s new yacht”

Oh yeah,  yacht. So what’s ahead?  Smooth sailing, rough waters. Surely the image of a yacht is not intended to convey ’sinking’, is it?

The verbal decoration comes in the lovely line asking about the change of mind about public financing …

 ”So, is that a flip-flop, a croc, or some other beach related footwear?

Now, that’s the first time anyone used the croc that wittily.  Have you heard it before, leave a comment with reference. Jon Stewart continues to combine, visual, verbal, rhetroical, and graphic devices to weave a finely textured humor.

Final thought though belongs to Buck Naked Politics: “Lock-stepping is soooo right-after-9/11, and it used to be in the exclusive domain of one political party”.   Ouch!

Now, as to the substance of this business of reform, campaign finance, and public funding etc, etc, –the talk that permeates is often the talk that shrouds or clouds, not illuminate. It is my understanding that traditionally the typical $3:00 check off on the tax form goes mostly toward the convention expenses of the parties. It barely covers the campaign ad costs. Could it be that by foregoing the public financing, a situation could develop where there will be no money for a convention, and hence no Denver?