Not really. SNL hasn't been funny for years. 1980s/80s and early 1990s/90s were funny.

From TPM:

The “controversy” around President Obama’s 1990 speech at Harvard on the occasion of the late Professor Bell’s decision to take a leave of absence to protest Harvard’s hiring practices is shameful in what it implies (full disclosure — Professor Bell taught me Constitutional Law at NYU during his self-imposed exile from Harvard).

The implication is that Professor Bell was some kind of violent radical racist. Professor Bell was a HERO who dedicated his life to desegregating the United States. From his job as the only black lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the 1950’s, to his work alongside Thurgood Marshall bringing hundreds of desegregation actions in Mississippi, right up to his leaving Harvard, Professor Bell lived what he preached. That his life’s work was radical or provocative says more about how far we have left to go. If its radical to be appalled that Harvard Law School had no women law professors and only five black male law professors among hundreds of professors, then the world could use a lot more radicals. And to tarnish his reputation as simply anti-white is false and totally and intentionally missing the point. I hope to see President Obama speak about Professor Bell, in prime time, on all networks, if for no other reason than this was an American hero that more people should know about and take inspiration from.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/23/us/i-m-president-so-no-more-broccoli.html

http://www.afscme.org/news/publications/privatization/pdf/AFSCME-Report_Making-A-Killing.pdf

Every year, America’s largest private prison companies – The GEO Group, Inc., Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA), and the Management & Training Corporation (MTC)—pour
hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges, in the hopes
of advancing their political agenda—establishing more private prisons and reducing the number of public
ones. Despite significantly higher rates of inmate-on-guard assault, violence, and escapes in broad daylight
in private prisons than in public,[1] these companies’ strategy of pay-to-play has proven successful. A state
think tank in Ohio recently documented a 48 percent increase in private prison inmates between the year
2000 and 2009—leading almost 8 percent of incarcerated Americans to be housed in private prisons by the
end of the decade.[2]

Those who oppose prison privatization make the case that the industry has the incentive and the wherewithal to extend the amount of time convicts will remain in prison, and that this presents a threat to justice. The industry, they say, can extend sentences in two ways. First, it has thrown its influence, through lobbying and campaign contributions, behind “tougher” laws such as "three strikes", mandatory minimum sentencing, and "truth in sentencing" that increase the duration of sentences. The conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been extremely active in advocating truth-in-sentencing and three strikes policies throughout the United States. This organization is heavily funded by the corrections industry, and indeed ALEC's Criminal Justice Task Force is co-chaired by Brad Wiggins, a former director of business development for the Corrections Corporation of America (Bender, 2000). The strength of these kinds of political influence, opponents fear, will only increase as the industry grows. As one observer notes, corrections corporations have "paid handsomely to play the public policy game, and will likely do so again"(O'Connell, 2002).

The second way opponents of privatization worry that private firms will distort the administration of justice is by exerting undue influence on parole hearings. Opponents argue that since prison firms are generally paid per prisoner per day, they have an incentive to extend inmate stays as long as possible, and so are liable to reduce prisoner’s chances for parole or good time off by exaggerating or fabricating disciplinary infractions (DiIulio, 1990).

Industry supporters point out in response to these concerns that industry campaign contributions are smaller than those made by public sector unions ( Moore, 1998). There is no evidence, they say, of private prison officials manipulating parole decisions.

I really loved "Outside". Still one of my favorite albums of all time.
>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah, for me "Scary Monsters" was his last breath of brilliance in 1980. The "Let's Dance" album had a few catchy tunes and I liked the "Blue Jean" single but his albums were becoming mostly filler at that point. I was impressed with his performance of "America" at the 9/11 concert.
>> ^TheJehosephat:
>> ^ulysses1904:
Stopped listening to him after the 1970s, he pretty much dried up creatively after that.

Really? I thought a couple of his songs from the 1980s were good. Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), Loving The Alien, Ashes To Ashes, Let's Dance, and Under Pressure (collaboration with Queen, but still) ...even a couple from the 1990s like The Heart's Filthy Lesson and I'm Afraid of Americans.

Yeah, for me "Scary Monsters" was his last breath of brilliance in 1980. The "Let's Dance" album had a few catchy tunes and I liked the "Blue Jean" single but his albums were becoming mostly filler at that point. I was impressed with his performance of "America" at the 9/11 concert.
>> ^TheJehosephat:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Stopped listening to him after the 1970s, he pretty much dried up creatively after that.

Really? I thought a couple of his songs from the 1980s were good. Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), Loving The Alien, Ashes To Ashes, Let's Dance, and Under Pressure (collaboration with Queen, but still) ...even a couple from the 1990s like The Heart's Filthy Lesson and I'm Afraid of Americans.

>> ^ulysses1904:
Stopped listening to him after the 1970s, he pretty much dried up creatively after that.


Really? I thought a couple of his songs from the 1980s were good. Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), Loving The Alien, Ashes To Ashes, Let's Dance, and Under Pressure (collaboration with Queen, but still) ...even a couple from the 1990s like The Heart's Filthy Lesson and I'm Afraid of Americans.

Jerry Rice was a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers, during their dynastic dominance of the NFL during the 1990's. If you don't know what a wide receiver does, that's okay. They catch the ball that the quarterback of the team throws to them while running at full speed with goddamn ninja free safeties chasing them down. Now if you don't know what a quarterback is or a free safety, then I cannot help you at this time.

>> ^Trancecoach:

anyone born after 1990 will never understand what the connection is between a cassette tape and a pencil...


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

anyone born after 1990 will never understand what the connection is between a cassette tape and a pencil...

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income." -Washington Post

In the video, Romney and the interviewer are specifically using the term "millionaires," so I have to take their exchange at face value as meaning anyone with a net worth of at least 1 million dollars. They could have a salary of $1 for all I know, but somewhere they have assets and cash available to them summing to a million dollars.

I'd be envious of an income of $500,000 all the same, since I could become a millionaire in under 3 years by just continuing to live as I do now.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^HaricotVert:
I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.

Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..
Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.


Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

So much.. rage! (gwiz665 here)

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
http://io9.com/5873166/battlestar-galactica-in-four-min
utes-as-a-1990s-roleplaying-game

:

http://io9.com/5873166/battlestar-galactica-in-four-minutes-as-a-1990s-roleplaying-game

http://io9.com/5873166/battlestar-galactica-in-four-minutes-as-a-1990s-roleplaying-game