Comments on: History of Oil

History of Oil

piscatorius — Mon, 29 May 2006 09:27:20 -0800

Brit comedian Rob Newman presents his 'History of Oil'.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Mon, 29 May 2006 09:49:44 -0800

Genius.

By: Mach3avelli

Mach3avelli — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:25:36 -0800

Interesting, but not very funny.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:26:02 -0800

Rob Newman is a legend. DB: See that Peter Beardsley? RN: I am aware of him. DB: That's your girlfriend, that is.

By: rougy

rougy — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:34:32 -0800

That was damn good. Interesting how the oil companies are running scAmerica and nothing's getting done. Big surprise, huh?

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:37:38 -0800

fun, and i really enjoy the way this was shot.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:54:43 -0800

scAmerica Things like that make me wince and look away.

By: Drexen

Drexen — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:57:53 -0800

Ah, Rob Newman is super. I wonder if any of his songs are available online (only a couple of spoken MP3s on his site).

By: rougy

rougy — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:25:58 -0800

cortex - "Things like that make me wince and look away." Isn't it, though? Hasn't almost everything about our country become a stinking scam?

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:27:45 -0800

I saw him doing this at the Edinburgh Festival, and he was hugely funny then.

By: NinjaTadpole

NinjaTadpole — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:28:54 -0800

I adore the way he does Blair as Alan B'Stard.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:39:18 -0800

Wonderful stuff, thanks.

By: takeyourmedicine

takeyourmedicine — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:44:41 -0800

a fantastic performance by Mr Newman, thanks for sharing.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:44:58 -0800

Isn't it, though? Hasn't almost everything about our country become a stinking scam? For one, there's a difference between expressing doubts and objections and so forth about what's going on in the US and uttering polarizing, ridiculous strings like "scAmerica". The former is discourse; the latter is dismissive riffing. For another, much as I have grave doubts and objections about many things going on in the country, I'm disinclined to run with the sort of generic, broad-stroke nyah-nyah attitude that impugns, with some twee and half-clever neologism, not just the bad things but the whole character of the varied and decent folks just living their lives despite all that awful crap going on.

By: kozad

kozad — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:02:27 -0800

Enough already with the scAmerica-haters. Newman explicitly states that America isn't doing anything, say, Trinidad, wouldn't do to protect its access to oil, it's just that America happens to have a lot of tanks and planes and bombs with which to protect its primary source of energy...and food. I thought it was brilliant and spent 45 minutes of this Memorial day watching the whole thing.

By: 235w103

235w103 — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:03:22 -0800

more like the united $tate$ of $cAmerica, am i rite dood?

By: the cuban

the cuban — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:12:17 -0800

i think you'll find the proper term is $cAmeriKKKa

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:26:06 -0800

No, no, it's: "Halliburton presents: $cAmeriKKKa"

By: anthill

anthill — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:26:26 -0800

$cUSAKKKa, please. Don't throw us Canadians and Mexicans in there too.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:33:44 -0800

anthill: first of all, that doesn't make any sense. Second of all, we've always called it "America", and third of all North, South and Central America are all called "the Americas", not just NA. Anyway, back to the original video: I found it incredibly preachy, overly edited in a cloying and obnoxious way, and frankly not that funny.

By: NinjaTadpole

NinjaTadpole — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:45:20 -0800

did you just miss all of the jokes, demoi?

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:49:53 -0800

i think that was brilliant. i've used google's nifty download feature to put it on my ipod. i thought this was a phenomenal way to spend 45 minutes of my memorial day. flagging the post as fantastic.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 29 May 2006 12:53:54 -0800

Anyone non-ironically using the term "Micro$oft" can fuck right off as well.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:18:20 -0800

did you just miss all of the jokes, demoi? Well, most of them, since I could only get through the first five minutes. four of those about how he wasn't going to make a joke about Kermit Roosevelt's name.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:24:11 -0800

that bit about kermit roosevelt's name was some of the most outstanding comedy i've seen in a long time, and brought a much appreciated relief to what is a difficult and sensitive topic. it's a shame to me that so few people see comedy for what it is: a way to bring out most horrific experiences into a safer mode of conversation. it's comedy job above all else to make the unbearable bearable. that newman spent as much time as he did being earnest about the nature of our shared political history only, to my mind, goes to show the difficulty of the topic and his devotion to it.

By: Acey

Acey — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:25:20 -0800

I saw this when it was on TV here in the UK. Great programme, interesting guy. I like the point he makes at the end about how you can wait forever for someone else to fix the problem, or you can deal with it yourself.

By: Nahum Tate

Nahum Tate — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:27:53 -0800

I saw the film as establishing something of a reasonable defense for our current adventures in Iraq. I'm not down with invading countries for cheap oil, or out of some politician's mistaken quest for glory. On the other hand, if not invading Iraq means the collapse of the U.S. economy, I'd certainly entertain the proposal. Newman is saying that we're caught in a machine that has been running for over a century, and supposedly isolated events from WWI to Iraq II are in fact skirmishes in a struggle that began with the industrial age. And if we don't like how the system operates, it's going to take a hell of an effort to change it. But so long as we accept the system, we accept its collateral damage.

By: ClanvidHorse

ClanvidHorse — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:51:24 -0800

That was very interesting. I have not really watched much Rob Newman stuff since the days of Mary Whitehouse Experience with 'M Khan is Bent' and 'Spunky Birthday' but I found it to be enjoyable and interesting. I liked his take on world politics. It is always refreshing to hear an alternative viewpoint when it is well articulated. I am not sure how many holes I can pick in his argument but I'll wager it won't be near the amount that we could pick in the pretexts of Rumsfeld and co. in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:52:08 -0800

Thanks piscatorius

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:59:36 -0800

So... "not funny" in the Steven Colbert way of defining "not funny"?

By: TheDonF

TheDonF — Mon, 29 May 2006 14:49:43 -0800

M Kahn is bent A classic sketch of my youth. Milky milky.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:09:47 -0800

It is a top show. Heartily recommended.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:12:42 -0800

That's you that is.

By: dodgygeezer

dodgygeezer — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:12:51 -0800

That was great, thanks for posting. I'm not sure I buy the Euro / dollar theory as a reason for the Iraq war. He claims the war is a "punishment beating" for changing the currency they trade in, however, surely if a punishment beating is to be effective then everyone who sees the results should understand why it's happened. Since I've never heard this theory before, and since it would never have occured to me then I suppose we're to believe that the leaders of these countries are talking some secret language we don't understand. Hmmm... this is the place conspiracy theories come from. But I don't want to be too negative because even though I don't buy the theory he does make an excellent point about the precariousness of the US economy in relation to oil. [And the "kermit" part was a highlight for me. Only a comedian as skilled as Newman can make a joke about not making a joke better than the joke would've been if he'd made it. Uh... if you see what I mean.]

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:14:08 -0800

p.s. "Milky, Milky" was Punt and Dennis.

By: sic

sic — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:31:22 -0800

Freaking brilliant! Thanks for this post. I'm not sure I buy the Euro / dollar theory as a reason for the Iraq war. He claims the war is a "punishment beating" for changing the currency they trade in, however, surely if a punishment beating is to be effective then everyone who sees the results should understand why it's happened. Since I've never heard this theory before, and since it would never have occured to me then I suppose we're to believe that the leaders of these countries are talking some secret language we don't understand. Hmmm... this is the place conspiracy theories come from. You've never heard this theory before? What, have you been living under a rock? Even these losers have talked about it at length.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:44:41 -0800

Kermit? Punishment beating? Hmm. I suspect, much like Bill Hicks, Mr. Newman's recycling his material. I first heard him espouse this stuff on Apocalypso Now ... great album by the way, and available on itunes :)

By: econous

econous — Mon, 29 May 2006 16:03:53 -0800

The Iranian oil bourse opened on the 5th of this month an interesting development. Such arrogance. Russia is also seeking to price in Euros. Cheney told Baltic leaders during a summit in Vilnius. "No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation." Valid point? New threat to Petrodollar

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Mon, 29 May 2006 18:00:53 -0800

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Mon, 29 May 2006 18:01:32 -0800

Fixed?

By: my homunculus is drowning

my homunculus is drowning — Mon, 29 May 2006 18:25:49 -0800

A "punishment beating" only has to be understood by the people you want intimidated.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Thank you, piscatorius, and I mean that perhaps more sincerely than any other time I've thanked a poster.

By: rougy

rougy — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:44:58 -0800

"...the whole character of the varied and decent folks just living their lives despite all that awful crap going on." Yeah - there's never a problem so great that ignorance won't cure.

By: blag

blag — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:58 -0800

Fantastic - thanks for posting. The whole USA-as-a-pimp section is brilliantly done: his Blair rendition is perfect.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:53:15 -0800

kaemaril, it is in fact a characteristic of stand up comedy that you pre-write and reuse your material for years. it is simply too difficult to continually write a 10-120 minute one man show and then continually work on it and gauge audience reaction show after show to fine tune it for a comedian to completely write a whole new 10-120 minute routine from scratch every year or so. all comedians perform everything they write over and over again and continually work to hone their jokes to a razor's edge until they're satisfied that they're getting the most impact possible from the best possible delivery. this is a very hard standard to meet.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Mon, 29 May 2006 20:17:48 -0800

shmegegge: Yeah, I know. I wasn't complaining. Apocalypso is awesome but IIRC it came first, so it'll be interesting to see what's been added, tweaked, etc.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Mon, 29 May 2006 20:52:42 -0800

Good performance. I see it more as an educational experience with funny bits then a "stand-up act," but I'm ok with that. My only problem with his presentation is that he contradicts himself. During the "no way out" bit (which was actually quite funny), he talks about how there's no solution to our energy dilemma. However, he ends his act on an up-note, talking about how we can do all these things to extricate ourselves from this situation. So which is it? Also, I didn't quite get his objections to nuclear power. Someone care to explain?

By: mert

mert — Mon, 29 May 2006 21:14:39 -0800

It's difficult to know what to think of these complex geopolitical topics because they require a certain expertise in economics which has always eluded me. Not to mention history, the science of alternative fuels, geology, climatology, international finance, etc. etc. So you end up believing the person who has the best credentials or the person who seems to be most certain of themselves or trustworthy or whatever criteria you choose. The climate debate, for example, has been conducted as a public relations war by scientists on one side using scientific journals and joint statements, and the Bush family and oil companies on the other. In this particular case it's pretty clear to me what side to take, and I and most sensible people are convinced that global warming is real and significant. I'm not as convinced about this revisionist historical theory that the United States has acted in this century primarily to protect its oil interests, but as I hear more about this Im moving toward that position. Interesting that this guy uses comedy to advance ideas about very serious and weighty geopolitical matters. Sort of like Jon Stewart, but more substantial. And funnier.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Mon, 29 May 2006 21:18:27 -0800

Mert: Mark Thomas may well blow your mind :)

By: jann

jann — Mon, 29 May 2006 23:08:23 -0800

brilliant, thank you.

By: zardoz

zardoz — Tue, 30 May 2006 00:11:30 -0800

He acutally reminds me of when George Carlin gets really political--it's not really funny, but very interesting and persuasive. Carlin, of course, throws in more penis jokes.

By: econous

econous — Tue, 30 May 2006 00:24:50 -0800

On the nuclear thing. He doesn't say it can't solve our energy needs, he claims that once the construction, destruction and decontamination of the nuclear plants is taken into account, nuclear is not a low CO² option, it creates 75% of the carbon dioxide that a coal power station produces. He doesn't explain if that's a life-cycle to life-cycle comparison. Nuclear is not a way out because, in his opinion, the climate impact of the CO² would have worse effects than having an energy shortage.

By: BackwardsHatClub

BackwardsHatClub — Tue, 30 May 2006 01:41:36 -0800

Took him 18 minutes before he Godwined himself.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Tue, 30 May 2006 03:49:20 -0800

That was funny, well presented and thoughtful. But I'm with Afroblanco on the nuclear thing - what part of the nuclear cycle produces all this carbon dioxide? Is there something about uranium mines that makes it impossible to run them on electricity?

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Tue, 30 May 2006 04:52:51 -0800

"I'm not sure I buy the Euro / dollar theory as a reason for the Iraq war. He claims the war is a "punishment beating" for changing the currency they trade in, however, surely if a punishment beating is to be effective then everyone who sees the results should understand why it's happened. Since I've never heard this theory before, and since it would never have occured to me then I suppose we're to believe that the leaders of these countries are talking some secret language we don't understand. Hmmm... this is the place conspiracy theories come from." Is it really so difficult to believe that people in power, and even those on different sides of a dispute, know more about the motives behind actions than we do? Don't we have ambassadors to spell it out for the nations that don't get it? When you hear the phrase "Country X has no diplomatic relations with Country Y" do you honestly think that's likely?

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 30 May 2006 05:13:33 -0800

Mert: Mark Thomas may well blow your mind :) Newman does seem to be going down the Mark Thomas route to 'funny campaigner' rather than comedian, doesn't he? I hope he doesn't follow Thomas all the way to not really bothering much with the 'funny' part, though.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 30 May 2006 06:13:00 -0800

Took him 18 minutes before he Godwined himself. to be fair, a godwin is technically a largely unmerited comparison to nazis for the sake of demonizing your opponent on an unrelated issue. there's room to call godwin here, i suppose, but i saw his mention of goebbels as being more "what DOES fascism and media control look like?" he specifically mentions how blair supporters say things like "it's not fascism. we know what fascism looks like. it looks like goebbels!" and then he responds with "well, what did goebbels look like to germans?" he's trying to draw a valid comparison with how societies head in that direction, which makes his point a little more forgivable, to my eyes. still, there is room to see a godwin, there, i guess.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 30 May 2006 06:19:12 -0800

to be fair, a godwin is technically a largely unmerited comparison to nazis for the sake of demonizing your opponent on an unrelated issue. Well, to be really fair, "a Godwin" is technically the manifestation of a probabilistic wager, one that is entirely value-neutral toward both the motivation for and the aptness of a comparision to Nazis. Y'know, as long as we're going to bother offereing arguments for and against the merits of "lol godwin" comments.

By: dodgygeezer

dodgygeezer — Tue, 30 May 2006 06:23:55 -0800

Is it really so difficult to believe that people in power, and even those on different sides of a dispute, know more about the motives behind actions than we do? Why would enemies of the US keep it quiet? Politeness? And considering Chavez was talking about moving to the euro only a few weeks ago then I guess he didn't get the message through those top secret diplomatic channels.

By: lastobelus

lastobelus — Tue, 30 May 2006 07:55:11 -0800

On the other hand, if not invading Iraq means the collapse of the U.S. economy, I'd certainly entertain the proposal. Then you establish yourself as an aggressor, and no different than a terrorist. Actually, morally inferior: terrorists are almost always acting against aggressors already in their nation -- you are asserting that you will attack and destroy others to preserve your position as the wealthiest nation. Utterly and totally morally indefensible. You deserve whatever happens to you.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Tue, 30 May 2006 09:09:09 -0800

"Why would enemies of the US keep it quiet? Politeness?" Why do you think they're keeping it quiet? I don't have a direct line to the leaders of other nations. Nor, for that matter, do I have frequent contact with non-English speakers with massively different worldviews to my own. Perhaps you do. It's you that is sceptical of the Euro dollar theory. Do you know for a fact that this theory isn't widely espoused in other nations arond the world, or are you making the assumption that if it was it would be major news to whatever media channels you have access to? I think you're *looking* for a conspiracy theory when there's little evidence of one.

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Tue, 30 May 2006 10:28:54 -0800

Utterly and totally morally indefensible No, there are defences that can be offered, not least of which is that nations are themselves in a Hobbesian state of nature, and therefore whatever actions are in their own self-interest are theirs to do by right. Unless you think the UN counts as some sort of sovereign (ha).

By: spazzm

spazzm — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:58:40 -0800

Why would enemies of the US keep it quiet? Politeness? In non-us parts of the world the dollar/euro explanation is widely accepted and publicized. <irony> I cannot possibly imagine any reason whatsoever why it is not plastered all over the papers and tv news of USA. </irony>

By: blacklite

blacklite — Tue, 30 May 2006 19:45:11 -0800

bonaldi: yeah, you can treat states as individuals who must do exactly whatever they need to do to ensure their own survival no matter the cost to other individuals, ooorrrrr, you could work towards a collection of states, as a society of individuals, which work together for collective security, well-being, and happiness. But most of the time they're just dealers and thugs, as depicted.