Fluid and energetic and wild very, very smart and very, very funny.
And I'm not so in love with making people mad that I want to live my life around it.
You know, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have supported individuals and regimes that have slaughtered millions across the globe. And they need to be held accountable for that.
It may sound weird, but I don't really look for culture, particularly in an American city.
You know, every time a summer movie comes out, people think they're gonna get rich off of the merchandise.
I don't want the news to be patriotic. I don't want to see flags on the lapels of the anchors. I don't want any of that.
I wonder what it means when your grandson is more crotchety than you are.
Meeting Fidel Castro was really cool. It's cool because it's Fidel, and it's a world leader, and there's so much history behind the man and who he is in this hemisphere. And then at the end of the day, he's, I think, just like a big mayor. There's only, like, 11 million people in Cuba. He's a big mayor.
One, I push my deadlines closer than anybody else, or let's say it this way: I'm really late.
I'm not crazy impressed with New York. I mean, I don't buy into that whole thing: Everyone in New York is all sophisticated, and they're into art and sophisticated things, and everyone in L.A. is just shallow entertainment people. I think people are just shallow across the board.
In USA culture is just a matter of commerce. So, you know, I don't really look for that, and I don't expect to find it in any city.
I went to Havana, and I was like, "Wow, there's culture everywhere!" That was one thing that I did notice when I went to Cuba was that artists are paid to be artists, and poets are paid to be poets, and musicians are paid to be musicians by the government. The government - and I'm not saying that the Cuban government's perfect - but the government does place a value on culture.
I don't think the American government has a lot of respect for culture.
We did our best to do a Fox show, frankly, I don't think the difficulties we had at Fox would be exclusive to Fox. It's tough to be funny, because there's so many eyeballs and there's so much money at stake that I think everything is just kind of over-thought. And it's tough to be daring and do something different, either with regards to content or even structure.
I'm kind of conscious and aware of how ridiculous everyone involved with politics or talking about politics, especially on television, is - all the shouting matches and the screaming and the over-the-top personalities, and everyone's just playing. It's like WWF for news, almost. It's really ridiculous and I really don't want to be a part of it, and I'm not trying to put on this persona of this angry revolutionary to get people to follow me.
I think you have to play the game on every level. If you need a friendly, charismatic, good-looking guy to be the mouthpiece, then so be it. And maybe Ralph Nader should just be behind the scenes telling that guy what to say.
Obviously, there's a million things we're allowed to say on late-night cable that you're not allowed to say on a prime time broadcast.
I guess I was a conspiracy theorist when I said "no weapons in Iraq." Now they call that history.
At least when I was young, in high school: "Eh, voting doesn't mean nothing." You don't really know that to be true, you just say it. Then you get older, and responsible, and you go, "Oh heck, let me vote." And then you vote and you go away. I was actually right when I was 16.
Voting really doesn't mean anything. I wish I could say something different, but I think it's kind of a sham.
I think the people should demand accountability on the voting. I think there's no point in voting if you're not gonna demand fairness and be able to verify each vote. And other countries can do this fairly easily. So I don't think you really want democracy if you're not willing to take that first step.
Anyone will acknowledge that there's a lot of people other than those who are elected who run the government, and who are in permanent positions, and long-term positions, appointed positions - not voted in by anybody. That kind of gnaws away, I think, at the idea of democracy. The two-party system, again, is an issue. What we see is no desire on behalf of anyone to begin to address these problems.
Whether the Republicans intentions are good or evil - I pretty much assume that they're evil - but no matter what, man, when the people in charge make giant mistakes, everyone suffers. Even if they do have good intentions, when you make giant mistakes, it's a bad thing.
It's difficult to overcome what you're getting beamed into your brain by the television every day. The worthlessness of journalism today is just making the country confused and bewildered and lost.
I saw Nader shortly before the election and - I voted him the time before, because I liked the sort of long-term strategy of building a viable third party. So, okay, we'll get enough votes, you get a little bit more money, and maybe, if there's continued growth, then maybe eventually there's hope for a viable, legitimate third party. I think the reason why I didn't vote for him last time was because we tried that and it didn't work. Ralph Nader is a very smart guy, and I think he's got a lot of good ideas.
