The finest satire site on the web is The Babylon Bee.
While we wait for Bookworm to finish her legal research and turn her attention back to providing insightful and thought provoking posts on this blog . . . how about a laugh or two. I thought comedy dead with the rise of the proggie left and their countless victim-centric shibboleths. Fortunately, there is a wonderful site, the Babylon Bee, that you really should visit several times a week. It is a Christian based satire site that pokes clean fun at everyone and everything, very much including Christians. I’m tempted to say that the writers at that site have a wicked sense of humor, but somehow, that does not feel appropriate. Some examples:
The humorlessness that makes “That is not funny” the tagline of today’s Progressives reminds me of laughter and communism in old Hollywood.
Late night television used to be funny. Both Johnny Carson and Jay Leno understood that it was their job to make tired Americans laugh at the end of a long work day. They further understood that this was best accomplished by poking gentle fun at everyone in the American public, across the political spectrum. Before he could to be a self-satisfied, obnoxious sexual harasser, even David Letterman also had a vague idea that he was getting paid to make people laugh.
The current crop of late night hosts, though, believe that their job is to politically indoctrinate their increasingly small audience. While they will occasionally stumble upon actual humor, most of the time they think it’s enough to insult Trump or his supporters (or, a decade ago, to insult Bush and his supporters). Their live audiences, made up of fellow travelers, reliably bray and clap whenever the host voices an insult, never mind that it’s invariably devoid of wit, insight, or any of the other hallmarks of humor.
Incidentally, humor, real humor, can be a potent way to insult a political opponent. Winston Churchill, of course, was a master of the art. When Harry S. Truman said of Churchill’s replacement, Clement Attlee, “He seems a modest sort of fellow,” Churchill’s response was swift, devastating, and funny: “He’s got a lot to be modest about.” Also once called Ramsay MacDonald “a sheep in sheep’s clothing.” And of course, when MP Bessie Braddock accused him of being drunk, he responded, “My dear, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.” Mean? Absolutely. But funny.
Today’s “comics,” though, tend to mire themselves in lines that are the intellectual equivalent of “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.” (A line that I find amusing only when I apply it to my small dog after outfitting him in ridiculous pinafores on cold days. He, because dogs are wonderful, always forgives me for the insult.)
It’s not just late-night comics, of course. Reams of articles have been written, and videos made, about the fact that comics have given up on American college campuses. The hyper-triggered, self-righteous, victim-mindset, Leftist students simply can’t take a joke.
I was discussing the decided lack of humor from the Left with a friend, and he commented appropriately enough that Communists have never been known for their humor. It makes sense. First, communism is all about raw power and nothing threatens power more than laughter. Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” makes that point perfectly, which explains why it’s been a part of the Western canon since 1837, when he first published it. [Read more…]
He tosses out the baited hook. She, like some ravenous trigger[ed] fish, swallows it whole. Well done, sir, well done.
The press is winning the culture wars. Even as more information emerges about Hillary’s criminality, her illness, her sharia-friendly aides, and her appalling record as Secretary of State, she’s still pulling ahead. Trump hasn’t done anything awful in the last few weeks because neither he nor Hillary shone in the debate. One therefore has to ask, why Hillary’s surge?
I have what I think is the one and only answer: The Media. The media deliberately built Trump up during the primaries to destroy more traditional candidates and they are destroying him now. I have never, never seen anything the like of which I’ve seen now. The steady drumbeat of hate directed at Trump is unprecedented in American history, as is the decision to abandon any pretense of reporting honestly about Hillary.
The problem is that even those who distrust the media are going to be affected. It’s kind of like the situation in an old cartoon that shows a man and a woman at the breakfast table, each reading the paper. She says to him, “It says here, ‘Don’t believe everything you read.'” His answer? “Don’t believe it.” For the average person, it’s impossible to know what to read and what to believe. But they still read and, whether or not they believe, they subliminally absorb the “Hate Trump, Trump is Evil, Trump is Dangerous” rhetoric.
For that reason, I think the Prager U video on the media is too temperate, but it’s still interesting:
Got this one from a relative. Made me laugh.
A young Texan grew up wanting to be a lawman. He grew up big, 6′ 2″, strong as a longhorn, and fast as a mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces.
When he finally came of age, he applied to where he had only dreamed of working: the West Texas Sheriff’s Department.
After a series of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.
The Chief Deputy said, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good, but we have, what you might call, an “Attitude Suitability Test”, that you must take before you can be accepted.
We don’t let just anyone carry our badge, son.”
Then, sliding a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk, the Chief said, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot:
six illegal aliens,
six meth dealers,
six Muslim extremists,
and a rabbit.”
“Why the rabbit?” queried the applicant.
“You pass,” said the Chief Deputy.”When can you start?”
[2018: I’ve updated this post from 2013 to change a word to “pron,” where it appears, including in “pornographic.” I’ve also cleaned up, or intentionally misspelled (e.g., “nekkid”), other language to which Google AdSense might object. Apologies for the apparent misspellings. If this were a recent post, I might have taken a stand, but this is a low-traffic post from years ago that I doubt anyone will ever look at again.]
I overheard two women talking the other day. One told the other that her teenage son was looking at internet pron. Worse, her husband wouldn’t help her stop this behavior because, as he said, “I used to read Playboy when I was his age, and it didn’t hurt me.” Is it really possible for the father of a teenage boy to be that clueless? This daddy’s ignorance about internet pron is so great that it may prove that reading Playboy when he was a teen did hurt him.
Playboy nekkid ladies were wholesome. I know this sounds like an oxymoron, but the Playmates were like the girl next door, except without clothes. For at least the first twenty or more years of Playboy‘s history, these gals were an every man (or boy) fantasy brought to life. The teens and young men perusing the pages could easily pretend that Miss January was that cute brunette down the street, or that Miss July was the hot girl you admired on the other side of the classroom.
Eventually, though, the pleasure centers in male consumers’ brains stopped getting a thrill from “mere” nekkid ladies. They started gravitating in greater numbers to magazines such as Penthouse or Hustler that showed women who were not only undressed, but were also engaging in sexual acts.
With the advent of the internet, though, the old-line magazines, both hard and soft core, couldn’t keep up with the gravitational pull of the internet. And in the internet world, where pron is king, purveyors had to keep one-upping each other if they wanted to keep traffic coming to their sites. Changes to content, instead of happening in human years, over the course of decades, happened in fruit fly years, over the course of weeks or even days. If I’m a pron site mogul, I show nekkid ladies, but lose traffic to the guy who shows nekkid ladies playing with themselves, so I up the ante by showing two nekkid ladies playing with each other, so he ups the ante by adding two men and, perhaps, a dog or two. And so it goes, with each competitive iteration getting more perverse in a never-ending effort to catch the attention of an increasingly jaded viewing public.
Eventually, you end up with scenes such as this one, which I’ve censored appropriately to remove any and all pronographic or distasteful images: [Read more…]
I appreciate Adam Carolla’s willingness to defy PC shibboleths. I respect his intelligence. I do not, however, find him funny. Nor do I find Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or Stephen Colbert funny. I like Tina Fey when she’s not foolish enough to wander into political territory. I loved Seinfeld, which was a joint Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld production. I hate Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is solely a Larry David production.
I laugh just thinking about the I Love Lucy episode in which Lucy meets William Holden (one of the last great gentleman of the Silver Screen). As you may recall, Lucy, newly arrived in Hollywood, drags Fred and Ethel off to the Brown Derby to see the stars. She finds herself seated next to Bill Holden, and begins to stare at him. Holden, tired of being stared at by every tourist in town, turns the tables and stares right back at Lucy. Part I of the episode ends with Lucy fleeing the Brown Derby, having embarrassed herself horribly (and amusingly, of course). Part II opens with Ricky bringing Holden back to the hotel room to meet Lucy. Lucy doesn’t want to meet Holden. Hilarity ensues:
I think that episode is probably one of the funniest comedic moments ever captured on film. In a peculiar way, part of the fun is that Lucy, the perfect comedienne, had no sense of humor. She could sell a joke; she just couldn’t make one.
Marx Brothers? Side splitting. Three Stooges? Not so much.
Are my comic tastes typical for a woman? I don’t know. I like to laugh. Significantly, I don’t appreciate crude humor. One of the reasons Jon Stewart doesn’t endear himself to me, aside from his lopsided political views, is the fact that he’s incredibly crude. I also don’t find meanness funny, which is why I enjoy the puckish Jay Leno and actively dislike the vicious David Letterman.
This rumination has a point. Adam Carolla does not believe women are funny:
Q. The lesson you learned from a sexual harassment seminar was “Don’t hire chicks.” Do you hate working with women?
A. No. But they make you hire a certain number of chicks, and they’re always the least funny on the writing staff. The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I’m just gonna tell her, “Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they’ll have to hire you, they can’t really fire you, and you don’t have to produce that much. It’ll be awesome.
At Ricochet, Chazzy Star asks readers to chime in, pro or con, regarding Carolla’s opinion. I think Carolla has a point, sort of. There are two things at work here. First, women are less likely to do crude, vulgar humor. There are some exceptions, such as Lisa Lampanelli, who make crudity a centerpiece of their act, but I find her offensive rather than funny. Moreover, I doubt that I’m the only woman who feels this way. Because women shy away from crudities, they have a smaller comedic repertoire on which to draw. A lot of them also end up doing domestic or relationship humor, which can also be limiting.
That limitation leads me to my second point, which is that I think men are less likely to appreciate women’s humor than women are to appreciate men’s humor. While neither men nor women appreciate a vulgar woman, both will accept and laugh at a vulgar man. Likewise, while women may appreciate domestic or relationship humor, men are likely to consider that “chick” stuff, and to disengage. So not only do men have a larger repertoire, they also have a larger potential audience, one made up of men, who like manly jokes, and women, who also like manly jokes.
I don’t want to lock people into boxes, of course. Although it’s not apparent from my writing, which goes for snark and sarcasm, rather than humor (I just can’t write “funny”), I’m actually quite amusing in conversation. Several people have told me I ought to do stand-up, a thought that makes me feel faint. Stage-fright and I are old and good friends. In any event, mine is a reactive humor. I need to have someone say something that triggers the loopy drive in my brain, and then funny stuff starts coming out.
Do you agree with Carolla that men are inherently better than women at humor? Do you think I’m on to something when I suggest that women are more constrained in the humor they’ll create, and less constrained in the humor they’ll appreciate? And have you got any good jokes that are neither crude nor otherwise offensive? I do love to laugh.
There’s just something awesome…a je ne sais quoi..about Israeli humor in the face of adversity.
For all you Dylan fans….
I got the funniest email today, and I just had to share it with you. The “re” line was as follows: “Gibbering baboons more sensible than you, wingnut degenerate.” I was intrigued. The rest of the email consisted of a link to a post, along with the full text of the post in which the author explained precisely why I don’t even rank up there with gibbering baboons and, worse, I’m a “wingnut degenerate.”
I debated whether to share the link with you guys, ’cause I think the author is just trying to generate traffic. However, because both the email title and the blog post had me laughing hysterically, I think the post author deserves some recognition. Go here and check it out. Then, come back to me and tell me if you can understand the author’s thesis.
I’ve read the darn post three times now and I still can’t figure out what the point is. I know I’m a lower mammalian life form and a degenerate but, for the life of me, I don’t understand what I did to earn those interesting sobriquets. I mean, it’s clear that I shouldn’t have said what I said, but the post author never seems to bring himself to explaining why I shouldn’t have said those things. He sneers, but he never manages to rise to the level of thesis, fact and argument. His post is the written equivalent of this — it definitely makes a statement, but one that reflects solely on the person making the statement, not the person at the receiving end.
Thoughts during a busy day:
Idle thought 1: I want to have Mewt Gingney for my candidate. Newt Gingrich is a completely principled conservative with, in his past at least, an unprincipled private life. Mitt Romney is an unprincipled conservative with, from the past to the present, what appears to be a completely principled private life. Separately, each is an imperfect candidate. Combined into one super Republican . . . well, wow! If I have to pick one, though, I’d go for Newt, since I’m voting for president, not husband.
Idle thought 2: My mother is not well, and I was at her bedside entertaining her. In keeping with my belief that laughter is the best medicine, I read to her two of my favorite funny posts (here and here), both of which happen to be written by military types. It occurred to me that, while many in our military have extremely well-developed senses of humor, the same cannot be said for the Occupy crowd. Have any of them said anything funny? (Intentionally funny, I mean, not insanely stupid that makes one feel as guilty as if one laughed at a mentally disabled person for an inadvertent joke.)
Idle thought 3: People often try to figure out what it is about the West that made it zoom ahead of all other cultures. I’d like to suggest a trigger for the economic and intellectual explosion: banking. Being able to transport money easily and, even more importantly, being able to rent it, unleashed enormous creative, exploratory and commercial energy. It’s rather striking, isn’t it, that the Occupy movement is directed at destroying banks. In other words, the attack really isn’t against just banks. The attack is at the core of Western intellectual energy and civilization.
I’ll be the first to admit that banks are royal pains in the butt (I’m still sweating from the effort I had to make to assemble the 200 pages of documents I needed to apply for a re-fi), but I’m more inclined to blame controlling Democrat legislation for this insanity than the banks themselves. Banks should be policed for fraud and corruption, but otherwise, they — and we — function best in an open market.
Idle thought 4: I wasn’t in a rush to judgment regarding the Cain sexual harassment allegations, since such claims were a dime a dozen in the 1990s. As the story develops, though, two thoughts occur: if he did it, better we know now than later; and regardless of whether or not he did it, his and his team’s response to the story is appalling, which should concern us regarding his readiness for any upcoming fight directly against Obama. I like Cain, personally, but I have strong doubts about whether he’s ready for prime time. I’d rather see his flame burn out now than in October 2012.
Anything you guys would like to add to my list of idle thoughts?
The Progressives are characterized by solemnity and pomposity. They take themselves very, very seriously. Barbara Boxer personified this obsession with self-worth when she chastised a general for respectfully addressing her as “Ma’am” instead of “Senator.” I really wonder if she thought people were impressed by her thin skin and self-aggrandizement. As the Anchoress says, though, we need to laugh at them, constantly. Start here for a good laugh and, once you’re done, press “more” and laugh harder.
I’m not sure it will matter in the polls in November, but the GOP is showing a certain charm and humor this February. You can send GOP Valentine e-cards to your loved ones (or just good friends) this Valentine’s Day.
I’m trying to decide between the Pelosi/Reid card (“We crafted this Valentine’s card behind closed doors”) and the Rahm card (“Happy [explective] Valentine’s Day”). Check it out.