Happy Negro?

To all those who defend Bill Mahr in the name of satire: this fact alone does not absolve Mahr. There is good satire and bad satire.

Mahr's jokes are so not funny that I think they actually do a disservice to the very issues he hopes to bring to light by cheapening them through his "half-assity".

[New Commentor]

For example, Norm could very easily post anything from MadTV of the political bend. He doesn't. Why? Because it is in extremely poor taste and is so overbearing, that watching it when not smashed, tired, or severely psychologically opressed is rather arduous.

No one here would defend the few genuine points, coated with generous helpings of racist and sexist jokes (for sticking power) on MadTV as apprecable satire.

Bill Mahr is no better.

No one here, or at least I doubt that anyone would, count the Half Hour News Hour as "proper satire". It is such blatant, sour, glassy-eyed, vitriolic, unpolished rhetoric that only can connect to minds so saturated in such unyielding thought, that any alternative is unapproachable.

Bill Mahr is no better.

"Well formed" satire, must be just that, well-formed. Jokes should have punchlines that exist outside of our context-laden elbow nudging; schticks should be thoughtful enough to show no loose ends or weak links; material should be self-contained comedy which lacks all signs of the cries for acceptance and appreciation that the likes of many "satirists" use and whose appologists defend.

Jon Stewart is no better.

Oh, and Stephen Corbert is awesome. At least he can make it through a bit without breaking stride to indulge in audience affection.

Inni, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to watch it.

Man.

I thought I was a curmudgeon. Inni makes me look like I'm on ecstasy.

wow. I'd have to disagree strongly.

Bill Maher, when he's in top form is a great satirist. I'll admit, this wasn't one of his better attempts, but sometimes he really hits the nail on the head and he is definately someone who doesn't pander to his audience - he often gets boos and groans from his audience and his guests.

Colbert's schtick, on the other hand, often gets in the way of any real depth and is always received with cheers from his "nation" - his bits are designed to take in audience affection. If I were ever a guest on his show I'd probably at least throw water in his face. If I had been the guy who was freed by DNA evidence, I'd probably be back in jail for assault.

Maybe you were being sarcastic?

I find Bill Maher hit or miss; sometimes he can be hysterical, but more often than not he sticks with rhetoric.

Nothing wrong with rhetoric mind you, but once I've already heard it, I get bored easily.

Case in point: we all know going into Iraq was a bad move. We all know this was GWB's policy. We all know the "stupid Americans" reelected him. Yes, yes, we all get it.

So now what? Make fun of Bush for another year and a half? Ok, fine. But how many "I'm with stupid" jokes can you make before the audience falls asleep? GWB is a comic goldmine. I fault Maher as lazy; he prefers to stick with the classic, rather than attempt something new.

Colbert is the opposite. He is always trying some new bit, some new feature on his show. Sure, he is also hit and miss, but at least he swings for the fences.

I also find it strange that a self-described "Libertarian" hasn't focused more attention on the most popular anti-war Republican candidate. Also, the hard-on for Hillary Clinton is something I'll never understand. She's many things, but hardly a Libertarian*

• Yes, I know she was a "Goldwater girl" once upon a time. She's gone a loooong way, baby.

I think the notable part of this clip was not Bill, it was Michael Eric Dyson. His notion of 'lethal ignorance' is a very powerful one that I'd like to hear him expand upon. I've heard him as a frequent guest on Tavis Smiley's shows, and I'm always impressed. Anyone know of someplace (vid clip, interview, book) where he discusses this 'lethal ignorance' comment at greater depth?