Letter to Cohen re: Colbert - Are they Idiots or Hacks? Assuming Idiots...

Forgive me if it's a faux pas to start a thread with something I just posted at the end of another one, from Julius Civitatus. I've been out of town for a couple of days, and JC's great post about Richard Cohen's column caught me up in a hurry. Apparently, the "Colbert wasn't funny" and "it was mean" meme is catching on.

Cohen, and others reading the script, are EITHER rightwing hacks who know the truth, pretend they're idiots, and act surprised and upset about BushCo being an innocent victim of inappropriate bullying; OR they are idiots who don't know what Colbert is talking about, how he's talking about it, and actually do see BushCo as an innocent victim.

You can respond to them either way -- especially when they so obviously present themselves as idiots!! Here is my email, based on the assumption that Cohen is a true idiot (despite my belief that he's probably a hack just pretending to be an idiot). It might provide some ideas in case you find yourself discussing the matter with the little parrots among the masses.

*****

Dear Mr. Cohen,

With all due respect, I think you found Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner not "funny" because you didn't get the jokes. You mention "the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently."

Your words perfectly describe Colbert's performance. The key to your misunderstanding is in your description of Colbert on his own show. You wrote that "on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness." That's not so. It's not about his "greatness" at all -- it's about a satirical view of rightwing media "personalities." The joke is about his character being a jerk, not having "greatness." The character itself is hyperbole, showing the absurdity of the rightwing, while simultaneously (and brilliantly) contrasting that with the truth. It's all about irony.

Here are just three quotes from Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Read correctly, there is no way they could be interpreted as as anything but "absurdity, contrast, and hyperbole."

"Every night on my show, the Colbert Report, I speak straight from the gut, OK? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument."
This is a joke about RNC campaign messages (and continual White House rhetoric) that relies on "gut" feelings, and downplays facts. (People "felt" Bush was strong and a war hero, while Kerry was weak and a coward, despite all facts to the contrary; people "felt" Bush is a regular, folksy Texan guy like themselves, even a "cowboy," despite all facts to the contrary; and people "felt" it was right to invade Iraq, despite all facts to the contrary. It's no accident -- in speech after speech, they were led to those feelings.)

"I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
This joke shows the absurd contrast between what the rightwing says about government in America vs. what it does; and further, what it says about the government in Iraq vs. what the reality is.

"He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."
This captures the absurdity of the truth behind Bush's "steadfast" aura. We have surpluses; that means we need taxcuts! - later - We have deficits; that means we need tax cuts! Or, the invasion of Iraq is unavoidable because they have WMD! - later - The invasion of Iraq was unavoidable, even if they never had WMD!

You referred to Colbert's "shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said." Purportedly? There's plenty of evidence that his jokes were based on truth -- Judith Miller on WMD, Bob Woodward's entire book (touted as great "access," based on 'everything the White House told him!'), Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorials reciting, sometimes word for word, government memos; and the obvious "message" that goes around verbatim in quick response to any questionable news story. (And I'm not even mentioning Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, Fox News or the Washington Times.)

"Speaking truth to power" is hardly a "tired phrase" to my ears -- we hear far too little of it. "Tired phrases" I hear include "turning the corner," "ongoing investigation," "enemies of freedom," "the world is safer," "9/11, 9/11, 9/11," etc...

You called Colbert a "bully" for taking "swipes" at the president, but you say certain swipes are acceptable -- it depends. What were Colbert's swipes about? Not Bush's arrests or past drug and alcohol use; not his alarming inability to speak coherently without a script, or breath-takingly simplistic answers to questions about complex issues; not his embarassing gaffes overseas, or his decidedly simian appearance and way of walking. Those, we might agree, would be "bullying." He may be unable to control or overcome these personal shortcomings. But as you point out, Colbert's so-called bullying and "mockery" were about "Bush's Iraq policy" and "domestic eavesdropping." THAT is what you consider over-the-top insulting, mockery and bullying?! Disastrous Iraq policy, and illegal, warrantless spying on American citizens? Those are weighty issues affecting all citizens, not matters for inappropriate personal insult and ridicule. Considering that, Colbert handled them lightly.

Finally, you characterized Colbert's joke about the Bush White House not sinking but rather soaring (when he said they were "rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg") as "mixed metaphor, and lame as can be." The metaphor is "rearranging deck chairs." This is NOT a mixed metaphor.

Given your inability to recognize and understand satire, irony, or even your own definition of a "funny person's obligation;" given your apparent difficultly recalling recent history and current reality; given your belief that hard satire on serious, deadly, costly, tragic blunders is inappropriate because it "insults" or "bullies" the one man who caused it (nevermind the millions who are suffering from it); and given your literary confusion over a simple metaphor -- well, I am baffled as to why you consider yourself qualified to be a columnist.

Ah -- how could I forget? You started your column opining, "I am a funny guy," and ended it declaring that Colbert "wasn't funny."

Now THAT is funny.

Sincerely,

(Sparkly)

:kick:

<WILD APPLAUSE>

Richard Cohen's not funny, he's jealous of Colbert, he's been kissing BushCo butt for the past five years, he couldn't wait to invade Iraq, he got booted out of the DC office of the Post because of a sexual harrassment mess, and now he's a minor guy in the NY office, where he does his best to convince the Post readers (oh, how I love to skim his column and then spit at it!) that he's funny.

Can you imagine anyone announcing, as Cohen did in the first paragraph, that he's "a funny guy"?

I know Cohen. Known him for thirty years. He's not funny.

Again: <WILD APPLAUSE>

Great letter, Sparkly.

That was great! Beautifully written, well thought out--wonderful.

Very nicely done.

Thank you!
I got too angry reading his article to see the incongruencies - you did and made it funny!

Now that I see its you ....... I still would have nominated it. :)

It is a source of daily wonder to be married to a person smarter than oneself.

:spank: :hi: :toast:

:D

It IS, however, a SUPERB letter to this narrow-minded cretin.

:evilgrin:

but you did snag a brilliant woman there, you lucky devil!

Well said!

hacks. I think you are right that he is the latter.

You gave examples and everything. :thumbsup:

a little lesson for Cohen, maybe next time he'll pay closer attention to what he writes. :evilgrin:

Dear Mr. Cohen,

To mention the President's war when he is in the room will never be acceptable behavior.

Questioning his reasons for the war, in his presence, is a faux-pas that should never be repeated.

Thank you for your concern regarding this issue.

Sincerely (not),
Me

Honestly, Cohen did have me laughing at him, he is a funny guy after all. :banghead:

K&R

good job.

Richard Cohen is an idiot and a hack, and also a schmuck. ("I am a funny guy.")

--IMM

.... I hope the stupid douchebag reads it.

Great job, concise, straightforward, really - I'm jealous :)

Here's mine:

Subject: "So Not Funny," Richard Cohen
To: "Washington Post Letters to the Editor" <letters@washpost.com >
CC: cohenr@washpost.com

Dear Sirs:

Since Mr. Cohen has chosen to fulminate on Stephen Colbert's comedic performance (and the rudeness thereof), I choose to respond.

First, contrary to Mr. Cohen, I found Colbert's performance brilliant. It was hysterically funny to those of us, unlike Mr. Cohen, who recognize the harm being done to this country by Bush and his cronies. For those of us who've recognized Emperor Bush's nudity since before his selection by the Supremes, it was immensely gratifying and hugely entertaining to see and hear someone speak the truths that Bush is an incompetent fool, and the press corps have served as stenographers for administration talking points. As soon as someone pays Mr. Cohen for being so funny -- as he so humbly describes himself -- I will consider his criticism of a professional's comedic performance relevant.

Regarding rudeness, I cannot imagine anything more rude than Mr. Bush's foray into comedy at the Radio and Television Correspondents event at which he unveiled the high hilarity of his "Where are the WMDs?" skit. Never mind that thousands were dead -- and continue to die -- because of his administration's fabrications about the imminent danger posed by Saddam's fictional WMD stockpiles, the complicit press laughed along and lauded Bush for his genial simulacrum of bonhomie. That's rude.

And Colbert was hilarious.

Best,
Ron Barth, Jr.

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20751

Mainstream Media, Why the Blackout on Stephen Colbert?

Last week at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, comedian Stephen Colbert delivered a scathing satirical commentary on the Bush Administration -- right in front of President Bush himself. But unless you get your news from online sources such as the blogs, you probably didn't even hear about it.

If you haven't already watched his performance, watch it online now.

It's ironic that at the annual gathering of this nation's elite journalists, the only one with the courage to tell the honest truth was a comedian. It sure speaks volumes to the media's failure to ask the Bush administration hard questions and hold it accountable.

The mainstream media have uncritically served as lapdog stenographers for this administration. So perhaps it's not surprising that they now have decided that Colbert's criticism of the President is not newsworthy. No major paper or television network gave Colbert's performance anything but a cursory mention -- a silence that continues to this day. This certainly wasn't the case back in 1996, when radio deejay Don Imus roasted President and First Lady Clinton with a series of off-color jokes. That event made page one of the New York Times and the front page of the Washington Post Style Section.

So why the silence on Colbert? Were they uncomfortable with his courage in pointing out that the media hasn't been carrying out the independent watchdog role upon which our democracy depends?


Call to action

Tell the mainstream media: please do your jobs as independent watchdogs, and don't leave honest and much-needed criticism of this administration to the comedians.

:thumbsup:

Here's mine from the other day...

Most of the time I don't find Colbert particularly funny. His pretend Republican shtick doesn't work for me. Usually. But standing in front of Bush himself and delivering the same message? Well, that's a different story.

Sorry, Mr. Cohen. It was damn funny. Uncomfortable at times, especially for those in the audience who didn't want to draw attention to themselves, but still funny. Scalia laughed loudly enough while Colbert openly mocked him. Takes a certain kind of guy to do that.

Guess Bush isn't that kind of guy. Now there's a surprise.

You don't get the joke? The joke is that this man and his administration insulate themselves from criticism at every opportunity. The press is walking on eggshells as if afraid they'll be dragged into a dark room and beaten with a stick for pointing out not only their foibles, but their outright deceptions.

As long as one American soldier, or one Iraqi child, is held captive to his imperial ambitions, Mr. Bush should be forced to suffer the indignity of public mockery on a regular basis. In person.

It's only fair.

Don't get it? Too bad for you. We certainly do.