This is one of the times I wish I were gay so I could ask Sampiro to marry me.
Did the daily show & Colbert report talk about this on May 1st? I probably have those episodes on my TiVo.
How do I download the video? I only know how to play it. Right clicking and saving target doesn’t work.
And the Dennis Miller Memorial Hysterically Funny Arcane-Referential Rant of the Year Award goes to…
Sampiro!
Well done!
But is he at least a Dutch humanist who was married to Lucille Ball?
Yes, Francken and many others, leaning right and left, and none of them was praised. Why? Perhaps because they entertained mere soldiers. Get no praise for that. Clown before Bush, that’s the way to get attention!
Seriously, we get a serious problem with the press failing to report on Iraq. In large part because reporters are being terrorized and killed quite often. This is a very serious problem. So, how do we respond? By licking the balls of late night comedians, of course!
The rest of your post was very funny.
You do know it’s not about Colbert, don’t you?
I can see it now. The afternoon of Oct 31, 1517. A man approaches a chapel door and stops and reads a manuscript that has been tacked to it. As he reads, a look of great consternation appears on his face, and he is heard to exclaim:
wait for it…
Luthy! You’ve got some 'splainin to do!
Colbert isn’t a reporter, he’s a commedian. It’s not his job to be in Iraq. It’s his job to make jokes. Sometimes jokes make a point.
Attacking the messenger doesn’t invalidate that point.
Well, let’s see. Entertainment…Criticizing the Prez. in an entertaining way…hmm…which is the more newsworthy…
How are the two connected? By your logic, I could say there’s a serious problem with the press failing to report on Iraq. So, how do we respond? By Bush monkeying around with a double! By announcing a Simpsons movie!
What’s the connection between the two? Am I missing your point?
But is it really ball-thy?
Depends on your meaning of ballsy, really. If we’re going for a serious, straight definition of ballsy (which given Colbert’s preoccupation with, is tenable) then yes. To me, ballsy doesn’t suggest heroic courage, or putting one’s life on the line; it’s certainly less brave than that. A good definition might be in terms of other people’s reactions; to someone who’s “ballsy”, we might think “Hey, that was pretty impressive”, as opposed to “heroic courage” to which the reaction might be “Holy crap! These guys deserve a parade and a memorial”. YMMV, of course, but I imagine it’s the media’s definition of ballsy that’s the important one here (again, if it’s a straight definition, which it’s unlikely to be).
That should have been “which given Colbert’s preoccupation with balls”.
I saw Suzanne Fields’ column about the WHCA dinner in the newspaper today. She talked about the importance of “robust humor that pokes fun at power” and “humor deflates power like nothing else” But it was Bush’s routine with impressionist Steve Bridges that she referred to as “so funny” and “over the top” while Colbert earned nary a mention. She didn’t even bother to direct any barbs at him; she just ignored him entirely.
I think the point of her column was valid, but would have been better made if she had chosen the more daring Colbert instead of the safe-as-milk Bridges.
Not that I want to idolize Colbert’s performance. I watched the video and, I have to say, didn’t find it nearly as drop-dead funny as I thought I was going to.
You’re straining like Elvis after a twelve day cheese binge. The fact that he wasn’t in a war zone (and neither was Bush) in absolutely no way shape or form plays into the entertainment value one way or the other or affects the truth or lack of in what he said. Period. It’s a non-issue. It’s like saying the people who survived the Titanic weren’t brave or traumatized because it wasn’t the Lusitania- it’s just a total non-sequitur.
Once again, I have no beef with Colbert. I think his performance was fine. I also think it is being over-hyped.
Sampiro right on. NI please, just let it go. You didn’t find it funny - okay - fine. Be done.
Cut New Isk a little slack – he’s just (as is his wont) parroting the right’s anti-Colbert talking points. It’s not as if he’s actually reaching any conclusions about Colbert’s courage or lack thereof on his own…
You’re probably right. I was starting to wonder ifNI wasn’t in fact a bear…or at least an ursine sympthizer.
What, the door already? So much for legendary liberal hospitality!
Besides, not to toot my own horn, but I was the first to bring some cultural content and historical perspective into this sorry circlular jerk.
TOOT! TOOT!
Before, it was all about the balls and the Man, and speaking truth to power, and all that stultifying progressive drivel.
TOOT! TOOT!
I was the first to point out that Colbert follows a very long tradition in European belle lettres, from the ‘Fool literature’ in the Middle Ages (Simplicissimus, Ship of Fools, etc.).
TOOT! TOOT!
The best known product of the genre is “The Praise of Folly” by Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdamus. In essence, Colbert is trying to fill Erasmus shoes, which is a noble endeavor, indeed.
TOOT! TOOT!
He’s not the first American to attempt such a feat. Rush Limbaugh before him was doing a good job ‘demonstrating absurdity by being absurd’.
TOOT! TOOT!
And with all becoming modesty I’d like to point out that the most hilarious contributions by Sampiro and Gorsnak wouldn’t be possible without my interjection. Most capable minds of those individuals would sleep, lulled by the repetitive chorus singing about ‘the balls’ ad infinitum, and never bear fruit without my fecundating prodding (speaking strictly spiritually, of course).
New Iskander… here’s the Beano. Stop tooting, and if you must, do it outside.