December 9, 2005


An Essay on Comedy (George Meredith, 1897)

Now, to look about us in the present time, I think it will be acknowledged that in neglecting the cultivation of the Comic idea, we are losing the aid of a powerful auxiliar. You see Folly perpetually sliding into new shapes in a society possessed of wealth and leisure, with many whims, many strange ailments and strange doctors. Plenty of common-sense is in the world to thrust her back when she pretends to empire. But the first-born of common-sense, the vigilant Comic, which is the genius of thoughtful laughter, which would readily extinguish her at the outset, is not serving as a public advocate.

You will have noticed the disposition of common-sense, under pressure of some pertinacious piece of light-headedness, to grow impatient and angry. That is a sign of the absence, or at least of the dormancy, of the Comic idea. For Folly is the natural prey of the Comic, known to it in all her transformations, in every disguise; and it is with the springing delight of hawk over heron, hound after fox, that it gives her chase, never fretting, never tiring, sure of having her, allowing her no rest.

Contempt is a sentiment that cannot be entertained by comic intelligence. What is it but an excuse to be idly minded, or personally lofty, or comfortably narrow, not perfectly humane? If we do not feign when we say that we despise Folly, we shut the brain. There is a disdainful attitude in the presence of Folly, partaking of the foolishness to Comic perception: and anger is not much less foolish than disdain. The struggle we have to conduct is essence against essence. Let no one doubt of the sequel when this emanation of what is firmest in us is launched to strike down the daughter of Unreason and Sentimentalism: such being Folly's parentage, when it is respectable.of employing Johnsonian polysyllables to treat of the infinitely little. And it really may be humorous, of a kind, yet it will miss the point by going too much round about it. [...]

Dulness, insensible to the Comic, has the privilege of arousing it; and the laying of a dull finger on matters of human life is the surest method of establishing electrical communications with a battery of laughter--where the Comic idea is prevalent.

But if the Comic idea prevailed with us, and we had an Aristophanes to barb and wing it, we should be breathing air of Athens. Prosers now pouring forth on us like public fountains would be cut short in the street and left blinking, dumb as pillar-posts, with letters thrust into their mouths. We should throw off incubus, our dreadful familiar--by some called boredom--whom it is our present humiliation to be just alive enough to loathe, never quick enough to foil. There would be a bright and positive, clear Hellenic perception of facts. The vapours of Unreason and Sentimentalism would be blown away before they were productive. Where would Pessimist and Optimist be? They would in any case have a diminished audience.
Yet possibly the change of despots, from good-natured old obtuseness to keen-edged intelligence, which is by nature merciless, would be more than we could bear. The rupture of the link between dull people, consisting in the fraternal agreement that something is too clever for them, and a shot beyond them, is not to be thought of lightly; for, slender though the link may seem, it is equivalent to a cement forming a concrete of dense cohesion, very desirable in the estimation of the statesman.

A political Aristophanes, taking advantage of his lyrical Bacchic licence, was found too much for political Athens. I would not ask to have him revived, but that the sharp light of such a spirit as his might be with us to strike now and then on public affairs, public themes, to make them spin along more briskly.

He hated with the politician's fervour the sophist who corrupted simplicity of thought, the poet who destroyed purity of style, the demagogue, 'the saw-toothed monster,' who, as he conceived, chicaned
the mob, and he held his own against them by strength of laughter, until fines, the curtailing of his Comic licence in the chorus, and ultimately the ruin of Athens, which could no longer support the expense of the chorus, threw him altogether on dialogue, and brought him under the law. After the catastrophe, the poet, who had ever been gazing back at the men of Marathon and Salamis, must have felt that he had foreseen it; and that he was wise when he pleaded for peace, and derided military coxcombry, and the captious old creature Demus, we can admit. He had the Comic poet's gift of common-sense--
which does not always include political intelligence; yet his political tendency raised him above the Old Comedy turn for uproarious farce. He abused Socrates, but Xenophon, the disciple of Socrates, by his trained rhetoric saved the Ten Thousand. Aristophanes might say that if his warnings had been followed there would have been no such thing as a mercenary Greek expedition under Cyrus. Athens, however, was on a landslip, falling; none could arrest it. To gaze back, to uphold the old times, was a most natural conservatism, and fruitless. The aloe had bloomed. Whether right or wrong in his politics and his criticisms, and bearing in mind the instruments he played on and the audience he had to win, there is an idea in his comedies: it is the Idea of Good Citizenship. [...]

Taking them generally, the English public are most in sympathy with this primitive Aristophanic comedy, wherein the comic is capped by the grotesque, irony tips the wit, and satire is a naked sword. They have the basis of the Comic in them: an esteem for common- sense. They cordially dislike the reverse of it. They have a rich laugh, though it is not the gros rire of the Gaul tossing gros sel, nor the polished Frenchman's mentally digestive laugh. And if they have now, like a monarch with a troop of dwarfs, too many jesters kicking the dictionary about, to let them reflect that they are dull, occasionally, like the pensive monarch surprising himself with an idea of an idea of his own, they look so. And they are given to looking in the glass. They must see that something ails them. How much even the better order of them will endure, without a thought of the defensive, when the person afflicting them is protected from
satire, we read in Memoirs of a Preceding Age, where the vulgarly tyrannous hostess of a great house of reception shuffled the guests and played them like a pack of cards, with her exact estimate of the
strength of each one printed on them: and still this house continued to be the most popular in England; nor did the lady ever appear in print or on the boards as the comic type that she was.

It has been suggested that they have not yet spiritually comprehended the signification of living in society; for who are cheerfuller, brisker of wit, in the fields, and as explorers, colonisers, backwoodsmen? They are happy in rough exercise, and also in complete repose. The intermediate condition, when they are called upon to talk to one another, upon other than affairs of business or their hobbies, reveals them wearing a curious look of vacancy, as it were the socket of an eye wanting. The Comic is perpetually springing up in social life, and, it oppresses them from not being perceived. [...]

In our prose literature we have had delightful Comic writers. Besides Fielding and Goldsmith, there is Miss Austen, whose Emma and Mr. Elton might walk straight into a comedy, were the plot arranged for them. Galt's neglected novels have some characters and strokes of shrewd comedy. In our poetic literature the comic is delicate and graceful above the touch of Italian and French. Generally, however, the English elect excel in satire, and they are noble humourists. The national disposition is for hard-hitting, with a
moral purpose to sanction it; or for a rosy, sometimes a larmoyant, geniality, not unmanly in its verging upon tenderness, and with a singular attraction for thick-headedness, to decorate it with asses' ears and the most beautiful sylvan haloes. But the Comic is a different spirit.

You may estimate your capacity for Comic perception by being able to detect the ridicule of them you love, without loving them less: and more by being able to see yourself somewhat ridiculous in dear eyes, and accepting the correction their image of you proposes.

Each one of an affectionate couple may be willing, as we say, to die for the other, yet unwilling to utter the agreeable word at the right moment; but if the wits were sufficiently quick for them to perceive that they are in a comic situation, as affectionate couples must be when they quarrel, they would not wait for the moon or the almanac, or a Dorine, to bring back the flood-tide of tender feelings, that they should join hands and lips.

If you detect the ridicule, and your kindliness is chilled by it, you are slipping into the grasp of Satire.

If instead of falling foul of the ridiculous person with a satiric rod, to make him writhe and shriek aloud, you prefer to sting him under a semi-caress, by which he shall in his anguish be rendered dubious whether indeed anything has hurt him, you are an engine of Irony.

If you laugh all round him, tumble him, roll him about, deal him a smack, and drop a tear on him, own his likeness to you and yours to your neighbour, spare him as little as you shun, pity him as much as you expose, it is a spirit of Humour that is moving you.

The Comic, which is the perceptive, is the governing spirit, awakening and giving aim to these powers of laughter, but it is not to be confounded with them: it enfolds a thinner form of them, differing from satire, in not sharply driving into the quivering sensibilities, and from humour, in not comforting them and tucking them up, or indicating a broader than the range of this bustling world to them. [...]

Incidents of a kind casting ridicule on our unfortunate nature instead of our conventional life, provoke derisive laughter, which thwarts the Comic idea. But derision is foiled by the play of the intellect. Most of doubtful causes in contest are open to Comic interpretation, and any intellectual pleading of a doubtful cause contains germs of an Idea of Comedy.

The laughter of satire is a blow in the back or the face. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a smile; often no more than a smile. It laughs through the mind, for the mind directs it; and it might be called the humour of the mind.

One excellent test of the civilization of a country, as I have said, I take to be the flourishing of the Comic idea and Comedy; and the test of true Comedy is that it shall awaken thoughtful laughter.

If you believe that our civilization is founded in common-sense (and it is the first condition of sanity to believe it), you will, when contemplating men, discern a Spirit overhead; not more heavenly than the light flashed upward from glassy surfaces, but luminous and watchful; never shooting beyond them, nor lagging in the rear; so closely attached to them that it may be taken for a slavish reflex, until its features are studied. It has the sage's brows, and the sunny malice of a faun lurks at the corners of the half-closed lips drawn in an idle wariness of half tension. That slim feasting smile, shaped like the long-bow, was once a big round satyr's laugh, that flung up the brows like a fortress lifted by gunpowder. The laugh will come again, but it will be of the order of the smile, finely tempered, showing sunlight of the mind, mental richness rather than noisy enormity. Its common aspect is one of unsolicitous observation, as if surveying a full field and having leisure to dart on its chosen morsels, without any fluttering eagerness. Men's future upon earth does not attract it; their honesty and shapeliness in the present does; and whenever they wax out of proportion, overblown, affected, pretentious, bombastical, hypocritical, pedantic, fantastically delicate; whenever it sees them self-deceived or hoodwinked, given to run riot in idolatries, drifting into vanities, congregating in absurdities, planning short-sightedly, plotting dementedly; whenever they are at variance with
their professions, and violate the unwritten but perceptible laws binding them in consideration one to another; whenever they offend sound reason, fair justice; are false in humility or mined with conceit, individually, or in the bulk--the Spirit overhead will look humanely malign and cast an oblique light on them, followed by volleys of silvery laughter. That is the Comic Spirit.

Not to distinguish it is to be bull-blind to the spiritual, and to deny the existence of a mind of man where minds of men are in working conjunction.

You must, as I have said, believe that our state of society is founded in common-sense, otherwise you will not be struck by the contrasts the Comic Spirit perceives, or have it to look to for your consolation. You will, in fact, be standing in that peculiar oblique beam of light, yourself illuminated to the general eye as the very object of chase and doomed quarry of the thing obscure to you. But to feel its presence and to see it is your assurance that many sane and solid minds are with you in what you are experiencing: and this of itself spares you the pain of satirical heat, and the bitter craving to strike heavy blows.

We find here both the reason that all comedy is conservative and the source of the Left's derangement. Conservatives, understanding the world to be Fallen and Man to be inherently flawed, are reconciled to reality, are unoffended when men act like mere mortals and life reveals its myriad imperfections. Not expecting Utopia, the conservative views life as a comedy.

Liberals, on the other hand, imagine life and man to be perfectable, indeed imagine a perfect past, and therefore perceive life as a tragedy. Estranged from reality they can't help but find life a torment. Of course, we on the Right find that hilarious and love them all the more for it....

The Mad King and the Crazy Left (Timothy Birdnow, December 10th, 2005, American Thinker)

To understand why the radical fringe is so at odds with reality, it is necessary to understand the philosophical underpinnings of what they believe. There are numerous intellectual influences at the core of the modern Left, and each of these contribute to the final architecture of the asylum that is Liberalism. We need to look at a few of them to get the general idea.

1. Man Is Inherently Good

Rousseau is the primary originator of the modern version of this belief. This concept is at odds with the Christian worldview, which holds that Man has a fallen nature, and will sink to the level of barbarism if his appetites are not constrained.

This particular view of mna as originally perfect has a number of consequences; the Anti-Americanism often displayed by the left stems from the belief that our system is corrupting to the individual, and must be destroyed to free Man to realize his potential. Remember the students chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has gotta go!”? The idea here is that our civilization is at the root of suffering and evil, and by ridding ourselves of it we will be free to be righteous.

Radical Environmentalism is another consequence of this particular concept. Many Environmentalists believe that a return to a state of nature will be a return to paradise, and they seek to dismantle our industrial society so that Man can be freed of the pollution of Civilization, and can return to a mythical agrarian Eden. They disagree with Hobbes, who pointed out that life in a state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short“. They prefer to believe in a Golden Age, which can return if industrialism is ended.

Socialism, likewise, is an economic philosophy based on the belief in Man’s inherent goodness. The theory is that, if freed from the tyranny of economic self-reliance, the individual will work diligently for the common good, and thus the artificial barriers of class and wealth will disappear. With the proper social context, the goodness inherent in people will blossom, and the State will wither away as each shares his labor and his means with his neighbor.

The welfare state is an incremental approach to this, and the fact that we have witnessed disastrous consequences as a result dampens the liberal’s enthusiasm nary a wit; the left clings doggedly to this particular bit of folly, in violation of all reason. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said that the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over, while expecting different results.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 9, 2005 11:16 AM

It is true that Left-leaning political satire is generally unfunny. At its best, it can be clever or biting, but rarely funny.

It tends to be just sarcastic, snarling and angry, without any affection for, or understanding of, humanity.

Posted by: Brit at December 9, 2005 11:47 AM

Satire always runs the risk of expressing genuine hatred for humans and the human condition and the Left's satiric efforts will tend to cross the line. The great satirist must be amused, not angry.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 12:07 PM

sometimes i listen to this hard left radio station (Pacifica) just for the unintended humor they provide. lots of anger and inchoherent ranting, and silly drivel dressed up as profundity.

Posted by: noam chomsky at December 9, 2005 12:25 PM

I think your interpretation is extremely narrow-minded. All humor is conservative? What does that mean? To someone who you would call a liberal (even though I wouldn't call myself one, but, alas, I see that you tend to lump all of those who don't support the Republican Party into one nebulous group of anti-Judeochristian, Communist, homosexuals) like me, it's funny to hear someone like you say something like that; especially when the politics of the rest of the site concerns itself with a lot of rhetoric that is obsessed with proving its own oneness, identity, and universality as a justification to conquer all differance, opposition, contradiction.
Are you trying to say that "Conservatives don't idealize?" Could you maybe elaborate on that one? Or explain your idealizations of the the words 'Liberal, Conservative, tragedy, comedy'?
I notice on your movie reviews that you give a somewhat favorable reading of "Dr. Strangelove." Do you consider that movie's humor conservative?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 12:31 PM


We enjoy a good giggle as we go a-conquering.


Also typically very elitest. Apart from making fun of politicians, most of it seems to target the uneducated or unsophisticated. That's a rich vein, to be sure, but so are the beautiful people.

Posted by: Peter B at December 9, 2005 12:37 PM


Conservatives and Liberals here:

Of course it's conservative.

Likewise, we all find your inanities amusing. The Left today exists only to amuse.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 12:41 PM


Ok, well, that's cool, but are you actually going to address my points?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 1:03 PM

Put another way:
Liberals are open minded and tolerant of all cultures and ideologies, right? I mean, that's all I ever hear from Liberals is that they're sooo much more tolerant than wicked Conservatives. Well then, how can you justify making fun of other peoples' ideologies? Cruelly mocking someone's deepest held beliefs doesn't sound that tolerent to me. The nice thing about being a Conservative is that you can admit that there are cultures and ideologies that are evil or wrong or just plain laugh-out-loud stupid. Liberals cannot do this without being hypocrites.

Posted by: Bryan at December 9, 2005 1:05 PM


What remains unaddressed after reading those reviews?

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 1:12 PM


The War-machine culture would be a lot more of a comedy if it wasn't drenched in blood. Which is why Dr. Strangelove, is actually a kind of tragicomedy.
And please, stop equating the term "Liberals" with the preaching of the Democratic Party. You cannot lump all on the Left into one category, and you cannot hold the idiots in political office as fair representatives of "Left" or "Liberal" ideas and policies; similarly, the Republicans should not hold claim to being the sole representative of conservatism.
So, for the sake of this argument, could you please not resort to stereotypes and easy labels that upon further analysis seem to overlap, contradict, and entangle each other in meaninglessness?
Cruel mockery can be effective debate, even though I've been far from cruel in my comments. Real cruelty is dropping bombs and killing innocent people. Do you think that is funny? How do you justify killing? By mocking other cultures?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 1:23 PM


So you believe Kubrick was advocating a first strike with his film?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 1:25 PM


No, that's why it's even funnier. The Left seldom comprehends that the ideas that horrify them are popular with the rest of us. Americans agreed with the "crackpots" in Strangelove, not with Kubrick.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 1:27 PM


As for the book review, it defines a set of Conservative ideals that have little do to with our argument about humor. If they do, could you point it out to me?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 1:28 PM


Your schtick about needing to differentiate the Left from Democrats from liberals nicely makes one of Mr. Meredith's main points.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 1:30 PM


Do you often sympathize with the more violent psychopathic characters in movies, or is Dr. Strangelove somewhat of an exception?
The American People? Ok mein fuhrer, how did you invent this opinion?

Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 1:31 PM

Sure. Conservatism is characterized by realistic "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." The Left by a utopian belief in "The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society"

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 1:33 PM


Other obvious examples would be Charles Bronson in Death Wish, Robert DiNiro in Taxi Driver, Michael Douglas in Falling Down, Rambo, the list goes on. Bucking Left platitudes is a surefire way to antihero status in American culture.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 1:37 PM

I wasn't talking about Democrats and Republicans, I was talking about Conservatives and Liberals. That's why I said Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals, not Democrats, say they are openminded and tolerant of all cultures and ideologies. You ask me not to "resort to stereotypes and easy labels" but what is the term "War-machine culture" if not a stereotype and easy label?
Real cruelty is standing blithely by while people are murdered by a despot and you hide behind the mantra "No blood for oil!" You would be funnier if your own ideology wasn't so damned murderous.
Shall we recite the litany again? Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ortega, Hussein and on and on. You accuse Reagan of killing 1.5 million people (and as yet, haven't presented any evidence) well, how many millions have died at the hands of your hateful ideology? How many more have yet to die? At what point will people say "Enough!" and throw you hateful trolls and your bigoted, murderous ideas on the ash heap where they belong?

Posted by: Bryan at December 9, 2005 2:07 PM

Why can't this blog attract less tendentious trolls?

Someone, anyone, please "actually address" dude Grug's points. It's getting late and he needs to get home for supper.

I haven't thought about "Dr. Strangelove" in many moons, but if memory serves, it uses a literary device called, Black Humor.

Posted by: erp at December 9, 2005 2:14 PM

He doesn't want anyone to address his points. If he did, he wouldn't be a troll. As such, I amuse myself composing spittle-flecked rants to whip him into even higher levels of trollishness. Yes, it's a lot like tormenting a dog but poking sticks at trolls has long been a weakness of mine.

Posted by: Bryan at December 9, 2005 2:25 PM


I really don't see the connection between my ideas, at least the ones I've posted in this particular Comments section, have anything to with Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, Ortega, and Mao. Furthermore, other than the violent excercise of authority, I don't see what your characteristics of ideas that your rag-tag litany of names represents; so while you're add it, throw Reagan and Nixon on the list.
Reagan and Nixon stood by, blithely, while Saddam was murdering. Well, actually they did a little more than just stand by, they actually helped him out. So where does that fall in your Left=ineffectual whiners/Right=always doing the right thing dichotomy?
You really aren't very convincing with the "blithely" standing by argument; I could come up with my own litany, if you want me to, of cases where permitting murder to occur has been the standard foreign policy since the foundations of America. Native Americans are the first on a list that grows.


Posted by: Grug at December 9, 2005 2:27 PM

Carroll O'Connor's character: Archie Bunker was a popular characterization of a conservative. While Alan Alda's character: Hawkeye Pierce was a popular characterization of a liberal.

Both characters had comic lines written for them. But, hmmm... did the liberal or conservative writers write lines for Archie or Hawkeye?

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 9, 2005 2:30 PM


Now I'm confused, you do support W for deposing Saddam? Or you approve of Reagan, Bush, Clinton for leaving him in power?

I'm unaware of anyone on the Left demanding we remove him while many on the Right did. W finally did it.

I'd c ertainly agree with you that it was and is immoral for us to leave Stalin, Mao, the Kims, the Assads, Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, etc, in power.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 2:33 PM

Interestingly, All in the Family became unfunny once Archie got sensitized and MASH became unfunny once they politicized it, pretty much after the first season. Everyone's favorite character in the latter is Colonel Flagg.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 2:35 PM

"I could come up with my own litany, if you want me to, of cases where permitting murder to occur has been the standard foreign policy since the foundations of America. Native Americans are the first on a list that grows."

Oh, yes the standard "Everything the US has done is EVIL" litany. Just don't say you're not patriotic, right?



Posted by: Bryan at December 9, 2005 2:42 PM

Got a label for everything and everyone, eh?

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 9, 2005 2:53 PM


Again you prove Meredith's point--folks are rather the same.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 3:00 PM

The Bush adventure in Iraq is typical of the fascist tendencies of the Amerikan military/industrial complex and Bush is a Nazi, but I support the troops.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. at December 9, 2005 3:20 PM


Posted by: odd krackhead at December 9, 2005 3:34 PM

Like many of OJ's sweeping pronouncements, "all comedy is conservative" has some truth in it, but falls apart when looked at too closely.

True, in the last few decades, liberal-leaning humor has been pretty weak. But that wasn't always the case, and won't always be the case. Was Lenny Bruce's humor conservative? Sure, in some ways much of it was, but all of it? I think it's silly to think so.

All jokes (a subset of humor) rely on a sort of misdirection, leading listeners in one direction, then surprising them with a punchline that comes from an unexpected direction (but which still links to the setup). Is such trickery "conservative"? Doesn't seem so to me.

Much humor involves mockery of pretension and deflating of authority. What is more conservative than authority and tradition? Does the story of the emperor with no clothes have a conservative message, or an anti-conservative one? I think it has aspects of both, which is enough to contradict OJ's thesis.

By the way, anyone interested in a fascinating analysis of humor should track down a copy of Max Eastman's Enjoyment of Laughter (1936). There's someone who knew well both the left (he edited The Masses and was a friend of Trotsky) and the right (he helped found The National Review), and I think he'd disagree with OJ.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 9, 2005 3:51 PM


What's funnier than the belief of the Bruce types that profanity would improve society? He died a squallid, pointless death and is long forgotten, while the culture grows more puritanical. His humor depends on authority and he ultimately vindicated it. We don't laugh with him, but at him.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 3:57 PM

You may or may not be correct about Lenny Bruce, but George Carlin, also profane, is very funny and claims his inspiration was Lenny Bruce (although I don't get the connection).

The question is not necessarily only the joker, but also the jokee. Does one who is imbued with a liberal worldview laugh at a fart joke (presuming that a fart joke is conservative)? If he does, then does it not follow that the fart joke speaks to something in his personality and viewpoint?

Posted by: h-man at December 9, 2005 4:22 PM

The connection between Carlin and Lenny Bruce is their obsession wuth profanity, and the only "joke" I remember Bruce telling is the line that if Christ lived and died in the modern age, people would be hanging little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.

It's hilarious remarks like this and saying the forbidden words on stage that made Lenny Bruce an icon of the left.

Posted by: erp at December 9, 2005 6:45 PM

Let's face it. The whole Left world view is based on the premise that if you repeat a slogan often enough, and loud enough, it become true and factual— "Margaret Cho is funny", "Noam Chomsky is an intellectual giant", "Perjury about sex is okay", "Bush lied", "We support the troops", to "Liberals are tolerant and open-minded" are all based on that premise. The only reason "2 + 2 = 5" isn't included is because that would give the game away.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 9, 2005 6:48 PM

Lenny Bruce...left...right... who cares? I don't. This whole discussion is another example of the banal thought process of some folks that have to put their labels on everything.

Just let it be. If you can laugh at it... be glad!

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 9, 2005 8:35 PM

People who don't care don't comment.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 9:18 PM

billy bob thorton in "The Apostle".

Posted by: ebert's pork chop at December 9, 2005 10:11 PM


Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 10:32 PM

You can prevent your comments from being deleted by using this simple code: [REDACTED Nice try - ed.] remembering to leave no spaces between the characters.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 10, 2005 3:56 AM

Speaking of censored comments, that's f***ing hysterical.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 10, 2005 6:24 AM

It's funny to hear oldkayaker bemoan the "banal" people who who feel the need to label everyone. Wasn't it he who, just a few days ago, was dividing the world into two different camps of "Served in the military" and "Didn't serve in the military?" I guess the only labels that are appropriate are the ones you apply to everyone else, right JOHN?

Posted by: Bryan at December 10, 2005 9:44 AM

"Of course, we on the Right find that hilarious and love them all the more for it..."

Speak for yourself. That fact that they're amusing--from a sufficient distance--doesn't mean they're lovable.

Posted by: Tom at December 10, 2005 12:47 PM

Too bad, Richard Pryor is gone. His rendition of the hypocritical reverend in "Car Wash" was right on the money, don't you agree?


Posted by: oldkayaker at December 10, 2005 8:39 PM