26 Responses

1. myq says:

   March 20, 2009 at 2:57 pm

   The article I read about it says that Obama was disappointed in himself DID apologize to the chairman of the Special Olympics.

   So comedians will be fine to say whatever we want, but will also have to show remorse and apologize to anyone affected by our words.

   If this scenario is indeed a model.

   Reply
2. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   March 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm

   Wrong!

   Our commentary was, of course, sarcastic.

   Comedians had damn well better “be fine to say whatever we want!” We’re COMEDIANS!

   Only the dumbest and/or thinnest skinned people will be “affected by our words!” Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE JOKES.

   The president, on the other hand, is not a comedian. He’s the president. There’s a difference.

   The scenario applies to the president, not to comedians.

   The presumption of innocence that was accorded the president should not have been– because the president shouldn’t be making cracks that ridicule the mentally retarded.

   Comedians, on the other hand, have license to do so and are EXPECTED to offend. As the elder comic said (in the other posting about laughter in hard times), “Someone’s gotta slip on the banana peel.”

   The people who sought to excuse the president– in this case, Bill Burton, the deputy to the WH Press Secretary– by saying, “The president did not intend to offend,” was taking a pointless tack. The president offended. There’s really no excusing it.

   Comedians, on the other hand, set out, quite often to offend. As such, we have a ready excuse.

   The president made an “off-hand” remark? This is no excuse either.

   But comedians, on the other hand, most often do not make such remarks “off-handedly.” We intentionally go to the dark side, we intentionally play on fears and anxieties. We have a built-in excuse.

   The president, Burton continues, “in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics.” Doesn’t matter. He most certainly did.

   Comedians, on the other hand, it is understood by all but the stupidest among us, quite often disparage and demean and belittle– to one degree or another.

   It’s what we do for a living.

   We don’t need any excuses.

   Reply
3. myq says:

   March 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm

   “The president, on the other hand, is not a comedian. He’s the president. There’s a difference…the president shouldn’t be making cracks that ridicule the mentally retarded.”

   And comedians SHOULD be making cracks that ridicule the mentally retarded?

   Of course we CAN. (Yes we can!)

   But it doesn’t mean that every comedian that makes a retard joke is justified in so doing.

   (Not that I’m saying comedians NEED to justify their jokes.)

   But Sheckymagazine, for people who don’t like it when other people stereotype comedians and speak negatively of us as a whole, what about this: “Comedians, on the other hand, it is understood by all but the stupidest among us, quite often disparage and demean and belittle.”

   If someone in the MSM had printed that statement, wouldn’t you be the first to attack it?

   Reply
4. Guy MacPherson says:

   March 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm

   Obama got on the phone to the head of Special Olympics before the show even aired and apologized. You say there’s no excuse and whether he meant to offend or not, he most certainly did. I think he realized that. But what would you have him do once he made the joke? He made the mistake, he apologized before it even got out to the public, he invited Special Olympians to the White House… Now what? Resign?

   I’m not sure what your point is, since you say the post was sarcasm. Yes, he’s the POTUS and shouldn’t make light of such things, but beyond that, what? I could understand your position if he made the crack, justified it by saying it was just a joke and didn’t mean to offend, and then did nothing else. If saying, in effect, “lighten up” was the extent of his response, I’d get your point.

   I sense at least one of you is a Republican, given many of your posts. And that’s all well and good. But careful not to turn your blog into a political screed. I may have missed them, but I don’t recall any anti-Bush posts in 8 years.

   Reply
5. john conroy says:

   March 20, 2009 at 9:56 pm

   I take issue with this post. I was 16 years old when Bill Clinton argued that blowjobs were not sex. I never experienced nor witnessed any flurry of blowjobs that this post suggests. Where in America did this occur? IS there a way to recreate it?

   Reply
6. Sharilyn says:

   March 21, 2009 at 2:03 am

   I love you guys dearly. I really do. But this post was motivated purely by your political views, under the guise of comedic analysis. Between the site, twitter, and facebook, we definitely get the idea that you found Obama’s “gaffe” delicious. That’s fine; you’re entitled to your opinion of the man (although I think there are bigger & more important issues to challenge the current administration on than the latest gaffe).Again, I adore you guys (we pinko commies are lovey-dovey that way). But I don’t accept that this post was anything other than a creative way to draw more attention to the Leno slip-up.

   Reply
7. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   March 20, 2009 at 11:34 pm

   “Comedians, on the other hand, it is understood by all but the stupidest among us, quite often disparage and demean and belittle.”

   This is what we do. It’s how we operate. We disparage our mother-in-law, we demean our political opponents, we belittle the man who takes our parking space or has a larger penis than us.

   In large ways, in microscopic ways.

   It is the very essence of nearly every joke. And some, like the man who spoke of the banana peel, contend that each and every joke must have at least a tiny bit of that disparagement or belittling.

   We say this as people who, we’re sure you will agree, take an analytical approach to comedy. We say it not as an offhand criticism, but as a reasoned way to look at our means and methods and to compare it to what the president did. If someone in the MSM said this and backed it up (as we have for ten years) with reasoned analysis, we would not attack it, we would agree with it.

   In much the same way that we agreed with the old comic in the CNN.com piece who cited the banana peel. And in much the same way that we agree with Woody Allen (?) who said that tragedy plus time equals comedy. In much the same we agree with the professor who cites Aristotle’s statement that comedy is always wed to tragedy.

   When we use the terms “disparage” or “demean,” we don’t mean in the literal or derogatory sense. But when we cook down our statements and our aims, it is most certainly and quite frequently to demean or belittle someone.

   And, of course, we never said that comedians SHOULD make jokes that ridicule the mentally retarded. But we do. And we can. And it’s expected of us to make jokes about that which we cannot control, about that which is most tragic, about the darker aspects of life.

   And, yes, Myk, you ARE saying that comedians need to justify there jokes. You didn’t say that they must justify their jokes every time they make one… just every time anyone is “affected by our words.”

   Which, if you’re doing it a certain way, just might be every time you open your mouth.

   So, you have set up an unrealistic situation. Some might say an untenable one.

   The president, on the other hand, is a politician, a head of state, a leader.

   What would we have him do, Guy?

   We don’t rightly care what he does.

   But, we suppose he should admit it was a colossal fuck up. We would rather have everyone around him admit that it was a colossal fuck up.

   The initial statement from the WH did no such thing. It sought to excuse the statement, it sought to minimize the enormity of the statement.

   The apology you speak of was private. The joke was public.

   At the moment he made the “joke,” he was smiling, laughing, head held high, excited that he was riffing with Leno on late-night television. Not the finest hour for our president. And he continued on with the jocularity and even (according to some interpretations that we don’t necessarily agree with) made yet another gag about mental retardation (Google “water head”).

   This has nothing to do with political affiliation.

   You may not recall any anti-Bush posts here in 8 years, but you may recall that we exhorted comedians to write _better_ anti-Bush jokes because the ones we were hearing were getting into a rut! (At one point even citing a similar sentiment from Patton Oswalt.)

   There are plenty of anti-Bush posts out there over the past 8 years. Posting anti-Bush material here wouldn’t exactly make this publication stand out.

   This site is not a “political screed.” It never has been, never will. But when politics and comedy collide, we comment on it, and in what we are sure is an evenhanded way.

   We comment lately on Obama because he’s our new president and the MSM has paid a lot of attention to his treatment at the hands of America’s standup comics.

   We also commented on his appearance on Tonight because the show is hosted by Jay Leno, a comedian. Had he gotten through his appearance without making a stupid and cruel joke, we probably would have done little more than note the appearance in passing.

   Reply
8. Sharilyn says:

   March 21, 2009 at 4:26 am

   <>If you don’t accept that this post was “anything other than a creative way to draw more attention to the Leno slip-up,” then you are the one who is motivated purely by politics or ideology.<>No, I’m the one not getting what the point of this post was if not political. I can see I’m not alone.I’ve religiously read every word you guys have written/printed on this site since the very beginning, and I don’t recall previously seeing the “person in power makes inappropriate joke -> apologizes -> this means <>something<> for comedians” narrative being highlighted so passionately (and with such underlying bitterness). And I don’t even fully understand what this “something” is.<>Standup comics have conspired in portraying us all as incapable of doing what we do best, as unwilling to do what the public depends upon us to do.<>This is a whole other issue, and not something you bring up in the initial post. The debate about whether Obama jokes can be successfully executed is valid, interesting and ongoing. (My opinion on <>that<> is: We’re 2 months in, and a year from now it’ll have been collectively decided what the singular Obama joke is, much like Bush=dumb, Cheney=evil, Clinton=perv)<>We have countered with a series of posts, the underlying narrative of which is, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”The American Comedian has demonstrated that he hasn’t the will.Perhaps now he might.<>It will come. He’s the president. It’s inevitable.<>This wasn’t it, though.<> This wasn’t the everyone-turns-against-him moment that the right has been praying for. After 8 years of Iraq, Katrina, Plame, etc., a “crass” comment about bowling retards doesn’t put a dent in <>anything<>. It’s like drinking a Guinness with a Coors Light chaser (granted, a $700 billion can of Coors Light). If someone can write a piece of material that is critical of Obama and have it go over well in the clubs, they’ll write it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.

   Reply
9. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   March 21, 2009 at 4:36 am

   Sharilyn:With your latest comment, you have proved our point better than even we could have.

   Reply
10. myq says:

    March 21, 2009 at 4:47 am

    Nobody HAS to justify anything they do.You can be a comic making fun of retards, or a president making a mistake, or just a regular old asshole.And you can do those things unapologetically if you want.You don’t HAVE to justify.And other people can choose not to like your jokes, or to think you owe them better as a president, or to call you an asshole.I’m a comedian, and I support the concept of comedians being able to say whatever they want to say about whatever topics they want.But it doesn’t mean I think every joke is equal.There are stupid jokes, there are ignorant comics, there are assholes going for easy laughs.“Retards do stupid things” or “handi-capped people suck” or “I hate poor people” jokes don’t generally do it for me.Not that I haven’t seen all these topics executed flawlessly by excellent comedians–just that I’ve seen them handled way more often LESS flawlessly by LESS excellent comedians.So yes, if you want me not to think your joke isn’t mean, stupid, and easy, it has to be able to be justified in some way.If you don’t give a crap what I think, it doesn’t.Everyone is welcome to have their opinions, say what they want, and reap the consequences.And Shecky, what IS your point (and how did Sharilyn prove it)?That the president made a mistake?Yes, he admitted it, it’s in the news.That presidents and comedians are different?That message didn’t come through in your initial posting.Something else?

    Reply
11. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    March 21, 2009 at 4:55 am

    That the president will get cut a break.But he shouldn’t.That comics rarely get cut a break.That they should.

    Reply
12. Sharilyn says:

    March 21, 2009 at 5:03 am

    Never have I so badly wanted to be told WHY i’m wrong. Anyone reading this is free to take a stab at it.

    Reply
13. myq says:

    March 21, 2009 at 5:06 am

    Thanks for the straightforward answer, sincerely.Follow-up question:What form does this break for the president take?Every article I read about the situation talks about people being disappointed in him, about him letting people down, about a girl with Down’s syndrome being sad…Plus the fact that he apologized immediately (before it even aired).If this is what getting cut a break looks like, what would it have looked like if he WASN’T cut a break?How would you like to see this play out?

    Reply
14. John says:

    March 21, 2009 at 5:43 am

    This reminds me of the situation when Don Imus made an “off-hand” racial comment, that he meant to be a joke. He later apologized for the gaffe, but was relentlessly persecuted by Al Sharpton and others until he was removed from both his radio and T.V. shows. They simply would not let it go until he was punished. Imus is an entertainer, a radio personality (who has done standup), comments like that from him should be expected. But from the president…I think not. And anyone who supported the punishment Mr. Imus had to endure should also support the same treatment of Mr. Obama. If not you should sit down in a quiet place and ask yourself why? What was the difference, really?

    Reply
15. myq says:

    March 21, 2009 at 6:30 am

    Mr. Imus was fired by the people he worked for.President Obama works for us. If you want him fired for this, write your congressperson, no?These situations are almost entirely distinct.Obama apologized before it even his comment even aired, actually felt bad about hurting feelings with a comment intended only to disparage himself, and had his apology accepted.Imus is an actual racist with a long history of jerkiness who certainly intended to disparage others, and did not have his apology accepted.

    Reply
16. YouTube says:

    March 21, 2009 at 7:13 am

    I’d like to see some statistical data about bowling averages. I’d like the averages of regular civilian bowlers and Special Olympic bowlers.<>IF<> it turns out that the average Special Olympic bowler has a lower average than civilian bowlers, then The President was merely making a statistical reference to his ability in comparison with that of Special Olympians and, thus, no one need be offended.It’s just numbers people… How can correctly referencing numbers be offensive?Ryan Stouthttp://www.ryanstout.nethttp://www.myspace.com/ryanstout

    Reply
17. YouTube says:

    March 21, 2009 at 7:32 am

    Turns out, the answer I was looking for was right here:http://www.slate.com/id/2214316/Obama’s average – 129 2007 Special Olympians’ Average – 108 Typical non-pro bowler – 160 However, in 2003 the top average of one particular Special Olympic Bowler was 182.So, Obama was still bowling better than Special Olympians and, thus, he shouldn’t have to apologize; statistically, the numbers back his statement.Ryan Stouthttp://www.ryanstout.nethttp://www.myspace.com/ryanstout

    Reply
18. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    March 21, 2009 at 3:44 am

    To Sharilyn:

    We found the gaffe to be not “delicious,” but rather crass.

    Indeed we are entitled to our opinion of the man.

    And who wouldn’t agree that there are bigger and more important issues? Which of them, however, relates directly to comedy?

    The gaffe took place on NBC’s “Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Leno is a comedian and the unfortunate statement was made in the form of a “joke.” It is germane to our website. It is a blog about standup comedy. We are not the Financial Times.

    We are baffled. Since we posted the video and the subsequent followup posting, we have been “accused” of being republican (see Guy MacPherson’s comment) and it is now alleged that our recent posting was motivated “purely by our political views.”

    All the while, we made points that are totally defensible, perfectly reasonable and thoughtful as judged by any criteria.

    If you don’t accept that this post was “anything other than a creative way to draw more attention to the Leno slip-up,” then you are the one who is motivated purely by politics or ideology.

    If we are delighted, it is because, for the past 12 months or so, the MSM has been carrying one quote after another from comedians, writers and others that have disappointed us. Standup comics have conspired in portraying us all as incapable of doing what we do best, as unwilling to do what the public depends upon us to do. And in that time, we have never been more disappointed in them as we have been over the past year or so.

    It has nothing whatever to do with ideology, but with a creeping feeling that this time, the American people will be let down by the folks who make the jokes.

    Professional comedians have been saying that it’s nearly impossible to make fun of this man. We have countered with a series of posts, the underlying narrative of which is, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

    The American Comedian has demonstrated that he hasn’t the will.

    Perhaps now he might.

    That is delicious.

    Reply
19. Guy MacPherson says:

    March 21, 2009 at 8:51 am

    To be clear, Shecksters, I didn’t “accuse” you of being Republicans; I said, “I sense at least one of you is a Republican, given many of your posts. And that’s all well and good.”

    Does it matter what your political affiliations are? Not to me, it doesn’t. (I still enjoy Dennis Miller’s stand-up act, which I saw again last week.)

    Do you think your political beliefs played any role in the post? At all? A little bit maybe? And there’s nothing wrong with it if they did. It’s completely understandable. It’s better than pretending it was completely neutral.

    But I do recognize I might be mistaken and have misread other posts of yours because I read them through my political prism.

    To the gaffe now: I don’t see how it was all that offensive. He bowled a low score. It was a comparison. A clumsy one, for sure, but not offensive. Mentally challenged athletes don’t perform as well as others, on average. Yes, he was going for a laugh (and, as you’ve noted in the past, politicians shouldn’t even try), but don’t make it out to be something more than it was. Relax, your time will come. There’ll be bigger gaffes than this (just as there were with Bush).

    I think it was more a case of it being a red-flag phrase that, no matter how you contextualize it, unless it’s in glowing terms, people will get up in arms over it without listening to the specifics. I don’t like it when comedians can’t get away with it, and I don’t like it when regular people can’t, either. Listen to what’s being said, not just the individual words.

    Reply
20. Shaun Eli says:

    March 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Let’s see, the president said a dumb thing, he apologized for it– the apology itself wasn’t public but it was released to the public. I mean, he wasn’t going to call up all the Special Olympics bowlers personally, he called the head of the organization. Was it a joke? Sure. But it was a joke at the expense of our country’s most vulnerable. If he’d said his bowling skills were as bad as the L.A. Clippers nobody’d care, probably not even any of the six Clippers fans.This is maybe why Eddie Brill, who books comics for Letterman, told me that Letterman doesn’t want comics who make fun of the less fortunate. Subway riders, sure. But not the homeless.Let’s move on. We’ve all said dumb things. Most of us haven’t said them on national television.And this is why Obama’s the first sitting president to appear on the show. Don’t you think, back to Steve Allen, that The Tonight Show would’ve loved to have Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43…There’s a good reason why their advisors have probably said “Are you out of your mind? Don’t go on a late-night talk show…”Shaun Elihttp://www.BrainChampagne.com

    Reply
21. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    March 21, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    More on BowlingGate!

    (We should have a graphic, just like the news outfits do!)

    To Ryan Stout:

    Nice research! We haven’t clicked through to the Slate piece (perhaps we’ll look it up when they upload Camille Paglia’s next essay… or is that Salon? Which does Hitch write for? We always confuse the two– they each begin with and “S,” the each have five letters and the only thing worth reading in either one is a spectacularly incendiary, but thought-provoking essayist that we don’t always agree with but love nonetheless!)

    But we must say if Obama’s “averaging” 129, we’ll eat his score card! (We suspect they’re fudging– or they assume he’s only bowled/scored ONE game, thereby giving him the 129 average figure. If you’ve only done it once, then we suppose that, technically, that would be the average!)

    On other matters:

    The Halves of the Staff each did one of those online surveys once. Its aim was to figure out which ideological classification the survey taker fell into. We turned out to be nearly identical– no surprise, considering that we spend 24 hours/day together… No Carville/Matalin household this.

    It was determined that we were “Kennedy Liberals.”

    We only mention that because somehow ideology got dragged into the discussion.

    But ideology has nothing whatever to do with our posts. In fact, we go to great lengths to make certain that it does not. The process by which we compose our posts makes certain of that. We will often debate between ourselves for a long time before hitting “publish.” And we do so precisely because this is a website about standup comedy, not politics.

    Had we wanted to turn this post into a political blog, we suppose it would have been easy and we would have done it a long time ago, as politics is a hot topic these days.

    But we didn’t.

    However, when politics and standup intersect, we post about it, as we have for the past year or so regarding then-frontrunner/now-president Obama. And when we post on events at the intersection of politics and standup, some of our readers can’t help but view our posts through their own political prism, (as was acknowledged by FOS Guy MacPherson).

    The question is asked:

    “What form does this break for the president take?”

    Good question.

    Some of our readers– many of whom are comedians, most of whom are extremely savvy when it comes to matters of standup comedy– are actually maintaining that the president can make a joke and get a laugh, on national television, at the expense of the mentally retarded, apologize in private and that the incident will be/should be quickly forgotten. and that there’ll be no ramifications, for him or for others.

    In light of the hand-wringing over the last twelve months (about how difficult it was to make fun of the president), this might have been an excellent opportunity to examine just what folks were saying about the president and (maybe) just how wrong some folks had been about the president and how wrong they might have been about their ability to write jokes about him. (Their lack of “skill or will,” if you like.) An opportunity to ruminate on what Craig Ferguson articulated so well with his Scottish-inflected “Ooooh.”

    Or maybe that comics have been held to an unrealistically high standard and that the current occupant of the White House has been held to a surrealistically low one.

    Instead, we’re told that a nice, private apology over the phone is sufficient to make it go away. And we’re told that the president meant no harm.

    And we’re told that we’re bitter, we’ve been praying for a major gaffe on the part of the president and that we’ve been dying for an opportunity to grind some sort of ideological axe. And for good measure, we’re paranoid conspiracy theorists.

    Also, we’re told that we gleefully and ham-handedly drew attention to the gaffe in order to marinate in some sort of Schadenfraude. (When in fact, the video we embedded was of Keith Olbermann and Craig Ferguson– two entertainers not exactly known for their devotion to conservative causes. We (?) brought attention to it? We’re not the ones who delved into the gaffe on a segment of a show we host on MSNBC, a joint venture of Microsoft and General Electric Corporation.)

    The ensuing furor (if this can be labeled as such) sees a comedian, a journo and a comedian/journo:

    1. Excusing the president

    2. Assailing the folks who pointed readers to a video of someone analyzing the gaffe.

    3. Delving into the brains, motivations and ideology of the folks who ruminated on what this might mean to comedians in the near and long term.

    4. Totally dismissing everything we’ve written on the relationship between Obama and Standup Nation over the past year or so (and, in the process, proving everything we’ve said).

    To recap: Comedians, with the full cooperation of the press (and other influential people) have formed a protective bubble around the most powerful man on the planet. They defend him, they minimize his shortcomings, they attempt to intimidate anyone who has the temerity to point out that this might not be a healthy thing for democracy or for public discourse (or for comedy!) and– bonus– they imply that anyone who does point it out does so purely to score some sort of points in a vague, ideological game.

    If you weren’t concerned before Friday morning at 12:15 AM EDT, you should definitely be paying attention now.

    Reply
22. JFK says:

    March 22, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Dear Shecky, Everone who posted an opinion on this has a nice viewpoint. Great topic. and thank you for not letting people turn this into a Political forum. Even if you or anybody else has conservative leanings do not apologize – you are allowed to have any opinion you want. if you are open minded than let that come thru. I think the Obama comment was a simple ” trying to be funny ” comment. But honest to God. to all the comedians who turned Bush into monotonous Dan Quayle/ Dumb Blonde Punchline. Honest to God. If Bush would have said that- they would have had him roasting on a pit. But the best part is -watching how the media deals with it. Instead of chastizing Obama for it (Which I accept- he’s human and made a boo boo- hey we all make mistakes. I don’t hate him)but watch- to deflect it- they will bring up some Palin comment. or Limbaugh or O’reilly statement. but still- he said it. Whats good enough for the goose …. So what if someone from Schecky is a repub. Thats evil? And that means Obama was tricked into saying it? Look what Politics has done to comedians.EG- Janeanne Garafolo -has gone off the deep end, calling Repubs evil and stupid (Like George Will, William F Buckley and Winston Churchhill- those maniacs!)

    Also – yes she is allowed to do that but man… Mort sahl and Will Durst are comedians first and Fair. I wouldn’t condemn President Obama for it but -hey if Bush would have said that he’d be selling iceberg lettuce on the NJ Turnpike by exit 7-A by now. But thank you for having a nice discussion on your site for this.

    Reply
23. Kent says:

    March 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Boy, you guys sure know how to stir the pot. I haven’t seen Shecky with this much impassioned activity since, well, forever.

    Note to self: Scratch comedy and go with the political blog if you want web traffic.

    Okay, let me dive right in. Your loyal readers aren’t 5-year-olds. To say that this post is “even-handed” and apolitical is, at best, a stretch given the tenor of Traci’s solo venture “Road Atlas Shrugged” with regard to President “Oprahbama” and Vice President “Bidumb” and, at worst, condescending and disingenuous.

    Granted, the two of you have resisted overt political interjections and maintained Shecky’s focused analysis on stand-up. But your sudden coming out as “Kennedy Liberals” does seem to fly in the face of assertions on The Female Half’s blog that she believes in a “strong military, lower taxes and smaller government…school choice and is opposed to universal healthcare.” And, to use the paper-thin argument that the initial post is “germane” to Shecky in part because the gaffe occurred on a talk show whose host is a comedian implies that you would have nothing to say if this were to have happened on let’s say the Today Show or in passing to a reporter. Really? Come on. As my dad used to say, “I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.”

    But, then again, you did refer to the gaffe as a “joke”, which is your speciality and, in essence, what Shecky is all about. So, for the sake of argument, and to move this comment along, let’s assume the initial post was even-handed, apolitical, and germane and you both are Kennedy Liberals.

    What doesn’t seem to jibe for me is your statement, “Only the dumbest and/or thinnest skinned people will be “affected by our words!” Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE JOKES.” Apparently it’s pretty obvious Obama’s remark was a joke, given that you continually refer to it as such. Oh, wait, I get it. He’s the POTUS, and you are “COMEDIANS!” And, I agree; there is a difference.

    But the innuendo seems to be that a sense of humor and its use should be left to COMEDIANS, preferably professional.

    I think we can agree there are plenty of wildly funny people who aren’t comedians. To imply that they should, as you put it in a July 06, 2006 post “Leave the joking to the pros, Joe” is like saying you shouldn’t attempt serious. Or politics. Or painting because you’re not professional painters. Perhaps humor should come with a warning label: CAUTION. THIS MAY OFFEND OR BE TAKEN OUT CONTEXT OR MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISREPRESENTED OR SIMPLY NOT GOTTEN. And, of course, the obligatory MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS.

    The moral here is: sometimes when you open your mouth shit comes out. Use with caution.

    And, “the president shouldn’t be making cracks that ridicule the mentally retarded.” Agreed. And, the President shouldn’t massage the shoulders of the female German Chancellor, and the Vice President shouldn’t shoot people in the face. But put it back in context (See July 06, 2006 article again “Context is everything”). Obama’s intent was to disparage himself, to ridicule his incompetence at bowling. HE was to step on the banana peel, and instead he stepped in a steaming pile of crap. It was a “gaffe” (your word, first sentence). And, gaffe, by definition, is unintentional, a blunder.

    To say that the president is cut a break while comedians rarely get cut a break is a spurious analogy. You say comedians intentionally offend. It’s premeditated and unrepentant. So, why should they be cut a break? The president’s gaffe (your word again) by definition was unintentional. That’s why murder and manslaughter have different sentences – malice aforethought.

    Unless you believe there’s something more nefarious here – like Obama actually hates the mentally handicapped or, as Traci calls them on her blog, Joe Bidumb and “his kind.” Or maybe Obama boosts his ego by belittling the less fortunate. I can picture him standing in the oval bathroom, looking in the mirror, giving himself a wink, and saying, “Oh baby, you’re no retard.” Personally, I think we’ll discover the true nature of this man when he relaxes into his next tv appearance and talks about trailer-trash or midgets or the faggy pages that flutter around the White House lawn or how he and Sasha and Malia like to go gimp-tipping.

    So, let’s return to Shecky’s roots that are “dedicated to the glorification of standup comedy” and perhaps turn Obama’s gaffe into an exercise in joke writing.

    I’ll start.

    Listen, Jay. I’m so bad at bowling, my ball needs training wheels.

    Eh.

    How about… Jay, I will say this. I’m a better bowler than Cheney is a marksman.

    Or… Jay, I haven’t bowled much since I was in league with Bill Ayers.

    Or…I’m a little out of my element when I’m not walking on water.

    That’s all I got.

    Oh, and another thing. I completely disagree with your statement “Comedians… are EXPECTED to offend.”

    Comedians aren’t expected to offend. They’re expected to be FUNNY. Sometimes a comedian’s sense of humor is offensive, but the funny better outweigh the offense. I think it was Woody Allen who said (I’m paraphrasing), “Dirty and funny is funny. Dirty and not funny is child molestation.” And, who wants to pay to see child molestation?

    And, lastly let me address your 4 point furor synopsis, synopse by synopse:

    1. Really? I think the consensus is: Let the punishment fit the crime. Should he apologize? YES. Should he invite a Special Olympian to White House and be publicly humiliated at the hands of a far superior bowler? SURE. Should he adopt a Downs Syndrome baby? Why not.2. “I love you guys dearly.” “I adore you guys.” “I’ve religiously read every word you guys have written/printed…” “Thanks for the straightforward answer, sincerely.” “Does it matter what your political affiliations are? Not to me, it doesn’t.” Assailed? Or is that just verbal histrionics?3. Again “Does it matter what your political affiliations are? Not to me, it doesn’t.”4. The Daily Show does a pretty good job poking Obama and his administration (e.g. Your own post “Let the torrent begin… maybe?”). Chris Rock’s point wasn’t that Obama is untouchable or off limits, but that it’s hard to make fun of him right now. He even says when the interviewer asks will it get easier, “Of course, as time goes on. At some point he’s going to — there’s always slip-ups.” And, here we are. Listen, your contempt for the Standup Nation and its unwillingness to poke fun at Obama or its conspiracy to protect him is palpable. But as the saying goes, “Don’t SHOULD all over yourself.” Are you not a part of the Standup Nation? You are standup comedians, no? So, get the ball rolling. Write some Obama jokes. Don’t just sit back idly and complain that others “have conspired in portraying us all as incapable of doing what we do best.” Your homework assignment: 10 Obama jokes.

    And, lets not forget that it was Jesus who first referred to the Sadducees as a “friggin’ bunch of water-heads.” Two thousand years later and still no apology.

    Damn, this is long. Sorry. I just got rolling.

    Reply
24. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    March 23, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Thanks, Kent, for the comments.

    “To say that this post is “even-handed” and apolitical is… condescending and disingenuous.”

    We beg to differ. We simply stated (with little exaggeration) that the pres said something stupid on TV and that (judging from past performance) some folks will seek to minimize the offense. (Which happened.) And that’s good news for comics– because, after all if the pres can make a offensive joke in a high-profile situation and get off the hook, well, we comics should be able to as well.

    Of course, the subtext is that we’re 1) disappointed in the press and other folks who seek to protect the pres and 2) we’re not hopeful that this will change the current woeful situation in which the nation’s standup comics and talk show hosts are, with some exceptions, reluctant (for a variety of reasons, some of which are plausible, some of which are disingenuous) to make jokes about the president (as has been standard procedure since at least the era of Will Rogers).

    But, if that’s not even-handed or apolitical, we’re not up to speed on the definition of either term.

    As for taking issue that we might not be “Kennedy Liberals,” we would respectfully refer you to any of a number of books (Seymour Hersh’s “Dark Side of Camelot” being a good one) that refocus and clarify just what JFK stood for (as opposed to the mythology that has sprung up in the decades since his assassination). Or, to put it another way, strong military, lower taxes, smaller goverment is not out of line with JFK at all. (We answered the questions in the survey as truthfully as possible and it seemed rather extensive and scientific. If the results seems baffling, we might remind you that, in the past 40 years, the “center” has moved.)

    “And, to use the paper-thin argument that the initial post is ‘germane’ to Shecky in part because the gaffe occurred on a talk show whose host is a comedian implies that you would have nothing to say if this were to have happened on let’s say the Today Show or in passing to a reporter.”

    Paper-thin? Not at all. Had the incident occurred on Today, we might have commented on it, but in a different way. (We had planned to comment on it one way or another. The “joke”– and the fact that it was done on Tonight AND the fact that we’ve been commenting a lot on the new president’s relation to late-night talk show hosts– made it all but impossible for us to ignore it, though.)

    You continue:

    “But the innuendo seems to be that a sense of humor and its use should be left to COMEDIANS, preferably professional.”

    Actually, we say, “If you’re not a comedian, and you attempt humor, you should be very careful, very bland, cautious. And this goes doubly for politicians.”

    There is a difference.

    The Female Half’s blog is a separate production with different goals and different methods– it’s more overtly political and it’s about essays and jokes. We go to great lengths here to avoid any overt political humor. We encourage others to have at it, if that’s their thing and we have never told anyone not to make jokes about anyone of any party. We’ve been encouraging folks to crack harder and more often on the new resident of the Oval Office, to be sure (if that’s their thing). But we have never told anyone to lay off the Bush jokes. In fact, on one occasion, we noted that nearly all the comics at a recent JFL who attempted “Bush is dumb” jokes were ceasing to get the desired response. We didn’t tell them to stop– we chided them to <>write better ones!<>

    Of course, it’s up to the comic to do political stuff if he wants.

    As for “having at it” and writing our own– we have! And we’ve said so in the pages of this magazine. We said that they’ve been received well (by a variety of audiences, some diverse, some predominantly black, some predominantly white), and we related this experience because, even though we don’t fancy ourselves political humorists, we figured that we might as well “lead by example.”

    Our experiment taught us that it’s possible to make jokes about President Obama. That it’s possible to write jokes that touch upon his manner, his race and his policies, his wife. And that these jokes, if written well, elicit a genuine and hearty response, which is, near as we can tell, free from any malevolence.

    As for comedians being expected to offend, let’s be clear: By offend, we don’t mean OFFEND, we mean that nearly every joke to work, somebody’s gotta get hurt. It may be a bruise, it may be a mild pinch, it may be a severed limb. It might be a priest, it might be a rabbi, it might be a jew, it might be the family dog, the sales clerk, the guy in the front row. It might be the comedian delivering the joke… this, of course, would be self-deprecating humor.

    Did we say he SHOULD offend? No. But it should be expected. Otherwise folks will be hit on the back of the head.

    Folks who like comedy understand that there’s always a victim. Folks who understand that there’s always a victim (and acknowledge that a good deal of comedy requires it) like comedy. So folks who understand comedy are never surprised when some rudeness occurs.

    Conversely, folks who don’t understand that comedy often has (or requires) a victim, don’t like comedy. So folks who don’t understand comedy are surprised when someone is the butt of a joke.

    (Insert usual disclaimers that the joke must be well-written… duh!)

    But that’s all beside the point.

    What is the point is this:

    When we post about some things (like the new president getting off the hook and the bubble being reinforced), we may betray some weariness, some mild disappointment, some frustration. But it’s not rooted in any ideology or partisanship.

    It is instead, a continuing frustration and disappointment as comedians.

    As we have stated before: The most powerful man in America (indeed in the world) should be the object of our attention (if that’s your thing, of course)… and he should be so not because he is of one party or another, but because it’s the way things work.

    Once again, we cite Jerry from the “Yada Yada” episode of “Seinfeld,” (we paraphrase): When asked if, as a Jew, he was offended that his dentist converted to Judaism so he could tell Jewish jokes, he said, “I’m not offended as a Jew, I’m offended as a comedian.”

    To put it another way, we aren’t offended as any kind of partisan (despite what some readers might contend), we’re offended as comedians.

    Reply
25. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    March 24, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Thanks, Kent.We’re no longer accepting anonymous comments. But we made an exception with yours. But just this last time!Our policy from here on out is not to accept anonymous comments.Thanks!

    Reply
26. Kent says:

    March 24, 2009 at 3:47 am

    Oh, THAT Kennedy. I thought you guys were JAMIE Kennedy Liberals. Context certainly IS everything. Points taken and beautifully articulated as usual.

    I’m still not completely on board with your “offend” treatise. But that’s okay; I might be, dare I say, SLOW.

    I guess my problem is the word itself. For me a better word than OFFEND is TARGET. Comedians are expected to TARGET. Their jokes target beliefs, trends, people, systems, things cherished, things taboo, etc..

    Now, if TARGET is what you meant when you said, “Comedians, on the other hand, have license to do so and are EXPECTED to…” and when the elder comic said, “Someone’s gotta slip on the banana peel” (i.e. someone has to be the target) then, Hallelujah! I’m with you, and we can send this topic to the archives.

    As to Obama’s gaffe, it should be clear to any impartial thinker with even the tiniest grasp of the English language that the TARGET of “It was like Special Olympics, or something” is IT (his bowling) and not Special Olympics. Granted, he ham-mouthedly pulled a group (that some feel protective of) onto the banana peel with him and therein lies the OFFENSE. His target wasn’t offensive; his clumsy poke at the target was.

    Woody quote make over: “Painful and funny is funny. Painful and not funny is herpes.” And, believe me, nobody would pay to get herpes.

    Reply