11/05/2008 12:19:00 PM
11/03/2008 11:37:00 AM
- It's the opposite of satire -
For all the admirable traits one might possess, there are those to which he or she will never come close. In the case of Ben Affleck, comedic dexterity is one such untenable trait.
Ben Affleck's over-the-top Olbermann routine on SNL last night was funny at first, but quickly unraveled into some desperate, over-the-top, Monster Truck-like screechfest. I initially thought he was trying to lay down some decent satire; he started off rather subdued. But as the skit progressed I saw it becoming more and more absurd, and finally I realized I was witnessing a popping of the imitation-inflation bubble that Dana Carvey and others so effectively flirt with, but never burst.
Consider the impressionist: the comedian whose imitation finds a broad line between reality and exaggeration, and pushes its edges. Dana Carvey, an SNL cast member from fifteen years back, was a master at it. In his "McLaughlin Group" spoofs, he would amplify his impersonation of the grumpy PBS host, John McLaughlin, right up to the point of oversaturation, and then pull it back just a bit. "WRONG!" he'd belt at (the portrayers of) Jack Germond or Eleanor Clift, and then roll into an exaggerated description of the range of his next question's "1 to 10" scale. Most of Carvey's character imitations pushed beyond subtlety, but as he himself once pointed out his were not simply impersonations, but impressions. Exaggeration is part of the formula.
Contrast this with the satirist's domain. His is a much tougher balancing act (I never quite got it down; see this page or this other one for a couple examples of my satirist days), and usually only effectively done by the true masters. Effective satire fools many audience members -- think This is Spinal Tap, a movie whose theater success was smothered by the fact many thought it was a real documentary about a rock band they'd never heard of. Not exactly the place for satire, you won't see it too often coming from SNL.
And, in terms of comedic delivery, Affleck was all over the map. Like a blind man trying to land a C-5 on an aircraft carrier.
As the sketch passed its halfway point, Affleck jumped overboard, head first, flailing and twitching and emoting to a point that apparently made a lot of the audience uncomfortable -- there's plenty of heavy laughing, but notably only by a fraction of the audience.
Overdoing exaggeration in character impressionism is like cooking up a great pot of chili, but then adding waaaay too much salt. There's really nothing you can do once you've exceeded a recipe's maximum allowable salinity level.
Obviously the sort of right winger who regularly watches fake wrestling and bass fishing TV shows will have found the impression hilarious, but I have to wonder why SNL has never done such a warped exaggeration of Bill Orally, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Is Olbermann really considered that far out, whereas O'Reilly, Rump Leakage, and Hannity are not? If so, why is Olbermann outrating Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity these days? Why hasn't Limbaugh ever had a successful TV show (remember, Limbaugh has miserably failed in his attempts to attract a TV audience)?
In reality it was just another oversaturated impression by someone ill-equipped to try this sort of thing. Ben Affleck is not exactly the sharpest comedic knife in the drawer.
Olbermann thinks the routine was hilarious (or, at least, he says so) -- maybe he's doing a Sarah Palin and pretending the skewering didn't offend him. The most likely scenario has Olbermann a bit offended by the routine, though smart enough to realize the value of a good roasting. As we all know, regardless how devastating it was, the skit has elevated Olbermann to the status of someone imitated on SNL -- an acknowledgment of his cultural importance.
Watch out, Chris Matthews, there's a new Sheriff in MSNBC-ville.
..!..
11/01/2008 11:53:00 AM
10/26/2008 12:16:00 PM
10/24/2008 10:59:00 AM
Pensacola is the reddest of GOP-lovin' towns in Florida, and it'll probably vote 2/3 in favor of Johnny Senile and Sarah McNuts. But seven thousand openly Democratic Pensacolians is a big day for the world.
Naturally, I take credit for this development. Well, one seven-thousandth the credit: my mom was one of the proudly pro-Obama Pensacolians to support our next First Lady. All these years of my pointing out the obvious defects of Monkey Boy and his evil administration have made a difference.
Actually, Mom knew W was a monkey the day she first witnessed him mangle the English language. But at least now she's proudly bearing her political stripes on the outside. In Pensacola. Like thousands of others... supporting a black man. This is a big deal.

When I was a kid, three of Pensacola's (then) four public high schools were forcibly desegregated. We're talking the early 1970s. The KKK rallied at Escambia High School, during the Carter administration, to protest this desegregation (and the renaming of the school's mascot from 'Rebel' to 'Gator'). So just imagine how backwards things must've been during the 50s and 60s. When Mom was a kid.
Not long ago you'd be in trouble if you had to find a white southerner talking positive about black Democrats. Political correctness in Dixie runs... that is, used to run counter to the model Limbaugh et al constantly lament.
And Barack Obama is changing that.
Now it's your turn. Talk to your parents, your grandparents, aunts and uncles. They're not as grumpy as you might think.
..!..
10/13/2008 07:46:00 AM
- Unlike Bill Ayers, G. Gordon Liddy is a convict. A federally-convicted felon, he spent four years in prison before (incredulously, no doubt) being pardoned by Jimmy Carter.
The significance is this - Liddy is a close friend of John McCain's.
What's really sick is Liddy hosts a popular talk show from a DC-area radio station. The entire right wing pals around with domestic terrorists.
But you already knew that.
10/11/2008 02:38:00 PM
Is Sarah Palin Guilty or Not Guilty?
The quick answer -
She's guilty on count 1, not guilty on count 2.
For a deeper perspective, a primer is apparently needed (even some guy claiming to be a lawyer on Daily Kos muddled the report's findings).
SO here it is, as simple as I can make it:
| THE PLAYERS: Sarah Palin | |
| CHARGE ONE: Palin illegally pressured Monegan to fire Trooper Wooten (Monegan refused). | CHARGE TWO: Palin subsequently illegally fired Monegan for refusing to fire Wooten. |
| STATUS: GUILTY By pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten, Palin violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a).  She did not have the right to fire Wooten, nor to have him fired, and therefore is guilty of abusing her powers. | STATUS: NOT GUILTY Palin's motives for firing Monegan are irrelevant.  Whether the ugly divorce between her sister and brother-in-law Wooten shaped her decision to fire Monegan, she did have the right to fire Monegan at will. |
..!..
10/11/2008 12:31:00 PM
The Alaska state legislature is headed up by the woman you see here - Lyda Green.  As Senate President, Ms. Green could initiate impeachment hearings against Sarah Palin (check out Section 20).  You know, the "lady" who has just been found guilty of abusing her power.
Would Lyda Green be moved to impeach Palin?  Watch the video in my previous entry for the obvious answer.  It'll be a beautiful, poetic-justice sort of day if Ms. Green moves in this direction.
..!..
10/11/2008 10:35:00 AM
10/11/2008 01:50:00 AM

Professor Marcello Truzzi coined the expression Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Carl Sagan popularized the slogan, a simplifying of the sentiment expressed by Hume and LaPlace in the 18th century: if you tell a tall tale, you need tall proof.
This slogan is familiar among skeptics who regularly challenge pseudo-scientific wackos to "put up or shut up."  If you want the claim to be taken seriously that a UFO landed in your back yard, you'd better have more than some kicked-up dirt to show for it.
The Truzzi axiom should also be familiar to Obama supporters.  If I were a pundit, I'd repeat it constantly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - put up or shut up.  McCain's claim that Obama is closely associated with terrorists is supported by no more than the predictably ordinary evidence that Obama had a couple minor encounters with a shady character or two.  Nothing more compelling than standard political encounters due to simple geographic proximity.
But pseudoscientist McCain isn't done just yet.  Today he's attaching a "challenge" to his extraordinary claims: prove us wrong... prove Obama is not closely tied to radical terrorists.  Naturally, this challenge is as logically flawed as the basic claim itself, since you can't prove a negative.  It's Logic 101.
If I claimed somewhere on Earth there exists a unicorn, I'd be nuts to expect the rest of the world to prove me wrong.  But this is exactly what McCain's doing - instead of "proving" Obama's a radical, Muslim-sympathizing, terrorist-loving, Manchurian candidate, he's challenged Obama to prove otherwise.
But we shouldn't be too concerned this appeal to pseudologic will change the minds of many voters.  Like everything else about McCain/Palin's recent efforts, their "terrorist" claims and embracing of negative proof will only be blindly accepted by the most neanderthal of the neocon voter base.  You know, the same logically-challenged bunch of cretins who believes the Bible is wholly and literally true.
While most Americans probably don't know who Truzzi was, most understand the extraordinary maxim in their bones.  And most understand the absurdity of looking for negative proof.
McCain is in a nosedive, and I'm loving every minute of it.
..!..
10/09/2008 11:39:00 AM
Dude, this is awesome.
Andy Martin, to which Hannity devoted one of his shows, has called Israelis "Slimy Jews" and thinks the Holocaust was a good idea.
"You'll admit you're anti-semitic?"
HA!
I bet Hannity had to change his drawers afterwards.
Like Rachel Maddow said tonight, Gibbs didn't do anything superhuman. He remained calm, stated his case numerous times, and never let the poodle nipping at his pant leg bark louder than he.
Shemp Hannity was rightly BITCH-SLAPPED.
..!..
10/08/2008 11:57:00 AM






