Libertarian Librarian

What is it with comedians that used to be funny who have now become political activists? Al Franken used to be funny. Now he's just kind of a nerdy little twit who has trouble talking anything but politics. George Carlin used to be VERY funny. Now he's just kind of a nerdy old guy ranting and raving about nothing much of anything. Dennis Miller used to be VERY funny, and while I still think he is funny, he's not as funny as he used to be. Margaret Cho never really was funny to begin with, but since she dove head first into the deep-end of the liberal pool, she has become actively annoying and stupid.

Bill Maher used to be funny, and his show Politically Incorrect was quite funny, and, from what I remember, fairly balanced in that it poked fun at politicians, idiots, and other "pundits" on both sides of the political spectrum. I watched Bill Maher's Real Time for the first time the other night, and it was spectacularly unfunny. He had Madeleine Albright on, and most of the segment consisted of him serving up softball questions so she could make unfunny commentary about how great Clinton (and by association herself) had been and how crappy Bush and his adminstration are. She tried to be funny, but she really just isn't. Neither was he. Then he had a panel consisting of Andrew Sullivan (who I was quite disappointed in), Michael McKean (you know, Lenny from Laverne and Shirley, and David St. Hubbins of This is Spinal Tap), and Kim Campbell, a former Prime Minister of Canada. Seemed like a good mix of folks, should be an interesting group of perspectives, and maybe even amusing.

Not so much. Maher starts with this lovely statement (or words very close thereto), "Okay, first off, grant me that, for some reason, conservatives are allowed to make really bizarre and stupid comments without taking as much heat from the media as liberals." Which, not surprisingly to anyone who has been reading here for any length of time, nearly made my head explode. To me, statements like that are just stunningly ridiculous, as liberal commentators (i.e., Michael Moore, Sean Penn, etc.) make all sorts of perposterous statements that get little or no heat, and sometimes props, from the media. Maher's example proving that conservatives get off easy? Pat Robertson, the nutjob preacher who is not taken seriously by anyone outside of his TV congregation. Robertson recently said that federal judges are, "...probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." I found dozens of editorials and websites denouncing Mr. Robertson, and outside of a white supremist site, nobody who seems to agree with him.

But I digress. So, Maher makes this huge blanket statement that, at best, seems based on sketchy evidence and, at worst, appears to have just been made up, and none of the panelists (Sullivan included, and he claims to be a libertarian/independent) offer even the most basic counter argument. You know, like saying, "Well, Fahrenheit 9/11 certainly had its share of politically questionable and explosive rhethoric and it not only didn't receive any media condemnation, it won a variety of awards." It was dreary and boring and I have difficulty believing it would appeal to anybody who wasn't already a dyed-in-the-wool liberal or a conspiracy theorist.

So, my two questions are, is Real Time supposed to be funny-- and if so, is it ever?-- and why do comedians who take political stances on one side or the other seem to get much less funny than when they either didn't care about politics or lampooned both sides?

Labels: Politics