Reply #100: My Letter -- Just sent!! (I worked awhile on this one.)

[Sparkly]

Dear Mr. Cohen,

With all due respect, I think you found Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner not "funny" because you didn't get the jokes. You mention "the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently."

Your words perfectly describe Colbert's performance. The key to your misunderstanding is in your description of Colbert on his own show. You wrote that "on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness." That's not so. It's not about his "greatness" at all -- it's about a satirical view of rightwing media "personalities." The joke is about his character being a jerk, not having "greatness." The character itself is hyperbole, showing the absurdity of the rightwing, while simultaneously (and brilliantly) contrasting that with the truth. It's all about irony.

Here are just three quotes from Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Read correctly, there is no way they could be interpreted as as anything but "absurdity, contrast, and hyperbole."

"Every night on my show, the Colbert Report, I speak straight from the gut, OK? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument."
This is a joke about RNC campaign messages (and continual White House rhetoric) that relies on "gut" feelings, and downplays facts. (People "felt" Bush was strong and a war hero, while Kerry was weak and a coward, despite all facts to the contrary; people "felt" Bush is a regular, folksy Texan guy like themselves, even a "cowboy," despite all facts to the contrary; and people "felt" it was right to invade Iraq, despite all facts to the contrary. It's no accident -- in speech after speech, they were led to those feelings.)

"I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
This joke shows the absurd contrast between what the rightwing says about government in America vs. what it does; and further, what it says about the government in Iraq vs. what the reality is.

"He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."
This captures the absurdity of the truth behind Bush's "steadfast" aura. We have surpluses; that means we need taxcuts! - later - We have deficits; that means we need tax cuts! Or, the invasion of Iraq is unavoidable because they have WMD! - later - The invasion of Iraq was unavoidable, even if they never had WMD!

You referred to Colbert's "shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said." Purportedly? There's plenty of evidence that his jokes were based on truth -- Judith Miller on WMD, Bob Woodward's entire book (touted as great "access," based on 'everything the White House told him!'), Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorials reciting, sometimes word for word, government memos; and the obvious "message" that goes around verbatim in quick response to any questionable news story. (And I'm not even mentioning Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, Fox News or the Washington Times.)

"Speaking truth to power" is hardly a "tired phrase" to my ears -- we hear far too little of it. "Tired phrases" I hear include "turning the corner," "ongoing investigation," "enemies of freedom," "the world is safer," "9/11, 9/11, 9/11," etc...

You called Colbert a "bully" for taking "swipes" at the president, but you say certain swipes are acceptable -- it depends. What were Colbert's swipes about? Not Bush's arrests or past drug and alcohol use; not his alarming inability to speak coherently without a script, or breath-takingly simplistic answers to questions about complex issues; not his embarassing gaffes overseas, or his decidedly simian appearance and way of walking. Those, we might agree, would be "bullying." He may be unable to control or overcome these personal shortcomings. But as you point out, Colbert's so-called bullying and "mockery" were about "Bush's Iraq policy" and "domestic eavesdropping." THAT is what you consider over-the-top insulting, mockery and bullying?! Disastrous Iraq policy, and illegal, warrantless spying on American citizens? Those are weighty issues affecting all citizens, not matters for inappropriate personal insult and ridicule. Considering that, Colbert handled them lightly.

Finally, you characterized Colbert's joke about the Bush White House not sinking but rather soaring (when he said they were "rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg") as "mixed metaphor, and lame as can be." The metaphor is "rearranging deck chairs." This is NOT a mixed metaphor.

Given your inability to recognize and understand satire, irony, or even your own definition of a "funny person's obligation;" given your apparent difficultly recalling recent history and current reality; given your belief that hard satire on serious, deadly, costly, tragic blunders is inappropriate because it "insults" or "bullies" the one man who caused it (nevermind the millions who are suffering from it); and given your literary confusion over a simple metaphor -- well, I am baffled as to why you consider yourself qualified to be a columnist.

Ah -- how could I forget? You started your column opining, "I am a funny guy," and ended it declaring that Colbert "wasn't funny."

Now THAT is funny.

Sincerely,

(Sparkly)

(Edited to fix html discrepancies from my email.)