Who offends you says more about your sensibilities than what was said

I don’t doubt there are some people out there who are more bothered by Stephen Colbert these days than by Raul Labrador. Although if you’re one of them, I’d argue you are what is wrong with our society these days.
 

Who bothers you more -- Colbert ...

For those of you who don’t pay attention to details, Colbert is a late-night television host who last week made a wisecrack on-air – the one that says President Donald Trump’s mouth is only good for servicing Russian Premier Vladimir Putin in a sexual manner.

WHILE LABRADOR is the member of Congress who tried justifying his vote in favor of the Trump-desired American Health Care Act last week by calling it a “lie” that anybody dies because of a lack of medical treatment.

I’ll be the first to admit that Colbert phrased his thought in a particularly crude manner; one that probably would appeal to those whose mentality never advanced beyond the level of a 12-year-old when it comes to sexual issues.

But the people who want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on Colbert for broadcasting profanity and perversion over the broadcast airwaves are just being ridiculous.

Colbert is guilty of the offense of telling a lame joke. Considering that he’s not a newscaster or commentator but an entertainer and comedian, that can be considered a “high crime and misdemeanor” of the celebrity world.

DING HIS LATE-NIGHT show a few ratings points, which will hurt the bottom line of how much money can be charged to advertisers whose spots air during his show. Anything more is overkill. Particularly since trying to censor him in any manner will only make him into a heroic figure for those people who think Donald Trump is a twit.

 

... or the Idahonian Labrador?

Considering that the whole Trump persona is based off a ridiculously pompous and absurd image, it is hard to believe that Trump himself would be bothered by this. He certainly has had more harsh criticism made about himself during his public life.

Or is it just that the particular image offered up by Colbert was a homosexual one? Whereas if people had implied Trump slept around with as many women as he could, THAT would be okay to the ideological right.

The people who voted for him despite the image that came out during the campaign last year of a guy who thinks it’s appropriate to reach out to women by literally REACHING OUT and grabbing them by their genitalia. While perhaps also planting a Tic-Tac-laced kiss on their lips without their consent?

 

PEREZ: Speaking the truth?!?

PERSONALLY, THIS WHOLE matter sounds less like reality and more like an old Beavis and Butthead sketch. Think about it?

BUTT-HEAD: “Heh, heh heh, heh heh, Beavis, you’re such a cock holster (the actual term Colbert used to describe Trump).”

BEAVIS: “Shut up, you butt-munch! Heh, heh heh, heh heh.”

I feel more stupid just for having written those lines. I’m sure you’d like to get back the seconds of time you took to read them. It’s all so trivial.

BY COMPARISON, THERE is that moment expressed Friday at a Town Hall forum by Labrador, who has served in Congress from Idaho since being elected in 2010. When questioned about how GOP ideas about health care reform would result in some losing medical treatment, Labrador tried to go on the defensive, but failed miserably.

Is our society now reduced to Trump's level...

“No one wants anybody to die, that lie is so indefensible,” he said, before moving on to the part that gained him national attention and probably will be the most memorable thing he’ll ever say in public life. “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”

Actually, that’s exactly why some people will die if we try to make it so bureaucratically complicated for people to get treatment without putting themselves into life-defining debt. And if you argue they can just turn to hospital emergency rooms, keep in mind that such a circumstance is exactly the problem that would be resolved by reforming the way healthcare is paid for.

... or are we now Beavis & Butt-head

The man is just too clueless to comprehend what he’s talking about. Which bothers me more than Colbert or Democratic National Chairman Tom Perez, who in recent weeks has been criticized for using profane language when talking about the healthcare reform debate.

AS PEREZ PUT it during one Democratic rally last month, “I have a name for (Republican healthcare reform), it’s ‘I don’t care,’ because the Republican leadership doesn’t give a shit about those who are suffering.”

The sad thing is that Perez’ potty-mouthed talk may be the most honest comment we’ve heard about the issue, and that’s the intellectual level we’ve dropped to as a society.

One that the ultimate morons of the 1990s, Beavis and Butt-head themselves, could comprehend!

  -30-

National notoriety for Second City?

Chicago is getting its share of national attention these days, what with our usual level of nonsense being capable of drawing the public’s mindset to our actions.

EMANUEL: Nation turns its eyes to you Monday

It didn’t help that the mayor of Minneapolis felt compelled to score points for his city at our expense with the issue of marriage being legitimate for gay couples in Minnesota – but not Illinois.

ALTHOUGH STEPHEN COLBERT (the actor who does a parody of a right-wing obnoxious talk show host on the Comedy Central channel) decided to use our city’s urban violence problems for his cheap laugh of the week.

Both of those men managed to get their share of snickers at our expense. Although the laughter may not yet be done.\

Because it seems that our city’s very own mayor, Rahm Emanuel, is going on national television. No, not “Meet the Press” or some other network Sunday talk show. He is going to be on the “Late Night” program Monday.

Meaning Rahm-bo will be taking on David Letterman – who isn’t any kind of policy expert, but is more than willing to have political people on his program if he thinks they can be entertaining. Particularly if he can trip them up in their own double-talk.

OFFICIALLY, EMANUEL IS going on the program as part of a segment that is promoting a new documentary about the 20 living men who have held the job of U.S. presidential Chief of Staff.

Both Emanuel and Democratic gubernatorial dreamer William Daley have held that title. It would seem that Emanuel would be expected to reminisce a bit about his couple of years being the guy who ran the White House staff for President Barack Obama.

But once you get someone on camera, it can be easy for the topic to change and unrelated questions to come up.

Will Letterman try asking some serious public policy questions, just to see if by any miracle he can get a legitimate response from Emanuel? Would Hizzoner be the touchy type who loses his temper?

OR WILL HE become one of those obnoxious types who takes affront at the nerve of someone to question him, causing him to just clam up and say nothing?

I’m not predicting at this point how Emanuel will behave on national attention. Although let’s be honest, it could be very easy for him to behave in a less-than-appropriate manner that makes himself appear to be a complete cretin and the people of Chicago.

RYBAK: Stealing business from Illinois?

Not a bad moment for a guy who once was a weatherman in Indiana-noplace.

He certainly will have material to work with. Let’s be honest. We seem to be in a silly season cycle these days – even though our next election cycle officially has barely begun.

THERE IS MOCKABLE material to be derived from Chicago these days.

Take the spectacle of R.T. Rybak, the Minneapolis mayor who literally came to Chicago to make several appearances (including a live interview on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program) to tell gay couples they should travel north when they want to marry.

After all, they could have a nice ceremony, celebrate it up big, and it will be Minneapolis-based businesses that make money, rather than Chicago companies.

Rybak admits there isn’t really a huge economic boost for Minnesota from this. But he does get to “rub it in” the concept that Emanuel doesn’t have enough influence at the state government level to get gay marriage passed in Illinois – even though he’s very much on the record as favoring the concept.

COULD LETTERMAN DECIDE to poke some fun on this issue?

Or will he try to follow up on Stephen Colbert’s attempt to get a cheap laugh out of the number of murders this year in the city – which actually is down by 23 percent compared to 2012 and nowhere near to the level of slayings that occurred back in the late-1980s.

Colbert actually made a serious point by saying we are too lazy in our view on violent crime; all too willing to ignore it because we feel it doesn’t impact us!

As he put it while talking about whether the United States ought to use military force in Syria, “if America cared about shooting people, we’d be invading Chicago.”

WHAT HAPPENS IF Emanuel gets asked about this? WMAQ-TV reported on their web site how the mayor has ignored their own requests to get a reaction to Colbert.

Could we get a verbal explosion if Letterman decides he’s willing to give the one-time Second City (as in comedy troupe) understudy some attention on his own program?

Monday could become one of the few times when late night television actually becomes worth viewing!

  -30-

What did they think he’d say?

Perhaps it is only appropriate that a one-time member of the comedy troupe at Second City managed to get Congress all worked up into a frenzy with his recent appearance before a House of Representatives committee studying issues related to migrant laborers.

The last time that a Chicago-connected person managed to get a committee all worked up was probably back when Sammy Sosa said he didn’t speak English well enough to answer their questions about steroids use.

IF ONLY STEPHEN Colbert had taken the same silent treatment, nobody would be upset. Instead, Colbert showed us what a big mouth he has, and how he at heart is an entertainer – even when testifying before Congress.

Colbert, of course, is the guy whose career has peaked with the persona he plays on television – that of a parody of a conservative ideologue television talk show host who spouts off all kinds of stupid remarks that only a nitwit could agree with.

It is his schtick, just like his Comedy Central partner, Jon Stewart, plays the part of a television news anchorman as the forum for his own jokes.

So when I learn that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is seriously upset by Colbert’s appearance last week before a House committee (calling his comments “inappropriate”), I have to wonder what Steny is thinking.

GET A CLUE, Steny. Colbert did exactly what one should have expected of him. He played his part of a Republican blowhard who is willing to back anything that has the GOP label attached to it, and if it plays to the segment of the population that wants to think of migrant labor issues in terms of being “foreigners stealing jobs from real people,”

Anybody who thought that Colbert was going to give serious responses to questions put forth by the committee is ignoring two factors.

One is that he is the star of The Colbert Report, in which he plays a character. That character is what was brought before Congress. Two is that, what would Colbert know about migrant workers?

Even if he wanted to be seriously, he doesn’t have anything real to say.

IT MEANS THAT the real disgust on this “issue” ought to be directed (if anywhere) at the person who invited Colbert to appear before the committee, which he used as a chance to further his public persona.

For the record, that person was Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee that Colbert allegedly defiled with his physical presence.

The Christian Science Monitor newspaper reported that Lofgren had hopes that bringing in Colbert would create enough buzz that people would pay attention to the subcommittee, and perhaps even give some thought to the issues confronting migrant farm workers.

Instead, what will be remembered is the sight of Colbert testifying, under oath, that, “I endorse all Republican policy without question.” Which actually is something that would come from the mouths of those right-wing cable television blowhards who defile the airwaves every night much more than Colbert did for one afternoon last week in Washington.

NOT THAT LOFGREN has anything to worry about in terms of political backlash. She is liked in her congressional district, and faces only token opposition. She is returning to Washington following the Nov. 2 elections.

Of course, that goes to show how various members of Congress who are politically safe differ from each other.

People such as our own Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., do things such as file motions that could allow the DREAM Act (the measure relevant to the children of immigrant parents who don’t have a valid visa) to have a chance to come up for a vote some time this year.

Whereas Lofgren goes for the laugh, and lets the one-time Second City understudy to Steve Carell (remember “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”?) mock the Congress on its own turf.

POLITICALLY-INSPIRED COMEDY has come a long way from the days of Rich Little and Vaughn Meader, both of whom were impressionists whose routines were meant to get a chuckle (envision Meader as J.F.K. running through a list of bathroom toys for the first children, ultimately declaring that the inflatable rubber swan belongs to him).

Now, we get actual cracks on the policy questions and the ineptitude in which our elected officials conduct themselves.

What hasn’t changed is that the primary goal of a Little (who did so many impersonations of Ronald Reagan that I know find that schtick annoying) or a Colbert is that their primary goal is a laugh. They’re trying to entertain us.

Only instead of standing in front of a brick wall with a spotlight on himself while telling jokes, Colbert plays the part of a talk-show host who acts like a blowhard. Which is fine. It serves a purpose. But it also is why anyone who thinks they get their “news” from The Daily Show or Colbert Report is almost as big a fool as the members of Congress who thought Colbert was being serious last week.

I CAN’T HELP but think that the political people who are continuing to talk about this and rant and rage about how Colbert “embarrassed America” are going out of their way to grab sufficient lengths of rope by which to hang themselves.

Because you know Colbert, if not Stewart also, will take those snippets, edit them accordingly, and play them over and over for the cheap laugh that they’re worth.

  -30-