Rush To Judgement

One of the toughest gigs for a comedian is the White House Correspondents Dinner. Trying to make Democrats, Republicans, liberal and conservative reporters, and celebrities who don't read the newspaper, all laugh at the same time is even harder than getting John Boehner to smile. And your opening act is the President of the United States, who watches your show in a seat five feet away.

I thought Wanda Sykes did a great job Saturday night. She got steady, consistent laughs, and even some applause breaks. And when the crowd groaned on occasion, she got them laughing again by saying "Too much?"

The outcry about her Rush Limbaugh jokes ignored the fact that she joked about Democrats and Republicans and the President and Michelle Obama as well. And while critics focused on her morbid Limbaugh reference, they didn't mention her equally morbid reference to Presidential succession and Nancy Pelosi. And they left out the many witty jokes and insightful satirical remarks she made about torture and other topics.

Those who say Sykes went over the line with her Limbaugh jokes, should be asked how many times Limbaugh himself goes over the line with mean and often factually incorrect innuendo on his radio program. None of these critics are suggesting Limbaugh's words be silenced yet they think Sykes' jokes should have been censored.

Comedy is the most subjective of art forms. What one finds funny another might deem offensive. Case in point. Early in my career, I was performing on a show with Andrew Dice Clay, a nice guy whose stage persona includes material about women and ethnic groups, considered by many to be offensive. I am a political comedian who uses no "dirty" language and doesn't go after minority groups and women. Yet that night, I was hissed for my Reagan jokes and Clay got a standing ovation. That night, I was the offensive comedian.

I have worked with Wanda many times, and think she is a very talented comedian and a warm, funny person as well. Her humor tends to be blunt, pointed and in-your-face, as the Limbaugh lines attest to. She wasn't joking about September 11 itself, nor was she wishing for Limbaugh to die. These were jokes, over the top to be sure, but not over the line. Because the intent was to make people laugh, not to hurt anyone. And in the end, her jokes were the gift that keeps on giving for Limbaugh, who will milk her routine on the air for the next few weeks. Which is his right. Because both Limbaugh and Sykes are entertainers. To me, there is nothing remotely funny or entertaining about Limbaugh. And I find Wanda Sykes to be very funny, even if some of her jokes are not my kind of humor.

This is America folks. Laugh at what you think is funny. And if you're not laughing, turn the channel. But don't stop other people from laughing. Whatever we comedians say, in the end we're just men and women trying to make people happy.

But if you want to talk offensive and mean, let's go back to the 2004 White House Correspondents Dinner when President Bush narrated a slide show depicting him looking around the Oval Office for weapons of mass destruction. And like in Iraq, not finding any. The media assembled that night roared with laughter, as complicit then as they were in the run up to the war where they hardly challenged the Bush Administration's unfounded and manipulative case for war. There was little outcry then about President Bush making jokes about the fact that the whole basis for invading Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, was a false one.

Rush Limbaugh jokes may or may not be funny to you, but going to war under false pretenses and then joking about it, shouldn't be funny to anyone.

Torture Is A Four Letter Word

At the risk of being called a bad speller, I think torture is a four letter word. The outcry that greeted Fox anchor Shepard Smith's comments on The Strategy Room that "We're America, we don't f-ing torture", had more to do with uttering a four letter word, than courageously speaking the truth. When it comes to fundamental American values, Shep Smith knows that what's important is right and wrong, not right and left.

Contrast Smith's reasoned and principled views on torture to that of Sean Hannity. Hannity did a disservice to servicemen around the world but mocking the severity of waterboarding by agreeing to be "tortured" for charity. Our use of torture has been a rallying cry and recruiting tool for terrorists around the world, and exposes our own soldiers to the threat of being tortured themselves. Hannity probably also thinks playing video war games is the same as actually serving in the military, which he never did.

And what charity would want to benefit from the distasteful spectacle of a TV personality participating in a simulation of an act that is illegal under American and international law? The Dick Cheney Torture Fund? Hannity is smart enough to know that it's not torture if you're being doused with water by an intern on your staff, who you can be reasonably sure is not going to harm you. It's like watching a regular on a weekly TV series in a life or death situation. You know he's going to live to be on next week's show. If Hannity really wants to get the full waterboarding experience, he should have volunteered for "extraordinary rendition" from the Bush Administration and gone to a country like Syria. Maybe then he'd realize that waterboarding is torture and "enhanced interrogation" is getting good reception on your cellphone.

So thanks again Shep Smith, for telling viewers that torture is wrong, and America does not torture. And contrary to some captions accompanying the online video, Smith didn't "lose it" on The Strategy Room. He gained the moral high ground in the debate about what kind of country we want America to be.

Four letter words aren't obscene. But torture most certainly is.

Succeed, not Secede

Texas Governor Rick Perry hopes the notion of having Texas secede, will lead him to succeed in the GOP primary next year. And that, coupled with his refusal to accept certain Federal stimulus money, is what his rabble rousing performance at the April 15 tea parties is really all about.

Unlike South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whose similiar stance on the stimulus money is principled and thoughtful, although misguided, Perry is exploiting the legitimate concerns of his constituents to pander to a miniscule minority who want to secede from America, instead of working to make America succeed.

There is nothing more American than taking to the streets to protest something the U.S. government has done. Just as I proudly demonstrated against the Iraq War, Americans have the right to register their dissent with our economic policies. But urging your state to leave the country is literally un-American. And, contrary to what some have said, the Texas Constitution does not grant the right of Texas to secede. Here are a few reasons why Texas should not seceed.

If Texas secedes:

George W. Bush would be the first former President to become a foreign citizen.

The Dallas Cowboys would have to leave the National Football League. And no more Cotton Bowl. The Texas Rangers would be renamed the Texas Seceders.

If you're a country, you can't get away with a slogan: "Don't Mess with Texas". It's just not very diplomatic.

If Rick Perry is unqualified to be Governor, imagine what he'd be like as President.

And finally, there won't be any more Fourth of July barbeques from Dallas to San Antonio to Houston.

So c'mon Texas. Don't break up with us. Your country needs you.

Who Are You Rooting For?

You would think that, as a native New Yorker who doesn't participate in online pools, I would have little or no vested interest in who wins tonight's NCAA basketball championship game. Yet I still feel conflicted. As one who roots for President Obama to succeed, should I support his ESPN pick of the University of North Carolina? Or should my empathy for those affected by the devastating unemployment situation in Michigan, make me choose Michigan State?

Whoever wins tonight, our domestic and foreign crises will still be there tomorrow. But sports gives us a welcome respite from those looming issues, because at the end of the game, there is a clear winner. The losing team can't demand a recount, and no championship has ever been decided by the Supreme Court.

Such easy resolutions don't often occur in politics and diplomacy. When was the last time two countries reached a peace agreement after one meeting? Some countries like North Korea and Iran may play "hard to get", but with persistent, direct diplomacy, real progress towards peaceful coexistence can be made.

It might be more dramatic to heave a half court shot at the buzzer, but a slow, deliberate march up the court, with smart passing while waiting for the best shot, has a higher chance of success. That's the strategy our basketball loving President likes to follow. And even though I'm not one to wager on sports, or even make predictions for no money online, I'm betting on this President not only to win, but to play the game with skill, intelligence, class and respect.

And while we're at it, why not have online pools for things other than NCAA sports? How about predicting which global conflicts will end first? Wouldn't it be great if the Sports Book in Vegas covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd love to watch a bunch of bettors yelling, "Go Peace! C'mon you can do it! Negotiate! Go Peace!"

Now that's an online pool I'd be happy to be in.

A Comedian's Guide To The Economic Crisis

I never thought I would need an MBA to make jokes about the news. But for the past several weeks, both onstage and in The Strategy Room at FoxNews.com, I've been searching for the side-splitting humor in credit default swaps, derivatives, and other words I had never thought about, much less uttered in public. But then I realized the so-called "financial experts" who actually know what those terms mean, didn't know(or didn't want to know) about the conditions that led to the financial meltdown. In fact, the talking heads on the business networks are as accurate as TV weathermen, but not as likable. And when weathermen get the forecast wrong, we don't lose lots of money. We just get a liitle wet.

Just as I was understanding "toxic assets", they changed it to "troubled assets". Troubled assets sound like assets with emotional problems. I can hear a troubled asset saying "I was happy until I got caught up in that subprime mess. Now I'm in therapy three times a week." At least if you're a troubled asset, you still have friends. Toxic assets must be pretty lonely. Now they're called "legacy". The assets may still be troubled, but now they have a better chance of getting into a good college.

Good banks and bad banks confuse me too. I don't want to demonize the 99% of bank employees who are decent and hard working, but the last time there was a good bank was in "It's A Wonderful Life". What do banks do for us anyway? They give us the privilege of depositing our money there, where it earns a lot of money for the banks and not so much for us. Especially after those $39 returned check fees. With the exception of the small number of local and regional banks who played by the rules and deserve to be commended, what is a good bank anyway? Do you ever hear someone extoll the virtues of a bank on Facebook? "I LOVE CHASE! It's SO much cooler than Citbank!"

Everyone's talking about how we don't want "our money" going to AIG bonuses. First of all, the vast majority of AIG employees did their job well, and had no connection to those who committed the reckless, risky and unethical activity. The bad apples don't deserve a penny, and should have been fired immediately. But "our money?" Of course, technically it's our money, but we're not going to have to pay for those bonuses ourselves. Our taxes won't go up because of it. It would be another thing altogether, if you looked at your bank statement and you saw a whopping "Bailout Charge" on it.

I understand the populist rage over inappropriate compensation, but where were the tea parties to protest the trillion dollars spent so far on the Iraq War? Distorting intelligence and deliberately misleading the American people should have gotten more people angry enough to take to the streets.

People can disagree about President Obama's economic policies, but those who challenge his work ethic have it wrong. An intelligent, well-rounded person like our President is capable of working hard on every important issue, and still take a few minutes to do his NCAA bracket. And I'm glad he's been on TV a lot lately. In stark contrast, George W. Bush had one press conference in his first nine months in office.

When we're faced with something as difficult to grasp as our financial crisis, we need our President to talk to us, explain to us, and ultimately reassure us. And those troubled assets.

Defend Love, Not Marriage

Among the many things we're fighting for in this country, the defense of marriage should not be one of them. And I say that as a very happily married man.

And as unlikely as it sounds, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is exactly the right issue to bring liberals like myself, and conservatives together for a change. One change would be to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The only thing standing in the way of President Obama fulfilling this campaign pledge is his desire not to alienate already uncooperative Republican lawmakers.

This is the time for Obama to stand firm on an issue that means so much to so many of his most passionate supporters. And also a time for true conservatives to have their desire not to have government intrude upon our personal lives, apply to gay lives as well. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it would actually help Republicans broaden their base as well.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed during the Clinton presidency in 1996, approved by an overwhelming majority of Democrats as well as Republicans. It was the biggest display of bipartisan stupidity and hypocrisy Washington has ever seen. With all the domestic and international threats looming then, they considered marriage to be under attack, and declared that it only applied between a man and a woman. After the vote, some of them ran home to their bad marriages, or to the Mayflower hotel for illicit trysts.

One Republican congressman, Vito Fossella of Staten Island who voted for the bill, and who was a great champion of "family values", was forced from office when it was discovered that in addition to his wife and kids at home, he had another wife and kids near Washington. Apparently, Fossella's idea of family values was having as many families as possible.

The origins of marriage came out of purely financial considerations, so there is absolutely no "sanctity of marriage" to protect, as some sanctimonious Congressmen and Senators claim.

While marriage is not sacred, love is. And the right for every American to love freely is a basic and fundamental one that should be embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. And it follows rationally that same sex couples deserve the same health benefits and other rights that other couples enjoy now.

And hey, at $67 million a year to cover health benefits for same sex federal employees, it's practically a steal compared to other expenditures we're seeing these days.

But the cost of giving equal rights to all couples shouldn't be an issue.

Because you can't put a price on love.

Look Who's Talking

When President Obama said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.", apparently he was referring to House Republicans. While the President's extended hand was met by clenched fists by all but three Republicans in Congress, his diplomatic outreach is being received warmly abroad.

After eight years of virtually no diplomacy, which is a diplomatic way of saying the Bush Administration alienated allies and antagonized foes, a veritable sea change has come to our foreign policy. America is talking again. Secretary of State Clinton announced this week that high level talks will take place between the U.S. and Syria. This is in stark contrast to Bush's disdain for Israel and Syria's attempts at diplomacy. Bush's view was probably that, "Israel and Syria should not talk peace until they fully explore all their military options."

And talking about the Middle East, a place where less talking went on the past eight years than at a dysfunctional family dinner, the U.S. is doing a lot of talking. Clinton talked to Israeli President Shimon Peres, because she would have had to do a lot of talking if she talked to all 35 of Israel's political parties. One party actually merges Holocaust survivors with those wishing to legalize marijuana. Which shows that Israel, despite its pressing problems, still has a sense of humor.

And while Clinton met with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, she didn't talk to Hamas, because it is considered a terrorist group. People forget that not too long ago, Fatah was considered a terrorist group that shouldn't be talked to. So while it's good to talk to your friends, you have to also talk to your adversaries. Israel can talk to Canada if it has some hockey or health insurance related questions, but when it comes to peace they must talk to Hamas.

Conservatives were aghast when a "secret" letter Obama wrote to the Russian President was revealed. I guess it's not too secret when it's on the front page of every newspaper. The letter supposedly raised the possibility of the U.S. not putting missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic if Russia used its influence to get Iran to pull back from its nuclear ambitions. Besides the fact that many Poles and Czechs really didn't want the shield anyway, and that it might not even work and still cost billions, if Iran could be persuaded not to develop those weapons, there would be no need for a missile shield in the first place. And the Russian President must have been pretty impressed to receive a snail mail letter. Because President Obama knows you don't text Russia to negotiate with Iran. "Hey Dmitri, can u c what u can do about Iran? Thnx. B" Emily Post would be so proud.

"All talk, no action" used to be a derogatory term. But after eight years of disastrous actions with hardly any talk, our very diplomatic President is giving us change we can believe in, as well as talk about.