Moving Past the Democrats

I’ll start off at a fairly obvious place: Cancel culture. What’s the relevance? Well, lots and lots of liberals/Democrats/leftists have hopped on this shortsighted bandwagon without even really thinking it through. They have also exploited it for political capital, finding it a convenient and safe way to appear moralistic with minimal effort. However, these types have seemingly hit a snag with a certain old codger named Joe Biden. He might be the Dem’s 2020 candidate, but he’s become the main reason I won’t vote in this election. Now, before you get fuming mad, let me explain why I’m not voting for him, and why I’m not voting for Democrats (and all of this will tie together, I hope).

By now, more people have heard reports regarding Biden’s past behavior, suggesting he may have sexually harassed or even sexually assaulted women. In a bit of blatant hypocrisy, Biden’s defenders have basically reversed the MeToo standards — you know, the ones they so heavily applauded when applied to Republicans, or certain male celebrities they felt needed to be taken down a peg. The idea was, of course, that these people needed to be “canceled,” in addition to whatever legal punishments might await them. Also, we weren’t even supposed to seriously examine the evidence. Not only wasn’t the slogan “Believe all evidence,” but it wasn’t even “Believe all victims.” It was “Believe all women.” In other words, believe the gender, as well as these people’s supposedly “liberal” predilections. That is what determined legitimacy and truth. Also, you were an absolute sexist scumbag reprobate if you questioned this unscientific process in the slightest.

The phenomenon still hasn’t died out, though. It was just too juicy tactically. You can still see these attitudes on Twitter today, even during this pandemic. People are still acting as if these cancel cultural antics should matter. We are literally on the brink of great depression level unemployment, yet some people prioritize trying to cancel celebrities over something they have said or done in the past. The premise looks even sillier now than it was before, due to the bigger issues we now see. Of course, it’s still silly even if you put COVID-19 and that Trump fucker aside.

In addition to people getting “canceled” who arguably don’t deserve it, what are we supposed to believe here? That going tippety-tap, tippety-tap on a keyboard is supposed to stop all misbehavior now? That no one ever levies false accusations? How dumb do these people think we are? Meanwhile, we’ve already seen other MeToo hypocrisy, such as Asia Argento (who, oddly enough, I don’t advocate “canceling,” either, being able to separate the artist from the art) and statistics suggesting female sex offenders are more common than we’re led to believe.   Also, more broadly, is it really plausible that none of these hyper-feminist keyboard warriors have no skeletons in their own closets? They’ve never said or done anything offensive? I call bullshit on that when it comes to virtually everyone. Why? Because, frankly, people are trash. They’re stupid, hypocritical trash, pretty much throughout the entire human spectrum.

So why is this keyboard warrior stuff still so prevalent? Why haven’t priorities shifted ever further away from this blatant level of bullshit into, you know, emphasizing what matters more for the common man?

I think it has a lot to do with media saturation with celebrity gossip bullshit, honestly, and this does tie into my critique of Democrats. Even looking at the Biden thing, his getting grope-y is not the primary scandal on his résumé (though it’s not a good look). Biden, and Democrats in general, have a fairly long history of backing corporate and militarist agendas, which is why I am not a Democrat. In fact, for all their whining about Trump, isn’t it a bit disconcerting that they’ve kept giving him what he wants when it comes to the military budget and spy powers? It’s almost as if they don’t truly care about him, but are just using him as a way to get more donations to the Democratic Party.

I speculate much the same about MeToo, and this is even more plausible after the double standard they’ve applied regarding Tara Reade’s accusations against the man. This isn’t really about standards. It’s about appearing more virtuous than the other person — or virtue-signaling, as the internet so often calls it. I feel weird using that expression, too, because it has become overused. Still, it fits.

The more people focus on these relatively minor scandals (and I’m sorry, but they are), the less they’ll focus on people being bombed by Democrat-and-Republican-launched wars overseas. People will be less likely to expect politicians to help them afford their basic living expenses, which they actually might have the power to effect, though things like a minimum wage increase or (especially now during the shutdown) a temporary or permanent universal basic income (UBI).

There are some pretty drastic examples of how these distractions work. For example, how many people even mention the war effort by President Bill Clinton, including the Kosovo War? Or how about the sanctions against Iraq which killed half a million children, which Clinton’s Secretary of State famously dismissed because the price was worth it?

Too far back in time for you?  Okay.  What about all the civilians killed in Obama’s drone strikes?

That aside, the Democrats have lagged behind even on social issues that, really, would have been a slam dunk for them to support. Take, for example, same-sex marriage. People seem to forget that, for the longest time, Dems were not really on the ball with that. In fact, it took a somewhat conservative-leaning Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage, and few if any Dems really took charge on the issue until they were certain it was popular enough. In other words, they were spineless. Don’t believe me? Here’s a Snopes article verifying that Hillary Clinton didn’t endorse same-sex marriage until 2013.

They also believed in locking up Cheech and Chong because…you know, weed kills, man.

I look back on Hillary Clinton on that one issue and know it was calculated.  She likely didn’t care either way.   She was a cold, calculating tactician.  This is the same Hillary Clinton I’m supposed to think is a stalwart progressive leader. Well, she isn’t. In fact, her increased rhetoric about identity politics and MeToo-style references are all cynical calculation, and we all know she’s a pro-war, pro-corporate candidate, In fact, here’s a nice article titled “Nearly All Of Silicon Valley’s Political Dollars Are Going To Hillary Clinton.”

That’s just a minor example, but what do you think it means?  Obviously, some key people with money would like an establishment Dem (like her) to become the next president of the United States. But Democrats aren’t greedy, are they? Aren’t the Republicans the greedy and evil ones?  Nope.  In fact, there’s a drastic amount of policy crossover between Republicans and Dems, and I don’t think that’ll change.  When you hear the establishment Dems mention “bringing the fight against inequality to a broader audience,” you should throw up in your mouth a little.

I know some people will say, in so many words, “But Hillary is more than an idea—she’s a person. This is what she says in the documentary.” Well, you are free to think that, but I happen to think she’s a paid spokesperson, in a corporate-crazy cult called the United States, who serves its interests above nearly all others (other than probably herself). She’s not unique in this regard, unfortunately, so don’t worry.  I am not exclusively picking on Hillary here.

These politicians succeed for the same reason that cancel culture succeeds: You can appear moralistic without really having to do anything. Just point to your opponent’s flaws while practically never putting yourself to that level of scrutiny. Voilà! Instant credibility somehow!

Why Are Dems Such Sellouts?

Are all sellout politicians filthy rich?  Perhaps not.  However, it helps if you’ve never navigated the obstacle of not having much money. You can just see poverty as a side issue. Similarly, who cares about war, so long as it’s not a bomb falling on your house? Hillary, who’d been profiting from her husband’s presidency and from corporate advocacy work, probably never thought for a moment about how she’d deal with such a problem. She is too busy being a servant of the wealthy and plotting American military domination.

So, what’s the main thing to set Democrats apart from Republicans? It’s that, yes, they are a little more likely to give people things like welfare and unemployment benefits. Does this mean the Democrats care about someone who’s been on the dole for much of their adult life? I doubt it. I suspect it’s because their party is supposed to care about such things a little — with a strong emphasis on the “little” part.

The Democrats are at least smart enough to recognize welfare as a sort of revolution insurance, and it’s the closest I’ll get to being on the same page with them. Because, at the end of the day, I am not much of a revolutionary anarchist advocate myself. Other countries may be able to pull it off, but America just isn’t that intelligent yet. Maybe that’s my elitism showing, but I don’t care. America is just behind in being able to intelligently take care of its population. Until that changes, I don’t see any revolutionary potential that isn’t outrightly nightmarish.

So, what’s the big lesson here? Well, it’s that some politicians pretend to care about progressive issues but they care most of all about themselves and their corporate backers. It is time for people to seek answers outside of this political party system, and preferably through quiet, non-blatantly rebellious means. I’m calling for sweeping-yet-subtle change.  Self-change. I think that’s the only thing that will work. The Democrats suck, and they’ll keep sucking, and not in a good way for most of us.

Why I Never Was a Democrat Anyway

I’ve never been a Democrat, but it’s not because I want to appear radical.  I am not that rebellious as a person. In fact, I’m also not one of these people who pretend to be so pure and wholesome, who wants to con you into thinking I could never say or do something offensive. My main crime is that I always have these nagging questions, and the answer always seems to be something the status quo wouldn’t like. Hell, even I might not like the truth sometimes, but it’s there.

For example, I’ve been consistently employed most of my life, but when someone says something like: “You just have to get up off the floor and try to get a job,” I wonder why my well-being and very survival should depend on possibly sitting in a cubicle, pushing a mop, flipping a burger, staring at a laptop, etc. Something about that entire situation seems weird to me. It is obviously not an entirely natural scenario. It is manmade, almost unseemly.  Why should my ability to eat food hinge on showing up to a specific building for X number of hours a week?  It is cultural, predicated upon ideas from humans whose brains and views are fallible and malleable.

On that note, if you’ve ever struggled in life, what are you actually struggling for? Better yet, what are you struggling against? If you had to fight for a couple of years to get where you are now, why? What were your main obstacles? Who put them there? Why? These are the kinds of questions I cannot help but ask, and the answer tends to make me sound like a rebel.  It’s the system, man.  The truth makes me sound like a rebel, maybe even a hippie. I think you also know what some of these obstacles are, dear readers, and they are systemic in nature. They are cultural, quite often rooted in the deepest depths of human folly.

The questions run deep.

If you’ve ever needed loans—why? If you owed almost nothing before but now are in severe debt—why? We are not supposed to question these common, everyday realities. Still, I think we should question things precisely because they are common. To not question these things can function as a serious illness, and it just might be that we are owed some serious answers.  For me, one answer is to not vote Democrat or Republican.  They suck.

Media On Anarchists: They’re Like Donald Trump and ISIS Rolled Into One(?)

Anarch-ish

---

Part One

Anarchism is in the news once again. As usual, it is being drastically misrepresented.
A good example is an article by The American Conservative, which actually compares historical anarchists with ISIS. Predictably, it starts by claiming that, “Today, revolutionary anarchists seem archaic, almost quaint. But for around 50 years, from the 1880s to the 1930s, anarchists carried out terror …”

Well, you can surely see where they are going, or attempting to go. One could simply note that ISIS are very much in favor of authority, and that this instantly makes comparisons somewhat shaky.  Add in just how terrible ISIS is and, well, there is now even less of a comparison.  Unfortunately, despite the powerful research capabilities of the internet, few will study the issue any further than what’s said in their article. But what does it say? One implication is that all anarchists were terrorists, and that…

View original post 1,969 more words

generic observation on culture and behavior

Culture is undeniably shaped by events,
and culture undeniably shapes events.
The idea that there is a “right way” or “wrong way” to act
certainly impacts our personal decisions.
Be aware of this phenomenon in your everyday dealings.
We all slip up and do things we regret.  Be aware of that, too.

nothing as it seems to be

As set forth, nothing as it seems to be
Your propitiation swings like a machete.

Herding of animals began with the domestication of goats in Iran.

I just thought I should mention that, lest you think people of that region never accomplished anything even vaguely good (as most Western media would have us believe).

The Indestructible Battle Design

Check out what you’re actually doing.
 Think about what you’re going to make.
 Abuse the privilege of self-reflection from time to time.
 Give the occasional impromptu performance, because that form of might
called Creativity can be yours.
Being alone or lonely isn’t always terrible.
Sometimes, by leaving people behind or by being left behind,
you are reminded of what you actually have — whatever it is —
and it may be a time of self-realization.
Conversely, it may be a time of self-denial.
Be careful either way.
Overcome fears related to budgeting, because the economic system is largely
 bullshit anyway.

The indestructible battle design prevents society from being totally reformed,
or totally destroyed — unless perhaps a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out (or something to that effect).
What do I mean by the indestructible battle design?
These systems of thought, both formal and informal, intentional or not,
 which collectively and individually shape human interactions and systems
 of thought to always be in  conflict with each other and themselves, even
 when they seem to “work”.
Some elements of this design are surely by nature in general, as opposed
to what we call “human nature,” but they structurally make up our break downs,
yet we rely on them just the same.
Because of this, shouting is not always enough to get your way. 
There are always louder groups than whatever particular one you
find yourself in on a given issue.
Sometimes stop shouting and start thinking and talking.
If you think enough, it will eventually be harder to be a total idiot,
even if you’re not the greatest thinker.
You will make some observations that are difficult to refute.
For example, I often tell conservatives that if they object to people being
 on welfare, offer these people employment, money, or a place to live.
If critics can’t do any of those things, or refuse to, they are just throwing
around words and won’t actually accomplish anything.
If you tell them, “Stop being lazy and get a job!,” then put your money where
your mouth is.
If you cannot offer a real alternative to their situation,
people should be skeptical of your claims otherwise from a grander, philosophical
perspective.
See, that I believe is a valid point, with plenty of practical merit.
It’s hard to debunk the logic in it.

I would say similar things about theft.
If you are generous to people, yes, some might eventually abuse your generosity
by expecting it all the time, but these people are at least somewhat
 less likely to steal from someone who is nice to to them anyway.
Why steal when all someone has to do is ask?
From there I will say it’s not enough to generate the business half of life
and leave it at that.
Even from a business-savvy perspective, it makes sense to cultivate some
personal relationships that are mutually beneficial.
The alternative is to lead a disparate local existence with
no relief from extended middle fingers.

If you make too many enemies you increase the odds of facing trouble.
Speaking of trouble, people spend way too much time believing jail or
prison solves — or even addresses — society’s troubles.
Bars for them equal freedom.
Is it a failure to act responsibly to ask whether concrete
cells are good enough to really address a problem?
Unfortunately, many people do not see need to ask such questions,
and simply internalize the status quo.
They are mostly dabbling in a mythology, if they think about such
things at all.
What about a concrete cell actually addresses some root cause of a
given problem?
It merely conceals it, at best.
It’s also cruelty.
Certainly it sometimes inflicts cruelty on someone who was willfully cruel,
but that is not always the case anyway.
For example, I’ve heard of a man who left his baby in a car
while he was at work, and the baby died from the heat.
In response, someone argued that the man should be imprisoned
as a murderer.
I explained that it may not be murder at all but neglect,
that people are capable of doing stupid things, and that
putting him in jail probably won’t really accomplish anything.
After all, did the possibility of punishment prevent this particular neglect?
Obviously not.
From there it simply follows that it won’t likely prevent similar events.
To top it off, I even suggested that this parent (or anyone like him)
 may not have been a neglectful “monster” all the time, but possibly
just on this one occasion.
What were common sense considerations for me apparently were ever elusive
to this person, which illustrates how far down the pike we’ve gone
from being an intellectual society.
None of those are particularly brilliant observations, but plain
and entry level ones.  Still, I had to be the one to step in and make them,
possibly in the face of condemnation.
As Emma Goldman once said, it is easier to condemn than to think.
It is also easy to fuck up in life changing ways, like that guy probably did.
In the broader sense, this is what people have done all around.
The human race has fucked up, but we’ll take it all out on some idiot,
just so we’ll feel better about ourselves.
Of course, we’ll forget about our outrage at that instance when a new issue
comes along, and pretend we’re accomplishing something grand.
Again we will say, “We’ll never be like that person!”
Meanwhile, systematic and ideology-based abuses continue to flourish,
including in those places we send these neglectful or evil criminal fools.
We’ll tend to ignore systematic abuses because they belong to the
 indestructible battle design, and redesigning anything requires too much thought.
It’s out of our control, right?
That’s why you should occasionally sit and quietly think.
Check out what you’re actually doing.
You have probably missed a few details.

Nothing to say now

I have nothing to say now, so I’m going to post five words below and see if anything happens. 

Here they are, officially starting now:

Weeks!
Drive.
know.
Escapee.
hatred.

On banning stuff

People do things that arguably aren’t perfectly healthy. 
Gambling is just one stock example.
Before you say, “I’m thinking of banning gambling this year” — STOP!
  Gambling, like so many other things, is an issue to be resolved by individuals and families directly affected by it. But personal issues are almost an alien concept these days, and it scares people. 
Banning is not resolving a specific instance by those directly involved in it. It is imposing laws upon others — many who would not wish to resolve the conflict in such a way. There is a simple solution here: Don’t gamble, and discourage others from gambling.
Generally speaking, I think the premise of banning something is in bad taste.
That’s one way to describe these circumstances. 
Or one can see it more as nipping at  another’s heels, so one person can feel morally superior; “I don’t engage in this or that questionable behavior, so I must be superior and make all those poor fools more like me!”
And attempts to legislate undesirable behavior often end up with weird, convoluted arguments in their defense.
Eventually, any pro-choicer somehow becomes a conspirator for the white devil movement. Or all “liberals” are out to convert heterosexual, white, Christian males to homosexuality.  Or all Batman wanted was to bang Vicki Vale.
A long time ago I decided to mind my own business, for the most part, and I haven’t veered too far from that since. 

Rehashes giving me rashes

All television programming is subject to change.
So is music.
So is anything else in culture.
Creativity is not a static operation,
where some intended decency must be present at all times.
Still, why did Spike Lee have to remake the South Korean film “Oldboy”?  I’m not a bitter opponent of remakes, but there is nothing any film maker could have done to make that movie better, as far as I’m concerned.  I may even watch the remake some day, but right now it’s just too much.   

6 Ways The Entertainment Industry Harms Comedy

[For purposes of full disclosure, this is an article I originally attempted to pitch to Cracked.com.  This isn’t usually a humor blog, but I am capable of being at least somewhat funny.  I’m a bit biased, but I don’t think it’s such a bad article (and their article criteria is a little strange, in my view).  So here is the rejected article in all its glory.  Enjoy!] 

1.    Image Is Everything

Most people hate certain Hollywood celebrities, but pay attention to them anyway.  It’s like a collective scab we need to pick at and let bleed every so often, just for the hell of it.  Or is it because we’re inundated with their images, and focus on them accordingly? 
On TV and in tabloids, flashy Hollywood premieres, celebrity interviews and scandals abound to the point of obsession, and most of it is superficial nonsense. 
In Hollywood, and in the entertainment industry generally, there’s an expectation that things be glitzy and glamorous (with some obvious exceptions like Gary Busey).  Yet, paradoxically, the media is fascinated with celebrities falling short and appearing flawed — human, as it were.  All too often these perceived failings become the obsessive topics of mainstream comedy — not merely topics, but obsessive topics.  So-and-so is one drugs, engaging in slutty behavior, said something controversial or weird, etc.
 
 When celebrity failings are constantly brought up on every late night talk show, and on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, one is occasionally tempted to locate the nearest Kevorkian.  Comedians talk about celebrity “meltdowns,” but a lot of those same fools have their own meltdowns and shortcomings, which also make the news cycle, and are regarded as somehow interesting. 
As a recent example, consider Piers Morgan’s little live TV spat with comedienne Chelsea Handler, in which she called him a “terrible interviewer.”  It was a minor skirmish, certainly, but such words will take a significance far greater than merited.  Maybe Piers Morgan is an unlikable British buttock who believes he’s a super hero for questioning American gun laws, but why should we care about it in our Facebook “trending” news feed?
He’s flawed to some.  We’re all flawed in some way.  Let’s move on.  Celebrity spats get boring.
Mountains out of molehills:       
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/13/chelsea-handler-piers-morgan-terrible-interviewer-on-cnn-show/
     
2.  Too Many Usual Suspects

This is easily forgotten, but there are billions of funny people in existence.  Even people who aren’t always funny can be hilarious sometimes.  The internet has made this phenomenon even more noticeable.  For some, a stupid, relatively anonymous cat video ranks as the funniest thing of all time.  And why not?  Funny people and funny things are basically a dime a dozen.  Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know that from watching most TV.  Often, spliced in between commercials, we have these shows called “comedies,” and in these comedies we have many familiar faces and names appearing in a wide assortment of places, until their very existence is etched into our brains.  Some of these people are funny indeed, but what if we see them so regularly we begin to dislike them a little?  It’s reasonable to assume that’s possible.  Songs we like get tiring if we hear them constantly, don’t they?  Now imagine that song being in person form, and looking like Ben Stiller — a man who, at one point, seemed to appear in every other new comedic film.  Many people believe Ben Stiller is funny, but how often has the proverbial Ben Stiller received a role that others could have done?  How often has he received public attention that others could have received?  Ben Stiller has become almost an entity now, whose very presence overwhelms whatever it is near.  Meanwhile, some really funny stuff goes totally unnoticed, as Big Ears makes yet another faux pas for Robert De Niro.         
     No one’s saying enterprising comedians can’t enjoy steady work and success.
For example, back in 2005, it was written that “CRACKED’s new creative, editorial and business team includes experienced individuals from the publishing world – from companies such as Universal Studios, Dennis Publishing, American Media, Marvel Entertainment, Wenner
Media and National Lampoon.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cracked-magazine-re-launches-56173522.html
It’s all good in the hood there (right?).  But there’s a difference between steady, successful work and the feel of an all-consuming media presence.

3.  Comedy Is Often Taken Too Seriously

As CRACKED magazine notes, CRACKED Magazine is “one of America’s oldest and most well-known humor magazines.”
http://www.cracked.com/article_15430_investor-group-acquires-cracked-magazine.html
What makes it so?  It is often funny, plain and simple.  It may not always be funny to everyone, but it’s consistently able to get the job done.  But that’s the question:  Is comedy just a job?  If so, what happens if a comedian, or any comedic gesture or statement, isn’t considered funny?  This question easily plagues anyone who tries to be funny, because no one wants to fail.  Failure leads to disgrace.  At the same time, this makes comedy more absurd, and not simply in the positive sense of absurdism.  Thinking about comedy as a business cheapens it, as business cheapens everything else.  Look at what happened to Michael Richards.  Was anything about that situation normal or funny?  It looked like someone in a high stress environment failing to make some folks laugh, getting heckled as a result, and lashing out in a highly offensive manner, thereby creating a media uproar and damaging his career.  Real fucking hilarious.  The possibility of that happening is more sad than it is funny.  Why could such a thing happen?  There are many reasons, but an obvious factor is that a paying customer might be disappointed, criticize the service rendered, and the stressed out server (in this case, comedian) completely loses his shit.  The lesson:  Don’t treat comedy merely as a business, and don’t lose your shit.  If you lose your shit in one sense you can lose your shit in another, and never quite get it back again.  

       
4.  Corporate Monopolist Censorship 

When Disney, Capital Cities and ABC merged, we may have learned this about
the CC/ABC Multimedia Group: 
    “The Multimedia Group develops and manages business opportunities
in new and emerging media technologies.  These include the
interactive television, pay-per-view, and video-on-demand areas;
video cassette and disc-based media; on-line services;
location-based entertainment; and HDTV and digital television.”
(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%2FFIRST+AND+FINAL+ADD+–+DISNEY,+CAPITAL+CITIES%2FABC+AGREE+TO+MERGE%2F-a017368916)
That was quite a while back.  And what has happened since then?  Disney just kept growing, and bragging about everything it acquired, like the proud behemoth it is.  Unfortunately, Disney is typically a G rated or PG rated entity, which usually makes for shittier comedy.  Sure enough, Bill Maher was considered too edgy for ABC/Disney, who cancelled his show Politically Incorrect.  Why? 
After 9-11, he disagreed with Bush’s calling the terrorists cowards, saying: “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMhNJDRnhU
In other words, he was cancelled for living up to the title of his show.
How cool is that?  Mickey Mouse is apparently a giant wuss.
 
Then there’s Gilbert Gottfried, who lost his gig voicing a corporate duck. 
Sure, one can still find edgy comedy in the corporate world.  However, as suggested before, commercialism tends to make it less edgy, and more conformist.  Perhaps a better example is the censored music video for “Gay Bar” by the often humorous band Electric Six, as shown on MTV. 
The offending lyrics?
 “Let’s start a war, start a nuclear war,
 At the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar.”
The words “War” and “nuclear war” were replaced by whip cracks.  
Why?  The song made its air debut at the start of the Iraq War.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRWe_0sD33Y)
As one Youtube commenter notes:  “They censored ‘nuclear war’? I thought it was ‘suck a cock’ for years. They made it sound far worse…”  Indeed they did. 

5.   Excess Pressure For Comedians to be Edgy

Now we’re getting into the opposite problem, which is a little more difficult to tackle.  Every comedian is expected to be edgy; to mock, critique, offend, and criticize culture.  It sells, and gets respect from other comedians.  But sometimes it actually seems “tiresome, too-eager-to-offend,” as Variety said of Daniel Tosh’s show “Brickleberry.”  The problem is this:  Someone might joke about, say, eating out a raccoon, but where do they go from there?  Must every other joke involve something gross or offensive, or just some of them?  Asking this makes one sound like a prude, but it is a valid question.  To what extent can people go the Cosby route, but keep that raccoon on standby?  There is, of course, no real answer, but it’s an interesting question. 

  
6.  Comedy Central Needs A Wider View of Comedy

Comedy Central can be great.  As an example, the Daily Show is often considered a leading source for news (a fact Jon Stewart often laments).  Still, one thing is commonly missing from their lineup:  Old school and offbeat comedy.  Where in the hell is Redd Fox?  Bill Hicks?  For movies, how about some interesting choices like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, rather than seeing Clark Griswald or Daniel Tosh half the time?  The Marx Brothers made some truly hilarious comedy, yet their existence is virtually unknown to Comedy central viewers.  You would think a place where comedy is central would take more interest in the history of comedy, right?  Some people may find Charlie Chaplin funnier than Sinbad, if they were able to compare and contrast.