When a Lying Lawyer Lies for a Pathologically Lying President

A lying lawyer, incredulous at his own lies. 

When a lying lawyer for a pathologically lying President, with a lying Press Secretary, spews lies, it can be very challenging for the lying lawyer to get his lies straight. 

For example, if the lies the lying lawyer spews are different from the lies the lying press secretary spews, it may cause concern, albeit briefly, that one of them may not be spewing lies. To avoid this, the lying lawyer must carefully coordinate his lies with the lying press secretary in order to develop consistency in lying. However, the task is considerably more daunting than that. 

In these days, it is hardly enough for a lying lawyer to merely coordinate his lies with a lying Press Secretary. A lying lawyer must make certain that he is spewing the lies that the pathologically lying President wants him to spew. Otherwise, the pathologically lying President will soon need to spew lies about the lies that his lying lawyer and lying press secretary spewed. This inevitably leads to the lying lawyer and lying press secretary spewing lies about the lies they spewed about the pathologically lying President’s lies. 

The most important thing to understand about a pathologically lying President is that everything he says of consequence is a lie. 

He spews lies about what he did or did not do, and when he did or did not do it. 

He spews lies about what he did or did not know, and when he did or did not know it. 

He spews lies about what he did or did not say, and when he did or did not say it. 

He spews lies about what others did, knew or said, and when they did, knew or said it. 

He spews lies about his friends, family, cabinet members, judges, members of congress, leaders of other nations, newspapers, websites, journalists, comedians and athletes.  

He spews lies about his wealth, his intelligence, his health, his affairs, his history as a sexual predator, his payment of hush money to a porn star, and his colluding with the Russians. 

He spews lies about his margin of victory, how many people showed up at his inauguration, and how much cable news he watches. 

He spews lies abut the lies he spewed. And then he spews lies about the lies he spewed about the lies he spewed.  

The pathologically lying President spews lies indiscriminately, casually and incessantly, about people of all races, nationalities, genders and sexual orientation.  

More than anything, the pathologically lying President spews lies to himself about himself, consciously and unconsciously. His life itself is such an infinitely gigantic lie that he has absolutely no grounded relationship to the truth.  

Occasionally, the pathologically lying President is correct about something. For example, he might say, “Today is Tuesday,” and it might actually be Tuesday.” However, that is a random occurrence of absolutely no consequence, because the pathologically lying President never intends to tell the truth because he can’t. At his core, the pathologically lying President is psychologically wired to lie.  

This brings me back to the aforementioned lying lawyer and lying press secretary: 

As proficient as they are in spewing lies, the lying lawyer and lying press secretary remain at best novice students studying at the feet of the Master. Despite their sincere efforts to acheive an utter lack of credibility and personal integrity, when compared to the pathologically lying President, the lying lawyer and lying press secretary sometimes come across as straight-talking truth-tellers. Expect them to both be fired soon. 

Michele Wolf Speaks Truth to Power and Expresses no Remorse

I am not sure how far back the tradition of the court jester performing before a King goes, but my guess is that the first comedian who ever “died” was probably executed by a monarch who didn’t think he was funny, or whose humor struck too close to the bone. The White House Correspondents Dinner has evolved (devolved?) into a modern-day version of that ancient ritual, with the modern comedian expected to be satirically sharp and outrageously irreverent without being offensive, or at least too offensive to, well, who exactly? The President? Those in power?  Liberals? Conservatives? The media itself?

Michele Wolf, formerly well-known on Comedy Central but now a national comedy star, did not show up at the White House Correspondents Dinner to make friends. She understands that the role of the satirist is not to make her audience feel comfortable. In fact, the great political stand-ups, from Dick Gregory to George Carlin to Bill Maher, have never been afraid to make their audiences squirm. That is because the truth frequently hurts and the best satire often reveals truth in disturbing ways. 

Michele Wolf on abortion:

Mike Pence is very anti-choice. He thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you gotta get that baby out of it. And yeah, sure, you can groan all you want, I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion, you know, unless it’s the one you got for your secret mistress. It’s fun how values can waiver. But good for you.

Good for who exactly? How about former GOP Congressman Tim Murphy, an outspoken anti-choice crusader who recently urged his mistress to have an abortion and was forced to resign in disgrace? Let the audience groan all it wants.  

Michele Wolf on Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. Like she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies. 

Note to that most uptight of all liberals, Mika Brzezinski, who whined on MSNBC that Wolf's cutting remark was a comment on Huckabee's looks. It wasn't. She was commenting on Huckabee's continual spewing of lies for a continually lying President. Not that there’s anything wrong with a comedian making fun of how someone looks, though Wolf saved those barbs for Mitch McConnell, who she claimed wasn’t in attendance because he’s “finally getting his neck circumcised,”and Chris Christie, of whom she said, “Republicans are easy to make fun of. You know, it’s like shooting fish in a Chris Christie.” Brzezinski, true to form, expressed not a word of outrage about either remark. Conservatives have no special claim to selective outrage.   

Wolf made jokes about Fox News and MSNBC, not to mention their two biggest personalities, Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow. However, she saved her most pointed barbs for CNN: “You guys love breaking news, and you did it, you broke it! Good work!” 

Donald Trump, a man who has laughed in public once since running for President – at a crass one-liner comparing Hillary Clinton to a dog -- called Wolf’s performance “filthy.” At times it was, and that is exactly what a filthy President deserves. Though try at she might, Wolf could not possibly be as vulgar as Trump, who degrades the Presidency with his falsehoods,  flippancy, and ugly rhetoric whenever he opens his mouth. 

Michele Wolf was given the opportunity to speak truth to power and she rose to the occasion like a comedy champ. Fearless, outspoken and relentless, she let no one off the hook and offered no apologies, even as she was pilloried in the press and accused of being filled with hate for daring to do her job. 

Actually, it is Wolf who deserves an apology from Margaret Talev, the spineless  President of the White House Correspondents Association, who wrote: “Last night’s program was meant to offer a unifying message about out common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners. Unfortunately, the entertainer’s monologue was not in the spirit of that mission.”

Really? I'm sure that mandate came as news to Wolf, as it would come to any humorist, that her role as a standup was to offer “a unifying message.” If that’s what the White House Correspondents want, next year, instead of a standup, I suggest they book a pastor. 

Did every joke work? Of course not. Every joke never works. But far more often than not, Wolf's shots either hit or landed close to the comedy bulls-eye. That is exactly why so many powerful people in Washington are still so upset.

Bravo Michele! You made us comedians and comedy writers proud. 

0 Likes

Billy Graham Was Often Wrong

Like most preachers, Billy Graham was frequently incorrect. 

Evangelist Billy Graham has died. He was widely loved and respected, but wrong about many things:

"You're born. You suffer. You die. Fortunately, there's a loophole."  

There is no loophole – unless God exists and He’s an accountant. And even if God exists, theologians are in widespread agreement that the odds of Him being an accountant are exceptionally slim.

“A real Christian is the one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.”

The Bible mentions antelopes, geckos, maggots, mole rats, serpents, turtle doves and vipers. Sorry, no parrots.

“I think Pat Roberston is a terrific fellow.”  

Pat Roberston proclaimed that feminism encourages women “to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." A “terrific person” wouldn’t say that – at least in public.

"Communism is a religion that is inspired, directed and motivated by the Devil himself who has declared war against Almighty God."

Communism is not a religion and the devil is not a communist: he's a libertarian. 

"Only the supernatural love of God through changed lives can solve problems that we face in the world."

Nope. In 2015, Stephen Hawking famously published a solution to “black hole information paradox.” He’s an avowed atheist.

Only those who want everything done for them are bored.”

Obviously, Reverend Graham never sat through Superman v Batman: Dawn of Justice.

“Our society strives to avoid any possibility of offending anyone – except God.”

It is a well-known fact that nothing offends God more than a preacher who claims to know what offends God.

“Without the resurrection, the cross is meaningless.”

That is not only untrue, but breathtakingly shallow. A cross is an archetypal symbol of deep significance. Nailing someone to it turns it into a crucifix, which for many is a major turn-off. 

“Everybody has a little Watergate in him."

These days everyone has a little Deflate-gate in them.

“Knowing we will be with Christ forever far outweighs our burdens today! Keep your eyes on eternity!”

That’s terrible advice! Keep your eyes directly on the path in front of you and watch out for precipitous dips. Eternity, whatever that is, will take care of itself without you having to manage it. Who has time for that anyway?  

In The Aftermath of Another School Shooting, Teenagers Are The Moral Voice of America

Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg, survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stonemason Douglas High School, 

So, maybe it will come down to the teenagers. Perhaps they are the only ones who have a fighting chance to break the NRA’s stranglehold on our society, just as it was only the teenagers of my generation who had a fighting chance to bring the Vietnam War to an end.

“War is not healthy for children and other living things,” went one of the popular slogans of my youth. My hippie friends may have been naïve, unemployed, and in desperate need of a shower, but they were not wrong about that, just as today’s teenagers are not wrong about the sickness at the core of America, our rampant gun culture enabled by one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.  

The Vietnam War was ugly beyond our imagination to conceive, immoral at its core, and utterly senseless. It was also something that adults didn’t care enough about to try to stop. It was up to us.

By the way, I use the word “us” loosely. I was seven when JFK was assassinated, nine when President Johnson received nearly unanimous consent from Congress to escalate the war, and 13 when Woodstock took place. But I was old enough to be aware of the looming threat that my government posed to my life.

I was in the final year (1972) of the draft lottery. By then, thanks to the anti-war movement, fewer of us were being ordered to serve. Still, I received a draft card, a symbol that my government might try to compel me to fly to Southeast Asia and risk my life for nothing.

Now, after yet another gruesome school shooting, we are finally hearing from the friends of the victims, the teenagers whose lives are at risk on the way to math class. Adults have failed at protecting them, so they are taking matters into their own hands.

The unspeakable grief of the survivors has turned to outrage and they are placing the blame exactly where it belongs, on the politicians who are owned by the NRA and speak sanctimoniously about our God-given right to own AR-15s.

Trump, a man with no moral core and incapable of empathy, is unelectable without the support of gun fetishists. When accepting the endorsement of the NRA, he called it “a fantastic honor,” before promising his adoring crowd, “We’re getting rid of gun free zones.” The president who proclaimed that he would put an end to “American carnage” has, in fact, enabled it. And he is hardly the only one.

Marco Rubio has received over three million dollars in payoffs from the NRA, but not to worry, he is “praying for all the victims.”  Is it too much to say that there is blood on his hands? I don’t think so. Rubio was a midwife of our sick gun culture, as was John McCain and Joni Ernst and Ted Cruz, and the list goes on and on. Yes, there is blood on their hands, just as there is blood on the hands of Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, who decided that the Second Amendment, which is as arcane as the Third Amendment, guarantees the individual right of gun ownership. Their reckless judicial activism has led us to where we are now. And where is that exactly?

A candidate for congress in Kansas is giving away an AR-15 as a campaign stunt. Third-graders in Missouri are selling raffle tickets for an AR-15 as a fundraiser for their baseball team, and their coach thinks the surrounding controversy “has been blown out of proportion.”

The sobering truth that some liberals fail to recognize is that there is no magic bullet (no pun intended) solution to this problem. Even if sensible gun control legislation were enacted today, over five million Americans already own an AR-15.

So, in the face of these long odds, steps forward Emma Gonzalez, a senior and survivor of the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman High School. Recently, while addressing a gun control rally in Fort Lauderdale, she said, “We certainty do not understand why it should be harder to make plans with friends on weekends than to buy an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.”

A few days later, when asked by Carol Costello on CNN, “So, what do you say to the NRA?” she replied, “Disband. Dismantle. And don’t make an organization under a different name. And don’t you dare come back here.” She was wearing a t-shirt that said, “The Beatles” and I could not help but think that something of the best of what my generation stood for lives vibrantly in her. 

AR-15s are not healthy for children and other living things. 

Bill Maher And Sarah Silverman Avoid Talking About Louis C.K.

The two comics are known for their outspoken commentary, which made their decision to spare Louis C.K. all the more disappointing. 

As a comedian and comedy writer, I have long had a policy of not publicly criticizing other comedians and comedy writers, especially those who are far more successful than me. That said, the time has come for me to make an exception.

On last night’s airing of HBO’s Real Time, Bill Maher and Sarah Silverman, two revered comedy mavericks whose work I have long admired, had nothing to say about Louis C.K.

It is important to note that Maher and Silverman are not set-up or punchline comics. They are political satirists, widely revered for their uncensored outspokenness on important social issues. This makes their silence all the more disturbing and indefensible.

At the top of the show, Maher said, “Welcome to another edition of ‘Who Pulled Out Their Dick This Week,’” a promising start. But then he focused his satiric wit solely on Judge Roy Moore and his despicable Republican defenders. Fair game, for sure.

However, the question must be asked: Where were Maher’s cutting remarks about C.K.? Answer: There weren’t any. Instead, he felt compelled to proclaim the moral superiority of liberals over conservatives: “We arrest our alleged rapists; they elect them.” The audience applauded. Perhaps, I missed the news of Harvey Weinstein’s or Kevin Spacey’s arrest.

Look, I’m a liberal and I’m a comedian. I’m on Bill’s side. But he blew it. At the risk of blowing my own horn, I will point out that MAD Magazine, where I have been an editor for many years, did not shy away from the issue.

After Bill’s opening monologue, Sarah Silverman came out and made a bad situation worse. She spoke at length about her new Hulu show. She talked about how Trump has tapped into our fears and “is in bed with the oligarchs.” But apparently, she had no thoughts about powerful comedians abusing women for their sexual gratification in her industry.

What is going on here? If the accused comedian was Dennis Miller, it is difficult to believe that Maher and Silverman would have totally avoided the story.

When speaking with former Democratic Party Chairperson, Donna Brazille, Maher said, “I have so much in common with you. We want our side to win, so we criticize it when necessary.”

Unfortunately, not this time.

Now Is Not the Time to Talk About What We Are Not Talking About

Despite scenes like this, now is not the time to talk about gun control. Thank you for your cooperation.

In the aftermath of another horrific mass shooting, I have finally been convinced: Now is not the time to talk about gun control.

Likewise, now is not the time to talk about terrorism in New York, arrests in Saudi Arabia, Larry David’s holocaust joke, or yesterday’s NFL’s upsets. Just as many Democrats favor a three-day waiting period to purchase a gun, I favor a three-day waiting period to talk about anything in the news. Since there are mass shootings every day, this has many benefits. For example, not only do we never have to talk about gun control, we never have to talk about not talking about gun control. What a relief! (I hate that conversation.)

The problem with talking about something after it just happened is that in our eagerness to talk about the just-happened-thing, we discuss it. If there’s one thing that we can all agree on, it’s that we don’t need any more discussion, especially in the aftermath of something that has happened.

Do you discuss a meal after you’ve eaten it? Of course not. You give yourself time to thoroughly digest and eliminate it. And even then, you wait for the stench of defecation to clear before starting a possibly contentious debate about your subpar avocado toast appetizer. It is like that with mass shootings and gun control, except that the stench never clears. Consequently, we adapt to the toxically foul odor so effectively, we become completely unaware of it until our next bout of collective diarrhea. And even then, who wants to talk about or hear about diarrhea? I don’t know about you, but when a diarrhea commercial comes on, I immediately turn it off and don’t talk about it.

My point is that we can’t allow ourselves to go off half-cocked talking about things that just happened, not without politicizing them and thereby making things worse than if we hadn’t talked about them. Honestly, I fear that I am making things worse, much worse, by talking about not talking about them. So, in the interests of fostering a meaningful national dialogue, I would like to shift the conversation to not talking about not talking about not talking about things. You’re welcome.

Experts agree, the main issue is mental health. If only we were mentally healthy, that would make a world of difference, believe me. I would say more about this, but sorry, now is not the time to talk about mental health.

The question we must ask ourselves is: What is this the time to talk about? To properly answer this pressing question, I would have to check the news from three days ago in order to identify the stories reported that are not relevant today. Those irrelevant stories are without question ripe for exhaustive analysis and spirited debate. But sadly, in our rush to judgment, we prefer to focus on relevant things that just happened.

In closing, I would like to say nothing at all.

After The Las Vegas Shooting, America Remains Addicted To Triggers And In Denial

DAVID BECKER VIA GETTY IMAGES 

According to MassShootingTracker.com — and that a website with that name actually exists says everything about America’s sickening gun culture — there have been 337 mass shootings in our country this year before today’s headline grabbing massacre of at least 50 dead with over 100 injured in Las Vegas.

Oh, if only there weren’t more good people with guns in attendance who could have shot back at the madman firing from the 32nd floor. Surely, the only conceivable way to stop something like this from ever happening again is to make sure that everyone is armed.

What, too soon?

Forgive me, I know, I shouldn’t be talking about gun control now. It is disrespectful to the victims and their families. I should remain silent as the usual news cycle plays out, or at least wait until we know more about what happened. But actually what we don’t know yet tells us a lot.

Since the incident has not been labeled “terrorism,” which is exactly what it is, we know there is no evidence as yet that the perpetrator is Muslim. Since race has not been mentioned, we know that the perpetrator is white. Since so many people were shot, we know the perpetrator had an arsenal at his disposal and that it would surprise no one if all of his weapons were legal.

The thing with mass shootings this year is that they have not been especially newsworthy. Just not enough people killed. Admittedly, the year got off to a promising start with four murdered in South Carolina on New Year’s Day, followed by five more in Oregon and five more in Florida over the next week. But with many mass shootings, the victims merely suffer traumatic injures rather than death, and that is so much less sensational. So what if 10 were injured by gunshots, including eight teenagers, in Tennessee? They lived, so what’s news about that?

In June, six were murdered by a former co-worker in Orlando, and while that got some media attention (work place shooting always make for compelling stories and possibly mini-series), with the dead still in the single digits, we couldn’t realistically expect more than 48-hours of coverage.

The Congressional baseball shooting in June was big news because of who was targeted, but again, with so many survivors and the feel-good story of Steve Scalise’s recovery, it now barely qualifies as horrible.

But now we finally have our first horrifically massive shooting of the year, one with sufficient shock value to demand our attention. It is already being called “the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history,” so we are going to be hearing about this one for at least 72 hours before it disappears from the news. At least we can count on the president to respond with great empathy and sensitivity — no, wait.

Here’s the thing: I would like to turn away from this story this morning. Everything about it disturbs and repulses me. But I am sitting here at my desk reflecting on it because it is the only way I know how to express my sorrow for those whose lives were senselessly destroyed for the crime of attending a country music festival. It is also the only way I know how to grieve for my country, a country that has long lost its way as far as the sensible regulation of firearms. Our culture is sick with violence and our gun problem is more symptom than cause, though in reality it is both.

We are addicted to triggers and refuse treatment. And we all know what happens when an addict refuses treatment.

For our culture to get well, we need to enroll in a national 12-step program for guns. We must become deeply aware and take responsibility for the ongoing violence that our culture tacitly permits. Of course, that by itself is not the answer, because there is no singular answer. But until we admit that our guns laws, or rather lack thereof, are a key part of the problem, then we are enablers of the violence we claim to abhor.

The Importance of Reflecting On Your 'Inner Trump'

Where does he live in you? 

I was never part of the” Trump’s not my president” crowd, because it was painfully obvious to me from the start that they were in denial. Their denial was understandable, even predictable. After all, the natural reaction of psychologically sound people is to distance themselves as much as possible from Trump, to regard him as he regards Muslims: as the other.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Trump most certainly is one of us. That is precisely what is so distrubing about him. “We have met the enemy and he is us,” as cartoonist Walt Kelly famously said through Pogo. In that sense, Trump is a symptom more than a cause. Donald Trump, the despicable ignoramus real estate developer from New York City who became President, is as American as apple pie.

As Trump tries to reverse everything that President Obama did, short of sending his children back to Michelle’s womb, most Americans look on horrified, or don’t look at all. A conservative friend of mine has taken refuge in sports, a strategy which seemed promising until Trump disinvited Steph Curry and the Golden State Warriors to the White House. Now Trump and the reaction to Trump is headline news on the sports page.

Trump, a virulent force, makes every social problem and international conflict worse. The wounds of slavery run deep; Trump rips whatever scabs have formed open. For decades, North Korea has been a rogue regime that poses a threat; Trump’s crass rhetoric further inflames international tensions and makes war more likely. The consequences of climate change have long been of growing concern to scientists and nations around the world; Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords makes it much less likely that the problem will be adequately addressed.

Trump, a man of infinite privilege, lives in a swamp of resentment that breeds disease. To see this fact and to be shaken by it is a healthy response. Political resistance to Trump’s agenda is essential. But there is an even more essential task, albeit a highly distasteful one. The task is this:

See Trump as a mirror and reflect on your inner Trump.

Trump is an instinctive, bombastic, sociopathic, vulgar, lying, shallow, racist, misogynistic, self-absorbed, self-assured know-nothing. I, on the other hand, am well-reasoned, open-minded, truthful, tolerant, inclusive, ethical, cooperative and highly intelligent. Trump is evil and I am good. Trump is hateful and I am loving. Trump’s ugliness affirms my beauty. No wonder criticizing Trump and calling out his never-ending transgressions feels so good. It reminds me that I am not at all like Trump.

Trump and his supporters engage in an extremely dangerous kind of psychological projection. To them, all of America’s ills are caused by others: foreigners, gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, atheists and liberals. They themselves are inculpable.

Still, the question must be asked: To what degree are those of us who despise Trump guilty of the same unconscious projection as he and his supporters? A failure to ask this question in earnest and take a personal inventory of our inner Trump is itself Trumpian. Where does our fear, resentment and prejudice live in us and how do we relate to it? Are we even aware of it, or is it all Trump’s fault?

The global outlook is always bleak. As Leonard Cohen sang, “Everybody knows that the war is over, everybody knows that the good guys lost.” I do not mean to suggest that the fight for social and economic justice should not continue. It should; it must. That said, if you want to make the world a better place, make a time and a space to turn inward and consider how what you despise in others lives in yourself.

As long as we regard the biggest problems we face as “out there,” Trumpism rules. 

My Response To The Latest 'Charlie Hebdo' Cover As The Senior Editor Of 'MAD Magazine'

As an editor at “MAD Magazine” for over 30 years, I have long understood that there is no vibrant satire without free speech. I also understand that the best satire does not pummel its targets with a feather and has a fearless quality about it. So, satirists can’t spend too much time worrying — what, us worry? — about how their work will be evaluated by supporters of the target of their satire.

I recently gave a copy of the latest MAD book, “MAD About Trump,” to a Republican neighbor. After reading it, he said, “It’s so offensive to him (Trump), it really crosses a line.”

“We’re just doing our job,” I replied. ”And let’s face it, no matter how hard we try, we can’t possibly be as vulgar as Trump.” I got a chuckle out of him with that, which made me feel good.

Still, our exchange inspired me to ask myself: What and where exactly is this “line” my neighbor says that “MAD” crossed? Answer: It is the point, from his perspective, at which our material stopped being funny and turned purely offensive. We all have such a line and where and how you draw it determines your sense of humor. Please note: It’s not just individuals who have “lines” — societies and cultures do as well. For example, if you think Kathy Griffin was treated unfairly in America for holding up a severed head of the president (for which she has recently retracted her apology), imagine the response if she lived in Saudi Arabia and had held up a severed head of the King.

“Star Trek’s” Captain Picard famously said, “The line must be drawn here!” He was talking about the Borg, but no matter. As a satirist, I say, “Draw the line and I will cross it without apology.” After all, without lines to cross, I’d be out of work.

That said, we satirists have lines too, and lines vary among satirists just as they do among members of our audience. This brings me to the latest cover of the satirical newspaper, “Charlie Hebdo,” which depicts swastika flags and hands raised above floodwaters in Nazi salutes with the copy, “God exists! He drowned all the neo-Nazis of Texas.”

This is precisely the kind of satire that we do not engage in at “MAD,” not because we’re cowed, but because for us it falls squarely into the category of “victim humor,” something we do our best to avoid. I suppose that it could be argued that every joke has a “victim,” but as a satirist I make a distinction between “victim” and “target.”

While virtually anyone or anything can be the target of satire, what is the point of making fun of innocents who die in a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, or for that matter the sick and infirm, or those living in abject poverty?

The editors of “Charlie Hebdo” would probably say that they were making a broad point about what they view as the prevalence of white nationalism in Texas. However, connecting white nationalism to random deaths caused by a hurricane is not only nonsensical, it makes light of the suffering of those who died. Newsflash: The editors of “Charlie Hebdo” don’t care. This is their brand, it’s what they do. We are just paying more attention now, because they are offending Texans instead of Muslims.

In the aftermath of the terrorist shootings at the “Charlie Hebdo” offices, “MAD” expressed solidarity and support. It didn’t matter that none of us are especially big fans of “Charlie Hebdo”’s brand of satire. The idea that satirists could be murdered in cold blood for publishing cartoons was chilling. We felt a responsibility to speak out.

“MAD” published a cartoon showing Alfred E. Neuman and the Black and White Spy from “Spy vs. Spy” raising a giant pen with a “Charlie Hebdo” flag attached. A few days later, our Editor-In-Chief, John Ficarra, offered an intentionally sobering commentary on “CBS Sunday Morning.”

On Monday, we were back at work looking for ripe targets for satire. “Charlie Hebdo” itself was not a ripe target for satire to us then, any more than the unfortunate victims of Hurricane Harvey are now.

At the end of the day, making satire is a moral exercise. Satirists reveal themselves as much by the form and tone of their satire, as they do by the targets they choose. Even more than satiric target practice, the editors at “Charlie Hebdo” need practice in choosing satiric targets.

John Lennon's 'Imagine' Threatens The Conservative Mindset Far Away And Near

Imagining universal love and world peace can be a pretty scary thing. Just ask a conservative.

Nearly a half century after it was written, John Lennon’s “Imagine” continues to spark upset and outrage among right wingers who don’t understand its message or are afraid of even attempting what the song pleads with us to do.

The latest example of this comes from Pakistan, where according to the Hindustan Times, a performance of “Imagine” by students at the Karachi Grammar School was cancelled after complaints that the song encouraged atheism.

The controversy was started by commentator Ansar Abbasi, well-known in Pakistan for his nationalist and orthodox religious views. He tweeted, “A private school in Karachi is holding a concert and will sing John Lennon’s lyrics — no heaven, no hell, no religion too.”

Soon, Orya Maqbool Jan, a television talk show host and former civil bureaucrat in the Paksitan Administrative Service, chimed in. The students’ parents were “slaves to Western thought,” he said. Also: “The song questions our belief in God and encourages an atheist mindset.”

Atheist mindset? That would have certainly come as news to Lennon, who in one of his final interviews said, “People got the idea that I was anti-Christ or anti-religion. I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it (life) than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist.”

Previously, Lennon had stated, ”I believe in God but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us.” And so, in his most famous song, Lennon never suggests that we “Imagine there’s no God,” though he did tell an interviewer, “Of course, you’re welcome to do that, too.”

Specifically regarding “Imagine,” Lennon said, “If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion — not without religion but without this ‘my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing’ — then it can be true.” Lennon also noted that “God is a concept by which we measure our pain. ” He was on to something with that, too.

Nevertheless, conservatives in Pakistan and elsewhere aren’t buying it. Ever since he opined that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, Lennon’s spiritual and religious insights have been mostly rejected by conservatives, many of whom still bristle at “Imagine” and reflexively dismiss the song. Their problem, which they simply can’t acknowledge, is their own inability or flat-out refusal to take on the task with which Lennon has challenged them — and all of us.

To deliberately and consciously imagine a world with no heaven, hell or country requires us to surrender — at least for a few moments — our religious beliefs and national identity. That can be a scary thing to do in a liberal democracy. In a repressive theocracy, it is without question among the most subversive and forbidden things one can do because of its potential to nourish independent thought and threaten allegiance to the status quo.

“Imagine” then is precisely the kind of dangerous blasphemy that can lead one to the utterly perverse belief that “Your brother is everyone you meet,” as Lennon foolishly declared in “Instant Karma,” or as he blurted in “Mind Games,” “love is a flower, you got to let it grow,” a sentiment which if embraced by the masses would forever destroy the lucrative fertilizer industry.

Please note: It is not just just social conservatives in Pakistan who have problems with “Imagine.” The song has encountered plenty of right wing blowback in America. An article in The American Conservative, published around the 30th anniversary of Lennon’s death in 2010, was called “Stop Imagining.” While the author took no issue whatsoever with the song, he chastised Lennon fans for clinging to an image of their hero as the embodiment of liberalism, even after he had moderated some of this views and distanced himself from left-wing political radicalism. Yes, it is indeed true that Lennon did both of those things. That’s called maturity. But neither Lennon nor Yoko Ono, who was given a co-songwriting credit earlier this year, ever distanced themselves from the message of or the philosophy behind “Imagine.” Consequently, American conservatives, missing the point entirely, have never stopped ripping the lyrics.

A 2015 article in The National Review laments that “to believers of older religion its (”Imagine’s”) open recommendation of an atheist faith cannot but sound lamentable and threatening.” The writer concludes that “few songs are more divisive” and in a follow up piece notes that the song’s “dream of no countries ... would turn out to be a nightmare.” Yes, just as Jesus’s advice that we turn the other cheek, if we all took it literally, would turn out to be a nightmare by allowing evil to forever triumph over good.

The most grave and immediate threat to humanity is not climate change: it’s tribalism. “Imagine” offers an antidote. It is not, as critics maintain, the expression of naive or far-fetched optimism. “Imagine” actually suggests a level-headed and pragmatic course of action. First and foremost, it is a directive, a call to peaceful arms. Lennon gently implores us to take responsibility for our future by projecting it positively.

Our work is to make a sincere and consistent effort to see beyond the forms and indentifications that keep us divided and in perpetual conflict. To imagine peace is merely the first step. The next step is to cultivate peace as a practice, thereby narrowing the gap between the world we imagine and the world we actually live in. The religiously devout and atheists alike can engage in this activity. No belief in God or country, not that there’s anything wrong with that, is required. Just let belief and patriotism go for a short time and pay attention to what happens. Repeat.

One cannot help but wonder: If students in Pakistan can be forbidden from singing “Imagine,” could the same thing happen in America? It has already happened in Britain, so of course it could. Which brings to mind another Lennon quote: “Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”