In Trump's Sick Fantasies Mika Brzezinski and Megyn Kelly Bleed

It started, you will recall, with Megyn Kelly. “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals...’ Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect President?” she famously asked Donald Trump in the first Republican Presidential debate of August 2015.

Trump, of course, had no answer. “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” he smugly shot back. The audience cheered.

The next day, Trump told CNN’s Don Lemon what he didn’t have the balls to tell Kelly to her face: “I just don’t respect her as a journalist. I have no respect for her...I think she’s highly overrated...She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. And, you know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Trump later explained in a tweet that by “her wherever” he meant “her nose.” Whatever. Be it from her nose or her pussy, Trump saw blood, Megyn Kelly’s blood.

This was almost a decade after Trump, three months shy of his 60th birthday with his 24-year old daughter wearing a mini-skirt at his side, proudly told the women of The View,“ If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” Everyone laughed. “Who are you, Woody Allen?” Joy Behar quipped. “That’s very good,” Trump replied. Never mind that Soon-Yi Previn, married to Woody Allen now for nearly two decades, is not his daughter. They had sex. That was the salient thing to Trump. Of course, it was “very good.”

About six months earlier, unbeknownst to him at the time, Trump’s repugnant pussy-grabbing remarks were being recorded in the Access Hollywood bus. When the shocking audio was released a month before the 2016 presidential election, it seemed that Trump’s fate as a loser was sealed. But in a diseased patriarchy, expressing hateful views toward women does not disqualify a candidate. Large numbers of women actually defended Trump and still do (see Sarah Huckabee Sanders), which is nothing short of heartbreaking, as when an abused wife passionately defends the man who promised her happiness, yet does nothing but humiliate and objectify her, and shows no signs of stopping.

Now Trump has a repulsive vision of MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski "bleeding badly from a facelift,” he said in a tweet, inspired by her criticizing his handling of healthcare and taxes and foreign policy. Imagine the response of Republicans, those stalwart monitors of Christian and family values, if Barack Obama had said such a vile thing about Laura Ingraham or Monica Crowley or Ann Coulter. Imagine the stream of toxic vitriol that would spew from Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

When Trump verbally assaults women who threaten him, he imagines them bleeding and badly injured, or in a severely weakened state. In these grotesque inner visions, he sees strong, intelligent and beautiful women as weak, stupid and and horrifically ugly. Such is the defensive and diseased automatic response from a President who has not matured psychologically beyond a stunted pubescent stage. To regenerate his warped sense of masculinity, he must put on his clown tie and beat his chest while denigrating bitches.

It follows naturally then that Trump does not care about protecting mother earth or disadvantaged children, or the arts for that matter. All of that is the province of women, who must be degraded and controlled. Consequently, there “has to be some form of punishment” for women who have an abortion. In fact, the question of abortion itself shall be left to Trump through his Supreme Court judges, who he guarantees will overturn Roe v. Wade, a promise he is already chillingly on the way to fulfilling with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch.

To individuate, to attain even an iota of wisdom, a man must nourish the soul. That essential task requires a man to consciously forge a relationship with the inner Feminine. Trump has zero interest or aptitude for that. The impact this has on his Presidency is profoundly deleterious. Completely disassociated and alienated from feminine values and sensibilities, Trump is incapable of expressing genuine affection or regret for the hurt he inflicts on women or the nation. He cannot “stand beside her and guide her” because for her he has nothing but contempt.

Most concerning of all is that Trump has absolutely no awareness of this. While he pleasures himself with deranged fantasies of bloodied female journalists, his enablers and apologists offer excuses or perfunctory criticisms, for example Paul Ryan who somehow mustered up the courage to say, “I don’t see that comment (Trump’s comment on Brzezinski) as appropriate.” To really rile up a boy-man like Paul Ryan, Trump would have to say something truly offensive, for example, “I see health care as a basic human right.” 

 

How Trump Embraces George Orwell And Picks Up Where Richard Pryor Left Off

5885fd801c00002600d93a92.jpg

My barber is angry at the media.

“Why did ‘they’ have to show a photo of Obama’s inauguration crowd next to Trump’s?” he asked.

“Because Trump’s press secretary said it was the largest crowd ever to witness an inauguration and it wasn’t,” I answered.

“Who cares? He just took office, why don’t they give him a chance?”

“It’s tough to give him a chance when Kellyanne Conway calls his lies ‘alternative facts.’”

“Who cares? It’s the media blowing the whole thing up. Hey, did you hear what Madonna said?”

Yes, I had heard what Madonna said. Her interest in BDSM is well-known. Why hadn’t anyone thought to gag her before she addressed the crowd? By saying that she “thought a lot about blowing up the White House,” Madonna provided Trump supporters with a conversation changer they’ll be able to use to their advantage for the next four years. At best her remarks were embarrassing; at worst they could have incited violence. It’s important that we call her out. Still, the most important story of the weekend is that the White House has adopted Doublespeak, the language of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984, as its official language:

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Falsehoods are alternative facts.

This is scary stuff because it’s bullshit on a level that we have never encountered before. We are not dealing here with a partial truth or an outright lie, which politicians engage in all of the time. No, this is much worse. It is a sinister kind of obfuscation, the purpose of which is to make everything debatable, even irrefutable truths. I am reminded of the lyrics of an old Graham Nash song, “Man In The Mirror,” in which he sings:

Two and two makes four

They never make five

And as long as we know it

We all can survive…

Well, now two and two just might make five, or 127. I don’t know but there are many people saying it does. In this authoritarian bizarro world a fact isn’t a fact unless Trump says it is and seeing things with your own eyes is not proof of anything.

A classic Richard Pryor standup bit comes to mind. He offers the following advice on what a man should say to his wife when he’s been caught in bed with another woman:

“When you are married, say you don’t fuck around, if you’ve got any brains. My wife (asks), ‘Did you fuck her?’ No, I was not fucking her. I don’t care what you think you saw. I was not fucking her. Now are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

It’s great comedy: deny, deny, deny, even when you’ve been caught red-handed in the act of cheating on your wife. Admit nothing. Counter attack (it’s your eyes). Lie until the lie becomes the truth, or at the very least causes a smidgen a doubt. And remember, a smidgen of doubt is all you need, because doubt inspires debate and debate is your friend. Debate means that there are at least two sides to the story worth considering.

Richard Pryor’s punchline is where the discussion with Trump begins. Who are you going to believe, the photos that purportedly show Obama’s crowd was larger than his or your lying eyes? To their credit, New York Times and CNN told it like it was with their respective headlines, “White House Pushes ‘Alternative Facts.’ Here Are the Real Ones” and “Conway Defends False Claim About Inauguration Crowd Size.” But is it too little to late?

While Trump rages against the “lying” media we ourselves are not even sure what the media is anymore. Social media is media too, right? If my Facebook feed is any barometer Trump would have already been impeached and banished to Moscow.

“The media” is simply our digital diet, what each one of us chooses to consume electronically. Who has more influence, NPR or Alex Jones? I can’t say actually and that is what is so troubling about this point at which we have arrived.

My barber’s default position – who cares? – is reflective of his disgust and weariness. He has been worn down by the toxicity of the news cycles. Maybe, just maybe, Trump can fix it. That thought, of course, is fodder for yet more debate and therein lies the paradox.

Debate is essential to a healthy society, however debating whether or not a giraffe can balance a check book somewhat misses the mark. The fact is that Trump has already been revealed to anyone willing to open their eyes:

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, yet ignore hm at your own peril.

Choose your debates carefully. 

 

Megyn Kelly Is Guilty Of Journalism

5947651c210000170033cd39.jpg

Like comic book fanboys who write bad reviews of a superhero movie based on its trailer, Megyn Kelly’s interview with raging conspiracist Alex Jones was widely panned by many liberals before it was even seen. And not just liberals. A dozen family members of Sandy Hook victims felt so aggreived, they had a law firm send a letter threatening to sue NBC News for its decision “to amplify the voice of a man who has made a living debasing...and smearing our client’s names.” One can only hope that the firm, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, didn’t have the balls to actually charge a fee for doing this.

We have been told that by interviewing Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly is amplifying his baseless rantings, that she is giving him a platform and therefore causing unimaginable pain to the parents who lost children in the horrific Sandy Hook massacre. We have been told that Alex Jones should never be interviewed on a major news network because doing so would only dignify him, unless perhaps he were to be interviewed by the ghost of Mike Wallace.

Please note: Megyn Kelly’s biggest detractor now is Alex Jones himself. He did everything within his power to discredit her before the interview aired. His posting of their pre-interview, exposing Kelly’s promises to him, was meant to expose her as a fraud, but all it revealed was her strategy for landing a big stinky fish. Kelly was undeniably disengenious in her approach to Jones, but if he knew that, then why did he agree to the interview?

The simple truth is that Alex Jones chomped on Megyn Kelly’s bait and has been desperately trying to wiggle off the hook ever since. Unable to do so, on Sunday afternoon he released a stupefyingly tone-deaf video in which he finally admitted that the Sandy Hook murders took place and invited the parents of the slain children “to open a dialogue... instead of letting the MSM (mainstream media) try to drive this nation apart.”

Yes, of course, it’s the media’s fault for reporting on what happened at Sandy Hook and what Alex Jones actually said about it. No wonder Donald Trump told him, “Your reputation’s amazing – I will not let you down.” Alex Jones is Donald Trump’s kind of journalist: he doesn’t care about facts and spews garbage. Megyn Kelly, on the other hand, he’s had issues with, most notably when he said, “she had blood coming out of her wherever,” because she dared, while an employee of Fox News no less, to confront him with his own misogynistic hate speech.

This is the same Megyn Kelly, who while interviewing Dick Cheney told him, “Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong in Iraq.” This is the same Megyn Kelly who refused to give an inch to Ben Carson when he insisted that the Gold Star family Donald Trump insulted owed Trump an apology. This is the same Meygn Kelly, who after Newt Gingrich told her that she was “fascinated with sex,” told him, “I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women...” and then, “Take your anger issues and spend some time working on them.”

Apparently, none of this matters to The Daily Show’s Michelle Wolf, who in a recent hit-job segment smugly called Kelly “basically a pretty race-baiting puppet (of Roger Ailes).” Wolf then proceeded to show a montage of seven clips, none of which offered a shred of evidence of her claim, except arguably the final one, Kelly’s infamous blunder of referring to Jesus as white. Wolf didn’t bother to mention that on her very next show, Kelly said, “I did say Jesus was white. As I’ve learned in the past few days, that is far from settled.”

Note to Michelle Wolf: I’m guessing that you have accepted Bill Maher’s explanation for his use of the term “house nigger.” Then why not Megyn Kelly’s explanation for saying that Jesus was white? Another thing: It did not escape me that your use of the word “pretty” in describing Kelly was pejorative and dismissive, as if to suggest that she’s a no-talent. There is something really strange about that coming from a woman as pretty and talented as yourself. I’m guessing that you would not like it if someone referred to you as “a pretty race-baiting puppet (of Trevor Noah).” Think about it.

I will admit that as a satirist and a liberal, I don’t enjoy criticizing The Daily Show because it is a show I love. But let’s get a grip here. Megyn Kelly is not the Antichrist, nor is she Rachel Maddow. But Alex Jones was never going to sit down for a chat with Rachel Maddow or anyone at MSNBC. But he would talk to Megyn Kelly and the fact that he did is a victory for her and, more importantly, for journalism.

 

Following Kathy Griffin's Lead, Bill Maher Apologizes For A Comedy Misstep

Bill Maher on "Reel Time" with Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska 

Bill Maher on "Reel Time" with Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska 

In the aftermath of Bill Maher's use of the term "house nigger" -- and no, we are not going to censor words in this article -- while interviewing Senator Ben Sasse on the latest episode of Real Time, Kelly Carlin, daughter of George, asked this question online: "Should only women be able to say the word 'cunt'?" 

In my show, The Joy of Censorship, I long argued that the word "cunt," not "nigger," is the most forbidden word in America today because, like it or not, "nigger" has found its way into common usage in the black community. Many lament this; others think it is fine. My point: you don't hear women calling each other "cunt" in casual conversation or in pop songs. John Lennon was definitely onto something when he sang "woman is the nigger of the world." The black man won the right to vote in America before women. Likewise, we had a black male president before a woman president. Patriarchy still rules.

Last week, in my piece about Kathy Griffin, I noted that offending people is only a problem for comedians when they can't stand by their own material. When Bill Maher was jeered by some members of the audience for referring to himself a "house nigger," his instinctive response was to defend himself. "It's a joke," he said, and moved on with his interview. 

By Saturday, Maher had heard the chorus of boos around the country and issued an apology: "I regret using the word I used in the banter of a live moment. The word was offensive and I regret saying it and am very sorry'. The irony of this is inescapable: Earlier in the year, on a "New Rules" segment, Maher implored Hollywood liberals to stop apologizing for every mistake they make regarding political correctness. 

Something very important needs to be unpacked here: What was offensive about what Bill Maher said was not his use of the term itself, it was the context. The context was a live interview and there was absolutely no reason that Maher needed to use a racial slur. It came out of left field. Upon reflection, Maher himself came to this conclusion, so there was nothing he could do except apologize and hope the outrage does not cost him his job. No comedian wants to be in that embarrassing  position, but Maher has no one to blame but himself. 

Again, the issue here is context, not the word. This is comedy 101, as I learned from the master George Carlin. I am perhaps one of the few white comedians who used the word "nigger" in his act for many years. I did this with the full understanding that to some people any use of that loaded word, especially by a white man, no matter what the context, is objectionable. I respect that viewpoint, however please note: I have used the word in this article, and I stand by my use of it.

A number of years ago, New South Books, an Alabama-based publisher,  released an edition of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with the word "nigger" expurgated and replaced it with the word "slave." I thought at the time and continue to think that this is a very bad idea. First of all, the words are not synonymous. Secondly, it sets a terrible precedent. Shall we call Richard Pryor's classic comedy album, That Slave's Crazy? To properly read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the reader must deal with the word "nigger," just as readers of Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer must deal with the word "cunt." These words are sometimes used in works of art and that doesn't make those works racist or misogynistic.  

When discussing and joking about this controversial and fascinating subject in my show, I made the decision to use the word "nigger" rather than "n-word" because I thought it was vitally important to the point I wanted to make and to the conversation I wanted to encourage. Some people were offended. At a performance in Mississippi, a few rows of the audience walked out on me. But in the years I did this material I stuck to my guns and offered no apology for my use of language. The overwhelming majority of blacks in my audience seemed to have no problem with this and it was especially gratifying to me when I received appreciative comments from black audience members following a performance.

No word or subject should ever be out of bounds for a comedian. It is worth noting that when comedy clubs started to ban the word "nigger" after the Michael Richards incident at the Laugh Factory in 2006, it was black comedians who pushed back, and hooray for that. Those who control the use of words control the conversation and debate on vitally important issues.  Comedians should not and must not cede this ground to anyone. That said, with great comedy power comes great comedy responsibility. Bill Maher knows this and that's why he is not happy today, because he fell short of his own standards.

As for Kelly Carlin's provocative question, "Should only women be able to say the word 'cunt'?" Of course not, though men will never have the same license. 

 

Kathy Griffin Suffers The Comedy Consequences For a Joke She Can't Defend

593049852000001900bdfe8d.jpg

As a stand-up who has had tomatoes hurled at him by a displeased audience during his act ― and, in the interests of full disclosure, the tomatoes were followed by mixed salad greens and a lounge chair (no kidding) ― I can’t help but feel empathy for Kathy Griffin, or any comedian, who inadvertently pisses off their audience.

There is a big difference, however, between how I bombed and how Kathy Griffin bombed with her ill-conceived severed Trump-head photo. Bombing before a live audience solely because you’re not funny, as I did, isn’t anywhere near as disturbing as bombing before a global audience because you’re not funny and socially tone deaf, and/or crassly insensitive to a marginalized or victimized group.

At the risk of stating the obvious: A comedian who doesn’t transgress by “crossing the line” ― whatever and wherever that ever-shifting line may be ― isn’t a very good comedian. Great comic talents not only cross the line, they move well beyond it into new terrain.

Think Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Louis CK and Jerrod Carmichael, to name a handful of superb comedy provocateurs. They have all been unapologetically outspoken, despite offending many people. Also, at one time or another, they have all made even their most ardent fans squirm with jokes that were off the mark.

Offending people becomes a problem for comedians only when they can’t stand by their material. It is worth noting that Stephen Colbert did not apologize, nor should have, for his recent use of the term “cock holster” in a joke referring to what Donald Trump’s mouth is best suited for in relation to Vladimir Putin. Colbert’s language was crass, but his satiric point was spot on. Knowing that, he was able to firmly defend his comedy ground.

Bill Maher was not able to do that in the tense aftermath of 9-11 when he observed, “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” However, in his Mea culpa he admitted no error in judgement: “I offer my apologies to anyone who took it (what he said) wrong.” In other words, “don’t blame me.”

What makes Kathy Griffin’s situation substantively different is that, upon further review, she agrees with her critics that her joke was deeply offensive and without merit. That being the case, she felt compelled to post an on-camera apology, in which she admitted with much embarrassment, “I went way too far.”

That doesn’t mean that Kathy Griffin is a bad person, a lousy comedian, or sick in the head; it just means that she made a made a terrible comedy decision, which is humbling, humiliating and potentially career-threatening. Just ask Michael Richards. 

Does anyone know what the former “Seinfeld” star is up to these days? Sadly, he is as much remembered for his memorable portrayal as “Kramer” as he is for his infamously awful stand-up rant at the Laugh Factory in 2006 that devolved into racist tirade. A shell-shocked Richards went on “The Late Show” to tell David Letterman that he was “deeply, deeply sorry,” and years later confessed that the incident had “broke him down.”

Gilbert Gottfried’s career has recovered from his stupefying lapse of comedy judgement in 2011, when in the aftermath of a horrific tsunami in Japan, he posted a series of highly offensive tweets which cost him his gig as the voice of the Aflac Duck. When even Gilbert can’t defend a joke, you know it’s over the line. “I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by my attempt at humor regarding the tragedy in Japan,” he said in a statement.

In 2007, Don Imus lost his job at MSNBC after referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.” It took him a few days, but he finally came around to admitting, “Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry.”

Also very sorry that same year were Opie and Anthony for airing the crude comments of a homeless man who expressed interest in having sex with Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth: “We apologize to the public officials for the comments that were made on our show.” Yeah, right.

Kathy Griffin is hardly the first comedian to totally misread the culture and lose her job, and she certainly won’t be the last. Insult comedians, edgy political satirists and shock jocks build careers on their outrageous fearlessness. They all want to “cross the line,” yet somehow remain within the bounds of cultural acceptability. The problem with that is it’s not always possible.

As a comedy writer and performer, I frequently ask myself, have I pushed the proverbial envelope too far, or not far enough? I make my best guess, but ultimately it is the audience that decides.

For what it’s worth, in my 40 years in comedy I have learned at least one thing: When being bombarded by tomatoes, leave the stage quickly, if for no other reason than to get a new shirt. And then, get back out there with new stuff, which is exactly what Kathy Griffin is going to do.