Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for the ‘Comedy’ Category

Buddy Hackett — two brief videos

leave a comment »

And this:

Written by LeisureGuy

29 June 2020 at 7:18 pm

Posted in Comedy, Video

Sarah Cooper, aided by President Trump, shows how to Bible

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

8 June 2020 at 8:35 am

The Cooper Review is insightful as well as funny

leave a comment »

Take this post, for example: 9 Non-Threatening Leadership Strategies for Women. And browse around the site.

.

Written by LeisureGuy

31 May 2020 at 7:34 am

Posted in Books, Comedy, Daily life

Trump said, “I have the best words.” Sarah Cooper shows how.

leave a comment »

The article begins:

Donald Trump has some ideas about fighting the coronavirus. “We hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” the president says, to the bafflement of nearby aides. “Supposing, I said, you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or … in some other way,” continues the president, gesturing toward her —

Her? I should explain. The words are 100 percent Donald J. Trump’s. The actions belong to the comedian Sarah Cooper, whose homemade lip-syncs of the president’s rambling pandemic-related statements have become the most effective impression of Mr. Trump yet.

Ms. Cooper posted that first video, titled “How to Medical,” to TikTok and Twitter in April. In a 49-second tour de force, Ms. Cooper illustrates his musings on light and disinfectant using a lamp and household cleaning products, playing the president’s puzzled aide in cutaways.

She captures her Trump entirely through pantomime. She crosses her arms and bounces on her heels, like a C.E.O. filibustering through a meeting while the staff suffers. Plenty of wags seized on Mr. Trump’s bleach prescription for easy jokes, but her performance gets at something deeper: the peacocky entitlement of the longtime boss who is used to having his every whim indulged, his every thought-doodle praised as a Michelangelo.

Ms. Cooper has been on a tear since, her karaoke Trump holding forth on the math of disease testing and wrestling with what it means to test “positively” for a virus. Channeling the president’s announcement that he was taking the drug hydroxychloroquine (against prevailing medical advice) as a Covid preventive, she’s a manic Willy Wonka, handing out a blister pack of pills to herself as a girl in pigtails.

Long before he was elected, Donald Trump posed the challenge of being easy to imitate, and thus nearly impossible to satirize. Everyone has a Trump, and when everyone has a Trump, no one does.

A big problem comes when a writer tries to take the president’s belligerent spoken jazz (“I know words. I have the best words”) and force it into comedic 4/4 time. Even the most lacerating satire has to impose coherence on Mr. Trump, which — like news reports that try to find a narrative in his ramblings — ends up polishing the reality, losing the chaos essential to the genuine article.

Which maybe destined Donald Trump to be the TikTok president. The service was built around the concept of lip-sync videos, and to spoof this president, the perfect script is no script.

Before Ms. Cooper’s “How to Medical,” other TikTok users riffed on a Trump ramble about the power of “germs.” Kylie Scott posted “Drunk in the Club After Covid,” lip-syncing Mr. Trump’s words as a rambling inebriate, finding 80-proof logic in the teetotaler president’s musings.

“The germ has gotten so brilliant,” she mouths — cradling a drink, squinting her eyes and spiraling a finger toward her temple — “that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it.” (A TikTok search on “#drunktrump” yields a growing crop of examples.) . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

29 May 2020 at 9:03 am

Sarah Cooper is my new favorite insightful person

leave a comment »

Consider, for example, this post. Anyone from a corporate workplace will recognize all of this.

Of look through the short videos in her Twitter feed. (I discovered the easy way to turn on the sound, which is needed, is to restart the video by click the start of the video progress bar.)

YouTube has several. Here’s one:

Written by LeisureGuy

28 May 2020 at 11:12 am

The Sprint-T-Mobile Merger: A Jump the Shark Moment for Antitrust?

leave a comment »

Matt Stoller writes in Big:

Jumping the Shark

In season five of the sitcom Happy Days, the writers had the main character Fonzie jump over a shark while on waterskis, coining the term ‘jump the shark’ to denote a moment when something that once made sense becomes stupid, irrelevant, and self-evidently ridiculous. That’s what just happened with libertarian antitrust doctrine. A New York Judge, Victor Marrero allowed Sprint and T-Mobile to merge in an already concentrated telecom industry. His decision is fascinating, mostly because it’s so badly done, and reveals, unwittingly, both the hollowness at the core of modern antitrust doctrine and why we see concentrated power across the American economy.

Just a warning here. I’m not going to do much merger analysis, you’ll just have to trust me that cell phone companies like money. If you don’t buy that underlying assumption, then the rest of this won’t make sense to you.

Why This Merger Is Bad

From an industrial organizational perspective, the problem with the Sprint-T-Mobile merger is obvious. Mobile phone services is a very concentrated industry. It has four main players, and the merger seeks to bring that number down to three. As John Kwoka shows, mergers in concentrated industries tend to raise prices, which is a no-no even under the narrow antitrust standards we have today. T-Mobile is what is called a ‘maverick firm,’ challenging the industry with aggressively low prices. Going from four to three in a concentrated market, when one of the players merging is a maverick, is *exactly* what the laws against illegal monopolization are designed to prohibit. Yet Marrero cleared it.

The main evidence against the merger was that executives were going to raise prices. How do we know? Well the head marketing executive from Sprint texted a colleague not only on how excited he was to raise prices after the merger, but how everyone in the industry would raise prices. As it turns out, corporations don’t like competition. Instead they prefer money. I know, crazy, right?

Regardless of what you think about the industry, let’s look at the underlying logic of the judge. The Clayton Act, which is our main anti-merger law, prohibits mergers that may substantially lessen competition. There are various ways to understand what that means, like market share thresholds, but the gist of the law is that if there’s a reasonable chance a merger will reduce competition, especially in concentrated markets, it shouldn’t be let through. Executives excited to hike prices would seem to be evidence of a good probability it’s a bad merger.

Marrero’s view of how this would work out is different.

In this Court’s view, in the intensely competitive and rapidly changing environment in which complex and dynamic markets operate, the anticompetitive business strategies and market effects Plaintiff States predict are unlikely…

Against a backdrop of T-Mobile’s longstanding business strategy as the self-styled maverick and disruptive Un-carrier, it would be counter-productive, even self-defeating, for New T-Mobile soon after the merger to invest, innovate, and improve network speed, capacity, and quality, or to refrain from offering products incorporating the most advanced technologies, enhanced content, and improved service plans, and ultimately to lower prices, as market dynamism would demand and more reliably predict. By embarking on the polar course Plaintiff States foresee, New T-Mobile would effectively imperil its own future.

Marrero is claiming that US telecom incumbents, who pretty much face less competition that anyone in most of the industrialized world and are routinely cited for consumer protection violations, wouldn’t use anticompetitive tactics. He also just believes T-Mobile’s branding campaign – in which its CEO called the company the Un-carrier and wore magenta t-shirts, and imagines that this is the first merger motivated by altruism.

I’m being flip, but it’s just hard to take this decision seriously. At a certain point, he contrasts the ‘market dynamism’ of cell phones to other products, because telecom is complicated. By contrast, “milk is milk,” he wrote, comparing cell phones to what he imagines is a simpler product and thus a less “dynamic” market. Marrero is fooled in two ways. He falls for the branding that products like cell phones, which are actually forty plus years old, involve technology, and so he’s dealing with mystical wizards not normal businesspeople. He also ignores genuine complexity, infrastructure, and technology in agricultural markets because he doesn’t realize that food isn’t actually grown in supermarkets. He understands milk because it’s, you know, milk, but cell phones are magic.

Believe it or not, none of what I’ve mentioned so far is the most notable part of the opinion. What’s even better is Marrero’s view of experts and the law. Here’s how Marrero frames the various paid experts testifying about the deal and the amount of homework everyone had to do.

The qualifications of litigants’ specialists, impressive by the titles they have held and the tomes of their CVs fill, can be humbling and intimidating… Together, counsel and experts amass documentary and testimonial records for trial that can occupy entire storage rooms to capacity.

He goes on to note how impressive all these wonks are with their mathematical models, complimenting the various economists and technical experts who educated him on telecommunications. And then he throws up his hands and says, well both sides have such experts, so I’m going to not care about any of it. You think I am kidding, but I am not.

“How the future manifests itself and brings to pass what it holds is a multi-faceted phenomenon that is not necessarily guided by theoretical forces or mathematical models,” he writes. “Instead, causal agents that engender knowing and purposeful human behavior, individual and collective, fundamentally shape that narrative.” The net of his argument is that court should turn to their “traditional judicial methods,” which is to say, “they resort to their own tried and tested version of peering into a crystal ball.”

The evidence on telecom consolidation is clear – less competition means higher prices and worse service. But Marrero just shrugs. In point of fact, his decision comes down to his belief that the T-Mobile executives were good guys, or as he puts it, watching “their demeanor” at trial.

The great achievement of antitrust scholar Robert Bork, who structured our current pro-monopoly framework, was to subvert the law through the judiciary. This isn’t obvious, because Bork couched his arguments under the notion of bringing rationality and certainty to antitrust. “I use the word ‘science’ deliberately,” he wrote in one of his endless attacks on judges and prosecutors for trying to restrain monopoly. Bork essentially persuaded policymakers of two things. One, antitrust doctrine should be based on complex pseudo-scientific theories of economists, rather than traditional legal notions of equity and justice, or even basic common sense. It’s a science, and if you don’t know lots of math, butt out. Two, antitrust law should be judge made, especially if a judge wants to go easy on corporate concentration. If judges make law, then more democratic branches of government, like legislatures and regulatory agencies, lose power. Bork’s arguments were as much a theory of constitutional structure as anything else, a way to protect concentrated power from democratic checks.

And it worked. The reason we have concentrated power in our markets today in everything from cheerleading to movie studios is because Bork’s philosophy has been in practice since 1981. Judges have been persuaded by the libertarian notion that mergers are extremely complex scientific endeavors, and to stop a merger means to meddle with nature. Marrero has full-on bought into Bork’s ideas, and revealed how stupid they actually are. Lest you think this is some partisan jab, it’s not – Marrero was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Judges are supposed to execute the will of Congress, and Congress has been clear four times, in 1890, 1913, 1936, and 1950, that the antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, small enterprise, and economic liberty. But here’s Marrero, “Adjudication of antitrust disputes virtually turns the judge into a fortuneteller. Deciding such cases typically calls for a judicial reading of the future.” But antitrust is not about turning Federal judges into central planning agents guessing about future economic outcomes. It should be about clear standards to block illegal mergers rather than judges being impressed with CEOs who wear magenta.

There is an upside, here, even though it’s a horrible decision. A random judge, based on his gut feel about a charismatic CEO, just concentrated a swath of the American economy, which will end up raising prices for consumers and hurt telecom employees, probably within a few years (and starting with people in poverty, since prices to them are less noticeable for elites). But in doing so, Marrero accidentally noted that Bork-style antitrust is basically just a ruse, an annoying multi-million dollar costume party of economic experts dressing up in fancy clothing carrying around big stacks of paper while a judge flips a coin.

In other words, . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

11 February 2020 at 3:15 pm

Whatever it is that great comedians have, Victor Borge had it in spades

leave a comment »

And this is Victor Borge well along in years. He was amazing.

Written by LeisureGuy

14 January 2020 at 8:15 pm

Posted in Comedy, Music, Video

Peter Cook & Dudley Moore – Jesus’ Life

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

24 July 2019 at 8:21 pm

Posted in Comedy, Video

I think it’s starting to dawn on Republican Senators that President Trump is batshit crazy

leave a comment »

Alexander Bolton reports in The Hill:

Republican lawmakers were caught completely off guard by President Trump’s renewed push to repeal and replace ObamaCare and privately complain it’s a dumb political strategy heading into the 2020 election.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), whose panel has jurisdiction over health care, said he received no heads-up from Trump or the White House that the president would call Tuesday for the GOP to become “the party of health care.”

“I don’t think there was any heads-up on anything that he was going to say,” said Grassley, who added that he didn’t even know Trump was meeting with the GOP conference on Tuesday until Monday night.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of another key panel that handles health care, said he didn’t know about Trump’s new health care push until the president tweeted about it at 11:58 a.m. Tuesday, shortly before he walked into a Republican conference lunch to announce it in person.

If Trump had told GOP senators of his plans, they say they would have sought to convince him not to throw their party back into a war over health care — the issue Democrats believe was instrumental to their takeover of the House in last year’s midterms.

A safe 2018 Senate map that had Republican incumbents defending just a handful of seats and Democrats trying to protect senators in deep-red states helped the GOP overcome the blue wave in the House. Republicans actually gained two seats in the Senate.

But the 2020 map is seen as more challenging, and many in the GOP can’t understand why Trump would plunge them into a fight over health care just as he was surfing a wave of good news brought by the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“It doesn’t seem to make sense politically,” said one Republican senator, who questioned why Trump would give Democrats a new avenue of attack.

Another Republican senator said, . . .

Continue reading.

Later in the article, the bit that justifies my use of “batshit crazy” terminology:

The lawmaker said Trump is “throwing down a challenge in advance of the elections which makes it even more difficult,” describing the current politic environment as “toxic” for passing ambitious legislation.

“If you look at past history, we don’t really know how to do it,” the senator added, referring to broad health care legislation.

McCarthy urged Trump in a phone call to drop his administration’s effort to have the law struck down in the courts, arguing the strategy makes little sense after Democrats won control of the House in November after campaigning on health care, according to reports Wednesday by Axios and The Washington Post.

Trump, nevertheless, doubled down on his position Wednesday. He defended the Justice Department’s argument for striking down the law he called a “disaster,” arguing that it had sent premiums soaring and has turned out to be “far too expensive for the people, not only for the country.”

“If the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than ObamaCare,” the president promised at the White House on Wednesday.

Written by LeisureGuy

27 March 2019 at 4:52 pm

Very good comedy special

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

11 March 2019 at 8:07 pm

Posted in Comedy, Video

Window thoughts by President Trump

with one comment

Written by LeisureGuy

23 January 2019 at 4:17 pm

Posted in Comedy, Video

This episode of “Corner Gas” made me laugh out loud, startling the cat

leave a comment »

Of course this is much funnier in the light of the previous episode(s). Corner Gas really is a continuing saga.

Written by LeisureGuy

17 January 2019 at 3:47 pm

Posted in Comedy, Daily life, Video

Still LOL funny: “Corner Gas”

leave a comment »

Watch just the first episode and see if you don’t LOL if not ROFL.

Written by LeisureGuy

15 December 2018 at 12:27 pm

Robert Mueller’s Indictment Song

with 6 comments

Written by LeisureGuy

19 August 2018 at 5:41 pm

“Nanette” on Netflix is seriously good

leave a comment »

Watch it. All the way through.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 July 2018 at 5:47 pm

Bill Maher Is Stand-up Comedy’s Past. Hannah Gadsby Represents Its Future.

with 6 comments

I’m right now watching “Nanette” on Netflix, and this Vulture article by Matt Stoller Seitz is spot-on:

Last weekend, as Hannah Gadsby’s Netflix phenomenon Nanette continued to rack up impassioned reviews and think pieces, Bill Maher aired a new HBO special, Live From Oklahoma. If you watch them back-to-back, they seem to be in conversation, or debate. They have core subjects in common, including the cultural and political status of the cisgender straight man in the era of Donald Trump and #MeToo. But just as importantly, they represent comedy’s past and its future. Maher is the past. Gadsby is the future.

If you look at what both performers have served up as examples of their personal best, it’s hard not to be embarrassed for Maher, as well as anyone else in comedy who feels more kinship with him than with somebody like Gadsby. The Tasmanian comic’s Nanette, which shifts from a typical, joke-driven stand-up special into an explanation of why she’s quitting comedy, delves into her personal biography as a lesbian woman struggling to express her authentic self, and as a student of visual art history who scrutinized Western art painted mainly by straight white men that she unquestioningly accepted as masters because of their “reputation.” It’s a sensational special that veers from breezy slightness to unsettling depths before settling on a benevolent but challenging tone, in the vein of a teacher who entertains in order to teach but also teaches because she’s an entertainer. Gadsby discusses everything from Tasmania’s history of criminalizing homosexuality to her own coming out, her ingrained tendency to be self-deprecating (“It’s not humility, it’s humiliation”), and her suppression of her personality to please both the dominant, straight male–driven culture, and lesbians whose political identities are based around being demonstrative and emotionally transparent (“Where are the quiet gays supposed to go?”).

Nanette is also a deconstruction of stand-up specials, as well as several generations’ worth of straight male–crafted opinions on what “good comedy” is and what “great art” is. Gadsby poses a question which, if answered affirmatively, would validate her stated wish to quit doing stand-up: What if “funny” is the enemy of “honest,” or at least at cross-purposes with it? There’s plenty of funny surrounding the comparatively brief sections where she talks about being beaten up on the street by a homophobic man at age 17, and raped after that, and Gadsby constantly introduces and then releases tension throughout, usually by way of jokes. The result is a stand-up special about the distortions that seem built into the very idea of stand-up. What she’s doing here is not unprecedented — Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, and other masters went dark, raw, abstract, and “unfunny” all the time; a generation of “alternative” comics like Janeane Garofalo pushed the boundaries of hyperpersonal storytelling in the ’90s; Patton Oswalt devoted about 40 percent of his latest stand-up special to stark material about his wife’s Michelle McNamara’s death; and just last month, Cameron Esposito recounted her own sexual assault in the hour-long special Rape Jokes — but Nanette is the highest-profile recent example of a woman veering between funny and raw and still having her venue present the result as, basically, “stand-up comedy” and put it on the Netflix menu along with Jerry Seinfeld. It’s more common to see this kind of project branded as a piece of theater in the vein of solo pieces by Lily Tomlin, John Leguizamo, Eric Bogosian, Whoopi Goldberg, and Anna Deavere Smith — people who would be the first to tell you that they tell stories, not just jokes. In Gadsby’s own words, “My show is not stand-up comedy because I got jack of an art form designed by men for men. Female artists often defy genre.”

One way Gadsby does that is by making comedy itself one of her main topics. Among other things, she argues that “jokes” are less useful for describing the totality of the human condition than “stories.” Jokes, she says, are incomplete thoughts expressed in two stages, the setup and punch line (or “a question” and “a surprise answer”). This structure ensures that jokes as a method of communication are always on some level “incomplete,” which means that by definition they can’t really challenge or change anything, and are therefore more conservative than progressive — reinforcing what we already believe rather than entertaining new information or unfamiliar philosophies.

Stories, on the other hand, have additional stages, or beats, plus layers, ellipses, and more. The good ones open up intellectual and emotional responses rather than trying to manage them or shoo them away. Of course all stand-ups tell stories, some of them quite long, and some end with a punch line — like the best bits in Dave Chappelle’s otherwise lumpy specials from earlier in the year — while others don’t. But I think what Gadsby is getting at here is an overall allegiance to the idea of the joke, the setup, the punch line; a traditional stand-up ideology, as it were, that prizes familiar and reassuring rhythms that she’s not loyal to anymore.

She wonders if participating in stand-up comedy as it’s usually defined (by men) is just enshrining negative emotions and reactionary thoughts. Here, again, she’s not so much rejecting an element in the basic toolkit — all stories employ tension to keep us excited or interested — as highlighting how it’s used to propagate ideas that don’t do people like her any favors. “Taking a joke,” from her perspective, is a nonphysical equivalent of taking a punch. The object of the joke is proving that she can withstand pain by laughing. This in turn reassures the joke-teller that it’s okay to say something that’s wounding, that punches down, that reminds particular groups of what society has decided is “their place.” This is how ideology reproduces itself.

To illustrate this idea, Gadsby tells a joke that both she and the audience agree is amusing: “What sort of comedian can’t even make the lesbians laugh? Every comedian ever.” When the room dies down, Gadsby describes that joke as “bulletproof” because it’s constructed in such a way that its target audience — lesbians — are all but required to laugh at it, in order to prove they aren’t humorless. Of course, that’s the entire point of telling that sort of joke: to get everyone to laugh together at the fact that lesbians are sourpusses who can’t take a joke. “We’ve got to laugh because if we don’t laugh, it proves the point,” she says.

We did laugh, though; Gadsby encouraged us and gave us permission. But thanks to her follow-up, which takes the joke apart like a sculptor dissembling an armature, we also understand the hidden intent of its construction. Which means next time, the laughter sticks in the throat. Or maybe it doesn’t. Either way, Gadsby got a laugh out of us, while also making us wonder why we laughed, and what larger social-conditioning role our laughter plays.

That’s a specific kind of magic trick. Gadsby does variations of that trick throughout Nanette, always pulling us along to the next joke, the next deconstruction of a joke, the next touching or wrenching personal anecdote, pointing out at each stage how she’s shaped the material to elicit certain reactions, and how other comedians find their own ways of doing it, whether their larger goal is to stimulate the audience’s imagination, shut down dissent, or just hear themselves talk. How we tell jokes and stories, and whether we decide to tell a joke or a story, expresses who we are and what we believe. Nanette is . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 July 2018 at 4:39 pm

Bill Gates: “Eddie Izzard is a comic genius”

leave a comment »

Bill Gates writes on his blog:

I’ve recently discovered that I have a lot in common with a funny, dyslexic, transgender actor, comedian, escape artist, unicyclist, ultra-marathoner, and pilot from Great Britain. Except all of the above.

Eddie Izzard is one of my favorite performers. Melinda and I had the pleasure of seeing one of his comedy shows live in London, and then we got to talk with him backstage after the show. So I was excited to pick up his autobiography, Believe Me. It was there that I learned for the first time that Izzard and I share a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses.

As a child, Eddie was nerdy, awkward, and incompetent at flirting with girls. He had terrible handwriting. He was good at math. He was highly motivated to learn everything he could about subjects that interested him. He left college at age 19 to pursue his professional dreams. He had a loving mom who died of cancer way too young.

I can relate to every one of these things.

You might find you share similarities with Eddie as well. In fact, that’s the overarching point of this book. We’re all cut from the same cloth. In his words, “We are all totally different, but we are all exactly the same.”

If you’ve never seen Eddie perform his stand-up routine, you’re missing out. Like Monty Python, he often draws from real historical figures, such as Shakespeare or Charlemagne, and comes up with hilarious riffs, many of them improvised. And like other super talented comedians like Robin Williams and Tom Hanks, he’s also great in serious dramatic roles. (He recently appeared in the movie Victoria and Abdul, with Dame Judi Dench.) He even talks semi-seriously about running for Parliament.

Despite all those gifts, I’m not sure I’d recommend this book for those who’ve never seen Eddie perform. There are some comedians, such as David Sedaris and George Carlin, whose books would make perfect sense even if you haven’t seen their act. That’s not the case here. You have to witness his brand of surreal, intellectual, self-deprecating humor. Otherwise, it will be like you’re walking into the middle of a conversation.

But if you have seen Eddie’s stuff and you like it—here’s a typical bit, a riff on Pavlov’s dogs—I promise you’ll love this book. You’ll see that his written voice is very similar to his stage voice. You’ll also see that the book provides not just laugh-out-loud moments but also a lot of touching insights into how little Edward Izzard, a kid with only a hint of performing talent, became an international star.

The book begins with . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

3 February 2018 at 2:39 pm

Posted in Books, Comedy, Daily life

Vermont Institutes Travel Ban For Residents of Six States Known to Produce Terrorists

leave a comment »

Makes as much sense as some others. The Winooski reports:

Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation late yesterday afternoon that would effectively ban residents of six states from entering Vermont. Gov. Scott denied that it was a ban, and said only that it was to ensure the safety of Vermonters. The ban is seen as controversial, despite the last minute amendment that would allow access to the state for those with relatives living here.

The six states whose residents are are now banned from entering Vermont are:

Arizona, the state of Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner opened fire at a supermarket in 2011, killing six people, wounding thirteen others, and putting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition after shooting her in the head.

Colorado, the state of James Eagan Holmes. Holmes killed twelve people and injured seventy more at a movie theater in 2012.

North Carolinathe state of Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr.. Miller traveled to Kansas in 2014 and killed three people outside of a Jewish Community Center and Village Shalom retirement home.

Pennsylvania, the state of Eric Matthew Frein. Frein opened fire on a state police barracks with a sniper rifle in 2014, killing one officer and wounding another.

South Carolina, the state of Dylann Storm Roof. Roof murdered nine people and injured one more during a prayer service at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015.

Wisconsin, the state of Wade Michael Page. Page was a white supremacist who shot and killed six people and wounded four others at a Sikh temple in 2012.

Over the coming months, as the effects of the travel restrictions are observed, the state has vowed to consider expanding the ban to the other 43 states that contain possible terrorists.

Note: Satire.

Written by LeisureGuy

29 June 2017 at 9:58 am

Steve Martin teaches an on-line course on comedy

leave a comment »

Learned it from this post on Open Culture. Here’s the teaser:

Written by LeisureGuy

7 April 2017 at 6:40 pm

Posted in Comedy, Education, Video

Satire shows how to cover Trump: Use common sense to blow up the bullshit

leave a comment »

Vox has a very good explanation of how political satire comes into its own when politics becomes irrational.

Written by LeisureGuy

4 April 2017 at 10:57 am

%d bloggers like this: