Funny is subjective, and it is pointless to try to pretend otherwise.

Something interesting and unusual happened at the Correspondants Dinner. Mr. Colbert made pointed, biting, jokes at the President's expense, and they obviously got to the President. Furthermore, it gave us the merest glimpse of the George W. Bush who does not deal well with criticism. He also let the media have it for playing along with the Bush administration. This is interesting; it's certainly worth a short article, and if you're writing an article about the event itself, it is easily the most newsworthy part of the event.

Mr. Colbert is a comedian; his job is to make smart, funny, jokes. That's what he did. Some people (like brother bob) are, for some reason, angry about Colbert's bit. It's not Stephen Colbert's job to fix things, or come up with viable alternatives to the failed policy that the White House has pursued.

It's pretty clear that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the major news outlets didn't mention Colbert's monologue for the same reason they have been giving the Bush administration a pass all this time, because they know there will be consequences if they do not toe the line (it didn't help that Mr. Colbert made fun of this fact). It's amazing to me that even blogs like Gawker (God save us) didn't catch onto this; the "MSM" was being vindictive and protecting it's access. When mainstream papers finally did address Mr. Colbert's performance, they said the only thing they could say about it: it was not funny. To comment solely on it's merits as comedy sidesteps all the things the media probably would rather not discuss about the whole episode.

Let's see - Mr. Colbert obviously pissed off Bush, and he has the mainstream medias' collective undies in a bunch. I think that would be one for Colbert.

Amen. If you put some of the things these people say into the mouths of Islamist or Communists, nobody would miss how dangerous and subversive their philosophy is.

We are lucky that, for now, these people are still a minority. What keeps me up at night is that people just don't get it; people at large don't understand how potentially dangerous these groups are. People need to stop worrying about the fake "war on Christmas" and think about what life will be like when your sister can be thrown in jail for wearing a bikini and you can be executed for adultery.

"Paid Vacation" by the Circle Jerks

It's not Vietnam

Just another oil company scam

salute that flag for Uncle Sam

get your money out, place your bets

it's Afghanistan

...my child who will find an unlocked gun... and decide, "well if mom and dad shoot, it must be okay to "practice"...as he blows his little sister's brains out...because children who find unlocked gun cabinets...take your guns away because you panicked and then shoot you or your children find the gun and become a rapist/robber who KILLS YOUR CHILDREN WITH YOUR OWN GUN!!!

I like to shoot. A long time ago, I decided that regardless of their stance on gun control, I would vote mostly Democrat, because I agree with them on most things.

So I'm compromising. I'm meeting gun control zealots halfway. I'm not doing this grudgingly. I actually beleive that there should be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Guns are dangerous, and they are not for everyone. So could the zealots lighten up a little? We are going to be as successful at getting rid of guns as we were at getting rid of drugs. People are not killing other people because of the presence of guns. They are killing each other over money and drugs and sex, or they are crazy or careless. I mean, honestly, the assault weapon ban just lapsed last year, and we were not beset upon by an army of children armed with AK-47s that their parents left unlocked.

I would just like to see calm and rational discussion about guns; this goes for both sides. Gun owners have their own tendency to think that every tiny law and regulation presages jack-booted thugs breaking into our houses and confiscating everything right on down to super soakers. As people who are knowledgeable about guns and are living proof that one can possess a firearm without taking out a McDonalds, gun owners have a responsibility to take the debate in a civil direction. People who favor gun control can help them do this by toning down the fire-breathing rhetoric, and perhaps admitting that gun availibility is not the only cause, or even a major cause, of violent crime.

This really should be simple. I know that "civil political debate" is rare these days, but perhaps we could try it out on gun control.