action52

I remember seeing this and being honestly conflicted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfX8pOiuWFc OK, so on the one hand, it absolutely blew my mind. And I totally have to admit, without the blackface it would never have had the same impact. But at the same time, I can't deny how similar it is to the kind of blackface I know is racist. I find myself wondering, is it different? Anyway, after watching this I kind of felt like there was a grey area where, if you were doing an impression of someone specific (rather than generic caricature), and you did it well enough, maybe blackface could possibly not be racist. But I really don't know, and am hoping some of you could develop this further. BTW, I am posting this before listening to the podcast. EDIT: OK, I'm coming back now that I have listened to the podcast. Swear to God, I had NOT listened to the podcast beforehand, it's just coincidence that I mentioned the video. Or maybe not--it's probably one of those things that had a big impact on everyone who saw it. One thing the Sklars say that I take issue with is, they said the Japanese can find out that blackface is racist just by doing a google search... Which is of course true, in English. You do a search in their language, you're not going to find as much information. Actually, there is no real equivalent to "blackface" in the Japanese language. Hell, English only has the term in relation to black people--there is no commonly used word referring to make yourself up to look like another race except specifically for black people. So you might think "look it up" but you couldn't even look it up unless you had the cultural knowledge to know that such a concept exists in the first place. But yeah, I do think there is a difference between "blackface" and using makeup to make yourself look like a black person. When you do the stereotypical blackface, with exaggerated features like you would see in cartoons from the 30s and 40s, that falls under the umbrella of "definitely racist." When you use makeup to make yourself look like a black person, but taking care to make yourself look like a REAL black person, that falls under the umbrella of "maybe racist, so you'd better be extra careful to do it in a way that's NOT racist."

I can't get enough of Eric's Man on the Street Interviews. Every one of them has been hilarious.

I never saw Cracked Out as being racist, either. To me it just seemed like it was making fun of white rappers, and how they make idiots of themselves by trying to copy black people. I do agree though, that a longer format weekly podcast would probably be more enjoyable than the daily snippets we get now. I understand that Earwolf probably wants to experiment with more different kinds of podcasts, but this really seems like one that would work better if it were one big conversation.

Although I was old enough to be watching MTV in the 80s, my family didn't get cable until the late 90s. So my exposure to MTV was mostly limited to watching it at my grandparents' house or something.

Being extremely bland and whitebread is also key, though. American Pie is the best out of those. I don't know if it HAS to be wordy. There are ways to rap that draw the lyrics out more. Also like "Killing Me Softly," it feels more like they took the original music style and fused it with hip hop to make kind of a hybrid. Not what I'm htinking of. Maybe it's just too hard to do.

White guys doing rap as comedy is indeed played out and very wack. I remember in the early 90s when I heard some super-white folk cover of "Straight Outta Compton," and at the time I found it funny, but that shit don't hold up for 25 years. You know what does sound funny to me? Going the other way. Taking some lame-ass, white-bread song and doing a hardcore rap cover of it. Unless that has already been done. I know the Fugees did "Killing Me Softly" but I want to hear something that sounds less like the original and more gangsta.

I don't know, I think people are mixing up their racism types here. Racists in Indiana and Kentucky are redneck racists, but the kind of racists who use "urban" to mean black are upper-class paternalistic racists. So I don't think the location makes it more likely for the sign to be racist in this case.

I don't consider myself a prude, but there is something about the idea of people having sex while listening to Improv 4 Humans that disturbs me...

The constant referring to The Spy Who Shagged Me as the first Austin Powers movie bugged me to no end. Way more than is healthy or appropriate. I was practically screaming to myself, "IT'S THE SECOND MOVIE!!" as I was listening. Aside from that very petty complaint, though, I loved this episode. Zack was great, and Scott was the cherry on top of my Who Charted sundae.

You know what genre of film Van and Mike would probably love? Gay porno. They should try watching some of that, it's got exactly the kind of humor they go for.

Great episode. Not only because you had Paul F. Tompkins as a guest. I also felt this one did a great job of striking a good balance between clips and conversation. I thought that the first episode felt crowded, like there were too many clips crammed into it. This one flowed a lot better, and I definitely felt like the guests had more room to breathe. This is already becoming one of my favorite podcasts.

Amy is what made this episode so great. Leykis is the kind of character that can get very annoying very quick--because the real Leykis is so annoying, of course. Jason also has a very funny voice but sometimes it can get loud and abrasive. If it had turned into an argument with Jason and James constantly trying to top each other, it could have been a disaster. But I'll be damned if it wasn't one of the best episodes this year. Amy Poehler was absolutely brilliant at finding ways to talk to him/deal with him that added to the humor of the situation. I think this episode really showed off how great at improvising Amy is. Not only because she said funny things, but because she is so damn good at balancing the situation, at figuring out what's funny and going with it.

Let's not forget former Senator (and current president) Barack O-Lincoln from Illinois!

There is also the fact that men are more likely to put priority on making money, and gravitate towards jobs that pay well. They're also more likely to be competitive and push to get their own salaries higher. It gets messy when you talk about differences between men and women beyond the physical. People have a tendency to see differences as absolute when really we're talking about a statistical difference. For example, men are taller than women but we all know that it doesn't mean every man is taller than every woman. And yet when it comes to things like "women are better at housework and cooking than men" or "men are better at driving trucks than women," we just assume it means that all women should do housework, or all truck drivers should be male. But even if there are overall differences in abilities, you still have to judge everyone as an individual. When it comes to things like, say, housework, I don't believe it should be about everything being 50-50 so much as about the people involved doing the amounts that makes them happy. It's okay if the woman is doing more housework, as long as the man is making sure that she doesn't feel like all the burden is being unfairly placed on her. Like maybe he works in other areas, or maybe it's just a matter of the woman saying, hey, I know you hate this a lot more than I do, so I don't mind doing most of the housework, but every once in awhile just do a little bit to give me a break? I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that, as long as it's a conclusion that two people, in an equal relationship, come to and are satisfied with. And it may be that the ratio that works best for society overall is 55/45. or 60/40, or whatever, but in the end I don't think that's what's important. I think that shouldn't be important so much as that women and men should feel that in their household, both parties have equal say in how much of the housework is done, and both parties need to have it in their head that they want to make sure this is fair to everyone. Same thing with jobs. Obviously a lot more men than women want to be truck drivers or steel workers, so we will probably always have more men in those jobs than women. To me the actual ratio is not important so much as, are women given the same chances as men based on their qualifications? Are the industries making an effort to make the environment friendly to female employees? These are the questions we need to really look at. EDIT: I also am a fan of Gloria Steinem! I love that she is this really intelligent woman, but not afraid to say batshit insane stuff every once in awhile. Like, it shows that she isn't holding herself back. And yeah, she has said some things that go over the edge sometimes, but it does get people's attention and there usually is some truth behind it. I wish we had more women (and men) like her that were smart, but didn't sugarcoat the parts of their views that can be kind of messy or weird-seeming at times. I hope this doesn't come off as a back-handed putdown, either, because I really do love the woman. EDIT #2 (I keep thinking of things!): On the topic of "sexual power," I had the thought that a lot of this supposed power is really men deciding to give their power to women they find sexually attractive. So while it can give women an advantage within the male-dominated power structure. I think it's very rare that women actually use their sexuality to make men do anything against their will. And of course, if we had more women and fewer men in power, this would be greatly diminished.

Enjoyed this episode. Personally I might put it below average compared to what has come before--but that's more a comment on how great the show is in general than a knock on this episode. Even the relatively slow bits (Allin/Gacy, Chicago Spotlight) had lots of laughs in them. But the "workout" bit and "I Am Bane" are definitely some of the best things I have ever heard. Especially "I am Bane." I've already listened to it like 5 times already, and I'm constantly trying to come up with new lyrics for it. I am Bane I am Bane My favorite TV show Is Growing Pains I am Bane I am Bane I am Gotham's reckoning I am Bane I'l ride a train Or an airplaine To wherever Batman is I am Bane The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains I am Bane

Hopefully, they spent two hours fucking around in the studio and next Tuesday we can look forward to a full hour bonus episode. OK, I know that's probably not going to happen but it would be so awesome if it did.

Kyle's Maher impression is awesome. Never stop doing it. Also I just remembered a story related to "baptizing kids when their parents weren't looking." My grandmother baptized my cousins when they weren't looking. They were very religious Catholics, but her kids are all very much less so, and one of my aunts married a guy who is pretty much an atheist and never had any intention of baptizing them. So my grandparents baptized them in the kitchen sink. I remember thinking that was so fucked up when I heard about it, especially since my grandmother is one of the sweetest ladies you ever met.

On Scientology: Part of the reason that I find old religions like Christianity and Judaism more acceptable is that at the time, it seems as logical an explanation as anything else. Today we have built this whole system of scientific understanding over the course of thousands of years. But if you looked at things like the theory of relativity, or the big bang, without all those intermediary steps are just as crazy as anything in mythology. Hell, I remember when I was a kid just hearing that the world was round, and that the earth went around the sun, blew my mind when I first understood it. Basic empirical observation makes it seem like both these things are false, but there was really no evidence to contradict the events of the Bible 2000 years ago. And Christians today are just following those ideas that have been passed on for millennia. But with Scientology, you have people who have all this knowledge of how the world really does work, and yet they're still believing all this crazy bullshit that makes no sense. Not that I agree with Christianity, but I kind of think it's just human nature and can live with it. Whereas Scientology is this wholly modern creation, and one that extorts insane amounts of money from its followers. To me it's on a different level from more traditional organized religions. I do think there's truth to the idea that religion is inherent to human nature. Kyle says that this is something most of us would only believe if told--that we wouldn't come to that conclusion entirely on our own. But the thing is, humans are social animals. It is natural for us to interact and communicate with other humans. And I think it is human nature to want to believe in some sort of a higher power to explain the things we don't understand, and make us feel like there is meaning to our lives. And while all things in the universe do have a natural explanation, to humans just observing the world through their own five senses, it is hard to imagine that such a big and complex natural world isn't planned, and created, and maintained, by some sort of higher being or force. One more thing: people often see hell as something that was thought up to scare nonbelievers, but I don't think that's true. As a child, hell is indeed very scary. But to an adult, being told that according to some belief system you think is horseshit, you might be suffering after you die--is that persuasive to anyone? I can't imagine it would have been in any time. No, I think that the reason heaven and hell appealed to people is because it gave comfort to believers. I think we all want to believe that there is inherent justice in the world. We see bad things happen to good people, and vice versa, and we don't like it. To think that all those evil people will get what's coming to them, while those of us who do good will be rewarded, is a very appealing idea. Especially to people living in more pagan religions, which usually centered around superstition and mythology and didn't emphasize things like morality and justice. Of course Christianity and all major world religions have superstition and mythology. And a lot of their followers will hold on to the superstitions, or apply a simplistic and superstitious interpretation to their own belief system. My point is that they put themselves forward as something more, and offer you a sense that you are not just obeying the whims of these powerful beings, but answering to a higher calling to be a good and righteous person. I think that if you look at all the successful major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) that is what distinguishes them from older pagan religions. Not saying that they are any more true--I'm an atheist--just that the religions that have really been successful over the years have done so by appealing to people's better natures.

I enjoyed this podcast a lot! If I may offer one small constructive criticism though: I think there wre too many clips. This is the kind of podcast that centers on what the guests are saying, and this one didn't leave them room to breathe. All the clips were great though--I suspect that Fogelnest just couldn't help himself because he had so much great material to choose from. Totally understandable, but I think if you spread things out more the podcast would be better for it. Also, this seems like the thing that could easily leave you burned out if you feel like every episode needs to be packed with material. Other than that though, I love it. Hell, even with that, I love it! Great concept, fantastic material, and very good execution considering it's the first time you've done this. I could easily see this becoming one of my favorites. Hope to see many more!

I will agree partially, except to say that when you do it in the same ways over and over again it becomes cliche and people get sick of hearing about it, and care less. So it's important to be fresh and original. That was definitely one of the good parts.

Technically, the Pope being a Hitler Youth doesn't mean that much, because anyone his age was forced to be a Hitler Youth. There are plenty of valid reasons to be disturbed by the current pope, but Hitler Youth membership isn't one of 'em. Not going to argue how disturbing any of the things you say is, except that I think what makes Paterno's story so disturbing isn't so much that he did it, but that so many people are still working so hard to keep "honoring his legacy." Still, I had no problem with Besser's representation of the Pope as a member of Hitler Youth it because IT WAS A JOKE. Not an especially funny one, which is probably why he didn't take it very far, but a joke nonetheless. He was taking a factual premise and running with it to exaggerated levels. And it fit into the overall larger joke of him taking this total light-hearted attitude to horrible evils that he (and other Catholics) had done over the years. That said, I was a little disappointed in the character. It was funny, but nowhere near as good as, say, his Bjork impression. Hilarious at some parts, but there were a lot of slow patches. I think the character might need a little development. Part of it is that priest sexual molestation jokes are so old, I've heard most of them already, and the punchlines are predictable. I think he was trying to do the jokes from a different angle, and it kind of worked, but not quite. And even Scott commented at one point that he didn't really understand what point of view the Pope was coming from. Definitely has potential, though--I'm very hopeful about his performance at the live versions. Odenkirk was a little disappointing too. I found him very funny at the beginning, but he was mostly silent and very passive when he did talk. That beginning was great, though--one of the funniest interviews I've heard on CBB this year. I suspect he may not work as well in a loose format like CBB--he never seems nearly as funny in those bits as he does in ones that are scripted, or semi-improvised ones with more defined structure like his cameo on Arrested Development. I think the audio format hurts him a little--there's something about the way he moves and acts that helps sell his jokes whenever I see him on TV. It's subtle, but I can feel it lacking when I hear him without seeing him. P.S. My favorite priest joke is the Titanic one. A priest and a lawyer are walking on the deck of the Titanic, when suddenly a crew member runs by screaming, "We've hit an iceberg! This ship is sinking! Abandon ship, woman and children first!" The lawyer says, "Fuck the children!" And the priest says, "Do you think we have enough time?"

I did like that they (partially) complimented the "evil Peter Parker" bit. People seem to treat it like the worst thing ever but I thought parts of it were genuinely good. If they had played it totally comedically I think it could have been brilliant. It was so funny watching him trying to be cool and making a complete ass of himself. I would even say it fits the character, because Peter Parker is a pretty dorky guy, and to me it seems believable that the "evil" version of himself would try to be cool and fail at it. But they kept trying to play it seriously, like Peter Parker genuinely WAS cool, and was seriously making the ladies' pussies gush with every cheesy one-liner. And even if the writing hadn't been bad, and it hadn't been totally out of character, Tobey Maguire just can not pull it off. Part of the reason I loved Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man is because he's NOT cool. He was perfect as a dorky everyman, the geeky teen who grows into an adult who is still kinda nerdy, but accepts himself for who he is and becomes a normal, successful person. Which is what makes Spider-Man so popular--he's a lot more relatable than most superheroes. But he is not "cool," and neither is Tobey Maguire, and he looks like an idiot when he tries. But that's the movie in a nutshell. Some good ideas, but lots of crappy ones, and they're all just crammed in to the point where they choke each other to death. On a related note, I also agree with Kulap that I liked this one better than Amazing Spider-Man. Amazing is a cool-moving movie that is very by-the-numbers, mediocre, and has no emotional resonance whatsoever. Spider-Man 3 was a train-wreck of the movie, and while most of the enjoyment may have been on a so-bad-it's good level, I definitely had a lot more fun watching it. If nothing else it was very memorable.

At first my plan was to just take a picture of myself when I stopped thinking about it and post that, but it's taking too long. So instead I'll just post an older picture of myself not thinking about fellating Paul Rust. I am 90% sure that I was NOT thinking about fellating him when they took this picture:

Every time Paul Rust appears on this podcast. I think I love him a little more (no homo). (Well, maybe a little homo)

Kulap DID ask for it, though, at first. He started talking about his "method," and she asked him to demonstrate it, and he did. Yeah, it was creepy and awkward but I think anyone should have known it would be. Now later on when he just steered the conversation back to it, and his creepy semi-flirting throughout the show--she most definitely was not "asking for it" at that point. You could REALLY tell she was trying hard to be nice and not spoil the atmosphere, but was uncomfortable.