I’m not a big television-watcher.  I’ve had my fill of series devoted to assorted cops, lawyers and doctors, along with sitcoms that weren’t funny and reality shows that bored me to tears.  But in 2009 the TV gods had mercy and directed me to a series that became one of my all-time favorites.

—–

“Men Of A Certain Age” is one of those rare shows that makes you glad Philo Farnsworth invented television.  I was hooked at the opening intro — a montage of what looked like grainy Super-8 home movies of three kids growing up together, with the Beach Boys’ “When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)” playing in the background.  The show’s basic storyline is deceptively simple: three male friends-from-childhood are shown living their lives and relating to each other, their families, workmates and friends.

Ray Romano plays Joe, newly-divorced party store owner, father of two teens and struggling gambling addict.  Andre Braugher is Owen, married with young kids and selling cars for his overbearing father’s Chevrolet dealership.  And Scott Bakula plays Terry, a usually-unemployed actor and ladies’ man who is finally breaking free from his extended adolescence.

What makes MOACA remarkable (and truly memorable) is its understated way of looking at ordinary lives.  There is no “formula” to this show – you won’t find the stereotypical gay brother, smart-mouthed brats who disdain their idiotic parents or heavy-handed political messages.  These friends are just attempting to support each other through their daily trials and tribulations while trying to remain good and decent men along the way. 

The guys are all pushing 50 and some of the plotlines deal with various midlife issues, but never in a stodgy, “AARP” kind of way.  The scripts are very well-written, with dialog that feels comfortable and down-to-earth situations that are totally believable.  MOACA can be heartwarmingly funny and then serious within any given episode.  The actors are superb, especially the three leads.  These guys play “ordinary” so incredibly well, one never gets the feeling they’re “acting.”  And the interactions between the guys are so true-to-life and often touching that the characters remind you of your own buddies.  “Men Of A Certain Age” is a show that quickly becomes endearing and a must-see weekly appointment.

Sadly, after two seasons and 22 episodes, TNT Networks recently cancelled the series, to the absolute shock and dismay of its growing band of passionate fans.  It’s frustrating that TNT didn’t give MOACA more of a chance, especially when the network began the second season in December, then split the season into two 6-episode mini-seasons divided by six months!  Couple that with very little promotion from the network, and it’s no wonder potential viewers lost track of the show.

But then, something incredible happened.  Fans of the series — who had never tried to save a TV show in their lives — began gathering together to bring MOACA to another network — ANY network.  Uber-fan Jeff Martinous started a “Save ’Men Of A Certain Age’” page on Facebook  (www.facebook.com/notifications.php#!/SaveMenOfACertainAge), which has already attracted thousands of other fans who have been busy making phone calls, sending faxes, letters and emails, while maintaining an online petition — all in the hope of attracting a new home for the series.  The campaign has the blessing of MOACA producers Ray Romano and Mike Royce, who are also working hard to keep the show alive.

Will we be successful?  We’d like to think so.  At the very least, we believe that “Men Of A Certain Age” is more than worth the effort.  We hope you’ll agree and join us on Facebook.  As television becomes evermore a vast wasteland, it would seem incredibly tragic that there couldn’t be a place for a truly exceptional show like “Men Of A Certain Age.”

But just when Rosenthal could have kicked back and counted his money the rest of his life, a Russian television network came calling and invited him to re-create “Raymond,” adapting it for Russian TV audiences. Russian TV had never featured a sitcom before (go figure), so Rosenthal saw it as an intriguing challenge and jumped in.

—–

He was smart enough to bring a camera crew with him, filming a humorous documentary about the process and surprising ups and downs involved for the new documentary “Exporting Raymond,” which opens in limited release today and expands over the next few weeks. It’s a funny film, of course, but also fascinating for its insights into Russian culture and how an American phenomenon has to change to be understood by a foreign, and formerly enemy, nation.

Rosenthal sat down for a one-on-one interview with me recently to discuss his film and the history of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” offering up both amusing anecdotes and surprising revelations along the way.

Q: How did you first meet Ray Romano?

PR: Ray did standup for 12 years and had been trying to do a show like Letterman, finally got on Letterman and on the basis of one six-minute appearance Letterman said “There should be a show for this guy.” He was looking for a writer to create the show for him. I met Ray at Art’s Deli, they had seen some of my work. He met a dozen other people, I don’t even think I was his first choice. But we did hit it off. We’re both from Queens, and for every story he had about his crazy Italian family I had one too about my Jewish family. It just happened to work out that I was gonna create the show, and here we are.

Q: It was immediate for Letterman to take interest, but how long did the process take from getting the call and hitting the airwaves?

PR: I would say it was about six months, really fast.

Q: I also remember the drama in first season, starting on a Friday night where no one was watching and then moving to Mondays where everything blew up. What was that like?

PR: At first you’re slightly disappointed that you get a bad time slot. There hadn’t been a hit in that time slot since “Gomer Pyle.” We didn’t change that, but the three people who watched kept coming back and CBS noticed. To. their credit, the network liked the show and supported it enough to stay there. They liked it so much that when something crapped out for them on Monday nights on their big schedule, [network head] Les Moonves said he’d put us on but that if we didn’t do well that was it. So we were nervous. Now it’s like we made the playoffs, but you can be sent home anytime.

That first Monday, our ratings doubled. Great, but now we were really nervous because we had been fairly sampled and felt we could only go down from there. When our ratings actually went up the next week, we knew that maybe we could stay a little longer at the party. So I do remember that. I clipped the story in Variety that said our ratings went up that second week, because I knew that meant something.

Phil Rosenthal

Q: “Raymond” was great because it was a solid, family show but wasn’t gushy. They were rather harsh, yet people loved and related to that. Was it that people related, this is what families are really like, or was it ‘look at those people’?

PR: Yes, it was that they related because there were moments where there was some gush. Not whole special episodes, but there were moments that you could tell that underneath it all we really loved and cared about each other as family. Not in a sentimental way, but in a real way – and I think in a way people related too. We argue and make fun of each other, but you’re not allowed to. The finale is about all that. I think that people understood by how good the acting was on that show, and maybe some of the writing, that underneath this harsh exterior is love.

Q: Did you have definite lines about how far you could take things with them? How harsh they could go?

PR: Yes. I never wanted Deborah to hate her husband. We always wanted her to be frustrated with him, because it was quite reasonable to be frustrated with him, but never wanted it to cross over into ‘I hate you.” And we made sure it never happened.

Q: Did you ever find out you crossed the line without knowing it – that the network or viewers complained anyway?

PR: We got a note in the eighth season of the show. Somebody at the studio or network sent a note saying “We tested the show and we think Deborah’s being too harsh to Ray.” And we said, really? In the 8th season of the show – you suggest changing it now? We should change what we’re doing, in the 8th season? We’ve been so successful, we should now go the other way?

Q: Transforming it to Russian, it looked like they were willing to follow the letter of the script but had a hard time getting the tone right. The actors were reading it like it was high drama. It must have been driving you crazy.

PR: Everything drove me crazy. Everything! But I realized it wasn’t Russians, per se, it was the business. That’s universal. I run into the same creative ‘no’ here that I did over there. It’s just the action that’s different. There’s plenty of people who won’t get what you’re putting out. And it may not be their fault, maybe you’re not bringing it out the right way.

Q: In America, the show was built around Ray’s comedy. But in the Russian film, there’s big fights over who to cast. Did you have any fights about who to cast for the supporting roles on the show in America?

PR: Of course. Lots of battles. I was told that the head of the network wanted a particular actress to play the wife. This was before we even knew who Patricia Heaton was, or that she was available. But I had three actresses picked out. And it came to me that “we want this person, someone outside the picture.” I said they were completely wrong for the role, but the exec said ‘you didn’t hear me. Les Moonves wants this woman for the role.” She was completely wrong for the part – not a bad actress, but blond and wispy. I went to my agent worried, saying ‘what would you do? This could kill the show.” And he said, “I would cast her.” I said, “I’m not casting her. I quit.” He said “Don’t be an idiot. Why don’t you meet with her?” I said I am being a little hasty, I’d love to be proven wrong and hire the girl who the head of the network wanted. We asked if she would read for it and she said no, because she was so-and-so and so-and-so doesn’t read, but it was weird because she wasn’t that big of a so-and-so. She met with me though – the morning of the afternoon that I was bringing my three actresses in to audition. I was told that at the end of the auditions that Les would ask me if I’d go with his girl.

So I’m really nervous. I convinced her to read for me in the middle of the interview, and she’s ten times worse than I thought she would be for the role. So I’m very sad, because this is the day I’m not going to have a show. My three actresses read, they’re very good, and right on cue Les asked me what I thought about his girl. And I said ‘I met her, I loved her, but I had her read and it’s just not what I wrote. I think she could do it, but maybe we could do better. And Les said, “It was just an idea.” So he let me keep looking and two weeks later we found Patricia Heaton, who was probably the best wife ever on TV.

Q: Had she already been known for anything before?

PR: She’d been on ‘thirtysomething,’ but I’d never seen her.

Q: I’ve been to some events where Patricia Heaton and Doris Roberts were at pro-life events. It was always impressive to me that they were able to be outspoken about their views on an issue that was unpopular in much of Hollywood. Did you foster an open-minded set? Did you ever address whether it was an issue to speak up?

PR: We live in a free country, and everyone is free to say whatever they want – especially off the set. You do want someone’s personal life not to interfere with the picture the audience has you in their head of the character. You don’t want someone watching the show to be taken out of the character and the viewing experience because of a political view that they have in their mind about you. But other than that, everyone’s free to say whatever they like.

Q: You have a great relationship with the Russian driver you had in the movie. What was your most unexpected relationship in Russia?

PR: I would say that because when he takes me to the museum, I got something I certainly never expected to get – this revelation about his life. I was just getting to know him and had no idea what was coming as in documentaries you don’t know what’s coming and you have to be lucky to have the camera on to catch it. He revealed something deep about himself and when somebody feels comfortable enough to do that with you, you develop a real friendship and I’m still in touch with him. That was the biggest surprise – making genuine friends over there. The translator came to New York for the first time two weeks ago and met my parents and saw the film. But I won’t do this again. Poland took it, and Israel, England wants it. They may have the same language, but why did we need ‘The Office?’ I could take the show to Alabama and come up with a need to put a twist on it. There’s cultural differences everywhere, but that said we’re on the air in 148 countries in our original form – just dubbed or subtitled. We got a letter once from Sri Lanka saying ‘That’s my mother!’

Q: What was the biggest creative fight in Russia?

PR: For me, it was essential that the show play in front of a live studio audience. It was written and rehearsed like a play, and you needed the audience reactions because all that does for the acting and writing. The audience doesn’t want many little scenes cut together like a movie. They want content. You could have two people sitting and talking in theater, or on the show, and hopefully it would be funny enough anywhere. In Russia, they refused to get a studio audience. They said “But we’ll have to get chairs.” That’s where they were coming from. So that was an argument.

Q: What was the most gratifying aspect of doing the show in Russia?

PR: Making friends. Always. That was the best part of doing the show here. It’s a big reason to go into the business.

Q: What are you working on these days? Or do you just kick back and enjoy life?

PR: I work. That’s what I enjoy. I love everything about the business except the business. I have two screenplays I might direct. I have an animated show. I have a show that England wants to bring me on. Raymond is done. Now i’ve brought it to somewhere else and tried. But if another country wants something new, I may be open to it. I even have a Broadway show idea and a reality show idea I’m working on.

Q: What do you think makes somebody stand out in comedy and be worthy of having their own show? What makes a particular comic stand out from the sea of people who are pretty funny but not making it big?

PR: A clear point of view. A relatability. And a certain likability, I would say. That’s all it is. It helps to have a point of view to your material and what you choose to say, but also how you say it. If you have a very abrasive manner that nobody likes, you’re not gonna go far. It’s the same in life. Larry David may be abrasive, but he’s extra funny to make up for it.

Q: You had a very classy show. It wasn’t reliant on dick jokes like “Two and a Half Men.” People of all stripes hate the sex obsession of comedy. How do you feel about the state of comedy?

PR: I think there’s always been good and always been bad, and always more bad than good. It’s always been that way. Some executive watched this movie and said “I love your movie but good doesn’t really enter into it. I said, great. That’ll be the title of my next book: “Good Doesn’t Really Enter Into It: A Story of Hollywood.” You’re always fighting the fight. How many books do you read that are wonderful? How much art really speaks to you? How many people do you really like? There’s always more bad. If there was more good than bad, then you wouldn’t know what was good.

“Men” revolves around the three main male characters who often hike, dine and hang out together.  The three characters all have interesting lives. Owen (Andre Braugher), who has a wife and kids at home, works at a car dealership and is often frustrated by his tough boss at work, who happens to be his father. Terry (Scott Bakula), is a carefree free-spirit struggling to be an actor while taking on regular office jobs. Joe (Ray Romano), who is separated from his wife but sees his children regularly, runs his own party store business and has a gambling problem.

The show explores the lives of these three ordinary men. The show succeeds in the fact that these characters are well-drawn and often relatable. For instance, in the first episode of the program, Joe accidentally hits a possum driving with his two buddies in the car and does not know how to proceed.  Joe pauses and tries to figure out the best way to handle the situation, like most of us would do in that scenario. Should he go to the vet with it? Should he just leave it there and let it die? Should he move it to the side of the road? As an act of sympathy, he runs over the animal a second and a third time so that it does not have to suffer. His act of “compassion” is useless though because moments later, the possum stands up and walks off the road despite being run over thrice. The consequences of hitting a possum are usually not fodder for many television shows, but this show uses it to show a bit of  Joe’s personality.

With that being said, the show also has some strong long term plotlines to follow up on. The exploration of Owen’s family life promises to be an interesting part of the program. Owen is struggling at the car dealership with his father but he is also having renovations done to his house so he can not afford to have a full mid-life crisis, quit his job and buy a motorcycle like other men going through midlife crisis can do. (Plus, Owen’s wife would kill him for doing that.) On the other hand, Terry is trying to find a happy medium in his life between living complacently and fighting to do something better. In the second episode, for instance,  Terry  does what so many people think of doing and he confronts several people who are careless in traffic. Terry does this hoping to stand up for the regular guy who puts up with obnoxious behavior on a daily basis and lets people get away with it.

Ultimately, though, the subject material of the program may become a major weakness of it. The lives being explored are sometimes mundane and the episodes left me wanting more to happen. I know that the show is not trying to have the energy or the excitement of a show like “24,” but the”Men,” in the first two episodes I have seen, sometimes gets lost in too much normalcy and placidity that it ceases being entertaining.

Some critics have gravitated towards the show in recent days though. Ken Tucker from Entertainment Weekly wrote that the program is “an hour-long show that plays like a sitcom with depth, or a drama with quietly clever grace-notes.” Tom Shales from the Washington Post wrote, “However banal the central subject might seem, ‘Men of a Certain Age’ proves a powerful yet mercifully amusing experience — bittersweet, poignant and wise.”

For me, “Men of a Certain Age” has a quiet charm to it but it can sometimes be too mundane to be interesting. It may grow to be more dramatic and involving in the weeks ahead but that might not happen until “Men” has grown more on the air for a while and has, for lack of a better phrase, reached a certain age.

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS tore up the box office this weekend - especially in 3-D

That means that the Per Screen Average for the movie in 3-D was about $11,700, while the 4,800 or so traditional 35MM 2-D engagements had a Per Theatre of just an estimated $4,780. Exhibitors who figured out a way to overcome the credit crunch and pay the estimated $100,000 to convert a traditional theatre into one that can show Digital 3-D made a killing this weekend.

Unlike the hokey 3-D of past generations, Real-D technology is nothing short of astonishing. We’ve come a long way from 50’s chestnuts like Bwana Devil starring Robert Stack (“A Lion in Your Lap, A Lover in Your Arms” was the tagline for those that remember. 3-D moviemaking was discovered accidentally as doctors were experimenting with polarized lenses to treat kids with a “lazy eye.” Then came trioptiscopic photographt that allowed images to float off of the screen. Industry pioneers like Arch Oboler tried to make a go with 3-D under the clunky moniker Space-Vision, but couldn’t make it work. There was some success with that same Space-Vision system with movies like Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th: Part 3-D and Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over, but nothing like today’s state-of-the-art technology.

Disney/Pixar will soon follow the technological path paved by Dreamworks

Hollywood is 40+ major 3-D releases in the pipeline, and there are still only 2,218 individual screens where those movies can play, so the race is on. Digital conversion and Real-D installation will be on the march for exhibitors who can figure out a way to finance the extraordinary expense.

Here are trailers for some of the 3-D features coming soon.

May 1 - BATTLE FOR TERRA (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions)
What’s left of the human race invades a peaceful alien planet called Terra. A Terrian teen, voiced by Evan Rachel Wood from The Wrestler, tries to ward off the humans. Voice cast includes Brian Cox (Running with Scissors), Luke Wilson (3:10 to Yuma), David Cross (Arrested Development), Justin Long (He’s Just Not That Into You) and Amanda Peet (Syriana).

May 29 - UP (Disney/Pixar)
As always, it’s an odd premise with Pixar. In this one, a cranky old guy decides it’s time to see the wilds of South America, so he ties a bunch of balloons to his house. But after Ratatouille, Wall-E, Cars, Toy Story, I’ve learned to reserve judgment and prepare to be amazed. Featuring the voices of TV legend Ed Asner (The Mary Tyler Moore Show), Pixar vet John Ratzenberger (Cheers), Golden Globe nominee Christopher Plummer (The Insider) and Delroy Lindo (Heist).

July 1 – ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS (Fox)
The third in the Ice Age series and, possibly, the #1 grossing movie of the summer. Dinosaurs in 3-D is box office gold. Seann William Scott (Dude, Where’s My Car), Oscar nominee Queen Latifah (Hairspray), Golden Globe nominee John Leguizamo (Nothing Like the Holidays), Emmy winner Ray Romano (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Denis Leary (Rescue Me) are all featured.

Then comes Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince in IMAX 3-D only on July 17, followed by G-Force on July 24, Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D on August 14, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on September 18, the reworking of Toy Story in the 3-D format October 2, Astro Boy on October 23, Disney’s A Christmas Carol on November 6, Planet 51 for Thanksgiving and, finally, James Cameron’s long-awaited Avatar. Here’s the teaser trailer (that gives nothing away).

Something didn’t sound quite right when I listened to Jon Stewart’s set-up for his sarcastic blast of CNBC’s Rick Santelli as a hypocrite who thinks federal bailout money for corporate America is just fine while a helping hand from Uncle Sam (a bailout by another name) for strapped mortgage holders isn’t. So I reverted to the method I’d come to rely on while an investigative reporter when I could not follow what a fast talking con artist was actually saying: I transcribed what he said. And sure enough, the words on paper revealed Stewart’s sophistry that my ears could not pinpoint:

Actually, our guest tonight was supposed to be this guy. His name is Rick Santelli. He’s an analyst for CNBC and he’s a former derivatives trader. The reason he became famous was because of a sort of Howard Beale moment on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He had done some critical reporting on the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money going to failed banks, failed auto makers and insurers of failed banks and auto makers (laughter). But when it looked like the president wanted a small percentage of that money to go to actual homeowners, whu ho!!!!! (laughter). David Banner became The Incredible Santelli.

As you can plainly see, Stewart admits Santelli was critical of the federal bailout money that went to fat cats. Why that got a laugh makes me wonder whether Stewart’s audience warm-up includes nitrous oxide. But Stewart could not continue with that acknowledgment and still expect to rip Santelli for being a hypocrite, the most dastardly of demons in the pop pantheon of evil (except for those hypocrites on the political left, of course), because he would then be left without the necessary hypocrisy peg on which to hang Santelli for derision. So Stewart did the only thing he could do, he did a quick trick of the tongue to make the listener forget what he just said.

Stewart did that by quickly implying through his energy and tone of voice that Santelli was for big corporate bailouts but against little homeowners in dire straits being given some tax dollar help. The actual switch is obfuscated within the emotional context of Stewart’s transition. It’s a verbal illusion common to con men, comedians, politicians (which covers both) and some others who make their living manipulating people with spoken words. Some have to learn it, others do it naturally. I’ve no idea which category Stewart falls in, but I first had the technique defined to me and demonstrated while working at a carny side show in Ocean City, Maryland one summer. In it, a pitchman would regularly shame hundreds of people at a time for being greedy, dishonest victimizers of his good nature when they would expect to be given a prize he had offered them earlier for free. Call it an oral bait and switch. Some caught on and walked, but enough actually paid for the item to assuage the guilt the pitchman had tricked them into feeling for him and the show to keep a nice cash flow going.

Whether Stewart is good enough to pull off that pitchman’s trick in front of a cold audience I can’t say, but he was certainly good enough to manipulate his warmed studio audience, his predisposed home audience and the national media’s perception (ok, it’s generally predisposed to Stewart’s side too) of what Santelli actually said to what he wanted them to believe he said. He had to in this case because without creating the impression that Santelli was talking out of both sides of his mouth, Stewart’s whole rip would have made no more sense than his mixed Beale and Banner metaphors except in that alternate sophomoric universe where facts and form don’t matter. But isn’t that where we have been culturally stalled for some time? You know (residuals to Caroline Kennedy), the cosmos where even if something isn’t true, it’s still the truth (more on that line later) because the lie validates the biases generally held by most, in this case, who watch Stewart’s show?

But that’s OK — to a point.

Stewart isn’t doing real news and both he and those behind the scenes are candid about that. Comedy Central Network describes “The Daily Show” as the top name in fake news while its writers say “they do not have any journalistic responsibility and that as comedians their only duty is to provide entertainment.” All literally true. So is one wag’s alternate title for Stewart’s show: “We Pander to Liberals & Attack Conservatives without Scruple,” a rather self evident fact. Even so, Stewart is doing satires on the news which means that, like Michael Moore’s “documentaries,” he cannot be hamstrung by fact, because satire is comedy and, as Moore says, “how can comedy be factual?” even if it’s packaged within a form that is by definition supposed to be a documentation of fact?

What is bothersome about Stewart’s “Daily Show” in that respect is that those who watch it, by my observation at least, tend to be some of America’s brightest in terms of an SAT score. My anecdotal conclusion is buttressed somewhat in a 2004 presidential election study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. According to Annenberg researchers, “Daily Show” viewers “know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news.” Those sampled were asked things like “Who favors allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?” Answer: Bush. And “Who urges Congress to extend the federal law banning assault weapons?” Answer: Kerry. If those two questions are indicative of the rest and set the current bar for being well informed, we have dumbed down as a people much farther than I ever thought.

But if Stewart’s viewers are the best informed, I must also note that most of those viewers I have contact with also qualify as some of this country’s most arrogant, angry and intellectually dishonest. All are traits of successful sarcasm just as they tend to be endemic to those who are the most sarcastic. I await correction if wrong, but my recollection of Stewart’s vicious, cheap shots (another element of sarcasm) at Tucker Carlson’s expense when he tried to do a friendly interview of Stewart causes me to believe I’m spot on. I’m not a fan of Carlson’s dancing or bow ties either, but he appears to be a genuinely nice man who did nothing to provoke the nastiness that Stewart hit him with. If that behavior was the real Stewart, it reveals a repugnant characteristic I have also found among Stewart’s biggest fans. In short, they are often the luminaries of a dark matter, Parkeresque universe in which an ideological whore can be led to knowledge, but not made to think, even within my own family.

A number of those members are past or present top academics at such schools as Johns Hopkins, Duke, UCLA, Stanford and Harvard. They are different people at different universities but they all have one thing in common: their main TV “news” source is Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show.” Same for most of their faculty friends and students from what I have seen. The reason seems to be that they tend to be angry souls who find vicarious release in Stewart’s attacks on people and ideas they consider “bad” (aka conservative) without having to worry that he will gore their own liberal oxen except as an exercise in tokenism. That is especially disturbing because these are the very people that claim to be learned and open minded, but in fact, often do nothing more than perpetuate long disproved beliefs and even outright academic frauds. There are many examples, but two among the college smorgasbord of deceit will do.

RIGOBERTA MENCHU

When “I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala” won the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize for her book, Menchu’s first person, personally written account of the evils of capitalism and the brutality of the US financed Guatemalan military against her and other Guatemalan indigenous peoples became required reading in many college classrooms. Still is, even after the book was exposed as a fraud. According to those who checked out her story, Menchu did not write the book, a French Marxist did. Neither did the events in the book happen to her as claimed. They were fabricated along Marxist narrative lines to sell that ideology. So why is an academic fraud still being taught as fact? When I asked Marjorie Agosin, head of the Spanish department at Wellesley College that question many years ago, she said, “Even if it isn’t true, it is still the truth.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (“Many professors say they will stand by Rigoberta Menchu’s memoir”) quotes Agosin as saying, “Whether her book is true or not, I don’t care.” Other professors told me the same thing in different words.

MICHAEL BELLESILES:

When Emory University professor Michael A. Bellesiles published “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,” he was roundly hailed for having proven the National Rifle Association and its affiliated “gun nuts” had been lying about historical evidence that the Second Amendment was a guarantee of an individual’s right to own a gun. Bellesiles was
awarded Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize, among others. That was until a researcher named Clayton Cramer discovered that Bellesiles made it all up. Bellesilles was forced to resign from Emory, his publisher pulled the book and Columbia took back its prize. No matter, Oxford University hired Bellesiles as a distinguished professor and put his book back on the market where it continues to spread an academic fraud.

True to the origin of the term, sarcasm is an especially appropriate form of humor to attack those one hates because of the way it shreds its targets when done well. Stewart certainly does that. But if all humor is redirected hostility and those who tell jokes for a living are inflicting their own inner pain via words that they would like to inflict by physical force if they had the nerve to do it, as I am told, how many comedians besides Ray Romano would dare admit that they would be accountants if their fathers had told them they loved them? More to the point, do we really want to have a comedian’s personal demons setting the standard for national discourse?