Now on ScienceBlogs: How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is a Real Book!
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« The Dangers of Anti-Muslim Stereotypes | Main | College Basketball Preview »
Posted on: November 15, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
My producer, Jeremy, showed me these videos of people getting drunk and then telling real historical stories. Then they act out the stories. The first one is about George Washington and one of his slaves. Very funny stuff.
The second one is about Benjamin Franklin.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Comments
LOL. I love how the actors are hiccuping to.
"Oh you can tell a lie and you fucking did, you dumb fuck." I like this woman :)
Posted by: Leni | November 15, 2009 9:56 AM
This show should be prime time on one of the major networks .
Posted by: Vic Vanity | November 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Hilarious. Thanks.
Posted by: CHV | November 15, 2009 10:27 AM
I don't find drunks amusing in any way, shape, or form. Neither should you.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 11:45 AM
I was skeptical, but should not have doubted. This is awesome.
"She said 'I have tasted a truth and a freedom, and-- blahblahblahblahblahblah.'"
Love the Dances With Wolves music, but could've done without the puke scenes. That guy is resilient.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 11:50 AM
I laughed a lot at Alexander Hamilton on his cell phone in episode 1.
P.S. Shut up, Ken.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 12:01 PM
Brilliant rejoinder, Gretchen. Your alcohol intake has clearly sharpened your wit.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 12:07 PM
What's your fucking problem, Ken, you sanctimonious shitbag?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 15, 2009 12:33 PM
Sorry, Ken. Admonishing people to not find something funny does not earn you a witty rejoinder. All I can offer is this cold, sad, wet blanket to wrap yourself in. On the bright side, I hear it has a +2 bonus to smug superiority.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 12:36 PM
I thought the first one was much funnier than the second. The hiccups made it.
Posted by: Savagemutt | November 15, 2009 12:38 PM
Sanctimony is a magical thing, isn't it? Somehow it never appears when you look down your nose at the behavior of others (evangelicals, Republicans), but it suddenly becomes intolerable when someone disagrees with your values. So with humor anything goes, right? If someone finds it hilarious to throw a kitten into a hot oven (as a young woman in New York recently did), you wouldn't presume to "admonish" her sense of humor because that would be "sanctimonious," am I right?
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 12:57 PM
Wait. What? Animal cruelty and the decision of adults to imbibe alcohol and humorously act out history are the same how?
Posted by: Circe | November 15, 2009 1:13 PM
This seems like a great way to trivialize history.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 15, 2009 1:15 PM
Ken McKnight wrote:
Right, because someone getting drunk and behaving in an amusing manner is just like killing kittens. Come on, why not just go all the way for the Hitler analogy? You're being ridiculous. And no one here really gives a damn what you disapprove of.
And before you bust off one of those "you must drink a lot" ripostes like you did at Gretchen - I rarely drink, and when I do it's only wine with dinner. Hell, that may be precisely why I find these videos funny. The fact that you don't means less than nothing to me. Am I really supposed to ask your permission to laugh?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 15, 2009 1:47 PM
Yes, Ed, it's always easier to trivialize an argument than to respond to it. If you really think that's what I was saying, I am both surprised and disappointed. I've never understood why people who drink get so angry when faced with a disapproving opinion. Drinking is just beyond criticism for some people. Kind of like religion is for others, I suppose.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 2:00 PM
Oh, I see. It's a blanket condemnation of anything at all to do with drinking. Whether it's being done by consenting adults, or whether the people who laugh at these videos actually drink or not is apparently irrelevant.
Why the hell did you click on this link again, Ken? I mean, the word "drunk" is right there in the title. You're being a preachy vegetarian in a steak house, and acting surprised when people don't respond well to it.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 2:11 PM
I agree with Jonathan. These are fantastic!
Posted by: maurile | November 15, 2009 2:19 PM
Gretchen, you may be surprised, but I think you may be right. I like the "preachy vegetarian" analogy very much. There is a proper forum for the discussion I was interested in pursuing, and this just isn't it. I apologize for the cheap shot I took earlier. It wasn't fair or called for.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 2:22 PM
Ken McKnight wrote:
Talk about a dishonest argument. I am someone who very rarely drinks. And I don't give two shits about someone who criticizes drinking. But that isn't what you criticized. You criticized anyone even laughing at anything to do with someone drinking. And that's simply ridiculous. Why is drinking, of all the activities humans engage in, somehow off limits for laughing at? It's been a source of comedy throughout human history, from Shakespeare (whose works are replete with stories of drunkards, many of them played for high comedy, most obviously Falstaff) to Foster Brooks and Dean Martin.
For you to wander in here like a prissy old schoolmarm telling us we must not laugh at anything involving people getting drunk makes you a humorless nag and a first rate pain in the ass. Get a fucking sense of humor.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 15, 2009 2:37 PM
I second (or tenth) Gretchen's initial reply to Ken. Evolve a sense of humor or shut up.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 15, 2009 2:39 PM
Gretchen wrote:
It's even worse than that. He's like a preachy vegetarian criticizing even other vegetarians who dare to even laugh at a joke about eating meat. He's preaching to someone who almost never drinks about the evils of laughing about the subject of drinking; it's much like a vegetarian who would criticize another vegetarian for laughing at the "if we aren't supposed to eat animals why are they made out of meat" bumper sticker and then, when they reject his priggishness, accusing them of being a meat eater. In other words, he's just being an asshole.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 15, 2009 2:41 PM
Ken McKnight "I don't find drunks amusing in any way, shape, or form."
Obviously you haven't met me.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 15, 2009 2:47 PM
Ed has a point, but I actually think he needs to go one step further: joking about something and laughing at a joke in which that act is being performed are not the same thing.
Ken, I guess I'm removed from you three times over: a) I don't think drinking is bad, b) I don't think that making jokes about bad things is necessarily bad, and c) I don't think that laughing at depictions of people drinking is bad. But if I discarded (a), then I could see why one might want to make a statement against (b), and would support making statements against (c).
People with a dark sense of humor tend to roll right over (b): "But this joke about rape is funny!" And I agree that it can be, but it should be noted that in these videos it's also (c): the "bad" thing is not only being joked about, but is actively committed as part of the joke. I might laugh at a joke about rape, but I wouldn't laugh at a rape, even if the person doing it was wearing a clown nose.
Ah, the dissection of comedy using empathy. I happen to enjoy it, but could see why it might cause someone else to want to gouge out his/her eyes with a fork. And that would be bad. You could joke about it, but please don't laugh if it happens.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 3:08 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Gretchen. I think we could have had an interesting discussion along these lines, but Ed is taking this VERY personally (I rated three personal responses and a personal insult!!), so I am choosing not to pursue it. I'm worried about the big guy's blood pressure.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 15, 2009 3:22 PM
Well, you were being an asshole.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 15, 2009 3:36 PM
Trollish troll is trolling.
Posted by: Ivan | November 15, 2009 3:38 PM
These aren't particularly funny, even though they are alcohol-related.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 15, 2009 3:55 PM
Ken McKnight is fucking ...hic... hilarious.
Posted by: TSFN | November 15, 2009 4:08 PM
Ken McKnight, let me guess - you or someone in your family is a recovering alcoholic.
Just because someone is drunk does not mean they are an alcoholic or promote alcoholism.
While I personally think getting drunk is silly, I realize that some people do it for various reasons, and that some of them do it without getting addicted. If people are alcoholic, they should get help.
In short, these videos are actually pretty funny.
Posted by: Katharine | November 15, 2009 4:26 PM
On a different note, I think I have a crush on Jen Kirkman now.
Posted by: Chris Berez | November 15, 2009 4:36 PM
I don't know what others here were laughing at, but I was definitely laughing at the extremely clever vignettes placing unedited uninhibited speech, sniffs and hiccups into the hands (well, mouth and nose, really) of Jack Black, Michael Cera and others.
It was a work of art, an excellent piece of entertainment along the lines of Creature Comforts (audio interviews about everyday stuff transformed into claymation animals uttering the same words).
The anachronistic cellphone use in another episode was a brilliant touch. Kudos to Derek Waters, I don't know how I missed these.
Ken, sadly, misses the point altogether. That's not to say he's wrong - Eric Falconer was beyond simply being drunk, he was poisoned (imbibing to the point that you vomit is a clear indication of alcohol poisoning) and if the clips had only contained the interviews and no vignettes, they would not have been funny at all.
The humor was in the literal transcription of every tic, mistake, modern colloquialism and blahblahblah into an historic setting. Anachronism is almost always a hoot, and Art takes its inspiration from anywhere and everywhere, even drunk history buffs.
If we hadn't been shown the sources of the scripts none of the vignettes would have made any sense at all. The two have to go hand-in-hand.
Ken's reaction reminds me of the time I recommended the movie "Colors" to some relatives. They told me they watched the first few minutes but couldn't get past the bad language and left. They refused to accept that it went with the territory, and by focusing on that aspect, they never got to experience the story.
Posted by: Ancient Brit | November 15, 2009 4:58 PM
The sad part is, I actually have tried to share history with people while I'm drunk.
I am a boring, boring, boring person.
Posted by: MPL | November 15, 2009 11:31 PM
Ken said: "I don't find drunks amusing in any way shape, or form."
Well OK Ken, your concern is noted*.
But then he goes on: "Neither should you."
Ken, you're not the King of the World, you don't get to tell me what I can find amusing, or not.
On the subject of 'Creature Comforts' I picture Ken as the passive-aggressive Hamster who got his head slammed in a door ... and it was on his birthday! :D - DJ
-------------------
*Here's a free tip for you Ken. If you don't think you'll find a thread to your taste (or interesting) don't read it! You're not compelled to read all threads. And if you find a thread distasteful, and feel compelled to say so, at least say why you think it's distasteful.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 16, 2009 1:54 AM
I don't get to be King of the World, but you get to elect yourself Miss Manners of the Intertoobz? Hardly seems fair.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | November 16, 2009 12:51 PM
Ken - Awww, it's just not fair, is it snookums?
I'm not electing my self to be anything, I'm simply telling you* how I observe it works here, if you don't like it, I hear Stormfront's got an eye-splitting site filled with belligerent yahoos who just love ordering other people to conform to their mores.
But seriously, what is the reason you find this offensive? Lie down on this couch and tell Dr Dingo** all about it. ;) - DJ
----------------------
* Observed though lurking and reading other's posts, then timidly posting, more boldly posting, going over the top and getting smacked down, then gradually figuring it out. Just lucky you came up against me and not DuWayne, he would have torn you a new one, filled it in and repeated the exercise until you crawled away. I'm a lot more patient and forgiving (if I say so myself [rolls eyes at own stupidity]).
** "Oh look everyone, it's Doctor Dingo" [smattering of applause]
Posted by: DingoJack | November 16, 2009 9:49 PM
In the spirit of the original post, I think Ken is hilarious and neither should you.
Posted by: creeky belly | November 17, 2009 3:29 AM