Delighted by the discourse - KCRW's Left, Right & Center Live

"The Daily Show" used to do a segment called "Great Moments In Punditry" in which talk show transcripts were re-read by actors. It was funny because the actual arguments were too childish to take seriously — and because the actors reading the lines were children.

For grownups who care about politics, but don't care for partisan echo chambers boiling things down to "our side good, other side bad," there aren't many places to hear a fair and balanced discussion of the real issues.

Santa Monica College's beautiful Broad Stage was one such place on Sunday when it hosted the annual live version of KCRW's weekly political roundtable, "Left, Right & Center."

The show's genius is in its simplicity, though its appeal lies in the way it elevates the discourse without taking itself too seriously. Every Friday, Matt Miller, a smart, interesting person steadfastly in the center moderates as a smart, interesting person committed to the right (Tony Blankley) joins a smart, interesting person passionately from and of the left (Bob Scheer), and a smart, fascinating person (Arianna Huffington, the star of the show — though producer Sarah Spitz says no one is) described as "somewhere beyond, politically" in a discussion of the week's events. Miller, with a David Byrne-like consistency, opens by referring to the show as a "civilized, yet provocative antidote to the screaming talking heads that dominate political debate," and because of that provocative civility, the show is so popular that a quarter-million people download a dose of political sanity every month.

I listen religiously, though it takes me much longer than 30 minutes to get through the show. First, I'm usually taking notes; and when Bob and Matt start arguing, I have to rewind to get the details. I also rely on Tony for a relatively rational representation of the right's reasoning every week, and his input bears repeating as he is quite the cunning linguist. As Scheer told me, "If anyone can make a plausible argument for an implausible position, it's Tony." I used to be bothered by what I thought was Tony's condescension, but after meeting him I realized that he's just genuinely amused — as I would be if I found myself in a place where I believed I was right and just about everyone else was nice, but wrong.

And the show takes me a while to listen to because my dear Arianna is still mastering the art of the spoken word in English. But her contributions are so good that it's worth taking the time. In response to the question I was lucky enough to ask Tony about FOX News, for example, she said, "It's OK to have any opinions we want, but we cannot have two sets of facts — and that's really the difference … . MSNBC has passionate opinions based on facts. So does the Huffington Post, incidentally." It's my question and I don't get in a plug for my column or my paper, but she gets one in for HuffPo — just as the show ended. You can't teach that.

When Matt told me he thinks "folks have come to see us as a kind of political talk version of a soap opera or sitcom, where each of us has a role that listeners understand," I remembered a moment before the show. Tony was receiving an Ambassador from the People's Republic of Santa Monica while wearing a contented grin, Bob and his wife were talking to some people, Arianna was totally engaged with KCRW's Ruth Seymour, and Matt was nearby with his family and some listeners. The actor Steven Weber (who, all due respect to D.L Hughley, was the best thing about "Studio 60") introduced himself to Matt and said, "I wouldn't have missed this for the world. Some of my friends are going to see U2 or watch the Yankees — talk about a no brainer."

I realized that these hosts may walk the halls of power, but they're regular people committed to coming back to our humble little public radio station on a college campus and letting us in on what's going on. It doesn't matter if Bob is in Cambodia during a civil war and has to find a Buddhist Temple or if Arianna is on a yacht in the Aegean Sea and has to call in on a satellite phone. The show goes on. And three of them live on the Westside of Los Angeles in the "30 Mile Zone" just like the rest of us. "LRC" isn't a soap or a sitcom, it's the best (first?) political reality show ever because these are real people. You might bump into Arianna at the Jamba Juice in Brentwood, catch Bob having sushi at the Hump, Tony having a drink at the Miramar, or spot Matt having fried chicken at the Ivy with his wife and daughter. As Matt perfectly describes it, the radio show is great because it's "a dinner party conversation." The live show was better because it gave us a chance to sit at the table.

The question is, will Arianna and Sarah join Bob, Matt, and Tony in making it a semi-annual event?

It's still plain discrimination - Proposition 8 one step closer to being repealed

I'm always skeptical when the reasoning behind a course of action changes over time. Once the justification for invading Iraq became spreading democracy, for example, the flimsy argument about relieving Saddam Hussein of his elusive weapons of mass destruction became nonsense.

And when we allowed the Iraqi elections to happen without the participation of the minority Sunnis, the "spreading democracy" thing became equally ridiculous. More and more, it seemed like President Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power because he just didn't like the guy.

Closer to home, the reasoning behind the unprecedented amendment to our state Constitution to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples has recently changed, causing me to question the true motive behind the statewide shame that was Proposition 8.

Last week, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker refused to throw out the federal lawsuit that challenges Prop. 8 as unconstitutional and set a date for trial in January. This is great news for people who believe in marriage equality, regular equality, due process, and the rule of law because this case raises a fundamental issue that can only be addressed on the federal level. The United States Supreme Court needs to decide once and for all that gay people are a protected class and discriminating against someone because of his or her sexual orientation is a federal crime.

I was ashamed of my adopted home state for passing Prop. 8 in the first place, so I'm happy that we will be able to redeem ourselves by having a California case set the precedent for the rest of the country. We have Judge Walker to thank for that because in his ruling he not only allowed the case to move forward, he also said the other side (an organization known as Protect Marriage) has to present evidence of actual harm to a state interest if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. Keeping in mind that the justifications for passing Prop. 8 have ranged from protecting parents' interests in controlling what their kids are being taught in school (something that was proven never to be in jeopardy) to the argument that the organization's lawyer, Charles Cooper, tried to make to Judge Walker (protecting the state's interest in promoting "naturally procreative relationships"), it was a perfectly reasonable thing for the Judge to do.

Walker asked, "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"

"My answer is, I don't know. I don't know," Cooper replied. Realizing he may have just totally undermined his position, he said that the question wasn't whether there is proof that same-sex marriages threaten those between men and women, but whether "the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this … to take a wait and see attitude." He went on to say, "There are things we can't know, that's my point. The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged."

In other words, even though Protect Marriage could be completely wrong about any harm that might come as a result of allowing same-sex couples to retain the right to marry, we should be able to discriminate against gay Californians by taking away that right until we know for sure.

That wasn't a compelling argument for Judge Walker who asked, "Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?" I think he rightly suspects that the evolving, legally shaky justifications for passing Prop. 8 are a smokescreen. So, to prove they aren't motivated by anti-gay bias, he has ordered Protect Marriage to return with some kind of evidence of what, exactly, they would be protecting marriage from. I can't wait to see what they come up with.

Blatant lies are hard to defend and impossible to support — that's part of the reason why we will never hear anyone from the second Bush administration make a serious effort to justify invading Iraq. Unfortunately for an attorney like Cooper, defending and supporting a lie is his job. And if you notice, he couldn't do it. That's because the coalition of conservative political and religious organizations he works for spent $40 million to get Prop. 8 passed for the simple reason that they don't think gay Californians should have the same rights as the rest of us — and they're using any excuse they can find to try to justify what they've done.

They say they're "protecting marriage," but it's still discrimination and it's still wrong.

Thank Bush for Obama's Nobel Prize - Showing a different face to the world

This past weekend, I dreamt that during President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, former DNC Chairman (and Bill Clinton’s best friend), Terry McAuliffe, stood up and said, “Barack, I’m happy for you and I’ma let you finish, but the Clinton Global Initiative had one of the most peaceful years of all time!” Of course, this could never happen – not that McAuliffe isn’t every bit the jackass that Kanye West is – because Oslo City Hall in Norway has much better security than Radio City Music Hall in New York.

Almost universally, the domestic response to President Obama winning the award has been to point out that he hasn’t “accomplished enough” to deserve to be in company of people like Mother Theresa and Bishop Desmond Tutu. But that idea not only insults the Nobel Committee, it also shows our collective ignorance. The nominations are submitted in February for work done during the preceding year – when Barack was a candidate and still in the Senate. And say what you will about presidential accomplishments, between February ’08 and February ’09, no person in the world did more or better work for “fraternity between nations” than Senator Barack Obama.

Remember that we, as a nation, had taken a very aggressive posture around the world since 2001. Then along came an unlikely anti-war presidential candidate in 2008. While the presumptive nominees of both parties (Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain) were still yelling, “Cowboy up,” this other candidate was saying, “Tone it down.” He was dismissed for saying he would pull out of Iraq, he was mocked for saying he would talk with our enemies, and everyone told him he had to get tougher - until he became the new presumptive nominee and likely next president. That’s when he began earning the Nobel Peace Prize.

It started in St. Paul, Minnesota in June when he said, “Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy – tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world.”
It continued in front of a quarter-million people in Berlin in July, “As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them.”
Then came his Inaugural Address in January, “To all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

Along the way, he met with former and current British Prime Ministers Blair and Brown, German Chancellor Merkel, French President Sarkozy, former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Palestinian President Abbas, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, and Afghan President Karzai – and gave all of these world leaders an indication of what they could expect from an Obama administration. After eight years of having a cowboy thumb stuck in their eye, I’m sure it was a relief.

The thing to keep in mind is just how little the rest of the world thought of us before last November. Barack Obama was clearly best qualified to be President, but he wasn’t supposed to win. Around the world, nobody thought we would get it right on election day. After all, we re-elected George W. Bush despite clear evidence that his presidency was a disaster. The Nobel Committee certainly knew who the right guy for the job was, and in case we the people of the United States had made the mistake of electing President John McCain, these five forward-thinking Norwegians were prepared to offer Barack the ultimate consolation prize.

Lack of black actors hurts SNL - Lorne Michaels misses again

It’s hard out there for a black actor. With the exception of the minstrel shows on Tyler Perry’s one-man chitlin' circuit, there might be one black character – male or female – in the typical network TV ensemble cast. Movie studios have forsaken real actors in favor of casting rappers like Ice Cube, Ludacris, T.I., and Common (who really can’t act). The black thespian who has gotten the education, put in the work, and dedicated himself to developing his craft is still fighting an uphill battle to book work. But when the cultural and political icon of a generation, President Barack Obama, is black, then the job of playing him on the definitive satire showcase of the last 35 years, “Saturday Night Live,” should go to a black actor, not Fred Armisen. And a black actress should be playing Michelle.

Anyone who knows me knows that I have nothing against white people. I actually like white people. Some of my best friends are not only white, but white and Jewish. So when I say there has to be at least one black actor and one black actress on “SNL” to play the Obamas, I’m not playing the race card – I’m playing the ethnic card. I insist on authenticity. If Joe and Hadassah Lieberman were the First Couple, I wouldn’t want Gentiles playing them; and I think new cast member Nasim Pedrad, who is Persian, was perfect as Mrs. Ahmadinejad on “Weekend Update” this past Saturday. That bit was funny, but it bothers me a little that Iran’s First Lady has been on “SNL” more times than America’s.

Part of the problem is personal. I’ve been boosting “SNL’s” ratings for as long as I can remember. As a kid, the whole point of owning and learning to program a VCR (Google it, young people) was to be able to record NBC between 11:30 and 1:00 every Saturday night because I was prone to falling asleep before the first musical guest’s performance. In high school, the tape of the 15th Anniversary show was coveted at parties and it still cracks me up to randomly text things like “chocolate babies” or “chopping broccoli” to my great old friends. But now it seems like “SNL” is less a means to the end of producing good sketch comedy as much as it’s about promoting the careers, movies, and albums of the hosts, musical guests, and anyone else they can get to make cameos (Scarlett Johansson, Madonna, Elijah Wood). U2 and Coldplay played the typical two songs, then closed the show with a third – which is a lot of airtime for a musical guest when compared to the small amount dedicated to funny sketches.

There are only so many Garrett Morrises and Eddie Murphys out there, and the chances of finding a talent like that double when there are two black actors on the show. From the reliable Tracy Morgan to the under-used Dean Edwards to the unfortunate Finesse Mitchell, Executive Producer Lorne Michaels had consistently cast the “Other Black Guy,” ensuring there were always two black actors in the cast. But four years ago, Michaels decided not to re-cast the OBG and left Kenan Thompson on an island where he’s had to play both Plaxico Burress and Charles Barkley. If you don’t know who they are, one guy is six-foot-five and lean, and the other is known as the Round Mound of Rebound.

With only one black man and no black women in the cast, I find it hard to believe “Saturday Night Live” would employ more than one black writer. Add that to our president’s maddeningly even demeanor, his administration’s famous aversion to drama, and Fred Armisen’s frustrating lack of range, and it becomes tough to mine comedy out of this White House. With no writers who can relate to the Obamas as a couple and no actress to play Michelle in any sketch ever, it becomes impossible. So we can forget about catching any of the comedic lightning in a bottle that we saw when Dana Carvey and Phil Hartman played George and Barbara Bush; or when Hartman played Bill Clinton opposite Jan Hooks’ Hillary; or Darrell Hammond’s incredible Bill Clinton with Ana Gasteyer’s or Amy Poehler’s Hillary.

It all comes back to Lorne Michaels because at 1:00AM Sunday morning when the show wraps, everything happened the way he wanted it to happen. Despite the fact that the White House and the people who live there have been a staple – if not the staple – of “SNL” from day one, it doesn’t have an actress who can play the First Lady or writers who know how a black power couple thinks and acts because Lorne Michaels didn’t bother to hire them. So there will be no new comedic ground broken in Studio 8H at Rockefeller Center until there is a new occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. or until the Executive Producer of “Saturday Night Live” wakes up and realizes the First Family isn’t white any more.