Obama-O'Brien Comedy Ticket Triumphs at Correspondents' Dinner

On a night when some said, in light of recent tragic events, that he should scale back the comedy, or not try to be funny at all, President Obama once again turned in a stellar standup comedy performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Other presidents have sometimes been funny, but only President Obama has the comedy chops to deliver material with the timing and attitude of a seasoned comedy professional. His dinner jokes were so effective in mocking his Republican opposition and the breathlessly inaccurate attacks of the conservative media, that Obama should employ his playful yet edgy comedic skills to rally public opinion and even persuade Republicans to vote sensibly on the pressing issues of the day.

The president's standout standup was as unexpected as a Republican filibuster, but the real surprise was what I consider to be Conan O'Brien's funniest and most convincing performance ever. After receiving a somewhat tepid crowd reaction in his initial WHCD stint as a newly minted talk show host in 1995, O'Brien rocked the ballroom with a confident demeanor and exceedingly well chosen material that most effectively lampooned the media industry sitting before him.

Perhaps O'Brien was driven by even more than his usual work ethic. He may have wanted to erase the memory of that prior performance. Or perhaps his lingering resentment towards Jay Leno might have pushed him to surpass Leno's barely adequate performance in 2010. Where Leno seemed ill-prepared and indifferent, O'Brien brought boundless energy, a knowing sense of what was right for the room, and the best of the fine material his writers provided him.

O'Brien's ultimate motivation might have been to use his comedy to heal the wounds of his beloved Boston, where he attended Harvard, and where some family members still live in Watertown. And one of the heartiest laughs of the evening came when he described how Boston is the last place a criminal should target, since "9 out of 10 people in Boston are related to police officers."

The powerfully funny comedy of Conan O'Brien and his opening act Barack Obama would be right for any night, but it was especially welcome at this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner, after all the country has been through lately.

Those who argue that this was not a time to laugh should heed the words of George Bernard Shaw.

"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh."

 

In Defense of Justin Bieber

As a Jewish comedian, it would have been easy to follow the herd in jumping on Justin Bieber's remarks after he visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Except, unlike other comedians and self appointed pundits, I actually read carefully all of Bieber's words. "Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a belieber."

First, Bieber deserves credit for spending an hour touring the Anne Frank House, a museum that pays tribute not only to a young girl who lost her own life and the lives of most of her family at the hands of the Nazis, but to all who have suffered from acts of mass genocide around the world. And it is widely known that Anne Frank was like most teenagers, in her love of movie stars and the pop culture of her time, as the pictures on the wall in her room attest to.

Bieber's comments in the museum guestbook was his way of saying that he connected with the kind of person Anne was, and that if she was a teenager alive today, he hoped his picture would be one of those on her wall. Like all museum guestbook entries, his words were not intended to be parsed by vultures circling above Bieber, primed to take him down. They were quickly written, heartfelt comments by Justin Bieber, not Anton Chekhov. And most significantly, spending time in the museum to learn about Anne Frank, is something most pop stars, especially teenagers, would not have done.

Finally, the most positive aspect of Bieber's visit to the Anne Frank House is that millions of teenage fans who previously had no idea who she was, will now know at least part of the sad, yet inspiring, story of Anne Frank.

Why Liberals Should Stand with Rand

There was a lot more to Rand Paul's 13-hour filibuster than the misguided Hitler and Jane Fonda references (not at the same time), Marco Rubio's obligatory water joke and Ted Cruz's monotone recitation of identical Twitter comments.

In fact, what was most noteworthy was what wasn't said, and who wasn't there.

I have almost never agreed with Paul in the past, particularly with his offensive refusal to embrace the Civil Rights Act, but his criticism of the U.S. drone program abroad, and the unwillingness of Attorney General Holder to rule out possible drone attacks on American citizens on U.S. soil, was right on the mark.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that between 2004 and 2013, CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed up to 3,461 people -- up to 891 of them civilians. And it said that the vast majority of the strikes were carried out under the Obama administration. And yet those disturbing numbers have apparently not bothered most of the liberals in the Senate and in the media.

Ron Wyden was the only Democratic senator to stand with Rand during the filibuster. Where were the other liberals? Was their absence indicative of their support for execution without due process, and their acceptance of the alarming number of civilian casualties? Or perhaps it was because of the lockstep partisanship that compels most Democrats and Republicans to stay in line. And in that case, would those absent liberal Democrats have supported a filibuster by a Senator from their own party, if there was a Republican administration?

MSNBC barely even discussed the filibuster, and when it was heatedly debated on The Cycle, it was the two more conservative hosts who challenged Toure on his blanket acceptance of the Obama administration drone policy. Only Rachel Maddow devoted a significant amount of time to it, and despite some reservations, praised the significance of Senator Paul's filibuster, and interviewed Senator Wyden.

A fellow liberal pundit who I appeared with on a television news and opinion program admitted that using drones on U.S. citizens and others "doesn't sound right," but that it's the right thing to do. I replied that it doesn't sound right because it isn't right, as well as being immoral and counterproductive, since it fosters hatred of America, and radicalizes others to pursue terrorism.

You would think what I said would be something liberals in Congress and the media would embrace. But with their silence or in some cases, dismissive mockery, liberals missed an opportunity to stand with Rand, by supporting due process and the constitution, and opposing a perpetual war being waged abroad, and soon, here at home.

 

I'll Stand By You: One Woman's Mission to Heal the Children of the World

In 1997, Elissa Montanti was asked to write a song to raise money for children injured in war torn Bosnia. That led to a meeting with Bosnia's Ambassador to the UN Muhamed Sacirbey who showed her a letter that read:

"My name is Kenan Malkic, I am 14 years old and have stepped on a landmine. I have no arms and a leg. I am asking all god and merciful people to help me."

To Montanti, Kenan's letter was an answer to her own letter to God that she wrote as a way to find her way out of the depression and anxiety that had enveloped her life. Her immediate response was "I want to help".

For the past 15 years, Montanti, author (with Jennifer Haupt) of the new book, I'll Stand By You: One Woman's Mission to Heal the Children of the World, has helped more than 150 children injured in war and by disaster, accident and illness. Her organization Global Medical Relief Fund for Children originally was run out of a walk in closet, and is now housed in the newly built Dare To Dream house on Ms. Montanti's native Staten Island.

I'll Stand By You is a simply moving tale that recounts Montanti's childhood adversity and tragedy, and how she escaped from her own darkness by helping other children like Kenan, who now leads a productive personal and professional life. Each child she helps obtain the prosthetics, reconstructive surgery and rehabilitation they could not receive in their own country becomes part of Montanti's global family as they stay in her home during their repeated visits for medical care.

Her book is a stirring reminder of the difference one very determined woman can make, against great odds and bureaucratic red tape, in the lives of children devastated by war and destruction. And it also serves as a powerful antiwar statement when the book details the thousands of children maimed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia, a sobering reality that has received far too little media attention. And when she travels to Haiti, to help children who lost limbs as a result of the earthquake, the utter personal devastation such natural disasters can cause is also brought into focus more sharply than any news coverage.

And by tirelessly traveling the globe to give children the opportunity to live a full and hopeful life, Elissa Montanti of Staten Island also ably serves as a diplomat and a timely example of what Americans can do to help the children of the world.

Presidential Appointments Shouldn't Require Senate Approval

Once again, my 94-year-old father has an observation that I wish I had thought of first.

Presidential appointments, from cabinet secretaries to department heads to judges, should not require the "advice and consent" of the increasingly partisan and obstructionist Senate.

As was glaringly obvious from the Republican witch hunt that unfairly derailed Susan Rice's impending nomination for Secretary of State, the constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation is no longer a useful or reasonable check on presidential power.

And as the opposition to Chuck Hagel's nomination for secretary of defense indicates, nominees are now deemed to be unacceptable simply if their views on certain issues differ from those of Senators from the opposing party, even if the nominee is from their own party. Hagel's opposition to the Iraq War should not be a reason for Senators like John McCain and others to possibly deny his confirmation.

Last summer, the House passed a bill, that was approved by the Senate more than a year earlier, that revised Article II of the Constitution to remove from the Senate the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees. Key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) were among those affected by the change in the "advice and consent" requirement.

But now is the time to expand the scope of that constitutional change to have all government and judicial appointments, except the Supreme Court, made solely by presidential edict.

Throughout the Obama administration, many top management positions have gone unfilled, even at the Treasury during the height of the fiscal crisis. One of the consequences of the bitterly partisan and ideological scrutiny of potential public servants is that an increasing number of highly qualified people understandably choose not to be subjected to such harsh and unfair attacks by the opposition.

Although Republicans have taken this obstructionism to a new level, Democrats have been guilty of this in the past as well. And it is also true, that a Republican administration would be able to make presidential appointments that are ideologically extreme and even frightening to fellow progressives. But elections have consequences, and letting the president choose the people who will carry out his policies should be one of them.

And the most important part of allowing this needed expansion of presidential power, is to ensure that the best and the brightest are no longer discouraged to serve by a brutal confirmation process that has outlived its usefulness.