That's funny...

I just read through some back-and-forth postings on a website dedicated to bashing "comedian" Dane Cook. I put that word in quotes, because I personally don't find him to be very funny.

The first half of the postings were mainly following suit with the site, bashing on the "comic". But, the second half were bashing the bashers and praising Mr. Cook. Some stated such things as, "It's true. Those that bash Cook on sites like this obviously have no life of their own." I read that comment five to ten times, at least. Others said, "Why bash Dane? If you're going to post something negative about him, why post anything at all?" Yet others exclaimed, "The only reason you guys are bashing him is because you're jealous. Just accept the fact that he's is more famous, is funnier, and has more money than you." Some even wrote, "Yeah, these are just people who are anti-mainstream. If Cook was an underground comic, these same people bashing him now would be praising his work then." Finally, some stated, "Well, millions of people disagree with the bashers, so that should count for something."

Let me respond to these ludicrous statements one-by-one.

1) "It's true. Those that bash Cook on sites like this obviously have no life of their own." Okay and those that take the time to read all of the negative commentary surrounding Cook on sites like that and respond with comments of their own, do have lives? Those who dedicate a solid quantity of time in praising Cook's efforts on websites "have lives"? It took less time for the Cook bashers on this site to just write their anti-Cook sentiments than for the pro-Cook's who had to read the negative statements and then write rebuttals of their own. So, how does this work? Any person who reviews a film, CD, or comic another likes in a negative fashion online has no life, but if they agree, then all is well, and they indeed do have a life?

2) "Why bash Dane? If you're going to post something negative about him, why post anything at all?" Democracy is a funny thing. If only positive statements could be said and posted about the government, we'd have ourselves quite the Republic, would we not? Why bash Dane? Why praise him? Just as some may enjoy his work and encourage other like-minded individuals to give it a glance, it will not be a positive experience for others, and they have just as much right to warn like-minded individuals of not watching/listening to Cook's performances.

3) "The only reason you guys are bashing him is because you're jealous. Just accept the fact that he is more famous, is funnier, and has more money than you." Ah, I love this line. I read/hear this all the time, in regard to politicians (the president, in particular, although only 26% of the U.S. voting population say such things anymore), musicians, athletes, actors, television stars, comedians, etc. If someone truly attacked a celebrity via review, saying such ignorant things as, "I hate (fill-in-the-blank). He/she is worthless scum! They don't deserve the money they get! Ahhhhhhh!" Then, maybe, one could conclude that they are indeed jealous of the individual they are personally attacking. But, that doesn't happen very frequently. Personally, I don't want to be famous and don't envy anyone who is. Also, humor is a matter of taste and as I've learned, often times, it's a matter of luck, timing, and connection. I know plenty of local bands and comics that are much better musically and at making audiences laugh on a consistent basis than some who are making millions of dollars annually. What, are we going to say that George W. Bush is the greatest, because he is president? No. The man has connections. His father was president. He was born into buko bucks with his family. Dane Cook got lucky in many ways and is a master marketer. I'll give the guy kudos for being a marketing genius, but will not in any way describe him as a comic one.

4) "Yeah, these are just people who are anti-mainstream. If Cook was an underground comic, these same people bashing him now would be praising his work then." Eh, sorry, but no. Many critics are so upset with Cook because they feel there are so many better comics out there who are not being given a chance and that Cook is just a waste of space and time in the comedic world. Many professional comics feel the same way.

5) "Well, millions of people disagree with the bashers, so that should count for something." Ashley Simpson is popular. Paris Hilton is somehow popular. George W. Bush was at one time popular (90% approval at one point and that's down to 26%). It was once a popular belief of the earth being flat. Popularity does not equal truth. Popularity equals a temporary trend which comes to a halt eventually. If Dane Cook has the longevity of the George Carlin's, Jerry Seinfeld's, Rodney Dangerfield's, and Richard Pryor's of the world, with an improved reputation amongst other comedians (of using his own material), then perhaps I, along with other bashers, can give the guy some credit. But, until that time, I'll just be hoping he makes it big in the acting business, so that he gives his "comedy" a rest.