What is "decent" entertainment or "humane" culture? Must a decent film deal only with uplifting or wholesome subjects, or may dark or disturbing themes also be dealt with? Can a film include nudity or profanity and still be "decent"? Can "humane culture" include popular films or genres like action films and romantic comedies, or do only highbrow "art films" count as true culture?

It is true that among the arts film poses special issues -- that it is especially liable to abuse by the unscrupulous, and can be exceptionally insidious when so abused. "Moral restraint" in its production and consumption is certainly necessary to avoid either presenting or being confronted with likely occasions of sin. But reasonable Catholic opinion will not insist on equating "restraint" with an absolute ban on nudity, violence, profanity, and so forth.

The 1995 Vatican film list, published by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications in commemoration of the centenary of cinema, enumerates 45 "important films," each noted for exceptional value in one of the three areas of "Religion," "Values," and "Art" (15 films in each area). For those who insist on a rigorist approach to film, though, it’s hard to see how some of these films could be deemed "deserving" of special note at all, except as films to avoid. Nudity, sexual content, obscene or profane language, and explicit violence can all be found in films on this list. Yet all demonstrate a level of restraint that distinguishes them from morally unworthy productions that pose a likely occasion of sin for viewers. 

As Rush Limbaugh frequently points out, it is difficult to satirize a political group that consistently lives up to, and frequently surpasses, any exaggeration of their behavior. Example: A conservative host discussing the utter disingenuousness of literary awards might say, "Next thing you know, the New York Times will be nominating some political comedy book for the Pulitzer in history..." Oops, too late, already happened. See how hard it is to parody the self-parodying?

Another reason conservatives make better targets is that we don't put up much of a rhetorical fight. If a conservative writing team ever penned a joke about a Democratic black leader like the one made by Stewart's team about Clarence Thomas (a mocking classroom activity in the book instructs children, "Using felt and yarn, make a hand puppet of Clarence Thomas. Ta-da! You're Antonin Scalia!"), there would be p.r. hell to pay. Republicans, however, are not a whiny bunch by disposition. They can usually be counted on to take a joke, even if it is in incredibly bad taste. 

Precisely because humor is a sign of intelligence (and many women believe, or were taught by their mothers, that they become threatening to men if they appear too bright), it could be that in some way men do not want women to be funny. They want them as an audience, not as rivals. And there is a huge, brimming reservoir of male unease, which it would be too easy for women to exploit. (Men can tell jokes about what happened to John Wayne Bobbitt, but they don't want women doing so.)