Bold Confessions of a Nerd-Party Candidate

[InzeladunMaster]

I have to agree with Grimhelm on the use of humor, and its timing. I also cannot think of a better time for humor than the election.

I enjoy political cartoons on the editorial pages, for example.

I assume, without checking at this time, that it's an association started by natives, that is people indiginous to the Alaskan area before the "white man" came along.

It was founded by Joe Vogler from Kansas. He moved to Alaska when he was 29 (he was working with the Army Corp of Engineers). He was 60 when he started calling for Alaskan independence and founded the party in question. He ran for governor in '82 and '86. He lost, especially after the pundits and satirists made fun of his debate comments that the glaciers should be nuked along the coast.

After he was murdered in a plastic explosives deal gone bad (according to his murderer), he was buried in Canada because he did not want to buried in American soil.

 

[APewty]

I have to agree with Grimhelm on the use of humor, and its timing. I also cannot think of a better time for humor than the election.

I enjoy political cartoons on the editorial pages, for example.



It was founded by Joe Vogler from Kansas. He moved to Alaska when he was 29 (he was working with the Army Corp of Engineers). He was 60 when he started calling for Alaskan independence and founded the party in question. He ran for governor in '82 and '86. He lost, especially after the pundits and satirists made fun of his debate comments that the glaciers should be nuked along the coast.

After he was murdered in a plastic explosives deal gone bad (according to his murderer), he was buried in Canada because he did not want to buried in American soil.

He sounds like a kook. If Todd Palin is involved in an Alaskan terrorist organization then the people of the country need to know this. I'm not against it at all.

My sense of humor can be very black, very dark, very crude and very tasteless but I pick my moments.

Just a week or two ago, we had a patient in cardiogenic shock. He was like 93, and in poor health. In essence, he was trying to die. His family wanted us to do everything we can to save him. As we waiting in the cath lab suite for him to arrive (which took over 30 minutes, prompting us to assume this ER patient perhaps had already died), I said to a couple of folks that his family must like vegetables. Very crude and mean spirited. The point was to break the tension to the other two people I was talking to. I would never say that to the whole room or take that attitude in my other actions. Most of the time, even if I think of "black" things in serious situations, I don't say them.

I suppose I am more sensitive to the bad side of humor. For instance, I never make racial jokes. I have memories of being a young kid and hearing other kids tell dirty and racial jokes. I was always embarrased. Sadly, family members continue to partake of racial or class based jokes, and political jokes involving Democrats. I get these in e-mail. I never open them, never read them but delete them (if I can tell by the subject what it is) or delete them once I see the contents. That's just how I am. Even though I am capable of thinking horribly insensitive jokes or humor I try not to put it out there when I feel it's not appropriate. I guess I don't know if my opinion on this is right or not, but it's what I've felt for a long time.

In essence I feel that political humor is truly an attack. It's one thing for the target of a question about their past to claim it's an attack, a so-called personal attack. This can be argued. However, for someone to make fun of a person's beliefs, actions, or appearance, I feel is unquestionably a personal attack. It matters not whether the "humorist" has good intentions or not. There is nothing to be gained by it except a laugh, and I'm not sure that's accomplished every time. Therefore, why make a personal attack just to try to get a laugh?

As for using satire to show the absurd, those intelligent enough to understand the satire don't need satire to see the absurd. And I would argue that if you don't think something's absurd without satire being applied, you're not likely to think it's absurd after it's satired! The satire is only effective to those that see it in the first place! How often does anyone that sees satire really feel a change in their opinion? I doubt the efficacy of satire. When you enjoy the political cartoons on the editorial page, do you enjoy the ones that poke fun at your beliefs? Or just the ones that poke holes in the things you despise?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

As for using satire to show the absurd, those intelligent enough to understand the satire don't need satire to see the absurd.

I could choose to be offended by this, but, nah. Often satire does help me to see the absurd side of things. I can often focus too narrowly if left to my own devices, and humor tends to open my view and allow me to step aside and see things from a different angle. I have a strong tendency toward tunnel-vision sometimes. Humor is often my binocular device. From your truism, I am not sure if that makes me not intelligent enough or not - "those intelligent enough to understand the satire" (me) "don't need satire to see the absurd" (hmmm, I need the satire sometimes...)

Not sure where that leaves me on the intelligence scale of things. I understand satire, yet I need the satire lest I take things too seriously, as I tend to do.

And I would argue that if you don't think something's absurd without satire being applied, you're not likely to think it's absurd after it's satired!

Hmmm, that has not been my experience. Again, I have always found satire to be enlightening.

The satire is only effective to those that see it in the first place! How often does anyone that sees satire really feel a change in their opinion?

*raises hand* Quite often with me, actually. Satire drove the nails into the coffin of my Christian beliefs long ago, for example.

I doubt the efficacy of satire. When you enjoy the political cartoons on the editorial page, do you enjoy the ones that poke fun at your beliefs? Or just the ones that poke holes in the things you despise?

Yes, I enjoy the ones that poke at my beliefs, too. I laugh at Democrat jokes just as hard as I do Republican jokes. I can laugh at myself, too. I love impersonators, for example. I once had a student who could do impersonations in my Presentations Skills class and, for his final exam, did a satirical impersonation of me. He did a great job - and I had to admit he had me spot on, and I couldn't help but laugh.

I am a huge KISS fan, but KISS jokes crack me up (I loved one reviewer's comment about KISS's Psycho Circus tour; Gene Simmons often has weight problems, and this reviewer commented that Gene looked like "a beach ball with bat wings" on that tour. As much as I like Gene, that was funny!).

I like Robert E. Howard as an author, but I can make fun of some of his bad writing habits, not to mention some of his personality traits.

Apparently, I am not the only one who does not mind poking at their own beliefs a bit: The Holy Observer: Christian Humor, Satire, Parody, News If you click on "The Truth" at the bottom, you will see the owners of the site are strong Christians who enjoy satire and humor, even at their own expense.

I admire people like that.

Yes, I enjoy satire of my own beliefs. Perhaps I just don't hang onto my beliefs for dear life. I know enough about beliefs to know that often a belief is just perspective, and when perspective changes, so does belief. As I learn more, my beliefs change. If my beliefs change, then I must have had wrong beliefs in the past. If I know I can have wrong beliefs, then what on Earth makes me think my beliefs now are any more correct? It does not bother me to think that I may hold an incorrect belief. When it is shown to be incorrect, I will change it. Its not a big deal - it is called growth. I don't hold any of my beliefs to be so all-important that I couldn't deal with losing the belief. So, yeah, I can handle satire of my own beliefs.

I can also handle the fact that other people may not understand my belief or may hold other beliefs. That doesn't bother me either. Unlike some severe extremists, I am not going to kill someone in defence of my beliefs, either. As I said before, my beliefs could be wrong!

 

[Grimhelm]

Having our beliefs mocked is very unsettling. The thing we must explore is why it is unsettling! What are we clinging to so vehemently?

The nature of belief is, for all intents and purposes, delusion. The Universe is not concerned or affected by our beliefs, therefore, why should we be so attached to them? In essence a satirist does not make fun of beliefs. How could he, as he must then make fun of all beliefs, other's and his own. What satirists ultimately aim at is our attachment to beliefs, our pig-headed unwillingness to give them up in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

APewty, your notion that satire is an attack is precisely because you are unwilling to let go of your own attachments. The more you cling to them, the more offended you will become. The person who understands that his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more or less valid than someone else's belief in the Prancing Unicorn God is wise indeed and will no doubt be able to see satire less as an attack and more as "ain't humanity a kick?"

Satirists make fun of humanity, of being human. They don't normally choose one group over another. We are all immensely funny really. It is no surprise to me that the wise man is also the fool in all of the great myths. Therefore being a satirist may take a sharp intelligence, but more importantly to be a satirist requires great wisdom.

Take Sir Gawain, Yoda, the fool in King Lear, Stultitia of Erasmus's Moriae Encomium, and of course the greatest noble fool of all: Don Quixote. These men and women all saw deeply into life. They laughed at men and they cried because of men. Their laughter was never an attack. It was: Can't we all see that life is a joke? Can't we all see that to stop laughing is to cry until we perish?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Stultitia of Erasmus's Moriae Encomium?

Well said as usual. Your post made me laugh a bit though. I once named a demon Erasmus after this author in a DnD game played while attending IU. It was a walking oxymoron of wisdom and folly. Most of what he said was supposed to have double meanings (although that was easier said than done for the poor DM; I doubt it pulled it off well). I made him a demon because Martin Luthor once called him a mouthpiece of the Devil, or something like that (I was Lutheran still back then). I had forgotten him until now.

Anyway, that was a bit off topic, so back to the topic at hand: you argued well in defence of satire, and if I were not already in total agreement with you, but disagreeing, I would have to concede the point and end up agreeing anyway.

 

[thormagni]

Really, I don't think that political cartoons, such as those on an editorial page, have the same intent or purpose as the "joke" cartoons on the comics page. The form is similar, sure, but the mission is entirely different.

An editorial cartoon is meant to sway a reader's opinion on a topic of, generally, some importance. They are meant to deliver a payload in a way completely different than a humorous comic strip. A well-done comic strip makes you chuckle or laugh out loud. A well done-editorial cartoon should make people mad or make them think. While it may incidentally draw some laughs, it is meant to deliver something much more important, at least in my mind.

Frankly, I would hope that people wouldn't "enjoy" an editorial cartoon aimed at their particular sacred cow. It should sting, quite frankly. It is the difference between poking fun at someone and poking them in the eye. A well-done editorial cartoon should be infuriatingly close to the heart of its target.

Satire and ridicule of all forms are remarkably effective tools to sway people's opinions. They puncture the egos of the over-inflated, and bring low those in high places.

I think one of the saddest developments in modern cinema, is the almost complete submisison of satire to the service of slapstick humor. There are important things that can be said about modern culture through the use of pointed satire, but almost all of that energy is turned to lampooning safe targets like action heroes and Britney Spears. (one of the few counter-examples I have seen recently is War Inc. with John Cusack. It uses very pointed satire against the military-industrial complex.)

 

[Grimhelm]

There will always be satire. I think it is just appearing in places other than cinema right now. John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher are just a few guys out there doing great satire. Really, in its prime, The Simpsons was great satire too.

One show (to go off on a tangent) that probably claims to be satire, but isn't, in my opinion, is South Park. I find the humor completely juvenile. Satire should surprise us a little. I think when you can smell the joke coming from a mile away, the effect is diminished.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Satire and ridicule of all forms are remarkably effective tools to sway people's opinions. They puncture the egos of the over-inflated, and bring low those in high places.

Exactly! As I said earlier, it is effective.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Like I said before, Troopergate continues and you'll not hear any complaining for me. I'll only complain if Troopergate or any partisan check continues and Ayers-Obama is ignored. Both need checked. All pertinent facts need to be checked.

Here is another bit you can check: "...during the early nineteen-eighties John McCain sat on the advisory board of General John Singlaub’s U.S. Council for World Freedom—the American outpost of the World Anti-Communist League, a sort of clearing house for former Nazi collaborators, Central American death-squad leaders, and assorted international thugs." (from New Yorker: Beyond the Palin - The New Yorker - MSNBC.com)

Again, though, I say these associations are valueless.

 

[APewty]

So your belief in satire trumps my beliefs, whatever they may be? You say beliefs are made to be ignored or laid aside yet you firmly, wholeheartedly, unequivocally believe in satire? That makes very little sense to me. Instead it seems an attempt to be disingenuous. If your son or daughter or wife is made fun of by someone with an agenda in full public, it's not a matter of whether your family member was wrong but rather that the coward has the gall to be so hurtful and then take the tack that being on the side of right is righteous. Talk about the far right! Isn't that something you despise, those that feel their beliefs are 100% true shouting them to the world and trying to hoist them on everyone? I see satire as nothing different in it's aim. The correct and civilized thing to do is to treat others as you would be treated.

I'm not worried about what satire does to my beliefs. I do not like satire's carelessness. I have common decency. I care not for the satirist's disdain for his target. The satirist is a coward, hiding behind "humor". The satirist doesn't engage in discussion, he's an assassin, attacking and running until the next attack. The satirist doesn't give a whit who is hurt with his strike, nor even who is harmed be it the target or collateral damage. The satirist is no better than the person that tells a joke aimed at, for instance, a minority or a person who is "painted" with the joke by way of their status as a minority. The satirist hides behind intellect and intent but lacks manners and common sense.

The "enjoyment" of satire espoused here supposes that all satire is of the same caliber or quality. As thormagni says, there is differing levels of quality undoubtedly determined by how well the point of the satirist is made as well as how tasteful the satire is. There is little doubt in my mind that a hateful satire that targets victims would be viewed as poor satire, regardless of it's target, while more civil satire targeting an idea would be viewed as good satire. However, the people who hate or dislike the victims would likely feel the first satire to be good and probably find the second satire inconsequential, if not totally mysterious. Satire is, therefore, dependant on the target and the audience to be considered good or bad, or even to be understood at all.


I have no time not gumption to do so, but I daresay that if I flooded this site with anti-liberal, anti-intellectual or anti-anything-you-believe-in satires, both Grim and Inzeladun would be quickly upset. Do you deny this? Why would these things annoy you? Because they assault your beliefs. They don't attempt to discuss your beliefs. They assault your beliefs. As thormagni said, they are meant to sting. How can anyone take something meant to be an assault and not admit it's an attack? How can anyone that knows an attack for what it is and try to label it as an intelligent, enjoyable form of discussion? I think the only way that anyone would so, is when they are posting satire that supports their own positions.


By the way, the Hank satire I found to be a poor satire since it was not accurate to reality.