Humorless Intellectual

Still here, fortunately or not

2006-09-23T08:17:00.000-07:00

I'm almost certain that I'm writing this to myself, but on the off chance that there is some poor soul out there reading this, I would like you to know that I haven't died. I'm still here, wandering around the interwebs. And I haven't forgotten that I have a blog, or that I enjoy writing, or any of that. I'm still writing things, just not blog-type things, or anything that would be appropriate for the web at all.

But cheer up! Soon, there will be a new website for you to visit. That's right, I will have my very own, brand-spanking new home on the web for you to enjoy. It will be up and ready in the not-so-distant or maybe the distant future. I haven't decided which yet. But stayed tuned, because it's coming.

How to Remain Entertained When Nobody Is Around and You Have Nothing to Do

2006-08-09T18:47:00.000-07:00

1. Start a new religion. You’ll need to select a god, or gods, and you’ll also need to come up with some sort of theology. Once you’ve done that, you’ll need to find some followers. Create a website, print up some brochures, and consider putting up a billboard. Go someplace where there are a lot of people (a university, a shopping mall, Wal-Mart) and pass out your brochures to passersby. Be sure to tell them all the terrible things that will happen to them if they don’t join your religion. Once you get enough followers, build a huge warehouse, call it a church, and spend all the money you get from your followers on building improvements.

2. Do some political canvassing. It’s an election year, and canvassing is a great way to meet new people. Most canvassers work in the evening, when people are eating dinner, which means that most people are home and ready to talk to anybody who comes to the door. First, find a candidate you think you can support. After that, learn as much as you can about your candidate’s opponent so you know what bad things to say about that person. Then, start knocking on doors! Tell people why they shouldn’t vote for your candidate’s opponent. Remember to point out that the other guy took bribes from Jack Abramoff. Don’t say anything about your candidate, because he doesn’t really have anything going for him.

3. Go on a road trip. Some people are convinced that we’re running out of oil, so you better take a good, long road trip while you still can. Use as much gas as possible, because there might not be as much next year. Maybe rent a Hummer. Hop on I-80 and drive from New York to San Francisco. By taking the interstate, you’ll avoid all the small towns and trees and mountains and weird people along the smaller highways. You don’t want that.

4. Get addicted to the internet. Find a forum or a blog where you can talk to people and just start typing. You’ll be addicted in no time, and you won’t need to find anything else to do. You won’t even need friends anymore, because all of your friends will be online. Sure, they’ll just be words on a screen, and you’ll never know for sure if you’re talking to a 50-year old man or a 19-year old woman, but that’s just part of the internet’s charm.

The reality we can all agree on

2006-08-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

On The Colbert Report the other night, during a segment called The Wørd, Stephen Colbert gave a wonderfully insightful and hilarious monologue about “Wikiality,” the “reality that we can all agree on.” He spoke about how as long as a majority of people think something is true, it is true. What people believe to be true is more important than what actually is true, and those people who stick to the facts are branded as crazy.

During The Wørd, Colbert asked his audience members to go to the entry about elephants in Wikipedia and write that the elephant population had tripled in the last six months, thus demonstrating that Wikipedia allows for a democracy of knowledge in which anybody can determine what is and isn’t true. In response, a huge number of people rushed to Wikipedia and made the change to several different articles about elephants, thus causing the Wikipedians to put protections on the articles and ban certain people from editing them.

On forums such as the Colbert Nation message board, one can see how the fans felt about these Wikinazis (as Colbert might call them). A number of Colbert Nation members are calling on one another to vandalize Wikipedia articles, adding false bits of information that have been mentioned on The Colbert Report. Others asked that Colbert put Wikipedia “On Notice,” as Colbert does with seemingly random things that upset him in some way.

I noticed very few, if any, comments about the actual meaning behind Colbert’s monologue. Colbert's actual subject matter wasn't Wikipedia: it was the society in which we live. The fans were in awe of Colbert’s power to disrupt a popular website, but they completely missed his point: that people in our society actually are just coming to a consensus about what is true without paying close attention to facts. Colbert mentioned (truthfully) that the percentage of people who believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction had gone from 36 percent to 50 percent in 18 months, despite the fact that this has never been shown to be true.

Euphemisms, deceptions, and truthiness have turned truth into an enemy, and Colbert is acutely aware of that. As he stated on the first episode of The Colbert Report, “we are divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” He’s trying, in his brilliantly satirical way, to get the truth out, but it seems that large numbers of people are missing his point. The day after the Wikiality incident, the big news was that Colbert had a huge impact on Wikipedia. It was one of Colbert’s best Wørds to date, and the story should have been how painfully true it was and how dangerous that truth is for our society.

Obese Americans eat healthy diets

2006-08-02T07:46:00.000-07:00

A recent survey has shown that most obese people in America claim that they have healthy diets and that they exercise vigorously on a regular basis.

In related news, a recent study has shown that most obese people in America think that Twinkies are healthy and that getting up to change the TV station is vigorous exercise.

Poor people are bad for America

2006-07-28T04:46:00.000-07:00

The city of Las Vegas, Nevada has passed a law making it illegal to give homeless people food in city parks. According to the New York Times, the city is “hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.”

Homeless people are ruining America. By being out in the open where everyone can see them, they’re upsetting the public and undermining the government. President Bush has made it clear that he wants to cut money for welfare programs. But, if homeless people keep making themselves known, that’s going to be difficult to do.

In cutting money for welfare programs, the government is merely trying to nudge homeless people in the right direction. And Las Vegas, in passing this new ordinance, is only trying to help the federal government. If poor people can’t get food from welfare programs or good Samaritans in public places, they’re more likely to seek employment and become productive members of society.

So, homeless people, do what you’re supposed to do and stay out of sight. As long as nobody knows you exist, Americans can continue to live their lives as they’ve been doing for so long.

Tips for Discussing Israel and Hezbollah

2006-07-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

I've been spending a lot of time on the internets lately reading and participating in discussions about the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. I've come to the conclusion that there are a few points that everyone must know if they are going to discuss this issue. I have outlined them here:

1. Remember that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is the most important thing happening right now. Until this gets resolved, focus your attention on this issue. You can just ignore everything else that's going on in the world.

2. If someone says that he does not support the Israeli government, that person is an anti-Semite. This person is clearly unreasonable, because he is prejudiced against Jews. Only anti-Semites do not support Israel. Also, this person is a terrorist because he clearly supports Hezbollah.

3. Lebanon should be blamed for the existence of Hezbollah. The Lebanese government should have gotten its act together and gotten rid of Hezbollah. But it didn’t, so the Lebanese probably deserve what they’re getting.

4. We are now in the beginning stages of World War III. As long as we continue to say it, it must be true.

Now, you are ready to begin your discussion! It shouldn't take long for you to find a place to talk about Israel and Hezbollah. Go to any blog or message board, start typing, and you will find plenty of people willing to engage you in debate.*

*When discussing Israel and Hezbollah, debate = argument

Hunger, housing, and healthcare no longer problems for poor people

2006-07-22T21:41:00.000-07:00

Poor education and poverty are no longer problems in America, so the federal government is now using your tax money to promote marriage. The high divorce rate is now America's biggest problem, and it must be fixed.

This is an especially big problem among lower income Americans, but researcher David Fein says that poorer Americans "actually marry at the same rate as more affluent people. The problem is, subsequently, their marriages are much more fragile."

According to Fein, these marriages are so fragile because "the poor don’t have the same ability as wealthier Americans to get help when their marriage needs it."

Poor Americans were unavailable to comment, because they were too busy trying to find ways to pay for food, housing, and healthcare.

Democrats upset that voters don't understand the priorities they refuse to outline

2006-07-21T17:29:00.000-07:00

At the College Democrats National Convention this week, students “expressed frustration, saying voters simply don't understand the Democratic Party and its priorities.” At the Ignorant Voters National Convention, also held this week, voters expressed frustration, saying Democrats should start coming up with some priorities. The Republicans had no convention this week, instead spending their time outlining the Democratic Party’s priorities.

Military intelligence

2006-07-15T15:27:00.000-07:00

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein

North Korea launches really big fireworks

2006-07-04T15:27:00.000-07:00

To help celebrate America's 230th birthday, North Korea set off some fireworks of its own today, unaware that most Americans don't enjoy launching missiles to celebrate the Fourth of July.

The Death of Academic Freedom

2006-07-04T10:21:00.000-07:00

The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident…To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation…Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. (Chief Justice Warren in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250).

Having confused the meaning of academic freedom, David Horowitz and the organization Students for Academic Freedom are attempting to impose a new, bastardized version of freedom on American universities. They’ve written an Academic Bill of Rights, a list of principles and procedures that universities should follow so as not to restrict academic freedom. I’ve pasted it below, along with my concerns about the document.

Academic Bill of Rights
(rebutted by the blogger, who has the intellect and knowledge to do so, thanks to the education she received at a public university)

1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

This statement smacks of hypocrisy. It says that no faculty should be hired or fired on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs, but it also says that there should be a plurality of methodologies and perspectives in the humanities, social sciences, and the arts. This sounds great, right? Who could argue with the importance of having more than one perspective?

I could argue with that. In order make sure that plurality exists, a university would have to hire and fire faculty members on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. If people are hired solely on the basis of their competence and knowledge, it’s entirely possible that there won’t be a plurality of perspectives. In order to have that plurality, the university would have to keep track of potential faculty members’ beliefs and hire accordingly. This is not freedom. This is restriction based on political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

Again, that refutes the above statement made about maintaining plurality.

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

This seems reasonable.

4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

It seems to me that academic freedom would be the freedom of professors to choose which books they will use in their classes. If students wish to read about dissenting sources and viewpoints, they have the freedom to do so. Requiring professors to provide dissenting viewpoints is the opposite of academic freedom.

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

I have yet to meet any professor who uses his or her courses for the purpose of indoctrination rather than teaching. I believe that what some people feel is indoctrination is simply someone teaching a subject from a viewpoint that they disagree with and they feel that the professor is forcing his or her viewpoint on the students.

And, as in number 4, the first part of the statement does not advocate freedom. Requiring faculty to teach students certain things is, again, the opposite of academic freedom. Freedom is when professors teach what they choose to teach.

6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

If, by requiring pluralism, certain student activities and speakers are banned, then this is not freedom. Freedom would allow for any activity or speaker, regardless of the viewpoint and regardless of whether all viewpoints are presented.

7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

This is essentially what I wrote above, and it contradicts number 6. Speakers should not be obstructed, but this means that all speakers should be allowed, even if all viewpoints aren’t presented. And, of course, civil discourse is always necessary for education to occur.

8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry

I’m not sure what this is advocating. Certainly, the writer(s) of this statement are aware that faculty members are researchers, many of who disagree with their fellow researchers. It would be absurd to suggest that these people maintain neutrality on questions within their fields of inquiry. Only by asking questions does one learn something. Research consists of someone asking a question and then seeking the answer. If one is completely neutral about something, there is no question, and no research needs to be done.

I am a superhero

2006-06-30T05:29:00.000-07:00

Earlier this morning, I was reading Wikipedia’s article on marathon running, and this sentence caught my eye:

“Completing a marathon is often considered to be a superhuman effort.”

I had no idea that I was a superhuman! This is fantastic news, because I’ve been hoping for some time that I would gain some super powers. It’s amazing to think that I’ve had my super powers for years and didn’t realize it.

Just for the record, here are my known super powers:

1. Ability to spend lengthy amounts of time outside during extremely cold weather

2. Ability to ignore injuries, thereby allowing injuries to become much worse than they otherwise would have been

3. Ability to drink water from a paper cup while running

4. Ability to use the word “fartlek” in a sentence without laughing

5. Ability to eat PowerBars and PowerGel without throwing up

6. Ability to eat those things while running

7. Ability to run alone for many miles at a time and only talk to myself a little bit

8. Ability to very quickly convert miles to kilometers, and vice versa

9. Ability to see the logic in driving 200 miles to run for 3 miles

10. Ability to make it home quickly on foot when keys are locked in the car

Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger

2006-06-18T12:10:00.000-07:00

It's Sunday, which means that it has been three days since the last episode of The Colbert Report. Don't worry! Here are the opinions of the day:

A wag of the finger to donuts - These sweet treats attract terrorists, who can't resist glaze and frosting.

A tip of the hat to walking - Since immigration agents started walking around, this seemingly innocent activity is creating great fear among illegal immigrants in southern California. And, as a bonus, the agents are losing weight.

A wag of the finger to walking - Since illegal immigrants began to fear this seemingly innocent activity, fewer of them are leaving their homes to go shopping. Illegal immigrants, do your American duty and buy as many things as possible!

A tip of the hat to development - America is opening its national parks to subdivisions, chain stores, and much more. With nature out of the way, we won't have to deal with all those trees and animals, and we won't have to drive so far to get to Wal-Mart.

A wag of the finger to Social Security numbers - A laptop with personal information about government employees, including their social security numbers, was stolen. In order to prevent future problems with identity theft from occurring, the government needs to stop issuing people Social Security numbers.

A wag of the finger to cars - For causing so many motorcycle accidents. Since Florida governor Jeb Bush repealed the state's mandatory helmet law, deaths from motorcycle accidents have skyrocketed, and as motorcyclist Dave Carroll says, "What causes most of the crashes is cars." In order to stop all these senseless deaths, cars are going to have to be banned.

Cheney and Bush prevent killer cyborgs from entering U.S.

2006-06-16T04:06:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney believes that Republicans will maintain their majority in the House and Senate this November, since there have been no terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11, and this is clearly due to the amazing talent of the Bush administration to keep terrorists at bay.

It should also be noted that there have been no alien invasions, robot takeovers, or zombie attacks. Had Democrats been elected in 2000 and 2004, these things could easily have occurred, and the Bush administration is asking people to remember that when they go to the polls in November.

Who are you not going to vote for?

2006-06-11T08:35:00.000-07:00

As the 2006 midterm elections draw near, liberals and progressives are once again trying to figure out just which candidates they should vote against. In their attempts to sway voters, the Democrats are throwing money at young people, and the Republicans are planning to nag voters repeatedly until people get fed up and vote for them.

It will certainly be an interesting year as the country watches to see just which party pisses off voters more: the we-can't-decide-on-anything Democrats or the we-brainwash-people-to-agree-with-us Republicans.*

*This election is brought to you by all the corporations of America. Have a nice day, and remember to go shopping.

Dos and Don'ts for Internet Communication

2006-05-31T16:53:00.000-07:00

DO: Say the first thing that comes to your mind. It doesn’t matter if it’s not entirely relevant or if people might misunderstand what you mean. Just add whatever you’ve got to say.

DON’T: Spend too much time editing your comments. You want them to be as natural as possible, like they are in real life.

DO: Insult people if you think they insulted you. Your instinct is usually right about this, so jump in quickly with an insult of your own.

DON’T: Let people get away with disagreeing with you. If someone says something that is contrary to something you said, call him on it. Make sure he understands that you’re right.

DO: Attack someone’s character when you cannot come up with a logical response to what the person said. He or she probably had it coming.

DON’T: Waste time looking up to see if what you're saying is true. It probably is, and it's more important to be timely than right.

DO: Respond with something like, "Yeah, well, you're dumb," if you don't know what else to say. This will make the person realize that he or she is stupid, and that you are right.

DO: Use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS if you're SURE that you REALLY know something, but you're aren't exactly sure how to say it. People will realize that you really do know what you're talking about, and they will appreciate all the emphasis in the right places.

DO: If someone says something you don't like, point out to everyone else that that person is a troll. A troll is someone who disagrees with you.

You're entitled to your own facts, but not your own opinions

2006-05-30T14:32:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report is in its second week of reruns. For over a week now, I’ve had to think about the news. A couple times I tried to watch The O’Reilly Factor, because Bill O’Reilly is also pretty good at telling me my opinions, but his show is in reruns, too. I’ve had to come up with my own opinions about the issues of the day, and I’ve got to tell you – I’m tired.

I mean, sure, I can go over to Daily Kos and let them tell me what to think. The people over there will do it, for sure, and in a very forceful manner. Or, I could head on over to TekJansen.com, where the members can relate to what I'm going through, and they can talk to me in that same snarky way that Colbert talks to me. But all that’s keeping that group together is the Report (and Tek, of course), and they don’t have any strong unifying opinions about current events. They won’t come to any consensus, and they won’t tell me what to think.

It’s hard, watching the news and reading the papers. I sometimes don’t know which stories are important. Should I pay the most attention to the one about John Snow leaving his job, or to the one about the woman who attacked her husband with a can of bug spray? And should I be glad that Snow is leaving, or do I want him to stay? Should I be on the lookout for criminals with bug spray, or should I buy a can for myself? I just don’t know.

I’ve still got a few days before I’ll feel at ease in the world, knowing that I will have my opinions told to me. I won’t feel comfortable again until Monday, when The Colbert Report is back on the air. Until then, I will try to avoid the news. I will try to avoid anything that causes any sort of conflict for me, something that would require me to come up with my own views of the world. Because that is just too difficult.

Meta-Blogging

2006-05-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Having recently determined that there really isn’t a common thread of any sort running through this blog (it’s just random shit), I’ve decided to just call it what it is: a place where I write stuff that I like and where I write stuff about stuff that I like. I’m aware that that’s pretty much the running definition of a blog, anyway, but I spend most of my time at Daily Kos, where if people just write whatever damn thing crosses their minds, they’re likely to be troll-rated.

Here, there is no troll-rate button, and I’m in charge. And I’m writing about whatever I want. Here is a list of things I might write about in the future:

Making money
Chewing gum
People who like me
The Colbert Report
Bugs that hit me in the face while I’m riding my bike
Country Music Awards
People who don’t like me
My cats
Tom Cruise’s sexuality
Bigfoot
What I did yesterday that is so awesome that you just have to read about it
A philosophical discussion about the bumper stickers I have on my car
More about my cats
Meta-diaries
Sex
Why people are mean and stupid because they don’t agree with me
Pepsi or Coke?

So, look for those things in the future.

The Daily Cynic

2006-05-28T07:50:00.000-07:00

A study has shown that The Daily Show turns people into cynics. Researchers are upset by findings that show that viewers of the show develop “lower opinions of politicians and greater cynicism toward the mainstream media and the electoral process itself.” They have asked Jon Stewart to stop encouraging his viewers to be critical thinkers.

Americans are impatient and demanding; rest of the world says ‘I told you so’

2006-05-28T07:22:00.000-07:00

A recent study has shown that Americans like instant gratification. They especially dislike having to wait on hold on the telephone and waiting in lines at grocery stores, and if a business makes them wait too long, they are less likely to return in the future. In a related story, President Bush is now considering changing the name of the Long War to the A New Car Bomb Every Day War.

Gunfire reported on Capitol Hill; Congressmen okay because they have nachos

2006-05-26T19:28:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, investigators closed off part of Washington D.C., alarmed because construction workers were “doing their routine duties.” Congressmen were forced to stay inside the Rayburn building until officials gave the all clear. They managed to survive on “a few muffins, a stash of nuts.”

Libya

2006-05-19T06:03:00.000-07:00

Since April 29, members of the blogosphere have been praising Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondent’s dinner. Colbert is the new Swift, and he’s been telling it like it is for some time now. (Watch for “Klassic Kolbert” on The Daily Show or at least pick up a copy of Indecision 2004.)

Last night on his show, Colbert talked about how great it is that Bush lifted sanctions on Libya, saying that it’s “not a moment too soon for fun-seekers” who might enjoy a vacation in Libya. He says people can thank the Bush administration for “the chance to take your Libyan dream vacation” because even though the process of reconciliation may have started during the Clinton administration, “it’s got all the hallmarks of the Bush administration: sanctions and diplomacy.”

It’s at about this time that the audience realized Colbert’s true meaning behind The Wørd, which wasn’t about Libya at all. As Colbert says, in a rare serious moment, this new relationship with Libya “proves the President’s deeply held belief that when there’s a dangerous authoritarian Arab regime led by a madman with dangerous weapons and links to terrorism, there are always peaceful solutions.”

Everyone recognizes the threat we face from this showdown with Iran. However, there are not enough people who realize that the largest threat comes from the United States. Bush can live up to his promises and try to smooth things over diplomatically with Iran, or he can bomb it. Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I doubt many people want the United States to have them, either.

Using the Internets for Research, or How Not to Be an Idiot

2006-05-19T05:07:00.000-07:00

"What did Betsy ross do during the war? Nothing tells me this. i need to know that great thing she did, and if i dont figure it out, i could get a bad grade. so, please, find out and put it on this website. I need it for a project by the end of this week. which is a short time. plus i have a math test on thursday. so cant go on the website then. i kind of need it now. Byee and Good luck!!!!!"

That was written on a discussion page at Wikipedia. I can only hope a college student didn’t write it. It’s bad enough that anyone would write it. However, not wanting to do schoolwork certainly isn’t new. We all tried to get out of it, especially in high school. No, that’s not the problem. This comment is representative of a larger issue facing academia: nobody knows how to do research anymore.

Thus, I have written the following guidelines for anyone wishing to conduct research here on the Internets. Happy researching!

1. Use Wikipedia discriminately. Read the discussion pages to see if there are any disagreements about what is written. Remember that people like you wrote the articles. Would you trust yourself?

2. Don’t use webpages if you don’t know who created them and what the creators’ biases are. For instance, if you go to Daily Kos, don’t expect to find all sides to an argument. Same thing for Red State. Find out why the sites exist. If you think a site is completely unbiased, you’re probably quite dense.

3. Don’t rely completely on Google. Come on. This is as bad as writing a comment on Wikipedia asking other people to do your research for you. Dig a little.

4. Leave. Get off the computer. Go to the library. Find something that you can hold in your hands. Wander through the stacks. Read old newspapers and magazines. Talk to a librarian. If you think you can find all the information you need while sitting in front of your computer, then you are helping to bring down our nation’s level of intelligence. Don’t do that.

Let's play with Google

2006-05-13T03:54:00.000-07:00

If you have a blog, you should write a post about the Bush Administration and the Hindenburg. Try it! Let's see what happens.

Trouble in Utah

2006-05-12T18:38:00.000-07:00

Fish in Utah are chasing their tails. It's only a matter of time before humans begin doing it, too.

Stephen Colbert is a Troll With Trusted User Status

2006-05-06T06:10:00.000-07:00

I was thinking that I might write a diary on Daily Kos with that as my title. I mean, what with the recent obsessions over there, I thought it would be appropriate.

Drug-Fueled Sex Crimes and Escapism

2006-05-02T04:29:00.000-07:00

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzeneggar became the governor of California. Last week, my mother said she wants George Clooney to be our president. And this week, people on Daily Kos are flooding the site with diaries about Stephen Colbert and his stand against the administration and the press.

I admit it; I was one of those bloggers who added to the Colbert hysteria. And, hell, here I am, doing it again. But what did he do? Did he take political action? Did he raise our awareness of problems we need to find solutions for? As I said in my previous diary on Daily Kos, Colbert is a comedian; he’s a satirist. He “exposed” problems that we already knew existed. He showed the absurdity of what the President and media are doing.

Last night on his show, Colbert claimed that celebrities have a job “to provide escapism, period.” Their “humanitarian mission is to get people to watch TV shows about doctors and aliens so they won’t waste all that time worrying about the NSA and immigration.” George Clooney is dangerous because not only is a good actor, writer, and producer, but “in calling for action against the genocide in Darfur, he has unfortunately chosen the unassailable moral high ground.” Clooney is going to influence other people and “spawn a host of latter-day Fondas, Asners, Aldas, and Redgraves.”

You know what? Colbert is right. It is not up to Hollywood (or New York) celebrities to solve our political and societal problems. It is not up to them to take action. If they decide to do so, great. But while we sit at our computers and cheer them on, the problems continue. We can thank Colbert over and over again, we can watch Good Night and Good Luck until our DVDs wear out, but really, what are we doing?

In an age when more people know about The Simpsons and American Idol than about the First Amendment, it is up to us, the heroes, as Colbert would say, to do something. We need to get up off our asses and do whatever we can to solve the problems facing us right now. We need to be active. We need to do more than blog. Right now, we’re preaching to the choir. Most people don’t know about Daily Kos, and the ones who we most need to reach aren’t even remotely interested in it.

I have thanked Colbert for his speech. I thanked him for providing me with a half hour of entertainment. It was absolutely great to see the guy who goes on and on about how “great” Bush is on a nightly basis actually stand up in front of him. But Colbert is not a solution. Colbert is not our god. Colbert is a man doing his job, and we need to do ours.

Satire: Exposing Vice and Folly

2006-05-01T14:25:00.000-07:00

SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.
- Ambrose Bierce

250 years ago, Jonathan Swift suggested poor Irishmen eat their children to keep from starving. Of course, we all (hopefully) know that Swift did not wish this plan actually be carried out; he wanted the English, who ruled Ireland, to help those who were starving. However, had Swift appeared before the British Parliament and actually suggested that Englishmen offer assistance to the suffering Irish, he would never have been taken seriously. He would have been given a small note in the vast history of the fight for Ireland.

Today, Stephen Colbert is suggesting that you put down your books and feel the truth from him. Four nights a week, he appears on our television screens and tells us what to be afraid of, who is destroying America, and why George W. Bush is the greatest president ever. And, last Saturday, Colbert appeared in front of the man himself to give the truth directly to Bush.

Any “it-getter” knows what Colbert really thinks of Bush. But as Swift could not tell Parliament what they really should do, Colbert could not tell Bush what he truly felt. Colbert could not stand in front of Bush and say, “You are a poor excuse for a human being. You have been given power, and you abused it. You have broken laws, you’ve lied, and you’ve deceived the very people who have placed their trust in you. You’re pathetic.” But, also like Swift, Colbert had a tool that he could use: satire.

Satire exposes madness, hypocrisy, follies. Under the British crown, Irish Catholics lived on land owned by the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. They lived in terrible conditions, and Swift exposed it with his appalling proposal. According to Swift, the solution to the problem of Irish poverty was to simply get rid of the surplus population while providing nourishment at the same time. It sounds reasonable enough until you consider the way in which the plan would be carried out.

And, Colbert is also a master at exposing hidden absurdities. For instance, how does he feel about Republicans bringing issues such as gay marriage into politics? He tells Americans that they need to “raise the National Umbrage Level.” They need to continue bringing up topics that are sure to enrage people because “righteous fury seems like the best way to get people to the polls.” And then you realize that that’s exactly what the Republicans are doing – making people angry so they vote the right way.

Satire allows Colbert, as it allowed Swift, the luxury of criticizing hypocrisy, abuses of power, and absurdity because he never explicitly attacks his targets; he employs the technique of reductio ad absurdem, agreeing with the very things that he is satirizing. Bush is his “hero,” Bill O’Reilly is “Papa Bear,” and he retired Tom Delay’s congressional district like it was a ball player’s number. Thus, Bush could not do anything but sit and watch as Colbert skewered him at the White House Press Correspondents Association dinner. He had to take it because Colbert was just telling jokes; he wasn’t being serious or anything, right?

Yes, Colbert was telling jokes. He did not come right out and say what he felt, because his talent as a satirist provides him with a much stronger tool than would the ability to simply give a speech about what’s wrong with our government and the press. Colbert attacked the madness and inadequacies of the current administration and the press, and he exposed them to ridicule.