Dull and Humorless
The next time someone refers to the left as dull and humorless, they must be pointed towards some of the responses to Jim Treacher's piece in today's "Opinion Journal". It's a very funny satirical piece entitled "No More Years: Ten reasons I'm not voting for you, Mr. George W. Bush". Some highlights (italics mine):
10. Do you really think it's a good idea to be Hitler, George? Hitler killed millions of people and his approval ratings are in the toilet. Why can't you be somebody people like? Regis, maybe, or the Prophet Mohammed. Anybody but Hitler! Being Hitler = BAD IDEA.9. Two words: You. Are. Dumb. This reason right here should have given it away as a joke. I mean, come on!
6. I mean, black hoods? Fa-shion dis-a-a-a-ster. Wasn't Abu Ghraib dreary enough already? (More like Abu Drab!) I would have started a riot--a laugh riot. While pointing at you! Again, obvious clue that it's satire! Has anyone actually criticized Abu Ghraib for being a fashion disaster? I think not.
5. How dare you taunt a dying Christopher Reeve with a big brown bottle of stem cells? The man was on his deathbed, you sick monster. Why did you have to hold the spoon right in front of his lips? "C'mon, Chrissy, it's right here. You can do it, bwah! Just another coupla inches. Oooh, yer close. Close!" Shame on you, Dubya. Do you know of anyone who thinks Bush taunted Reeves on his deathbed with a spoonful of stem cells? No, I didn't think you did. Sarcasm alert.
The Opinion Journal obviously got enough hate mail that it felt the need to post an update telling people it was satire. Sometimes I fear for our collective sense of humor.
Comments
Sure, it's clearly satire, but it's not funny satire. Nor does it mean it isn't tasteless or offensive. I don't see the humor in comparing Bush to one of the worst mass murderers in history or in making light of Christopher Reeve's death. Does that make me dull and humorless? I think not. After all, the left does have Jon Stewart, whose show is great.
Posted by: Jon | November 2, 2004 07:22 AM
My point wasn't that this made the left dull and humorless. If you read the responses I pointed to, they came from the right. Since the right often accuses the left of being dull and humorless, I found it quite ironic that many of them couldn't recognize obvious satire when they saw it.
I will stipulate that humor is in the eye of the beholder, so one may not find it funny. Nonetheless, to not even recognize it as the clear satire it is...
Posted by: Lesley | November 2, 2004 07:28 AM
BTW, you do realize that the comparison to Hitler was meant as a parody of the many "Bush = Hitler" signs sported by protestors. It wasn't the comparison to Hitler qua the comparison to Hitler that was point of the satire or even meant to be funny. It was precisely the fact that it is ridiculous to compare Bush to Hitler that was the point of the satire.
Posted by: Lesley | November 2, 2004 07:31 AM
Never saw the Bush = Hitler signs. Thought he was making the reference because of Bush's low approval ratings. Ok, then it is actually amusing.
Posted by: Jon | November 2, 2004 07:51 AM
"making light of Christopher Reeve's death"
I'm not sure how it's any worse than one candidate or the other claiming they'll make paralyzed people walk, but there's no point in trying to explain the joke. Either people get it or they don't.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | November 2, 2004 08:34 AM
There's a difference between not getting a joke and not thinking it's funny. I understand the joke but think it's in poor taste.
Posted by: Jon | November 2, 2004 09:11 AM
Yet more proof that I have a sicker sense of humor than 50% of my family. I'm betting Dad would find it funny too. I'm almost positive Mom would not.
Posted by: Lesley | November 2, 2004 09:41 AM
"I understand the joke"
Hm.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | November 2, 2004 10:00 AM
Oh, how right you are. I can't speak for Dad, tho I think you're right, but I found it too painful to read completely. Nothing to do with poor taste, just how bad I feel about the tragedy and waste of Chris Reeve's life. Not to mention how his family must feel about it. It's cruel.
Posted by: Mom | November 2, 2004 10:29 AM
Jim - we are probably going to get into a tit for tat here, but I find it incredibly arrogant of you to presume that because someone doesn't enjoy a joke you make it's because they don't get it. If you don't want people to criticize your humor then don't make it public.
Posted by: Jon | November 2, 2004 11:05 AM
Dude. Relax. You got it just fine. The phrase "Christopher Reeve" was in it, so therefore it's a Christopher Reeve joke. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | November 2, 2004 11:21 AM
Who would have thunk that such an apparently innocuous post such as this would turn out to be anything but. Eleven comments. Twelve counting this. Goes to show you how politics, even when cast in humor, can rile the blood.
Posted by: Jon | November 2, 2004 11:46 AM
And here I thought love was a battlefield.
Posted by: Lesley | November 2, 2004 11:54 AM
Is this the face of sibling rivalry?
Posted by: Rick DeMent | November 2, 2004 01:55 PM
What's the difference between a fruit and a vegetable?
Siegfried and Roy.
Posted by: masked man | November 2, 2004 03:28 PM