27.9.09

Glenn Beck as a comic character


As of late, I've taken an interest in comedy writing - partly to "broaden my horizons," so to speak, and partly to improve my overall abilities as a writer. Dave was kind enough to loan me an excellent book for just such a purpose, John Vorhaus' The Comic Toolbox: How To Be Funny Even If You're Not. I just finished up Chapter 4, Comic Characters, and I think Fox News pundit/scaremonger Glenn Beck almost perfectly fits Vorhaus' rubric for creating a solid comic character.

First, a comic character must have comic perspective. Vorhaus writes, "The comic perspective is the character's unique way of looking at his world, which differs in a clear and substantial way from the 'normal' world view." Can there be any doubt that Glenn Beck possesses a strong comic perspective, that his perspective on the world is indeed warped?

In this case, Glenn Beck's comic perspective is his peculiar brand of off-the-wall paranoid quasi-libertarian-conservatism, and everything he sees or reads in the news gets filtered through this perspective. If Glenn Beck simply opposed President Obama’s policies or opinions, there would be nothing remarkable or comic about him. To give an example, Beck doesn’t oppose health care reform because he’s concerned about government spending. He actually thinks Obama wants to expand health care as a means of reparations. You know, for slavery. That’s an example of how Beck filters what’s happening out in the real world through his own unique comic perspective.

Vorhaus' second requirement for a good comic character is exaggeration. "The tool of exaggeration, then, simply takes a comic perspective and pushes and stretches and accelerates it until it's sufficiently far from our perspective that it starts to be funny," he explains.

Nobody does exaggeration like Glenn Beck. Beck isn't just conservative. The man lives in crazy, upside-down conserva-world. Up is down! Black is white! Left is right! Need an example? When Obama criticized that Cambridge police officer regarding the whole Henry Louis Gates fiasco (which is really another discussion by itself), well, he wasn’t just perhaps speaking a bit rashly. No, by Beck’s reasoning, Obama said that stuff because he’s a racist! He’s racist against white people! And he hates white culture! No, never mind that Obama is half-white himself and was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. And never mind that when asked by Katie Couric to define what he even meant by “white culture” (Could you have meant this, Glenn?), Beck hemmed and hawed and refused to even answer the question, but still defended his original point. No. The president is just racist. ‘Nuff said.

Third, a comic character must also have flaws. Oh, boy, does Mr. Beck have flaws. He’s paranoid, and he’s easily given to crazy delusions. Nowhere did he better illustrate this than in the episode when he went off on a rant about the "socialist art" in Rockefeller Square. (Also, the Rockefellers were progressives? Again, see the aforementioned criteria, and you'll better understand how this fits into my argument.)

Finally, Vorhaus writes, a comic character must have humanity. "We used flaws to drive a wedge between the character and the audience so that the audience could laugh. Now we use humanity to build a bridge between the character and the audience so the audience can care," Vorhaus says.

Sure, Glenn Beck has humanity. He obviously cares about his country very much. He's patriotic. And on top of that, he's sensitive. And emotional. We know that, however crazy and delusional he is, at least, he cares. And we know that he cares because why else would he throw an emotional fit on national television? Surely, he wouldn't humiliate himself on TV for fame, right? ... Right?

Taken altogether, we can see that Glenn Beck is a real, live, flesh-and-blood example of the perfect comic character. He possesses comic perspective, exaggeration, flaws, and humanity. Just like Michael Scott on The Office, or Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock. But the thing is, Glenn Beck isn’t a fictional character, and whether or not he actually believes half the crazy shit that comes out of his mouth, he at least appears to take himself very seriously. And so do his millions of viewers, although I like to believe that at least some of those viewers either take his bullshit with a grain of salt or they’re just high. Or they’re making a drinking game out of his TV show. (My liver hurts just thinking about that!)

Already this year, we’ve seen at least two incidents of right-wing domestic terrorism, in the actions of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if similar motivations were behind the recent killing of census worker Bill Sparkman, although to be fair, the investigation is still in full swing. I can’t say with any certainty whether any of those people followed Glenn Beck, or Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other “They’re out to get us!” right-wing scaremongers. But I can say, with some degree of certainty, that things are changing in this country, and that’s resulting in a lot of anger, fear, and hatred, coming from, well, white guys who are viewing themselves as increasingly disenfranchised victims of the federal government.

As talking heads, Beck and his colleagues have some degree of control over the tenor of our political discourse. They should accept that and maybe think about toning down some of their more outlandish rhetoric. (Beck, remember, once joked on air about poisoning the Speaker of the House.) For years, conservatives have railed against Hollywood and television’s invidious influence on society. Sorry guys, but it’s too late to backtrack and tell us all that your own words have no impact on any unhinged listener’s violent actions.

And while I’ll concede that liberal talking heads say plenty of stupid things on their own (Janeane Garofalo, just shut up!), you’ll find very few, if any, actually advocating violence. (I personally can’t think of any myself, but I’m sure they’re out there.) On the other hand, it’s hard to think of a conservative talking head who hasn’t done so.

Dissent is great. Debate is fantastic. But we’re human beings, so we should be able to keep it civil, especially during a time of great difficulty for our country. Going on the radio or television and spewing your crazy conspiracy theories, telling your millions of viewers the government wants to pull the plug on grandma when you know damn well that isn’t true, is just irresponsible. Whether or not they mean it seriously, Glenn Beck and his associates often do us one worse when they actually advocate violence and chaos.

And there’s nothing funny about that.

22.9.09

Fair and balanced...

Like a seesaw with an elephant on one side and an Olsen twin on the other.

Why am I not the least bit surprised by this?

Yeah, OK, reporters are human, too. We can't help but have our own opinions about some things, but you don't let that get into your work. In other words, take off your "teabagger hat" when you put on your "reporter hat."

Just as an aside, do you think the Republicans have figured out what "teabagging" actually means yet?

Today the FBI emailed me!

I got an email today from somebody claiming to be from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division. Copied and pasted below...

Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
Seattle, Washington.


ATTN: BENEFICIARY

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigation with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you legally won the sum of $800,000..00 USD from a Lottery Company outside the United States of America. During our investigation we discovered that your e-mail won the money from an Online Balloting System and we have authorized this winning to be paid to you via a Certified Cashier's Check.
Normally, it will take up to 10 business days for an International Check to be cashed by your local bank. We have successfully notified this company on your behalf that funds are to be drawn from a registered bank within the United States Of America so as to enable you cash the check instantly without any delay, henceforth the stated amount of $800,000.00 USD has been deposited with Bank Of America.
We have completed this investigation and you are hereby approved to receive the winning prize as we have verified the entire transaction to be Safe and 100% risk free, due to the fact that the funds have been deposited at Bank Of America you will be required to settle the following bills directly to the Lottery Agent in-charge of this transaction whom is located in Lagos, Nigeria. According to our discoveries, you were required to pay for the following -
(1) Deposit Fee's ( Fee's paid by the company for the deposit into an American Bank which is - Bank Of America )
(2) Cashier's Check Conversion Fee ( Fee for converting the Wire Transfer payment into a Certified Cashier's Check )
The total amount for everything is $300.00 (Three Hundred-US Dollars). We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $300.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone apart from you the winner, therefore you will be required to pay the required fee's to the Agent in-charge of this transaction via Western Union Money Transfer Or Money Gram.
In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge ( SAMUEL OLIVER ) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information:
CONTACT AGENT NAME: SAMUEL OLIVER
E-MAIL ADDRESS: samuelovl@aol.com
You will be required to e-mail him with the following information:
FULL NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER:
You will also be required to request Western Union details on how to send the required $300.00 in order to immediately ship your prize of $800,000.00 USD via Certified Cashier's Check drawn from Bank Of America, also include the following transaction code in order for him to immediately identify this transaction : EA2948-910.
This letter will serve as proof that the Federal Bureau Of Investigation is authorizing you to pay the required $300.00 ONLY to Mr. SAMUEL OLIVER via information in which he shall send to you, if you do not receive your winning prize of $800,000.00 we shall be held responsible for the loss and this shall invite a penalty of $3,000 which will be made PAYABLE ONLY to you (The Winner).
Please find below an authorized signature which has been signed by the FBI Director- Robert Mueller, also below is the FBI NSB (National Security



FBI Director
Robert Mueller
.

Authorized Signature

NSB SEAL ABOVE
NOTE: In order to ensure your check gets delivered to you ASAP, you are advised to immediately contact Mr. Samuel Oliver via contact information provided above and make the required payment of $300.00 to information in which he shall provide to you.



I almost kinda can't believe people fall for this stuff, except that I've seen it. When I worked at the bank, I remember one older fellow who had to close and reopen his accounts several times because he kept falling for those Australian lottery email scams. It was actually pretty sad.

19.9.09

Breaking down misogynist manure

Originally posted to Facebook on August 7, 2009:

I've been thinking a bit lately about what being a feminist means to me. A friend, perhaps unwittingly, drew my attention to this steaming load of horseshit, so I felt that maybe another note was in order.

Point the first: Kanazawa makes some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about feminism. The point of feminism is not to erase differences between men and women, or to deny that those differences exist. Rather, feminists work to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. As Stacey put it: "Since YOUR basic assumption about feminism is wrong, you're wrong."

Plenty of feminists, myself included, enjoy getting dressed up now and again, putting on heels and a dress and maybe a little bit of lipstick. In fact, many feminists love, date, marry, fuck, and settle down with, men. The point of feminism isn't to hate men or to make Western society androgynous. Certainly, feminists believe that androgynous people should not be treated as freaks or forced to conform to specific gender roles they aren't comfortable with. The same goes for gay, bi, transgender, transsexual, or any other type of queer folks out there. And feminists do generally believe gender roles are largely socially constructed. (Until the early 20th century, little boys were often dressed in pink and little girls in blue. In some tribal societies, the men don face paint and fancy costumes to impress the women.)

So since Kanazawa starts off with some wholly inaccurate assumptions about feminism, it's hard to keep taking his piece seriously. Still, it's worth reading for this one little turd alone:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

In other words, "Well, sure, menfolk control the money, politics, and prestige, and everything... But it's you women who have the real power because you guys have tits!!"

Or something like that. Anyway, this "pretty girls have all the power!" crap might even be more annoying than the disenfranchised-upper-midd
le-class-white-Christian-man garbage we've been witnessing so much of since Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In the first place, it's not true. If women really did exercise that much sway over men, don't you think we would have had more than two sorry, three female Supreme Court Justices by now? Don't you think women would hold at least half the seats in the Senate and the House? If women really held that much power over men solely by virtue of sex appeal, don't you think we would have had at least one female president? So basically, it's bullshit.

Secondly, even if it were true (which it isn't), telling women to be satisfied with less-than-equal status because they have control over men's penises almost seems a little bit like telling black people to quit whining about prejudice because they dominate professional basketball. Why on earth would anybody think that sexual attractiveness or "sexual power" of some sort is any substitute for real political, social, and economic equality? Is that the message we want to send young girls? "Don't worry about going to college, getting a job, getting ahead or anything like that. All you need to do is find a powerful man and use sex to manipulate him."

Seriously?? That's degrading to both sexes. And furthermore, this proves my point about why feminism is still very, very necessary. It's sexist to suggest that women assert power by sexually manipulating men, and it's sexist to assume that men are incapable of using their brains when faced with a pretty girl.

And thirdly, what about less than "reasonably (read: conventionally) attractive" women? What do they get in this imaginary, made-up world where women don't have rights but don't need them because pretty women can exercise sway over guys' dicks?

Furthermore, Kanazawa''s point about "happiness" entirely misses the mark. The point of feminism isn't to make women happy. The point of feminism, as I stated before, is to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. What you do with those opportunities are your business. Your own happiness is your responsibility alone, and Kanazawa never actually cites any studies to prove that women today are less happy, and even if he did, anybody educated past the 10th grade should be able to understand that correlation does not mean causation. (If people - not women, but people - truly are less happy than they used to be, we might want to ask about things like employment, education, debt, the economy, our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, etc., before dumping the blame on feminism - a movement which, innocuously enough, asserts that women have inherent equal worth to men and should therefore be treated that way.)

In concluding, Kanazawa writes, "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny."

Don't worry. I fixed it for him: "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny prove."

Damn straight, I'm a feminist! And guess what? I'm happy, too!

Some thoughts on religion, godlessness, and life in general

Originally posted to Facebook on July 18, 2009:

It occurred to me the other day that the first time I publicly admitted I was an atheist, I was about 16 years old. I was walking down the street in front of the post office in downtown Stafford when an older man accosted me, shoving pamphlets for his church at me. I put my hands up in a defensive posture.

"Oh, uh. No, thanks. I'm an atheist," I told him.

As I walked past him down the street, he shouted after me, "Jesus is real! He died for your sins!"

I just said, "OK," and continued walking.

Around that time, I was attending confirmation classes, and my teachers kept reiterating that confirmation "is a very important sacrament that's not to be taken lightly" and that it "means you're an adult in the eyes of the church." Before that point, I was, for all intents and purposes, an agnostic. I didn't think much about the existence of any deity, I didn't pray, I hated attending church, and I was already beginning to disagree with many of the Catholic church's positions regarding gender roles, sexuality, etc.

When my teachers said, "You have to take this seriously and make sure you really want to do this," I took that message to heart and told my dad that maybe I shouldn't be going through with all of this because maybe I was an atheist.

He told me, "Just do it. You'll regret it later if you don't."

I didn't really know what he meant by that at the time. In retrospect, maybe he was referring to my someday getting married in a church. Does anyone who has ever held more than a five-minute conversation with me actually think that is ever going to happen? (The church part, not the marriage part. I'll probably get married someday. Probably not before I turn 30.)

So I begrudgingly dragged my feet through with the whole thing, disagreeing with the church almost every step of the way, and feeling like an utter phony for participating in this ceremony that held absolutely no relevance to my own life.

I was an "adult in the eyes of the church" now? Fine. I was going to make the adult decision to stop going to church. I figured, Why subject myself to something that made me so miserable? (If only I had given up dieting and self-loathing with such ease!)

From there, I kind of bounced between atheism and agnosticism for a while. Atheism seemed too "extreme" to me at some points in my life, but a few years ago, I decided to just be honest with myself about it. And it's really not so extreme.

I do try to give religion a fair shake. I really, really do. But it's hard. I can't help but see organized religion as a largely invidious force that stunts real progress in society. Mind you, I said "organized religion" and not "religious folks." I have friends who pray and attend worship services and do some really good things for their community, and I applaud them for that.

I'll repeat that: I applaud them, the individuals, and not the church, for doing good deeds. I also know plenty of people who aren't religious at all and who give back to their communities. For example, the Connecticut Valley Atheists do quite a bit of good stuff, like raise money for cancer research and help out at battered women shelters.

With or without religion, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. That's just human nature. I try not to get into the argument of "Does religion cause more good or harm in the world?" because I don't believe good and harm are quantifiable things that can be measured and calculated. (To be truthful, I lean towards the latter, but like I said, I try to give religion a fair shake, so I won't get into that discussion here.)

What I want is a fair shake from religious folks. And to be honest, most of the religious people I know really don't try to push their beliefs on me, and I thank them for that. Unfortunately, I know a fair number of people who think I should practice what they preach.

But what I probably hate most is the assumption that I must be miserable and that my life must be empty and meaningless because I don't believe in any kind of god. Nothing could be further from the truth! I've never looked back or wondered whether my life would be more meaningful if I had religion. I already know it wouldn't be.

I have an interesting and unique family, whom I love very much. I have fantastic friends who I'd bend over backwards for. I have a wonderful boyfriend, and we love and respect each other so much. I work a job that's never the same every day; it's often frustrating and stressful, but it's also rewarding and fulfilling.

So what, then, do I need religion for?

I can already see enough beauty and wonder and goodness in the world, without believing that it was created by any kind of divine power. True, I'm a little bit rudderless at the moment and don't know exactly what I want out of life, but hey, I'm 23. That's to be expected.

I call bullshit on anybody who claims to know the meaning of life or who claims to find that meaning in a book that's essentially older than dirt. And I find it especially interesting that human beings who have difficulty discerning the intentions of our Constitution's drafters would claim to know with near-absolute certainty the intentions of men who penned the Bible - a book that is, in my opinion, certainly much less relevant to our society than the Constitution.

But now I'm just being critical.

You pretty much have to be a terrible person to say this kind of thing.

I originally posted this to my Facebook account on May 16, 2009:

What follows is a quick little blog post that contains some fairly harsh, but also fairly appropriate, language in response to a horrible thing I heard this morning. In other words, you've been warned.

OK, I was on Welcome Crew duty this morning. I expect the usual barbs from the pro-forced-birthers hanging out on the sidewalk with their bloody fetus posters.

"Your mom chose life!" (Yes, she chose to have me. She is pro-choice, and I wouldn't have it any other way.)

"You're just like Hitler/Stalin/a child molester/a prostitute!" (Right. I'm just like all of those people. Logic: Use some.)

"I'll pray for you!!" (Um, no thanks. Please don't.)

But that's all standard fare. If they're not yelling at women or trying to force pamphlets and rosaries through car windows, then they're standing there and praying quietly. Whatever. I expect it. Really, I'm just there to be a friendly face to the patients coming in.

Today, shortly after getting out of my car, I heard something that really infuriated me. Now, just think to yourself: What might be the most dickish and insensitive thing you can say in a Connecticut college town right about now?

Try: "That Wesleyan girl got what was coming to her!"

... Yeah.

(In case you weren't aware, Johanna Justin-Jinich, the Wesleyan student who was stalked and gunned down a while working at her job in a bookstore recently, was a women's rights activist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I assume this is what that asshat was referring to.)

OK, I don't particularly care what your views on abortion are. That is a horrible thing to say. Period. We generally ignore the protesters - the same treatment you'd give a petulant little child. I didn't say anything to this dude, but if I could have?

"Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty hammer!"