Lately we've been hearing a lot about the "Alt-Right," which is the extreme subset of conservatism that's more harshly anti-immigrant, if not straight-up white supremacist. The term has been used online for a while, since that's where the ideology is most active. But in the past year, Donald Trump has become a real-world hero for the movement. And Trump's hiring of Breitbart News' chairman Stephen Bannon was seen as an attempt to cosy-up to the Alt-Right.
Of course, as a child of the late-eighties-early-nineties, I still associate "alt" and "alternative" with artistic non-conformity. Yes, I know, the term is to "indie" what "dungarees" is to "jeans." But it's still the word I grew up with, and frankly, it's more descriptive, given that "independent" things can be conformist, and there are occasional acts of rebellion from members of the mainstream. But I digress: The point is, that whenever I hear about the Alt-Right, I picture brooding young conservatives, protesting outside an abortion clinic in their wild hair and dark clothes, maybe wearing an Augusto Pinochet t-shirt.
But speaking of conservatives and old alternative rock, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld got noticed this week when he let loose a tirade against the Red Hot Chili Peppers. First of all, this started because of a news story about their bassist, Flea, giving music lessens to Koko, the Gorilla famous for learning sign language. That's pretty amazing on a bunch of levels to begin with, but Gutfeld used it as an opportunity to launch into an attack on the Chili Peppers. He even continued the attack on a later show. What's also strange is that both times Gutfeld spoke about the issue as though the band has a with-us-or-against-us rivalry with Faith No More, their early-90's contemporaries.
Again, that's weird on many levels. First, I don't know why you would see them as a dichotomy. They aren't similar enough to have a Beatles-vs.-Dave-Clark-Five rivalry, nor were they different enough to have a Rockers-vs.-Mods style rivalry. And since the Red Hot Chili Peppers have been highly and consistently popular, while Faith No More have been an experimental cult band, there's really no reason to see them as parallels to one another. Okay, a scan of Wikipedia shows that the bands' singers hate each other. (Currently, the entry on the feud includes a note on Gutfeld's outburst, with a complete transcript, but I assume that will be edited out by the time you click on the link.) But still, I don't see the need for a fan to carry that anger for a quarter-century. Even Dave Grohl and Courtney Love made nice in the end.
I suppose there are situations where musicians can represent different personalities or ways of looking at the world. Quentin Tarantino apparently believes that everyone is either a Beatles person or an Elvis person, and I have to say that does kind of make sense. But I don't think you can really divide humanity using these two. Though that idea brings me to the most disturbing part of this story: I'd have to go along with Greg Gutfeld and choose Faith No More. I don't have anything against Red Hot Chili Peppers, especially now that I know about their attempts at primate outreach. But forced to choose, I'd be at the Faith No More concert, even now that I know I'll be surrounded by Fox News personalities.
So what is it with conservatives and early-nineties alternative hard rock/hip hop fusion artists? In the last election cycle, Paul Ryan claimed his favourite band is Rage Agains The Machine? If it turns out that Megyn Kelly is into Pop Will Eat Itself, it will destroy my image of the world.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Tour Of Duty
President Obama has visited Louisiana to tour flood damaged areas, several days after the flood itself. Media seems to be covering it like this:
But to look at it another way, it's not really "burying the lead" (or "lede," as some people apparently spell it.) That refers to leaving the interesting part of the story until the end. In this case, you're putting the interesting part at the start, the way you're supposed to. Instead, you're leaving the truth until the end. It's kind of like in televised sports, where they always show the replay from every bad angle first, then finally play it from the angle that everyone knew was going to be the best.
And I can understand why the Governor wouldn't want him to visit. A visit by a President or any other high-ranking leader is a big production requiring lots of people. It's a waste of precious effort for them to make a token trip to a devastated region. Given that they can't actually do anything, it's little more than a photo-op, which is pretty selfish. So hopefully this will encourage a new tradition where leaders stay away from the immediate aftermath of disasters, and find some other ritual for the leader to demonstrate basic empathy .
Critics are complaining that Obama took too long to visit. He was on vacation in Martha's Vineyard. Usually visiting disaster areas is part of the job of being president. But he didn't visit because the Governor of Louisiana asked him not to until authorities had better control of the situation.Um, isn't that kind of burying the lead? You've got a story about the President not going to Louisiana, and you know why he didn't go to Louisiana, but you decide to take us on a tour of other explanations that you know aren't true. In effect, you don't actually have a story, you have a perfectly ordinary situation. It would be like this:
An Unidentified Object was seen in the skies last night. It might be some sort of supernatural phenomena. It could have been an alien spacecraft. Many people claim to have been abducted by aliens. But in this case, it was just a weather balloon.Again, not actually a story: It's something boring that you've made into a story by being conveniently stupid.
But to look at it another way, it's not really "burying the lead" (or "lede," as some people apparently spell it.) That refers to leaving the interesting part of the story until the end. In this case, you're putting the interesting part at the start, the way you're supposed to. Instead, you're leaving the truth until the end. It's kind of like in televised sports, where they always show the replay from every bad angle first, then finally play it from the angle that everyone knew was going to be the best.
And I can understand why the Governor wouldn't want him to visit. A visit by a President or any other high-ranking leader is a big production requiring lots of people. It's a waste of precious effort for them to make a token trip to a devastated region. Given that they can't actually do anything, it's little more than a photo-op, which is pretty selfish. So hopefully this will encourage a new tradition where leaders stay away from the immediate aftermath of disasters, and find some other ritual for the leader to demonstrate basic empathy .
Sunday, August 21, 2016
One Last Olympic Controversy
As the Olympics draw to a close, we've had more controversy around Caster Semenya, the South African runner. She's widely believed to have some sort of intersex condition, which may help her athletic ability.
People always seem to have a fit when presented with this case, as they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of a person who doesn't fit clearly in either gender. The fact is that there are a number of ways to explain this. For instance, there is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, where a person's body is genetically and internally male, but externally female. This isn't even the first time the issue has come up in the Olympics. It's a difficult subject, since it brings up the Olympics' unfortunate history of gender testing. Yes, they once physically inspected female athletes to determine that they were, in fact, female. That goes beyond a desire for fairness, and into paranoia.
Whatever the exact cause, Semenya's condition probably gives her an advantage over most women. You might be quick to call it an unfair advantage, since extra injections of testosterone is one of the performance-enhancing substances they test for. But, is there really a problem of fairness here? After all, most athletes have some sort of genetic advantage; hers is merely an easily-quantified advantage. And that's where this gets awkward, because we have to confront the question of what exactly sports are supposed to be measuring. We often kid ourselves that is a competition of who had the most dedication, who's practiced the most, or that old cliché, who wants it more. And those things do contribute, but really we're often just running one person's genes against another.
But then we also have to ask the question of what exactly is the purpose of separate competitions for women. If we're just going to concede that sport can be a simple measure of genetics, you could argue that having a Y chromosome is just one of those physical advantages. Taking that arguement to its extreme, we wouldn't have divisions for gender at all. But that isn't a situation we want. So you could argue that if we're going to have separate competitions for women, then they should be open only to people who have a similar physical starting-point. For that reason, we should probably make the gender-distinction based less on how society defines gender and more on the physical capabilities. That's more of a scientific question, which will take a while to sort out.
People always seem to have a fit when presented with this case, as they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of a person who doesn't fit clearly in either gender. The fact is that there are a number of ways to explain this. For instance, there is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, where a person's body is genetically and internally male, but externally female. This isn't even the first time the issue has come up in the Olympics. It's a difficult subject, since it brings up the Olympics' unfortunate history of gender testing. Yes, they once physically inspected female athletes to determine that they were, in fact, female. That goes beyond a desire for fairness, and into paranoia.
Whatever the exact cause, Semenya's condition probably gives her an advantage over most women. You might be quick to call it an unfair advantage, since extra injections of testosterone is one of the performance-enhancing substances they test for. But, is there really a problem of fairness here? After all, most athletes have some sort of genetic advantage; hers is merely an easily-quantified advantage. And that's where this gets awkward, because we have to confront the question of what exactly sports are supposed to be measuring. We often kid ourselves that is a competition of who had the most dedication, who's practiced the most, or that old cliché, who wants it more. And those things do contribute, but really we're often just running one person's genes against another.
But then we also have to ask the question of what exactly is the purpose of separate competitions for women. If we're just going to concede that sport can be a simple measure of genetics, you could argue that having a Y chromosome is just one of those physical advantages. Taking that arguement to its extreme, we wouldn't have divisions for gender at all. But that isn't a situation we want. So you could argue that if we're going to have separate competitions for women, then they should be open only to people who have a similar physical starting-point. For that reason, we should probably make the gender-distinction based less on how society defines gender and more on the physical capabilities. That's more of a scientific question, which will take a while to sort out.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Fully, Completely
I've gotten to the age where I've seen things through from start to finish. Athletes, TV shows, politicians, etc. And somehow, that hasn't seemed like a big deal. Free agency has made sports careers so disjointed - you don't think of a twenty-year career so much as a series of episodes with different teams. And I saw Stephen Harper go from nobody to Prime Minister to retirement, and it didn't really seem that long. I've seen musicians go from unheard-of to the Rock hall of fame, yet that hasn't been really emotionally impactful. It hardly even makes me feel old.
However, it's been different with The Tragically Hip, playing their last concert. Obviously, thats partly because of the unfortunate circumstances of singer Gord Downie's health. But it's also because they were making it big around the time I was becoming musically aware in the late 80's/early 90's. Essentially, I've been around for their whole career, from that moment of wondering "What is this song about New Orleans that Muchmusic keeps playing." Which I guess is why it seems more personal. And I deserve bonus points because my family visited Bobcaygeon years before the song. Of course, as a Gen-Xer, I'm not really used to this feeling of something I grew up with becoming a cultural touchstone. I'm not sure how that happened.
That's just one way in which the band has seemed to defy pop-cultural gravity. They're also famous for being the only band that has become big in Canada without becoming big in the U.S. It should be impossible to get enough exposure in Canada to get so well-known unless you use the power of American media. But somehow The Hip have spread without it. On a similar note, I haven't really listened to them much in the last decade or so. And yet even if I'm not actively following their career, they've always been in the background. When people have described them as being the soundtrack to the nation, it may sound like hype, but it's actually an apt description.
I read this article by Damian Abraham of the punk band Fucked Up. He describes coming to appreciate The Tragically Hip's music and Gord Downie as a person. First of all, praise for The Hip written as an introspective and self-depricating article by a foul-mouthed pink may be the most Canadian thing I've ever seen. But more to the point, I think he has a good handle on their place in the country, including his attempt to describe them to foreigners as our Bruce Springsteen. After all, the have the same odd blend of intellect and blue-collar appeal.
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised, coming from the country that gave the world Rush. Again, we may be seeing the emergence of a distinct culture here in Canada, just be patient.
However, it's been different with The Tragically Hip, playing their last concert. Obviously, thats partly because of the unfortunate circumstances of singer Gord Downie's health. But it's also because they were making it big around the time I was becoming musically aware in the late 80's/early 90's. Essentially, I've been around for their whole career, from that moment of wondering "What is this song about New Orleans that Muchmusic keeps playing." Which I guess is why it seems more personal. And I deserve bonus points because my family visited Bobcaygeon years before the song. Of course, as a Gen-Xer, I'm not really used to this feeling of something I grew up with becoming a cultural touchstone. I'm not sure how that happened.
That's just one way in which the band has seemed to defy pop-cultural gravity. They're also famous for being the only band that has become big in Canada without becoming big in the U.S. It should be impossible to get enough exposure in Canada to get so well-known unless you use the power of American media. But somehow The Hip have spread without it. On a similar note, I haven't really listened to them much in the last decade or so. And yet even if I'm not actively following their career, they've always been in the background. When people have described them as being the soundtrack to the nation, it may sound like hype, but it's actually an apt description.
I read this article by Damian Abraham of the punk band Fucked Up. He describes coming to appreciate The Tragically Hip's music and Gord Downie as a person. First of all, praise for The Hip written as an introspective and self-depricating article by a foul-mouthed pink may be the most Canadian thing I've ever seen. But more to the point, I think he has a good handle on their place in the country, including his attempt to describe them to foreigners as our Bruce Springsteen. After all, the have the same odd blend of intellect and blue-collar appeal.
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised, coming from the country that gave the world Rush. Again, we may be seeing the emergence of a distinct culture here in Canada, just be patient.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
In Your Dreams Team
Sports can be entertaining, in providing action, intrigue or suspense, but the emotional content comes from living vicariously through your favourite athletes or teams. You share in their experience of accomplishment or disappointment, based on their success or failure. It's a silly thing to do, but it's enjoyable, and I think it's not harmful, as long as it's done in moderation. For instance today I feel good, because I'm writing this after seeing my Blue Jays win. In psychology, they call this Basking in Reflected Glory.
And this is why I think that one of the basic rules of sports fandom is that you have to pick a favourite and stick with him/her/them through thick and thin. Cherry-picking the best competitors of the era is a way of childishly trying to avoid the negatives of life. That's why I've always looked down on:
But at least those fans follow the basic premise of living vicariously. What I don't get at all are the fans that Bask in Reflected Glory of competitors they aren't even cheering for. I first noticed the phenomena in high school when Michael Jordan was reaching his prime. Many of my classmates seemed to draw tremendous emotional energy from seeing his successes. Keep in mind that this is small-town Ontario, so we not only had no connection to Chicago, but little connection to basketball.
But nevertheless, here were these teenagers getting pumped up watching a guy they didn't know dominate a sport they didn't care about. From time to time I still see it happen, say with interviewers more concerned with palling-around with the athletes they interview, or commentators who seem to get untold joy from gushing about the opposing team's star.
The reason I'm bringing this up is to give a warning to my fellow Canadians: There's basically no way a non-American can cheer for the US men's basketball team without sounding like an asshole. It's difficult enough for an American; but at least they can claim a connection. Sure, it may sound arrogant to the rest of us, but Americans do have as much right as anyone to cheer for their athletes. Though if they’re going to be polite about it, they should follow up any boasts by emphasizing that they’d rather have a silver and no Trump.
For anyone else to joyfully revel in famous millionaires from another country humiliating anonymous semi-pros from a different country, you just sound cruel and a little desperate. Sure, you can appreciate when players from your favourite NBA team play well; and I think that's the excuse for many Canadians, that Raptors' stars Kyle Lowry and DeMar Derozan are playing prominent roles. Well then I'd better see you cheer just as much when Jonas Valančiūnas leads Lithuania to a narrow win.
And this is why I think that one of the basic rules of sports fandom is that you have to pick a favourite and stick with him/her/them through thick and thin. Cherry-picking the best competitors of the era is a way of childishly trying to avoid the negatives of life. That's why I've always looked down on:
- Yankees fans with no connection to New York,
- people who get into European soccer and decide to support Manchester United, Real Madrid, Juventus etc.
- anyone wearing clothing of a winning team based on the other side of the continent.
But at least those fans follow the basic premise of living vicariously. What I don't get at all are the fans that Bask in Reflected Glory of competitors they aren't even cheering for. I first noticed the phenomena in high school when Michael Jordan was reaching his prime. Many of my classmates seemed to draw tremendous emotional energy from seeing his successes. Keep in mind that this is small-town Ontario, so we not only had no connection to Chicago, but little connection to basketball.
But nevertheless, here were these teenagers getting pumped up watching a guy they didn't know dominate a sport they didn't care about. From time to time I still see it happen, say with interviewers more concerned with palling-around with the athletes they interview, or commentators who seem to get untold joy from gushing about the opposing team's star.
The reason I'm bringing this up is to give a warning to my fellow Canadians: There's basically no way a non-American can cheer for the US men's basketball team without sounding like an asshole. It's difficult enough for an American; but at least they can claim a connection. Sure, it may sound arrogant to the rest of us, but Americans do have as much right as anyone to cheer for their athletes. Though if they’re going to be polite about it, they should follow up any boasts by emphasizing that they’d rather have a silver and no Trump.
For anyone else to joyfully revel in famous millionaires from another country humiliating anonymous semi-pros from a different country, you just sound cruel and a little desperate. Sure, you can appreciate when players from your favourite NBA team play well; and I think that's the excuse for many Canadians, that Raptors' stars Kyle Lowry and DeMar Derozan are playing prominent roles. Well then I'd better see you cheer just as much when Jonas Valančiūnas leads Lithuania to a narrow win.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Eighters Gonna Eight
I see Niagara Falls has a campaign on to get named as the eighth wonder of the world. Normally I'm supportive of this nearby landmark. Having grown up with it, I don't find out as awe-inspiring as some. But I do love how it so seamlessly blends natural beauty, dignified spectacle, and the downright cheesy.
However, I can't support this campaign. For illustration, here is the original list of wonders:
What do they all have in common? They're all artificial. Specifically, they are all amazing, awe-inspiring structures, things that make you wonder how they were built, and hopefully not realize that the answer is usually, "slaves."
This seems to be a problem for Canadians in general. While that 2007 list was being compiled, the CBC had their own campaign to get people to nominate their choices for the seven wonders of Canada. Here's their list:
To be clear, I've got nothing against a country defining its identity through nature or common experiences rather than expensive showing-off. Actually it’s quite impressive: Honestly, how many countries could get to our level of prosperity and only feel the need to build one totally phallic megastructure.
But that doesn't mean you can just change the topic when people are discussing something else. If I'm asked to name my proudest athletic achievement, I can't just start talking about getting 100% on a math test, even if I've decided that's more important to me.
So I’d like to see a list of artificial Canadian wonders, even if it turns out to be less impressive than the natural ones. It turns out Toronto Star Architecture & Urban Planning critic Christopher Hume has already made his own such list. It doesn't make direct reference to nature-centred efforts to define us, but does seem conscious of that tendency of ours.
So here’s my list:
However, I can't support this campaign. For illustration, here is the original list of wonders:
Original Seven Wonders
- Great Pyramid of Giza
- Hanging Gardens of Babylon
- Statue of Zeus at Olympia
- Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
- Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
- Colossus of Rhodes
- Lighthouse of Alexandria
New Seven Wonders
- Great Wall of China
- Petra, Jordan
- Christ the Redeemer, Rio
- Machu Picchu
- Chichen Itza, Mexico
- Roman Colosseum
- Taj Mahal
What do they all have in common? They're all artificial. Specifically, they are all amazing, awe-inspiring structures, things that make you wonder how they were built, and hopefully not realize that the answer is usually, "slaves."
This seems to be a problem for Canadians in general. While that 2007 list was being compiled, the CBC had their own campaign to get people to nominate their choices for the seven wonders of Canada. Here's their list:
Seven Wonders of Canada
- The Canoe
- The Igloo
- Niagara Falls
- Old Quebec
- Pier 21, Halifax
- Prairie Skies
- The Rockies
To be clear, I've got nothing against a country defining its identity through nature or common experiences rather than expensive showing-off. Actually it’s quite impressive: Honestly, how many countries could get to our level of prosperity and only feel the need to build one totally phallic megastructure.
But that doesn't mean you can just change the topic when people are discussing something else. If I'm asked to name my proudest athletic achievement, I can't just start talking about getting 100% on a math test, even if I've decided that's more important to me.
So I’d like to see a list of artificial Canadian wonders, even if it turns out to be less impressive than the natural ones. It turns out Toronto Star Architecture & Urban Planning critic Christopher Hume has already made his own such list. It doesn't make direct reference to nature-centred efforts to define us, but does seem conscious of that tendency of ours.
So here’s my list:
- CN Tower
- Trans-contenental railroad
- St. Lawrence Seaway
- Confederation Bridge
- L’Anse aux Meadows
- Château Frontenac
- Stanley Park Totem Poles
- Iguazu Falls, Argentina and Brazil
- Jeju Island, South Korea
- Komodo Island, Indonesia
- Puerto Princesa Underground River, Philippines
- Table Mountain, Cape Town
- Halong Bay, Vietnam
- Amazon Rainforest, South America
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Hey Germany, We Need A New Word
So Schadenfreude is the word for enjoyment of another person's pain. Presumably, that's the pain of someone you don't like. So I'm wondering of there's a word for a kind of reverse situation:
What I mean is, with Schadenfreude, there's someone you don't like, and then you see them experience misfortune, which gives you joy. But what if you see someone experience misfortune, then they do something that makes you dislike them, thus allowing you to enjoy their misfortune?
I suggest we call this a "Hope Solo." This weekend, much of the world got the chance to experience it, when Solo followed up the U.S. Women's Soccer team's early exit from the Olympics with an unsporting insult of the victorious Swedes. So lots of people became retroactively glad they were gone.
It seems many people around the world have an affinity for the American Women's Team. Sure, few non-Americans like cheering for the U. S. of A, but the success of this particular team bodes well for two of humanity's long-term projects: equality for women, and getting Americans to like soccer. You want to feel good about the few women who get to live the life of the American athletic idol.
But the fact is, they've been a hard team team to like. Here in Canada, we're still bitter about the last Olympics, when star Abby Wambach bullied the ref into calling the never-enforced-in-history time limit on goalies handling the ball. It was a perplexing moment: really, you're the best in the world, and you still have to resort to that? Indeed, before allowing the winning penalty kick against Sweden, Solo held up the proceedings to change gloves, in a rather transparent moment of gamesmanship. The American women bring to mind the Belichick-era New England Patriots: Admirable for their success, but also seeming like an inhuman machine.
Anyway, I was going to write more about people being angry about Solo's remarks, so I scrolled through Canadian news and sports sites looking for condemnation of her. But it turns out all the coverage of soccer here just briefly mention Solo and then talk about Canada beating France and facing Germany in the semis. So I guess I should let it go; after all, we still have another game to play.
What I mean is, with Schadenfreude, there's someone you don't like, and then you see them experience misfortune, which gives you joy. But what if you see someone experience misfortune, then they do something that makes you dislike them, thus allowing you to enjoy their misfortune?
I suggest we call this a "Hope Solo." This weekend, much of the world got the chance to experience it, when Solo followed up the U.S. Women's Soccer team's early exit from the Olympics with an unsporting insult of the victorious Swedes. So lots of people became retroactively glad they were gone.
It seems many people around the world have an affinity for the American Women's Team. Sure, few non-Americans like cheering for the U. S. of A, but the success of this particular team bodes well for two of humanity's long-term projects: equality for women, and getting Americans to like soccer. You want to feel good about the few women who get to live the life of the American athletic idol.
But the fact is, they've been a hard team team to like. Here in Canada, we're still bitter about the last Olympics, when star Abby Wambach bullied the ref into calling the never-enforced-in-history time limit on goalies handling the ball. It was a perplexing moment: really, you're the best in the world, and you still have to resort to that? Indeed, before allowing the winning penalty kick against Sweden, Solo held up the proceedings to change gloves, in a rather transparent moment of gamesmanship. The American women bring to mind the Belichick-era New England Patriots: Admirable for their success, but also seeming like an inhuman machine.
Anyway, I was going to write more about people being angry about Solo's remarks, so I scrolled through Canadian news and sports sites looking for condemnation of her. But it turns out all the coverage of soccer here just briefly mention Solo and then talk about Canada beating France and facing Germany in the semis. So I guess I should let it go; after all, we still have another game to play.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Politically Incorrect Humour
I remember hearing a joke as a child that went something like this: A politician says to his colleague, oh no, I just locked my keys in my car. And the other politician says, that's terrible, it's about to rain, how are you going to get the top up?
Of course, that is just one of the many jokes that depend on nothing but the idea of the characters being stupid. Usually such jokes are about some disliked but non-threatening ethnic group. Or blondes. Or yo mama.
And that's why it's a pretty weak joke. Usually if you're going to tell a joke about an occupation, it will be about the unique characteristics of people in that occupation. Such as lawyers being unscrupulous. So a joke about generic politicians should be about, say, lying or seeking publicity.
If you're going to make a joke about politicians being stupid, most people would specify which politicians you consider to be stupid. And if you’re going to ridicule an opposing politician or party, you’ll likely make it a whole lot more specific, since you have a clear idea of just why you don’t like them. And that’s why we don’t see too many of those generic jokes, despite the general unpopularity of politicians, and humanity’s deep stockpile of jokes about stupid people.
Until this year. We’ve got the most vicious election of our lives in the US, so anyone watching - even if they don’t normally get involved in politics - is aware of the anger being thrown. And the media is always happy to remind us of the public’s anger at each candidate. Thus, some people who don’t normally go for political satire are trying to join in using indiscriminate ridicule of both sides.
I’d strongly recommend against this. See, the thing that may not be obvious from the outside is that pretty much everyone involved is really sure who the obvious choice is. I know I don’t have much in common with Trump supporters, but I’m sure that one thing we can agree on is that when two sides are so far apart, it becomes obvious who you want to win. Yes, you may have misgivings about your own candidate, but they are dwarfed by your dislike of your opponent.
Don’t get me wrong, I have never had anything against people who don’t get involved in politics. I do ask that you observe the old rule that if you don’t vote, you aren’t allowed to complain about the government; but that’s it. Okay, there is one exception: people who use their political agnosticism to look superior, like look at me, I’m above all childishness. Or look at me, my standards are too high for our disappointing politicians to measure up to. In both cases, it’s obviously a cover for your unwillingness to commit.
I’m just saying that for your own sake, you might want to lay off the jokes. Both sides are kind of perplexed that there could be anyone out there that doesn’t have a strong opinion. So if you’re trying to “join in” by ridiculing everyone, you’ll actually be standing out even stranger. And if you think you can pull the above trick of pretending to be superior, keep in mind that the Democrats have already gone to war with the Bernie Sanders supporters that refuse to compromise, so this is really not the time for that act.
So feel free to make jokes on other topics. Feel free to stay on the political sidelines. But don’t try general political jokes. This year, you’ll generate less anger if you just make fun of random nationalities.
Of course, that is just one of the many jokes that depend on nothing but the idea of the characters being stupid. Usually such jokes are about some disliked but non-threatening ethnic group. Or blondes. Or yo mama.
And that's why it's a pretty weak joke. Usually if you're going to tell a joke about an occupation, it will be about the unique characteristics of people in that occupation. Such as lawyers being unscrupulous. So a joke about generic politicians should be about, say, lying or seeking publicity.
If you're going to make a joke about politicians being stupid, most people would specify which politicians you consider to be stupid. And if you’re going to ridicule an opposing politician or party, you’ll likely make it a whole lot more specific, since you have a clear idea of just why you don’t like them. And that’s why we don’t see too many of those generic jokes, despite the general unpopularity of politicians, and humanity’s deep stockpile of jokes about stupid people.
Until this year. We’ve got the most vicious election of our lives in the US, so anyone watching - even if they don’t normally get involved in politics - is aware of the anger being thrown. And the media is always happy to remind us of the public’s anger at each candidate. Thus, some people who don’t normally go for political satire are trying to join in using indiscriminate ridicule of both sides.
I’d strongly recommend against this. See, the thing that may not be obvious from the outside is that pretty much everyone involved is really sure who the obvious choice is. I know I don’t have much in common with Trump supporters, but I’m sure that one thing we can agree on is that when two sides are so far apart, it becomes obvious who you want to win. Yes, you may have misgivings about your own candidate, but they are dwarfed by your dislike of your opponent.
Don’t get me wrong, I have never had anything against people who don’t get involved in politics. I do ask that you observe the old rule that if you don’t vote, you aren’t allowed to complain about the government; but that’s it. Okay, there is one exception: people who use their political agnosticism to look superior, like look at me, I’m above all childishness. Or look at me, my standards are too high for our disappointing politicians to measure up to. In both cases, it’s obviously a cover for your unwillingness to commit.
I’m just saying that for your own sake, you might want to lay off the jokes. Both sides are kind of perplexed that there could be anyone out there that doesn’t have a strong opinion. So if you’re trying to “join in” by ridiculing everyone, you’ll actually be standing out even stranger. And if you think you can pull the above trick of pretending to be superior, keep in mind that the Democrats have already gone to war with the Bernie Sanders supporters that refuse to compromise, so this is really not the time for that act.
So feel free to make jokes on other topics. Feel free to stay on the political sidelines. But don’t try general political jokes. This year, you’ll generate less anger if you just make fun of random nationalities.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
RSA By Any Other Name
Watching the Olympics is a bit of a geography lesson. It's a reminder that there are lots of countries out there, including a lot of countries that are too well-behaved to get noticed most of the time.
It also comes up that a lot of countries have official names that are longer than the names we normally call them. You see an abreiviation like "RSA" and try to figure out what that is by sounding it out. Rosesia? Rasalla? No, it's "Republic of South Africa."
Sometimes the long form is well known. For instance, most people know that China is officially the "People's Republic of China." Fortunately most of them don't use the entire name, even in the Olympics. So we don't have to remember that Venezuela is really the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."
Unlike most countries, Canada doesn't have a flowery full name - it really is just called "Canada." In older media you sometimes hear people call it "The Dominion of Canada," but that name was never made into the official name. And since "dominion" is a name for part of the British Empire, its use has disappeared as Canada has come to view itself as more independent.
Maybe we should get a nice long impressive ceremonial name. I don't think we'd want to go with "Dominion of Canada," since most of us associate that word with either grocery stores or the bad guys from Deep Space Nine. I'll just peruse the list of countries at Wikipedia. Australia is the "Commonwealth of Australia." That's pretty good, but it's confusing with the British Commonwealth. I see Bolivia is the "Plurinational State of Bolivia." I'm not even sure what that means; they probably just invented the word, "plurinational" to excuse a lack of national unity. I can't believe we didn't think of that. So how about it: The Optionational Multicountry of Canada.
It also comes up that a lot of countries have official names that are longer than the names we normally call them. You see an abreiviation like "RSA" and try to figure out what that is by sounding it out. Rosesia? Rasalla? No, it's "Republic of South Africa."
Sometimes the long form is well known. For instance, most people know that China is officially the "People's Republic of China." Fortunately most of them don't use the entire name, even in the Olympics. So we don't have to remember that Venezuela is really the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."
Unlike most countries, Canada doesn't have a flowery full name - it really is just called "Canada." In older media you sometimes hear people call it "The Dominion of Canada," but that name was never made into the official name. And since "dominion" is a name for part of the British Empire, its use has disappeared as Canada has come to view itself as more independent.
Maybe we should get a nice long impressive ceremonial name. I don't think we'd want to go with "Dominion of Canada," since most of us associate that word with either grocery stores or the bad guys from Deep Space Nine. I'll just peruse the list of countries at Wikipedia. Australia is the "Commonwealth of Australia." That's pretty good, but it's confusing with the British Commonwealth. I see Bolivia is the "Plurinational State of Bolivia." I'm not even sure what that means; they probably just invented the word, "plurinational" to excuse a lack of national unity. I can't believe we didn't think of that. So how about it: The Optionational Multicountry of Canada.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Low Marks From The Canadian Judge
One of the awkward aspects of the Olympics is that there is little correlation between athlete's efforts and rewards. To get good enough to win an Olympic medal, you have to work incredibly hard starting from a young age, passing on a lot of the rites of passage growing up. Your reward is huge but very brief fame. Yes, you definitely have to work hard to be successful at professional team sports as well, but it's easier to envision those athletes having happier lives. They get rewarded with lots of money, and it's easier to believe that they get enjoyment out of their sport. For an olympian in one of the simpler racing or strength sports, a competitor spends their young life repeating this same mind-numbing event, gets a huge but brief fame after winning a medal, and then suddenly has to decide what to do with the rest of their life.
That's why I was a little alarmed to see the recent P&G ad featuring a Chinese diver getting chewed-out by his coach. His mother tells him somewhat dispationately that he still has what it takes, and then he goes on to win. It's supposed to be heartwarming, but it gets much too close to my worry that Olympic athletes' dedication goes beyond sanity. It's bad enough with our own athletes, but I've always felt uncomfortable when it comes to athletes from totalitarian governments that see athletic prowess as a national priority. The thought that these competitors are getting pushed by perfectionist coaches is not plesant, even if they do ocassionally get parental pep-talks from a distance.
Of course, you wouldn't have seen this sort of thing during the Cold War. I mean, they might have done a commercial making us feel good about enemies comming together to compete in peace, but you wouldn't have seen any validation of the opponent's methods. Can you imagine an ad with an East German mother holding her teenage son's hand to reassure him while getting his first steroid injection?
I fear that this is a result of our modern business world. If you're a global brand associating itself with a global event, you need ads that play in all places. Or, rather, play in all markets. And sometimes that means glorifying China's relentless drive for perfection. Lest you think I'm being West-centric here, let me point out that I encourage the mixing of the world's cultures, but we really should export only the positive aspects of our cultures. For instance, it's wrong to hate on Americans, but it's hard to disagree with people who resent them dumping violent movies or vapid fast food on the rest of the world.
That's why I was a little alarmed to see the recent P&G ad featuring a Chinese diver getting chewed-out by his coach. His mother tells him somewhat dispationately that he still has what it takes, and then he goes on to win. It's supposed to be heartwarming, but it gets much too close to my worry that Olympic athletes' dedication goes beyond sanity. It's bad enough with our own athletes, but I've always felt uncomfortable when it comes to athletes from totalitarian governments that see athletic prowess as a national priority. The thought that these competitors are getting pushed by perfectionist coaches is not plesant, even if they do ocassionally get parental pep-talks from a distance.
Of course, you wouldn't have seen this sort of thing during the Cold War. I mean, they might have done a commercial making us feel good about enemies comming together to compete in peace, but you wouldn't have seen any validation of the opponent's methods. Can you imagine an ad with an East German mother holding her teenage son's hand to reassure him while getting his first steroid injection?
I fear that this is a result of our modern business world. If you're a global brand associating itself with a global event, you need ads that play in all places. Or, rather, play in all markets. And sometimes that means glorifying China's relentless drive for perfection. Lest you think I'm being West-centric here, let me point out that I encourage the mixing of the world's cultures, but we really should export only the positive aspects of our cultures. For instance, it's wrong to hate on Americans, but it's hard to disagree with people who resent them dumping violent movies or vapid fast food on the rest of the world.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Feedback On Facebook
Usually, when Facebook advertises or suggests something to me, and it's something out of the ordinary, I can assume it's related to my interests. Or at least, interests that I've told Facebook about. For instance, today I got this:
He's the president from Dr. Strangelove, and I've listed it as a favourite movie. So it's appropriate to me, and seems relevant right now. Though sometimes the ads are a bit more distantly related. Take that Japanese group that's being publicized in the right margin. I have no idea how that got suggested, or what those two schoolgirls are doing. I swear the only anime movies I've liked on Facebook are Ghost in the Shell and Princess Mononoke. So I don't know how such risqué images got on my Facebook: it's unrelated to everything else, just like Brie Larson seems out of place with the other two trending topics.
But then yesterday I got this:
That's a mystery, since I don't have a religion listed, nor have I posted anything religious. I know Facebook ads can be influenced by your friends' interests, and some friends occasionally post Christian inspirational messages. But I'd like to believe I got that suggestion because of the following horrendous misunderstanding:
The fact that I didn't get just any Christian page, but specifically Jesus and Mary, makes me think that someone has misunderstood the Scottish band with a similar name but not-so religious basis. Of course, if this has happened to everyone listing the Jesus and Mary Chain as a favourite band, then the Jesus and Mary Facebook page has been flooded by confused Gen-Xers, which would have been entertaining to watch. I guess I should have clicked on it.
He's the president from Dr. Strangelove, and I've listed it as a favourite movie. So it's appropriate to me, and seems relevant right now. Though sometimes the ads are a bit more distantly related. Take that Japanese group that's being publicized in the right margin. I have no idea how that got suggested, or what those two schoolgirls are doing. I swear the only anime movies I've liked on Facebook are Ghost in the Shell and Princess Mononoke. So I don't know how such risqué images got on my Facebook: it's unrelated to everything else, just like Brie Larson seems out of place with the other two trending topics.
But then yesterday I got this:
That's a mystery, since I don't have a religion listed, nor have I posted anything religious. I know Facebook ads can be influenced by your friends' interests, and some friends occasionally post Christian inspirational messages. But I'd like to believe I got that suggestion because of the following horrendous misunderstanding:
The fact that I didn't get just any Christian page, but specifically Jesus and Mary, makes me think that someone has misunderstood the Scottish band with a similar name but not-so religious basis. Of course, if this has happened to everyone listing the Jesus and Mary Chain as a favourite band, then the Jesus and Mary Facebook page has been flooded by confused Gen-Xers, which would have been entertaining to watch. I guess I should have clicked on it.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Disaster Area Is On Larry Sanders Tonight
I've always found it interesting when there is some sort of media within media. I mean things like Itchy and Scratchy, which is a fictitious show within the Simpsons universe. It just seems kind of sureal when pop-culture has to look inward and create fake versions of itself. I mean, Itchy and Scratchy is probably better remembered than many actual TV shows, even though it never really existed. It was a great satire of American cartoons, but it's also fascinating when they do a bad job of creating the fictional media, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. That often happens when they need to create a musician that exists within the story. You can read about plenty of them in the Rocklopedia Fakebandica.
I had that experience recently while watching a Frasier rerun. There was a brief scene with Dr. Crane dealing with noise from his upstairs neighbour, who turns out to be a rock star, I believe named Johnny Chainsaw. It's kind of surprising he'd have such problems, since people have speculated about how preposterous expensive his condo must be, given its spaciousness and perfect view of the Space Needle. I assumed that such expensive digs were immune to these mundane troubles.
But there were plenty of unrealistic aspects. For one thing, the music was rock, and it was coming through fairly clearly; as someone who's had troubles with loud neighbours I can tell you that it's really only bass that gets through building materials, particularly with dance and hip hop. But it made me think about how rock was depicted in 80's and 90's sitcoms. It was always shown in a very superficial way, only used for cheap jokes about noise or uncivilized teenagers. To be clear, I wasn't expecting a backstory about the upstairs neighbour. And no, I wasn't expecting a nod to the Seattle Scene, as that wouldn't really fit with the show. Though strangely, that's the first time I've ever realized how weird it is that the city's two claims to 90's pop-cultural fame were so different. Great, now I'm going to be thinking about that all day.
But back to my point: this isn't the first time I've encountered this sort of vague, inaccurate depiction of rock in other media. In particular, there seems to be a specific type of rock that never existed anywhere outside the imaginations of Baby-Boomers. It's a kind of atonal blending of punk, glam, and heavy metal that clearly exists for no reason than to annoy others. Of course, the interesting aspect to this fake rock is that it tells us how older people saw the rock of the 80's and 90's. It was kind of a vague vision of unfocused rebellion, with no notice taken of the variations or nuances.
I don't know if early rock got a similar treatment from the media of the 50's and 60's. I haven't seen many episodes of I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners; did they have references to the music young people were listening to? The impression I get is that in that era people preferred to ignore what they didn't like rather than address it or even ridicule it.
Also, I haven't noticed a similar approach to hip hop in recent decades. I guess that's because traditional sitcoms are fewer and farther between. And because it's harder to work it into shows that are dominated by white casts. Too bad, that would have been fun to watch white writers creating a fake rapper every few seasons.
I had that experience recently while watching a Frasier rerun. There was a brief scene with Dr. Crane dealing with noise from his upstairs neighbour, who turns out to be a rock star, I believe named Johnny Chainsaw. It's kind of surprising he'd have such problems, since people have speculated about how preposterous expensive his condo must be, given its spaciousness and perfect view of the Space Needle. I assumed that such expensive digs were immune to these mundane troubles.
But there were plenty of unrealistic aspects. For one thing, the music was rock, and it was coming through fairly clearly; as someone who's had troubles with loud neighbours I can tell you that it's really only bass that gets through building materials, particularly with dance and hip hop. But it made me think about how rock was depicted in 80's and 90's sitcoms. It was always shown in a very superficial way, only used for cheap jokes about noise or uncivilized teenagers. To be clear, I wasn't expecting a backstory about the upstairs neighbour. And no, I wasn't expecting a nod to the Seattle Scene, as that wouldn't really fit with the show. Though strangely, that's the first time I've ever realized how weird it is that the city's two claims to 90's pop-cultural fame were so different. Great, now I'm going to be thinking about that all day.
But back to my point: this isn't the first time I've encountered this sort of vague, inaccurate depiction of rock in other media. In particular, there seems to be a specific type of rock that never existed anywhere outside the imaginations of Baby-Boomers. It's a kind of atonal blending of punk, glam, and heavy metal that clearly exists for no reason than to annoy others. Of course, the interesting aspect to this fake rock is that it tells us how older people saw the rock of the 80's and 90's. It was kind of a vague vision of unfocused rebellion, with no notice taken of the variations or nuances.
I don't know if early rock got a similar treatment from the media of the 50's and 60's. I haven't seen many episodes of I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners; did they have references to the music young people were listening to? The impression I get is that in that era people preferred to ignore what they didn't like rather than address it or even ridicule it.
Also, I haven't noticed a similar approach to hip hop in recent decades. I guess that's because traditional sitcoms are fewer and farther between. And because it's harder to work it into shows that are dominated by white casts. Too bad, that would have been fun to watch white writers creating a fake rapper every few seasons.
Monday, August 1, 2016
A Smear Too Far
We've spent the last few months trying to figure out what Donald Trump could do that would finally be too much, only to find that there didn't seem to be anything. But now, finally, after insulting the parents of Captain Khan, we might be seeing it. It took the combined offense of simultaneously insulting veterans, Muslims, and women. What's weird is that he has already insulted each of these groups individually, but there's something about the combined force, like a Voltron of inhumanity, which had accomplished what none alone could do.
Of course, when I say he's "gone too far," it's a relative term. He probably won't lose much support over it. And the many condemnations from leading Republicans have been gutlessly vague. Nevertheless, it seems like a a line had been crossed. Liberals are hitting harder and more united than they have at any time in the campaign. And it's great to see that the media is treating it as a clearly-offensive incident. That's in contrast to their usual practice of reporting both sides' reactions oblivious to the nature of the incident. Dispationately reporting on Trump's buffoonery always looked like some sort of modern-day Monty Python sketch.
But really, it's not about who's been offended or how many groups get hit at once. As one of the talking heads on TV mentioned today, the real reason that people are angrier this time around is that Trump didn't attack a group, he attacked actual people. Until now, he's mainly gone after either entire communities, or public personas. For those of us with a more developed sense of empathy, we see an attack on, say, Muslims as an attack on real people. Unfortunately, a lot of voters don't seem capable of making that connection between large groups to the people who make up the groups. It has to be spelled out for them that there are actual victims. Well, now it's finally been done. Hopefully this will make a difference, if only by illustrating a way to defeat Trump's tactics.
Of course, when I say he's "gone too far," it's a relative term. He probably won't lose much support over it. And the many condemnations from leading Republicans have been gutlessly vague. Nevertheless, it seems like a a line had been crossed. Liberals are hitting harder and more united than they have at any time in the campaign. And it's great to see that the media is treating it as a clearly-offensive incident. That's in contrast to their usual practice of reporting both sides' reactions oblivious to the nature of the incident. Dispationately reporting on Trump's buffoonery always looked like some sort of modern-day Monty Python sketch.
But really, it's not about who's been offended or how many groups get hit at once. As one of the talking heads on TV mentioned today, the real reason that people are angrier this time around is that Trump didn't attack a group, he attacked actual people. Until now, he's mainly gone after either entire communities, or public personas. For those of us with a more developed sense of empathy, we see an attack on, say, Muslims as an attack on real people. Unfortunately, a lot of voters don't seem capable of making that connection between large groups to the people who make up the groups. It has to be spelled out for them that there are actual victims. Well, now it's finally been done. Hopefully this will make a difference, if only by illustrating a way to defeat Trump's tactics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)