The Jester Isn't Just a Joker

Well, Doc didn't get (or didn't appreciate) the use of humor in the previous post regarding genocide and America and Thanksgiving. In case he's not alone, I offer a brief explanation before expounding on the role of the jester:

Perhaps because I am supposedly between one-eighth and three-eighths Native American, my thoughts always turn at Thanksgiving to America's shamefully violent actions against the native population. So, the fact that most modern Americans (in my experience) mutter grateful prayers to a Christian deity for their bountiful lives and for the many blessings heaped upon them simply because they won the geographic and genetic lottery is offensive.

I guess the gratitude itself isn't offensive; rather it is the the fact that so many people take the time to recognize their blessings without an iota of thought (better yet: a moment of silence) given to the Native Americans we slaughtered and who still suffer more than any other group at our expense. So, that thought entered my head as a kind of fantasy I'd like to have expressed - had I been asked to "say grace" this Thanksgiving. Gratefully, no ritualistic practices of holding hands and saying prayers were forced upon me this year during the family gathering...

...which brings me to the Joker: his or her influence in history and in policy-making is under-appreciated. The jester's role in ancient China through the monarchies of Europe to the comedic artists of today has been to point out the flaws and dark underbellies of policy-making and culture. A criticism that might not be heard or otherwise heeded (or that might result in the beheading or imprisonment of a commoner) was allowed by the Fool. Today, writers and other artists ("The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" or the roasting of the President during the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner) are the descendants of this fine tradition of social criticism.

"The foolishness of the jester, whether in his odd appearance or his levity, implies that he is not passing judgment from on high, and this may be less galling than the "holier than thou" corrective of an earnest adviser. One of the most effective techniques the jester uses to point out his master's folly is allowing him to see it for himself. Rather than contradicting the king, the jester will agree with a harebrained scheme so wholeheartedly that the suggestion is taken to a logical extreme, highlighting its stupidity. The king can then decide for himself that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all." [Excerpt from "Fools Are Everywhere" a book by Beatrice K. Otto]

So, what do you think? Is humor an effective tool for social criticism? Are there topics too horrible for the use of humor? Is anything too taboo for the foo' ? What instances of artistic cultural criticism (comedic or not) have made you squirm?

Movie scenes I can think of include "Borat" (and any interview D Ali G conducts - that shit leaves me laughing and squirming like a whore teaching Sunday school), the scene in "American Beauty" when it looks like Spacey just might bang the teenage Thora Birch, and the twisted humor of comedic violence in "Pulp Fiction."

I know it's a subjective call - but I'd like your thoughts/experiences/perspectives.

What have you got for the Curmudgeonly Fool?

Giving Thanks

The family asked me to say grace over Thanksgiving dinner. Knowing my spiritual beliefs don't really include a god-concept that makes sense of prayer, this was rather surprising. So, this was all I had...

"Genocide - it ain't always such a bad thing."

Who knows? Maybe god was talking through me.

Upon reflection, I realize that I am not the only one in the family who has to practice tolerance and patience, kindness and forgiveness during our family get-togethers!

Outside the Box

A great friend of mine lives his life in a truly authentic fashion - perceiving the world through his own set of whacky lenses.

He was rambling last night about a hole in the roof of his '89 Honda...a hole that he spoke about repairing two years ago...a hole I just assumed he'd fixed some time over the course of the past 730 days or so.

I was wrong.

The thing leaked on him again yesterday and his solution to having a puddle form in the floorboard of his car was a unique one.

Most of us would stop a leaking roof by fixing the hole in the roof.

Not this guy.

"I don't mind getting dripped on," he admits. "But I have to wear these damned goofy-looking shoes with the holes in them." He lifts up one foot for all of us to see. He is wearing Crocs. "I have to wear these stupid fucking things because they're the only shoes that don't aggravate my bunions. And the hole in the roof of the car sits just above and in front of my nose. So the water drips down on my feet and gets 'em wet. I can't be walking around in this cold weather with wet feet. So I just drilled a hole in the floor of the car where that water hits. Worked perfectly. It's keeping my feet dry."

He solved the leak by drilling another hole.

Crazy old dude is one of my mentors. Maybe some day I can think like that.

Friggin' genius.

Like Billy Idol - I'm Just Dancing with Myself

Well, okay. I guess I am just talking to myself here. The only comment I received about Barack's studmuffin status came from...ME.

Depressing.

The friggin Iowa caucus is just over a month away. And, once again, it looks like we are going to get the kind of leadership we deserve. Entrenched politicians indebted to PACs and lobbyists. Fuck it. I'll do what I can and I'll can what I can't.

If you don't wanna get onboard the Audacity of Hope bandwagon, I hope you have at least thought through the whole scenario as clearly, critically and intelligently as possible. Right now, Obama still has a better chance of beating any of the Repug candidates than does Hillary - if you look at the polls. She just can't get enough "Reagan Dems" and independent voters on her side...and it is my belief that she never will.

And even if she somehow manged to win the White House, no clear-thinking person believes a) She will bring about the kind of somewhat radical change that Obama would at least try to, or that b) She would be able to bridge the divisiveness and vitrol that exists in Washington - and throughout the nation. (This isn't a nation of red states and blue states, said Obama, this is the United States.) We have serious issues - internationally and domestically - that are going to require someone who is able to get more than 52% of the people to rally behind them. That ain't Hillary. Obama might be able to do that.

That said, I am hopping on the Obama bus - literally - one of these Saturdays in the next month to head to Iowa and canvas for Barack. His voters tend to be younger and less experienced (but more educated) than Hillary's. Therefore, the big concern is they don't realize that on Jan. 3, it isn't just a matter of going to a booth and pulling a lever. They may have to spend many hours engaged in debtes and discussions:

On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions. Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of non-viable candidates have the option to join a viable candidate group, join another non-viable candidate group to become viable, join other groups to form an uncommitted group or chose to go nowhere and not be counted. Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign, if they fail to do so in that time, they can ask the for more time, which is voted on by the caucus as a whole. If the caucus refuses, re-alignment is done and delegates are awarded.

So, the Obama camp really needs volunteers to devote a Saturday to hopping onboard a bus and spending 4 hours walking around telling people why they should vote for Barack and explaining the process...in the hope that they will actually follow-through on caucus day.

All aboard the Audacity of Hope bus...all yea who still dare to hope for something better.

OUT

Baraka Studmuffin

Well, I can't say this very often about political candidates: The more I learn about Obama, the more I respect, admire, and wish to work for him. The last time this happened was in 1992, when I worked for "Governor Moonbeam's" presidential campaign.

(When Jerry Brown announced his intention to run for president against President George H.W. Bush, many in the media and his own party dismissed his campaign as an ego-trip with little chance of gaining significant support. Ignoring them, Brown embarked on an ultra-grassroots campaign to, in his words, "take back America from the confederacy of corruption, careerism, and campaign consulting in Washington." To the surprise of many, Brown was able to tap a populist streak in the Democratic Party, a feat that many would later see as the precursor to the 2004 presidential campaign of Governor Howard Dean. Amazingly, if not for a major gaffe late in the campaign, he just might have pulled off getting the nomoination - despite only accepting $100 donations from individuals!)

But I digress. I'd like for you to read this article from Slate. I am aware that people are busy and Americans don't like to read all that much (although I suspect the devotees to Hopeful Curmudgeon are way above the norm in this category). So, forgive my skepticism, but I'll Cliff's Note it for you.

The article is titled "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism." It addresses the fact that there is a misleading email making the rounds. Containing the above photo, the email text says that Obama refused to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. It is actually from a video in which the national anthem is playing. (Not a whole lot of difference, probably, to those who cheer a vacuous and cheap version of name-brand patriotism.) Either way, Obama actually was breaking a law when he did not place his hand over his heart. This might make interesting fodder for a future post, but for now, I'm focusing on what this says about Obama.

What this lack of symbolism represents, I think, is a helluva lot - at least, symbolically. Do you know that Obama also has made the decision not to wear the American flag lapel pin? If you aren't a political geek, you may not know that virtually every politician started wearing those things on Sept. 12, 2001. Obama spoke for many of us, I think, when he explained he isn't wearing the pin because he believes it has become a cheap substitute for true patriotism.

The author of the article, Ron Rosenbaum, asks (rhetorically) whether others feel the way he does: grateful to be an American but increasingly uncomfortable about the compulsory rituals of flag-worship other forms of peer-pressure...like putting your hand on your heart and standing to face the flag during the national anthem when all you really wanted to do was watch a good ol' American baseball game with a few friends?

There may or may not be a conscious pattern to Obama's resistance to lip-service patriotism. But given how carefully most politician's "images" are cultivated, (epsecially at the national presidential level) I have to believe he is speaking to those of us who feel the same way. It may be naive of him to think he can get away with this - but it may also be true that he is willing to go only so far in selling his soul. And, it just might be true that his audacity of hope extends to the American electorate - a hope that we will elect someone who doesn't just say what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.

He told a group of American auto workers in Detroit that he would push to increase MPG standards - 4% a year. That huge union ended up not endorsing him. He has told similar truths in front of farmers (about subsidies) as well as senior citizens (about Social Security). Is Obama perhaps giving us, the American electorate, the benefit of the doubt...is he testing us to see if we are in fact ready for someone different? Someone who will not just conduct politics as usual? Someone who will not only lead us in a different direction, but who will actually tell us the truth?

And if we aren't ready for that, well then, perhaps he doesn't want to lead us...yet?

Maybe.

And if so: What a stud.

Into the Mild

I loved the book, "Into the Wild." And, while I had a few issues with the way it was edited, the recently-released movie version was a great flick. True to the book, it captured Alex Supertramp's infectious zeal for life and his contagious enthusiasm to live "authentically."

To oversimplify, this kid took Thoreau seriously when the sage from Walden Pond wrote, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

I've made solo jaunts into wilderness (though nothing like camping on my own in the backcountry for weeks, much less months). And I've done it long enough to recognize there truly is something essential within us that seems to become visible only when alone and/or in nature. Despite what the fundies wish were true, I am fairly certain the planet is more than 3,000 years old...and that we humans are glorified monkeys. As such, my theory is that there is a kind of artificiality to modernity that obfiscates elemental truths about ourselves. There is something in nature that allows us to get in touch with a lost (buried?) part of our being.

Don't get me wrong: This thing that Edward Abbey called "syphilization" is great - I am glad to not be foraging daily (like the monkey I am) for food. Add I'm awfully grateful I'm not having to fight off (or run from) animals with better fighting abilities (like house cats, for example). As for sleeping in a good bed with (relatively) clean sheets - well, yeah - I like that, too. But I do think getting to (or remembering) the essence of who and what we are is more likely to occur (is easier to access?) in "the wild."

I felt the call to abandon syphilization more than once. (And I still do from time to time.) But what this kid did was off-the-grid abandonment of mainstream society: what the hippies called dropping out. I never quite pulled that trigger, although I seriously contemplated it at several points in my life.

Chris McCandless did it.

The reason, though, that his story is so richly compelling is because of the moral complexities it raises. The kid felt an insatiable urge to do an American version of the walkabout. After graduating from college (the perfect time to do such a thing) he just took off.

I am not about to give anything away that you don't discover at the beginning of the book, so I do not feel the need to provide a spoiler alert here: the tragedy of his story is that he seemed to learn something esssential about himself just before he died. Namely, that he was not a loner hermit-type. He needed other people to share his experiences with...the authenticity he found - and the enlightenment he probably only discovered because he was alone - wasn't complete without companionship.

Almost without exception, the negative book AND movie reviews (and they were in the minority) mentioned that the kid was a self-absorbed, immature asshole. The "negative" camp seemed unable to separate their personal feelings about his decisions from the literature/art about Chris and his adventure.

Was it bunge-hole selfish of him to not contact his family for two years - leaving them worried as rats in a snake hole? Sure it was, especially given that he didn't appear to be the victim of sexual/physical or serious emotional abuse. But to merely label him as either a self-absorbed prick or a hero to be admired (as so many did) is too simplistic.

We get one crack at this thing. And it's an awfully short crack as far as I'm concerned. Our most important obligation in life is to be true to ourselves...whatever that means to you. I think it's equally important, though, that we learn how to love. That we continually strive to get better at practicing that love, by being kind to other creatures (including, but not limited to, fellow humans).

McCandless found out the latter after pursuing the former. Hence the tragedy. But then, there seem to be people who never discover the importance of learning to love. Or, they just can't figure out how to practice it. That is the mark of a truly wasted and tragic life.

It is when those two guiding principles (being true to Self and loving others) seem to be in conflict that the figurative bear scat really hits the wind turbine.

So far, at least for me (I think) I've been able to maneuver the narrow path laid down by those two parameters - with a LOT of help and guidance and patience from other people. Not to claim that I've never gone out of bounds, mind you...I've just been fortunate to have found my way back - unlike Alex Supertramp.

That's why I think I've gone more "into the mild" than "into the wild."

Phil Anthropy

Well, you might as well check out this goofball...