Stephen Robinson's Open Salon Blog

The Country of Pig People...

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:01:45 -0500

Zeke Miller wrote about Rick Santorum's concerning popularity in Iowa:

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and his aides were frantically refreshing laptops and phones to see the results of Saturday’s Des Moines Register poll yesterday evening, results that showed him within striking distance of Mitt Romney, but it probably didn’t matter: The last surging Republican candidate is uniquely ill-suited to snatch the nomination from Mitt Romney.

Miller is right that Santorum won't win the nomination, but I disagree that it doesn't matter. It's frankly as depressing as my high school prom night that a candidate "within striking distance" in Iowa of the likely nominee is someone who, in 2012, says things like this:

“Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict,” Santorum told the audience in Ottumwa.

Well, that's not good. It's also oddly familiar. Where have I previously heard such sentiments expressed?

"I say to you now that there is no such thing as a permissive society, because such a society cannot exist! They will scream at you and rant and rave and conjure up some dead and decadent picture of an ancient time when they said that all men are created equal! But to them equality was an equality of opportunity, an equality of status, an equality of aspiration! And then, in what must surely be the pinnacle of insanity, the absolute in inconsistency, they would have had us believe that this equality did not apply to form, to creed. They permitted a polyglot, accident-bred, mongrel-like mass of diversification to blanket the earth, to infiltrate and weaken! Well, we know now that there must be a single purpose! A single norm! A single approach! A single entity of peoples! A single virtue! A single morality! A single frame of reference! A single philosophy of government! We cannot permit... we must not permit the encroaching sentimentality of a past age to weaken our resolve. We must cut out all that is different like a cancerous growth! It is essential in this society that we not only have a norm, but that we conform to that norm. Differences weaken us. Variations destroy us. An incredible permissiveness to deviation from this norm is what has ended nations and brought them to their knees. Conformity we must worship and hold sacred. Conformity is the key to survival."
-- The Twilight Zone, "Eye of the Beholder"

I often think of this "Twilight Zone" episode when I hear Santorum, or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry rant against homosexuality. Donna Douglas's character is seeking a "cure" for her "condition," one that causes no harm to those who wish to marginalize her. Her "crime" is being different, and as we see, there's no "cure" for that. Douglas is revealed to be beautiful underneath the bandages, and her tormentors ugly. But there's more to it than that. What writer Rod Serling was really saying is that we become twisted, inhuman when we refuse to see the worth of others.

Even if Romney -- who is hardly a champion of diversity but at least his primary residence is the planet Earth -- wins on Tuesday, the majority of votes will be cast for Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. These are all votes cast to make the United States a country of pig people.

How Mitt Romney defines "risk" and "entitlement"...

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:12:51 -0500

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently expressed his concern about what he perceives as a growing "entitlement" society:

"In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing—the government. The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards, but virtually everyone will be worse off."

"Entitlement" has become a dirty word, but the word "entitle" actually appears in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson argued that these rights were "self-evident" and granted by our "Creator," but even if you aren't religious, it seems clear that the American experiment is based on entitlement. If you're not entitled to anything, then the world is essentially might makes right and Jefferson and his supporters would have had no moral position upon which to base their desired break with Britain.

But I digress -- Romney's statement also illustrates how distinctly differently he and I view the economic system in this country. His new stump speech has the typical conservative poor-bait: Poor people are stupid ("regardless of education"), lazy ("regardless of... effort") and want to take what you have worked so hard to build ("same or similar rewards").

I especially take issue with "willingness to take risk." Who do you think Romney considers "risk takers"? I'd bet $10,000 of his money that he means entrepreneurs, small (and large) businessmen, and investors. That's not an incorect description but it defines risk metaphorically -- perhaps the loss of money or position -- rather than literally -- loss of life or limb.

What every fashion-forward factory worker will wear in a Mitt Romney administration.

The Daily Beast listed the 20 Deadliest Jobs in America. They include: Fisherman (Avg. Salary: $22,160), Firefighter (Avg. Salary: $47,760), Airplane Pilot (Avg. Salary: $53,990), Police Officer (Avg. Salary: $55,400), Logger (Avg. Salary: $35,360), Roofer (Avg. Salary: $41,200), Sanitation Worker (Avg. Salary: $37,830), Bus Driver (Avg. Salary: $34,820), Animal Farmer (Avg. Salary: $24,930), Grain Farmer (Avg. Salary: $24,930), Industrial Machine Repairmen (Avg. Salary: $42,220), Warehouse Operator (Avg. Salary: $34,910), Truck Driver (Avg. Salary: $40,860), Landscaper (Avg. Salary: $29,430), Carpenter (Avg. Salary: $42,750), Steel Worker (Avg. Salary: $49,020), Construction Worker (Avg. Salary: $46,500), Cement Manufacturer (Avg. Salary: $39,010).

We need all these people in order for our society to function. Yet most made about a tenth of the $300,000 Newt Gingrich earned for offering his advice as a historian to Freddie Mac. So, if Romney wants to talk about risk, perhaps our discussion should start here.

When Romney talks about "that which is earned by some is redistributed to the others," I'm sure that gets his supporters' blood boiling. Man, those poor people again -- sitting at home watching their big-screen TVs and cashing their welfare checks while honest Americans are at work. They probably don't consider how Romney made his fortune. It's all through investments. His private equity firm Bain Capital had stakes in Domino's Pizza, Staples, and The Sports Authority, among others. Here's how it works: The employees at these companies create a product, which generates revenue, which goes into the pockets of the investors. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me. The workers are paid upfront for their efforts but don't share in the wealth if the company does well. They merely are the first to share in the misfortune if the company does poorly. That's hardly equal "risk" to folks like Romney. It's about as much risk as a plantation owner determining which slave is the largest and most likely to work the hardest and longest before dying of exhaustion. This also sounds like the same retirement plan that Romney would offer the average American worker.

Romney claims that the only people who would benefit from wealth redistribution is the government. Wealth redistribution already exists, as part of the rigged game in which the CEO of "Dangerous Construction Company Unlimited" makes millions while the people actually doing the work barely get by. Romney rightly would fear government regulation because the average person has a direct stake in government. They can vote and steer policy so that the good of everyone is considered as opposed to the good of a few. Why would the American aristocracy support that? Romney's policies, especially regarding the estate tax, would ensure that the current entitlement culture continues -- the one in which his children and grandchildren, who have a blind trust valued between $70 to $100 million, could choose to never work a day in their lives... "regardless of their education, effort, and willingness to take risk."

Of course, the larger question is that if an entitlement society existed in which everyone had equal rewards and equal outcomes... would that be so bad? OK, I know your socialist sense is tingling, but if you were a lawyer and made $250,000 a year, would it really bother you if a firefighter or construction worker made the same? Even half would greatly alter their lifestyles for the better.

Romney does not seem to argue from the position that such "wealth redistribution" flatly won't work but rather that we should be offended on the face of it. He says "everyone would be worse off." Really? Is he honestly concerned about a scenario where a sanitation worker is going to be paid less? Or he is worried about the American aristrocracy of which he is gold-card carrying member? Countless CEOs make enough -- even as part of exit packages when they almost ruin their companies -- to secure a comfortable living not just for themselves but for their grandchildren who don't even exist yet. This happens while the "rank and file" employees (I've worked someplace where that term was used daily, generally to describe why they weren't receiving a benefit my colleagues and I were) get by on pre-chewed peanuts.

The fatuous response is to say that this is simply how the market works, and the government cannot legislate "fairness." However, public companies represent the interests of their shareholders (most of whom don't work at the company) rather than the interests of all their employees. The board of directors are like pirate who loot the futures of their employees and share their bounty with each other and their closest subordinates. This is not capitalism. It's theft.

So, when Romney presents himself as the president who will prevent the creation of an entitlement society, he's engaging in a pathetic and craven sleight-of-hand to distract you from the one that already exists, the one that has slowly destroyed the U.S. middle class over the past 30 years, and the one that he is desperate to protect.

The Famous Celebrity Interview...

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:12:44 -0500

The only Famous Celebrity Interview you'll ever need to read.

I am a writer who specializes in Famous Celebrity interviews. You are not interested in me but this feature will be in first person anyway. Famous Celebrity has agreed to meet me someplace in New York or Los Angeles that Famous Celebrity's publicist believes will further the illusion of Famous Celebrity's normality. Famous Celebrity is late, so I will share with you how I occupy my time while waiting for Famous Celebrity.

If we are meeting at a restaurant, I will describe it in every hip detail. If we are someplace else, I will make obvious comments about the people around me. You are not interested in this but I believe it adds color to my Famous Celebrity interview.

Famous Celebrity eventually arrives with an excuse intended to further underscore Famous Celebrity's normality. If we are in New York, Famous Celebrity had trouble getting a cab or better yet was stuck on the subway with a sick passenger. If we are in L.A., Famous Celebrity was stuck in traffic. See, Famous Celebrity takes NYC public transportation or drives Famous Celebrity's own car in L.A. If Famous Celebrity doesn't do this, it's because Famous Celebrity's oppressive fame has robbed Famous Celebrity of the pleasures of sitting next to a strange person on the subway who smells lke urine or not moving for hours in rush-hour traffic.

Here is where I describe what Famous Celebrity looks like, even though Famous Celebrity is famous so you probably already know. Famous Celebrity is dressed casually so my description will serve as a counterpoint to the pictures by Famous Celebrity Photographer that accompany the article. If Famous Celebrity is female, the sexy photos of her wearing barely nothing will seem especially ironic as Famous Celebrity will make a point of commenting on how she is actually quite shy and does not feel sexy. My description of Famous Celebrity will include quotes from other articles about Famous Celebrity. My only original contribution is to state that these quotes are both true and yet not true.

If we are at a restaurant, Famous Celebrity orders a meal, which I describe in every possible Food Network detail because it is news to you that Famous Celebrity survives by consuming calories to replace the ones that Famous Celebrity expends during the course of the day. I also describe what I'm eating because I am part of this story.

A fan approaches Famous Celebrity and Famous Celebrity is quite gracious. I believe this is how Famous Celebrity always is because I can't imagine Famous Celebrity's behavior altering due to the presence of a writer for a national magazine. Famous Celebrity makes a living performing for people but I know that Famous Celebrity is the real deal during our meeting because Famous Celebrity could never fool me, a journalist.

If we are in New York, Famous Celebrity tells me how at home Famous Celebrity feels in the city. Famous Celebrity is not in New York often but has an apartment here in a trendy neighborhood. Famous Celebrity offers to take me on a tour of Famous Celebrity's favorite spots in the neighborhood. If we are in Los Angeles, Famous Celebrity takes me on a drive in Famous Celebrity's very expensive car. If Famous Celebrity is male, the car is possibly one that he collects and restored. If Famous Celebrity is female, she will have trouble finding things in the car, which I will find adorable. If Famous Celebrity is of the opposite sex, Famous Celebrity makes me feel as if we're on a date. If Famous Celebrity is the same sex, Famous Celebrity makes me feel like we're buddies. If Famous Celebrity is gay, Famous Celebrity does not talk about it.

At some point, I pull out my tape recorder or notebook, depending on how retro I am. I also mention that I'm doing this so that you remember that I'm a reporter. It's possible you forgot when I described getting a mani-pedi with Famous Celebrity or sampling local beers at Famous Celebrity's favorite microbrewery.

I then get tough with Famous Celebrity -- I am a journalist, after all -- and inquire about Famous Celebrity's Famous Celebrity Scandal. Famous Celebrity is pensive, caught off guard by my probing questions, but recovers in time to repeat what Famous Celebrity carefully rehearsed with Famous Celebrity's publicist.

"What people don't understand," Famous Celebrity says, "is that the situation is far more complicated than the media makes it out to be."

Although I am part of the media, I know that Famous Celebrity does not consider me part of the media that Famous Celebrity dislikes. I know this because Famous Celebrity and I are on a date or are buddies hanging out together.

Famous Celebrity does not enjoy the celebrity culture. Famous Celebrity's famous celebrity friends, who I also interview and who Famous Celebrity refers to by their first names, tell me how not a part of that culture Famous Celebrity is. Famous Celebrity just wants to do Famous Celebrity's job. Although these interviews are technically part of that job, Famous Celebrity wants to just do Famous Celebrity's job without the interviews, as the lunches at fancy NY restaurants and drives down the California coastline at sunset are as tedious as your job's Monday morning budget meetings are for you. We joke a bit about some of the dumb things Famous Celebrity has been asked in previous interviews. I know that I've not asked Famous Celebrity anything that Famous Celebrity will later joke about with another writer.

I realize the whole point of the interview is to promote Famous Celebrity's current project. However, writing this interview like a short story is what separates me from the guys who work in advertising. I am a creative person, just like Famous Celebrity. During our date or time hanging out, we discuss creative things and I believe Famous Celebrity gets me and gets that I get Famous Celebrity.

Famous Celebrity feels a bit trapped in the business and after Famous Celebrity's next high-paying project, Famous Celebrity will take some time off -- maybe start a family because that's something people can only really do when not working. If Famous Celebrity already has a family, Famous Celebrity will comment on how being a parent has changed Famous Celebrity.

Famous Celebrity might also run for political office or do some work for the U.N. because Famous Celebrity has opinions that are similar to yours but are also unique because Famous Celebrity is famous and has met the president.

After our time together has ended, Famous Celebrity contacts me a few days later to clarify a point Famous Celebrity had made. It is especially cool if Famous Celebrity calls because Famous Celebrity remembered the ingredient in a recipe Famous Celebrity and I had discussed. I like including this part because it reinforces that Famous Celebrity has my phone number.

Sometimes Famous Celebrity contacts me to ask that I not print an offhand comment Famous Celebrity made. The statement has no news value and I probably wouldn't have included it anyway. However, now I must because Famous Celebrity asked me to remove it and I am a journalist.

Revisiting "A Christmas Carol"...

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:12:49 -0500

"A Christmas Carol," which Charles Dickens wrote in 1843, combines the chilling thrills of a ghost story fit for Halloween but delivered two months late with the spirit-lifting redemption of the best Christmas story.

From the political lens through which I view all entertainment, "A Christmas Carol" fascinates me in its complexity: It is simultaneously a promotion of the rights of the underclass and the abuse it faces from the wealthy and an illustrative example of how charity comes best from the individual rather than the government. It is also distinctly religious yet not really: The spirits are not necessarily guardian angels of the Cary Grant ("The Bishop's Wife") and Henry Travers ("It's a Wonderful Life") variety. The story is more a distilliation of Christ's teachings without the fire and damnation.

Scrooge is a bitter, money-obsessed old man. His clerk, Bob Cratchit, must work in bleak conditions (Scrooge is as stingy with the coal supply as he is everything else). Cratchit has no recourse. There is no mention of his choosing to work for someone more amenable. He must bite his tongue and accept the treatment his master doles out.

When Scrooge's nephew arrives to invite him to Christmas dinner, Scrooge runs down Christmas as a waste of time. He is not entirely incorrect in what he observes: Life -- especially in Victorian England -- is pretty crummy and it'll be crummy after Christmas. What good does it do anyone to try to forget that for one measly day? It is thus a "humbug," a "hoax" or "jest." Scrooge's nephew doesn't disagree with Scrooge's assessment but with how Scrooge chooses to react to this reality. OK, life is bad, but if it can be less so for just one day, maybe it can be better every day of the year, and if not, one good day out of 364 bad ones is better than nothing. Cratchit applauds the sentiment and Scrooge threatens to fire him. He cruelly points out that Cratchit least of all has any reason to believe in the merriness of Christmas -- too many kids and too little money. Here we see that Scrooge knows the "price of everything and the value of nothing" (a memorable line from the Susan Lucci <a title="Ebbie" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTgmKmGWEAU" target="_blank">adaptation</a> of "A Christmas Carol" in 1995).

Scrooge does, though, grant Cratchit the day off for Christmas. He complains about it but he doesn't insist that the need to make more money on "doorbuster" specials demands that Cratchit spend the day away from his family. Even the drive for profit had its limits in those days.

Scrooge is also visited by gentlemen soliciting for a charity. The exchange here is famous for Scrooge's asking them "are there no prisons" or "union workhouses." However, in contrast to many politicians today, Scrooge does not object to their existence. He simply wishes to be "left alone" in so far as providing anything on an individual level. He pays enough to support the existing institutions and can't afford to make "idle" people merry. The use of the word "idle" underscores a belief, common even today, that the poor are poor by choice or are lazy. If they worked harder, their issues would resolve themselves. Regardless, it doesn't involve Scrooge, arguably the first Libertarian.

Dickens diverges from Biblical teaches in Scrooge's encounter with Marley, who warns him of his upcoming visit from the three spirits. Unlike that trio, Marley is clearly damned but you don't get the impression that he's burning in hell. No, his punishment is the inability to either enjoy or promote happiness -- two gifts that Scrooge is currently squandering. When Scrooge attempts to console Marley by complimenting his life as a businessman, Marley is quick to correct him: "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"

Today we proclaim that corporations are people yet at the same time debate whether certain people are even people. This is the same folly that consumed Marley. I always wondered why Marley never got the opportunity for redemption that Scrooge did. Or perhaps Marley had the chance and refused to take it. Either way, Marley is for this one night able to make mankind his business -- a Christmas gift for both Scrooge and himself.

Scrooge's first visitor is the Ghost of Christmas Past. Scrooge's childhood had been difficult, and we glimpse the roots of his current misanthropy. As a youth, he'd apprenticed for the magnamious Mr. Fezziwig, who is the complete opposite of the adult Scrooge. Instead of whining about having to give his staff the day off for Christmas, Fezziwig throws a grand office party on Christmas Eve. His employees probably don't suffer from frostbite, either. I've seen firsthand the Fezziwig approach vanish from the workplace. The standard list of excuses has replaced it: In a "merit-based" culture, the cost of a Christmas party for everyone is better spent on Christmas bonuses for the few. And what good does an office party serve anyway? Scrooge himself is quick to respond to this theory:

"(Fezziwg) has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil. Say that his power lies in words and looks; in things so slight and insignificant that it is impossible to add and count them up: what then? The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune."

As soon as the words are spoken, Scrooge realizes that he has the power to do these things but doesn't. He pursues profit instead. If profit is the goal, people will always suffer. Fezziwig no doubt sees the success of his company as a responsibility. His goal is to provide a decent living for his workers. Scrooge's goal is merely to make a profit.

This theme continues during Scrooge's visit with the Ghost of Christmas Present. He takes him to see the Cratchits on Christmas Day. Cratchit's son, Tiny Tim, is not long for the world. The spark of humanity lingering in Scrooge wonders if there's any way Tim might live. The Spirit informs him that if the course of events isn't altered, Tim will die, but quoting Scrooge, "he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Scrooge had previously spoken with the Darwinian harshness of distance. Imagine how much easier that is to do now with global corporations boasting thousands of employees. When Wal-Mart cuts health insurance for its part time employees, the CEO -- safely remote in his gated community -- has no insight into the long-term pain that is caused for short-term profit.

The Ghost of Christmas Present challenges Scrooge to "forbear his wicked cant," to reflect on "what the surplus is and where it is." The trap so many fall into is to view misfortunate as a choice, to hold poverty in as much contempt as substance abuse. No one wants to think that the summer home paid for with the bonus money earned by downsizing people might have a human cost. And simply being on the top of the economic pyramid does not necessarily make you superior in any sense to those at the bottom.

This is where Dickens most clearly echoes the New Testament: "Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child."

This line is often interpreted as the spirit chastising Scrooge for daring to decide who "lives or who dies." I think it's the opposite: He's condemning his inaction in the face of suffering. This inaction will send Tim to his death, something Scrooge can easily prevent if he opens his eyes to his responsibilities as a member of society.

For his part, Cratchit toasts Scrooge at Christmas dinner, acknowledging the role his employer pays in providing for his family. His wife is less gracious. Scrooge, she says, is "an odious, stingy, hard, unfeeling man." She relents for his husband's sake and the day's and joins Cratchit in his toast. She believes Scrooge is bound to be "very merry and very happy." She is wrong in thinking that Scrooge's wealth alone would make him happy. We know -- as his nephew does -- that Scrooge's cruelty punishes him as well. However, Mrs. Cratchit is correct that just because Scrooge rejects the comfort his wealth could provide himself and others, this does not excuse his ill treatment of those beneath him.

In a scene in the 1984 TV adaptation with George C. Scott that's not in Dickens's story, the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge to a desolate area where the poor huddle for warmth. Scrooge cannot believe people live like this: Women and children in rags. Why aren't they in those nice workhouses, Scrooge wonders. He, of course, has never personally visited one. He has no knowledge of how miserable they are and how they separate families forever. He sees the desperation of poverty. A poor father laments that it's not fair there's no work. He wants to work. He sees that even the poor have a work ethic, even if they aren't fortunate enough to be as wealthy as he.

Scrooge questions the Spirit, "What does this have to do with me?," and the Spirit thunders, "Are they not of the human race?" Indeed. We then return to Dickens's text, as the Spirit opens his robe to reveal two "wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable" children -- a boy, "Ignorance," and a girl, "Want." Scrooge, still in denial, asks if they belong to the Spirit, who informs him that they are the work of all mankind.

"Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end."

Great art is timeless, and these words could have been written today.

Every adaptation differs in its depiction of Scrooge's reclamation. Some have him close to the light after his meeting with the first spirit. Others have him unmoved until he learns the potential fate of Tiny Tim. The original story allows the actors the flexibility to plot out Scrooge's transformation. However, one question that is rarely asked is why Scrooge changes at all. This is what makes the story so uplifting for me. Scrooge is an old man. He's seen how he's wasted his life, how everything he thought he believed in was false and empty. This would break the average man. Why bother to change now? Standard Christian teaching would say eternal damnation is reason enough. Dickens, however, doesn't go there.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come shows Scrooge the inevitable end of his selfish life. He dies alone. Tiny Tim is dead. And the only true emotion over his passing is the relief a couple feels in knowing that their debt to him will be transferred to someone who couldn't possibly be more loathsome. Scrooge is taken to his gravesite, where he begs the Spirit for a chance to change to course of his existence.

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!"

He obviously can't avoid death, but what he wants to erase is his metaphorical death. He wants to live -- even if just for the few years he has left.

This is naturally easy to grant. Much like Dorothy and her ruby slippers, Scrooge had the ability to change his world whenever he wanted. And the reformed Scrooge is a resoundingly bad businessman: He gives Cratchit an enormous turkey -- a generous Christmas bonus. It's not intended as an economic bribe to keep Cratchit from bolting to another company (as I've had bonuses explained to me in more flowery terms though the meaning was clear). It's sent anonymously. It's an acknowledgment of Cratchit's hard work all year. That's all.

Scrooge also doubles Cratchit's salary and commits himself to helping Tiny Tim to walk again. What CEO would do this today? Double the staff's salary for no reason other than they probably deserve it? It obviously won't send Scrooge to the poorhouse, and we can only imagine the good it will do for the Cratchit family.

Yes, Scrooge is a bad businessman as we hear business defined today. It's a definition that has crushed families and sunk the economy, but we refuse to sponge away those words. If we did, we could define business as Scrooge came to define it. He put people first and understood the responsibility of a business to remain profitable for the purpose of providing a living for its employees and not merely for profit's sake. They'd call Scrooge a socialist today. I prefer to think of him as a man who understood his true business.

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

Homophobia or Satire?...

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:12:43 -0500

The comic Louis C.K. was interviewed on "Nightline," where he defended recent homophobic comments by Tracy Morgan, who I am as reluctant to refer to as a comedian as I am to refer to Rick Santorum as a homosapien.

During a Nashville stand-up appearance in June, Morgan told a joke in which he said if his son talked to him in an effeminate voice, he would “stab that little (n word) in the throat.” The statement later sparked enormous public outrage and Morgan publicly apologized several times, making it clear that there was no excuse for his comments.

C.K. took to Morgan’s defense, saying at the time that he was “on a comedy stage, not a pulpit.” In a recent “Nightline” interview, C.K. told Weir that he thought the gay community missed a prime chance to have a discussion with Morgan, verses just attacking him for his comments.

“To me that joke is Tracy trying to figure it out, ‘my sons gay now, ok, but he better not talk like that cause I can’t it. I don’t know how to deal with it,’” C.K. told Weir. “He’s afraid of it or he’s confused by it and then he blasts through the whole idea with a joke. That’s what jokes are. You don’t tiptoe through the idea, you just go ‘I would stab that little (n word) in the throat,’ and that brings everybody a huge relief in a very scary place and makes them laugh.”

It's fortunate that we have a straight white man to explain to homosexuals what they should find offensive. Stand up comedy tends to be a predominately masculine field and a lot of what passes for humor is overtly sexist, homophobic, or racist. It's the playground bully making jokes about the fat kid. The other children laughed, as well. That didn't make it art. What rises above mere bullying is when humor is used as a slingshot at the Goliaths of the world or when the Goliaths satirize themselves and their position of power (I always thought Steve Martin did that well).

Was Morgan really satirizing the unfortunate homophobia in many parts of the black community? Was he shining a harsh light on his own fears and failings as a father? Unlike Morgan, I'm not a parent, but I would venture to say that if you stab your son in the throat because he talks like Michael Jackson, you're not a very good one.

It's clear to me that Morgan's "joke" was just cheap shock value at gays' expense. C.K. might choose to bend over backwards to find some inner meaning and depth as if it's "The Scarlet Letter" but none of that is in the routine itself. Why would any intelligent person regardless of sexual orientation think Morgan's comments were the "starting point of a conversation" about homophobia. If I'm walking down a dark street and a group of guys shout out, "Hey fag!" I would not wander over to debate them.

As a comedian, C.K. should also know how important the punchline is. When do we laugh? And who are we laughing at? Morgan's punchline is a father assaulting his gay son. The intent is for us to laugh at that image. Contrast this with Stephen Colbert, who plays the role of a homophobe on "The Colbert Report."

"If we provide gay marriage, then that nullifies my marriage because I only got married to taunt gay people. I wrote my own vows and I quote: na-na-na-na-na."

The punchlines are always Colbert's ignorance. That's what we're supposed to find funny rather than his character's misguided views on gays. Even if Morgan was playing a similar role in order to spark debate, he ultimately failed -- just as if I put on a show identical to "Jersey Shore" and claimed I was just "satirizing" "Jersey Shore."

C.K. has a daughter. If he joked that if he caught her studying law rather than reading "Cosmo," he'd stab "the little bitch" in the throat, would we find this funny? I doubt it if the punchline was just child abuse -- even if the intent was to satirize gender roles and sexism. If he went further -- "I didn't do it because I knew there'd be no way I'd win against her in court" -- he might salvage it by turning it back on himself. However, Morgan attempted nothing of the sort.

C.K. has written for Chris Rock, who once joked that it wasn't always wrong to call someone a faggot. "What if he was really acting like a faggot?" he asked. This was in the same routine where he says it's never OK to call a black person nigger. Apparently, there's no instance where a black person is really acting like a nigger.

The best humor allows those who are most often society's victims to come out on top. This is why it's unfortunate when a female comic spends her entire act running down herself -- "Hey, guys, you think I'm shallow, self-absorbed, and obsessed with my appearance! You're right. Now please laugh at me, because it's also true that I'm desperate for attention."

Gays hardly came out on top in Morgan's routine, and yet C.K. wants to position them as the power-wielding arbiters of good taste who oppress the true artists of their world. It's their own lack of humor that stalls dialogues that could in C.K.'s words "make a difference in how people feel about homophobia."

Now, that is funny.