posted
The end is kind of stupid, but i, like caleb, am rather amused at the ridiculousness of trickle down economics.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important to read the whole thing, I think, because at the end the author makes sure we understand that he's not making fun of Christ or Christians, by slipping in the 'real' Jesus to compare to the SSJ. What he is making fun of is the idea that compassionate conservativism and following Christ could go hand in hand.
At least that's the way I saw it.
And if you can't see any humor in this, you probably couldn't see any humor in The Life of Brian, either. And if you can't see any humor in The Life of Brian, maybe you ought to stick with documentaries or dramas.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
(From M-W.com) Satire: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
So, no i guess it doesn't have to be funny by dictionary definition.
And still i certainly find parts of this funny. Hell the method of delivery itself is satirical. Also to Scott, i would have to say that if you wanted to compare this seriously to chick tracts, the Franken tract is conciderably less heavy handed.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Cause i think you should be able to discuss and make jokes about sacred things. Not in all contexts certainly, but why should it be completely off limits?
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seemed that this was addressed to me: And if you can't see any humor in this, you probably couldn't see any humor in The Life of Brian, either. And if you can't see any humor in The Life of Brian, maybe you ought to stick with documentaries or dramas.
He might not have mentioned me inparticular, but since I did not find it funny, I was included in his statement.
posted
I thought it was amusing. I can see why conservatives, or supply-siders wouldn't find it amusing, but I think it's funny. Especially in light of this news story I just read. Bush plans for the deficit and the drastics cuts that are going to be needed are scary. Of course, the whole point of the tax cut and building up the deficit is to force huge cuts in government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade so. . .
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i wish there was a 'quizzical when is this boring ass shit going to become funny? expression' smilie.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And really, perhaps this gets at the heart of the difference between supply-siders and safety-netters.
I've always found supply-side politics satircal. As in, they in themselves, are inherently satire. I've never heard a reagonomic policy that i didn't first think "this must be a sick joke".
Really, to me, the "leperosy is a matter of personal responsibility" thing strikes at the heart of it. This both accurately frames how supply-side politics are supposed to work, and why i find them so absurd.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Hey, i agree, i don't think this is terribly funny satire, in fact i find franken rather heavy handed, however, he both does research on the things he discusses (even if he glazes them in a peculiar way), and he does tend to keep some sense of reality around him (hearing him talk on Fresh Air really drove the point home for me, everything the dude writes is intended for people to look at and go "this is insane").
And for me thats why franken's work is interesting. His writing is supposed to say "look isn't this ridiculous" but also be directly derived from the state of politics.
What i don't get is why people on the other side of the political arena adamantly refuse to see that its absurd at all. most just seem to claim its unfunny (which really sidesteps the point, its not about humor).
[ September 18, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, Pod, et al: I DON'T get all excited about "supply side" economics. I'm not a fiscal conservative. I'm also highly aware of the hypocrisy of many Christians in regards to the poor, the sick, the needy. . .
Sometimes, things aren't funny just because they are not funny. It sometimes doesn't have anything to do at all with the audience.
Jack Chick tracts, however, ARE funny. But I'm sure they're not intended to be so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sacred is as sacred does, folks. Same with economics and humor, evidently.
I was kidding about the Life of Brian. Look, can't we always look on the bright side of life?.
It just seems to me that some folks couldn't possibly find humor in a comic strip that uses their savior to satirize their own politics. It's far too offensive, of course. Probably the same thing with the more irreverent South Park episodes. But the reason given is that they're just not funny. They aren't clever. They have no nuance.
Take this:
quote:"It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
"But you can't have babies."
"Don't you oppress me."
"I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"
"Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies."
"Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry."
Why is that funny? Is it because it takes a sacred subject and juxtaposes it with something silly? Does it have cleverness or nuance that the comic strip doesn't? Or is it funny because it doesn't have any political opinions making it go?
Political cartoons have ALWAYS been a part of the American political scene. One would think that they've been around so long because... well, because they're funny.
And if you can't see that, then I hope your sense of humor finds health in other areas.
posted
I'm also highly aware of the hypocrisy of many Christians in regards to the poor, the sick, the needy. . .
Oh puhleeeezze. What a load.
I know a whole lot of really good Christians who do a whole lot to take care of the poor and the needy.
Guess what? Most of them just do it to be nice. They use their OWN time and their OWN money to bless the lives of others. And they do it a whole lot.
Unlike people such as Bill, Hillary, and Franken that want to take OTHER people's time and OTHER people's money to create a permanent underclass perpetually dependent upon government handouts.
Who are all these hypocrites you're talking about, because they don't attend any Christian church of which I am aware?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, with the exception of the "or in the case of you lepers" line, I didn't find this funny. I see the point, I get the irony, I just didn't think it was executed in a particularly funny manner. Very little political satire actually strikes me as laugh-out-loud funny, though.
You left off the end of that scene, Caleb:
quote:"What's the point?" "What?" "What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?" "It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression." "Symbolic of his struggle against reality."
Of course, I think my favorite exchange from that movie is:
quote:You know the penalty layed down by Roman law for harbouring a known criminal?" "No." "Crucfiction." "Oh." "Nasty, eh?" "Hm. Could be worse." "What do you mean 'could be worse'?" "Well, you could be stabbed." "Stabbed? Takes a second. Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow, 'orrible death." "Well, at lest it gets you out in the open air." "You're weird!"
Unfortunately, that one is really not as funny when you don't get John Cleese's facial expressions and vocal tones.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but don't you see, Scott, you are trying to manage OTHER people's time, and energy, and money (what, you think gasoline is free? hohoHO!).
Just like that icky Franken fellow. He's just bitter because God gave him a face that makes it LOOK like he's got leprosy.
posted
What is this mysterious YMMV? You make me vomit? Young Men Marry Virgins? Yoyo Ma's Mandarin Verse?
I suppose the reason I'm defending the strip is, not because I found it particularly hilarious, but because the reactions to the strip seemed to place it in the comedy box marked "tasteless", and I don't think that anytime you use religion to expose hypocrisy is tasteless. It's poignant and fitting, in my opinion.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, I also thought the cuticles bit was the funniest (which is why I listed it at the top of the examples). And I'll admit that even that isn't a gut buster.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie: What, 1959 posts not good enough for you? That's. . . what, almost four posts per day? Why, it's almost visible on the Scopatz Scale! Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
