Humor and Satire

Harris Is Losing the Meme Wars, So Naturally Democrats Want To Censor Memes

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Who would have expected the AI metaphorical tidal wave to have an influence on the Presidential election? Memes are a breeze to make using artificial intelligence, and while I got heartily sick of my Facebook friends bombarding me with political ones, I have to admit that the technology has the silver lining of taking blunt and biased punditry out of the political cartoonist monopoly and letting some very witty people make satirical political statements.

So far, at least, it appears that conservatives have mastered meming before the Left has, and in this race for President, that is having impact, though how much and how significant is impossible to tell. However, it is clear that the Kamala-Harris-as-a-Communist memes are getting under the skin of some Democrats—one of my Trump-Deranged relatives was complaining about those just yesterday—and so now there are calls for “something to be done” about anti-Harris memes. On MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” NPR’s Maria Hinojosa was very upset about AI images of Harris presented in Maoist uniforms:

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: The AARP

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

My mother, who resented aging and refused to “accept” it, constantly complained that younger people treated seniors like children or idiots. I would not expect the AARP to prove her point, but then, at a loss for bathroom reading material, I looked at the AARP’s “bulletin” tabloid. On the back page, I discovered, is a feature called “Wit and Wisdom.” Here is this month’s entire content of witty and wise repartee:

  • Ken: “I hear you quit your job digging wells. Ben: “Yeah, I got fed up with the hole business.’
  • Colin: “How would you describe a dry-erase board?” Caitlin: “Remarkable.”
  • John: “Are waterbeds bouncy?” Jan: “Yes, if you use spring water.”
  • Patient: “I need a cure for my paranoia.” Doctor: “We’ve been expecting you!”
  • Molly: “How do cats settle an argument?” Wally: “They hiss and make up.”
  • Customer: “I’d like a pizza delivered,. Will it be long?” Clerk: “No, it will be round.”
  • Student: “Do chemists tell dad jokes?” Professor: “Yes, periodically.”

There isn’t anything vaguely wise or witty in any of those moldy puns. When I was a cub scout,  I had a subscription to “Boy’s Life.” The back page had a feature called “Think and Grin,” and the jokes there were generally of a higher quality that that crap. There are so many legitimately clever jokes, one-liners and anecdotes out there, some of them true, that a little research and taste would uncover. Instead, the AARP infantalizes its member and view them as old geezers sitting around the radio cackling at “Lum and Abner” —which was also generally more clever than “No, round.” Heck, “Hee-Haw” had more wit and wisdom.

My dad, like me, had a sophomoric sense of humor. He also could quote Mark Twain, P.G. Wodehouse, S.J. Perelman, and Will Rogers—okay, also Henny Youngman— right up until the day I found him dead in his favorite chair. That AARP feature is disrespectful, lazy, and insulting.

Observations on “Blizzard of Lies, Trump Edition”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I missed this when it came out in 2020…

Yesterday the video was brought to my attention by one of the jazz musicians who created it and who is recycling the thing again in anticipation of the 2024 election. I am long-time friends with a couple of the people involved in the video. They are kind, smart and rational about most things.

Observations:

Continue reading →

You Laugh, But This Tells Us a Lot About China

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

When I saw the story above last night, what I foolishly call my mind raced to two other related matters. One was the failed pseudo-sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda,” “Fierce Creatures,” in which the entire cast of the earlier, far superior comedy reunited to perform a John Cleese screenplay about a corrupt zoo-owner who, among other schemes, tries to pass off a mechanical panda as the real thing. The other was this story….

…from 2011.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: Rob McElhenney, Kaitlin Olson and the Hacks Who Wrote Their Material For The Emmys

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.

Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:

Continue reading →

Supporting Abortion Is the Most Unethical Reason To Vote For a U.S. Presidential Candidate Since the Dixiecrats, and Maybe Worse

/ Jack Marshall / 57 Comments

Were it not for the apparently huge number of women willing to make a radical incompetent, Kamala Harris, the leader of the nation because she favors allowing mothers to kill their unborn children at will, the Democrats would be facing the prospect of a landslide loss come November. Almost every other major demographic group has moved toward Trump and for a very obvious reason: the Biden Presidency has been a disaster, and the Democratic Party has abandoned any fealty to American values, principles and democracy in pursuit of unbridled power. Yet a growing number of voters now say abortion is their top issue in 2024. Amazing. Amazing and indefensible morally and ethically.

Think about that. Abortion—killing unborn human beings—is the most important issue for millions of voters. This isn’t a virtue or a process embraced by admirable cultures: the Soviet Union used abortion as a primary form of birth control, and so has China. These are nations that do not value human life as our founding documents declare that our unique society does. Abortion doesn’t make America stronger economically, or keep the world safe from ruthless foreign regimes, or help small businesses thrive, or make the nation energy independent; it doesn’t make our public education any better, reduce crime, drug addiction and disease. In the vast majority of cases, abortion accomplishes two objectives: it allows women an extra level of protection if their sexual activity results in an inconvenient pregnancy, and it lets mothers employ medical professionals to kill their unwanted children before the law protects those innocent lives.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Onion’s Sick Joke

/ Jack Marshall / 29 Comments

A tweet by the once-dominant satire site “The Onion” has sparked a battle on “Twitter/X” and in the conservative blogosphere:

Your Ethic Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Are the objections by conservatives and Trump fans hypocritical in light of the Right’s widespread mockery of  progressive reactions to  insufficiently sensittive or politically incorrect humor?

“The Onion Thinks It’s Funny Corey Comperatore was Murdered at Trump’s Rally,” protests Legal Insurrection. “The tweet has over 80,000 likes, too. What is wrong with people!?” “The Simpsons'” Krusty the Clown might ask, “Too soon?” The black humor attempt is certainly no more insensitive than the jokes about the Japanese tsunami that got the late Gilbert Gottfried fired as the voice of the Aflack duck, and, I blush to say, I found those both horrible and amusing.

Continue reading →

Come On, Prof. Turley: “Let’s Go Brandon!”= “Fuck Joe Biden!”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

A student known only as “D.A.” was told last spring by Assistant Principal Andrew Buikema and teacher Wendy Bradford at the Tri County (Michigan) Middle School to remove his “Let’s Go Brandon!” hoodie. The school’s dress code states that school officials can “determine [if] a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, [or] is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself.” Western District of Michigan Judge Paul Maloney ruled that the teacher and the principle were within the standards articulated by SCOTUS in in Tinker v. Des Moines in banning the hoodie.

“If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane,” Maloney wrote. (The district had banned shirts with the phrases “Fet’s Luck” and “Uranus Liquor” on them.) Maloney added that administrators and teachers could prohibit apparel that said“F#%* Joe Biden,” for example.

“Because Defendants reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning,” Maloney said, “the School District can regulate wearing of Let’s Go Brandon apparel during school without showing interference or disruption at the school….”

The judge is right. Prof. Turley, whose analysis Ethics Alarms usually concurs, is wrong this time, and so is FIRE. He argues in part,

Continue reading →

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: Is KAmala Smart? Is There A Very Good Reason Why She Is Afraid To Give Unscripted Interviews? A Plausible Answer To Both Questions…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Here is how the Democratic presumptive Presidential selection answered an ambush question from a reporters yesterday in Pennsylvania when she apparently couldn’t run away fast enough, or something. The question: “You unveiled your economic policies last week. Can you explain how you’re going to pay for those? And can you give us a sense of what other policies you want to unveil?”

Continue reading →

Curmie’s Conjectures: Breaking News

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

by Curmie

[This is Jack: It was bound to happen: Curmie and I decided to write posts on the same topic: my discourse on the Awful Aussie Breaker was posted earlier today. It’s not fair, really. Curmie is a lot more elegant a writer than I am. Enjoy his take: I did.]

When I was an undergrad, I wrote a fair number of theatre reviews for the college newspaper.  One show I reviewed was a student-written revue-style piece that had everything from original songs to vulgar humor (the central shtick was that we should solve the energy crisis by harvesting buffalo farts for the methane).  One segment I praised was a hilarious parody of a pretentious modern dance piece.  There was one problem, though.  The choreographer/dancer in question wasn’t pleased; he didn’t think it was a parody.  Oops.

That incident was called to mind this week when I learned that Rachael Gunn, a 36-year-old Australian college professor with a PhD in cultural studies, has become an internet sensation by placing last in the breaking (formerly known as break-dancing) competition at the Olympics.  Competing as B-girl Raygun (don’t blame her for that part; such noms de guerre are apparently required of competitors) she went through a series of maneuvers looking like a cross between a demented inchworm and flounder flopping on the deck of a fishing vessel.  What it certainly was not was anything that could reasonably be described as a demonstration of strength, balance, or skill of any description.

There are a lot of questions here, not the least of which being what the hell breaking is doing as an Olympic event (I refuse to call it a “sport”).  Like Jack, apparently, I have always despised the notion of “sports” in which the winners are determined by judges rather than by who got the most points or crossed the finish line first or whatever other objective criteria might be employed.  This aversion is amplified when original moves are encouraged if not required.  If a gymnast, diver, or figure skater does one more spin than anyone else has ever done or does it in a different position than it’s ever been done, that’s obviously harder and can be reasonably rewarded.  But breaking has no apparent guidelines other than what each individual judge thinks is cool (or whatever term is currently in vogue).  Gunn says all her routines were original.  We can only hope so.

All of this, of course, is an extension of a belief that any activity that requires any measure of athleticism ought to be a sport.  Hence artistic (formerly “synchronized”) swimming, skateboarding, rhythmic gymnastics, breaking, etc. appear as Summer Olympic sports.  I’m not here to suggest that these events don’t require a combination of strength, precision, stamina, timing, and agility.  Of course they do!  So does ballet.  So does roofing a house.  I’m just not interested in seeing how many style points are deducted for using more nails than necessary or having a little caulk spill out of the gun.

Anyway, revenons à nos moutons…  Gunn was, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty awful.  Could I do her routine?  Not now, no.  But I’m pretty sure I could have when I was her age, and that puts her well beneath the status of an elite athlete.  So what’s going on here?  Well, she apparently won the qualifying tournament for Oceania (I really don’t want to see who came in second), and she’s represented Australia at the world championships three years in a row, so she’s at the Olympics fair and square.  There is a qualifying time in, say, a track event (I have a former student who placed second in the Olympic trials in a middle-distance race, but missed the qualifying time by a fraction of a second), but if you’re the best your nation or geographical area has to offer, you get to go, and it’s difficult to establish a qualifying standard if there’s nothing objective about the decision-making.

So, what’s going on?  Well, there’s the post on X that calls her a “grievance studies scholar” and claims she has argued that “breaking’s institutionalization via the Olympics will place breaking more firmly within this sporting nation’s hegemonic settler-colonial structures that rely upon racialized and gendered hierarchies.”  Speaking as a PhD in the humanities, I respond, “Huh?”

Continue reading →