Funny Is As Funny Does

The sense of humor is arguably (perhaps right next to the sense of beauty), the most subjective of opinion. I mean, getting a consensus on anything is difficult, from whether modern art is actually art, to how raw a steak should be to qualify as rare. But for some reason, humor is one of those things that has so many subtleties and nuances, that often times even two people who are laughing at the same joke are laughing for different reasons. And there are others who either stand there not understanding the humor, or who just don’t appreciate it.

Fair enough. Just because you laugh at something I don’t and visa versa doesn’t make either of us right. It means we just see things differently.

So, what do you do when some guy goes around insisting that something isn’t funny, and that anyone who disagrees with him is either some sort of dancing fool for the enemy, an idiot, or unable to see with the level of clarity needed because of a different cultural/religious background?

What indeed?

Yeah, this is a not-very-thinly veiled reference to a recent dust-up over at O’Tim’s blog, regarding a post he had on a small article written by Joel Stein. No need to go into the article in depth here, but the long and the short of it is I found Stein’s dry, straight-faced sarcasm to be entertaining, while another guy didn’t. And, for my opinion, it was explained that since I wasn’t jewish I was therefore genetically unable to ever grasp the nuances of what constituted funny from bullshit, and that Stein was a race-traitor anyway.

But what struck me was the supreme arrogance of this opinion. There was not a shred of consideration that humor is subjective. The conclusions were definite and clear:

1. Not only was that essay not funny, but Joel Stein is the equivalent of a Semitic Uncle Tom (would that then be an Uncle Shlomo??)
2. Anyone who found either that essay or Stein funny is dead wrong because either they are also Uncle Shlomos, or not being Jewish, they are simply incapable of understanding
   

Of course, this whole degradation into the belief that only True and Decent Jews (i.e. those that are not schande far di goyim) can judge the humor of Stein's work is so incredibly asinine and insulting as to fly in the face of reason. Does that also mean that only the Japanese can tell if the sushi tastes good? What about someone who converts to Judaism? Does the ceremony also confer this ethereal ability to judge the true essence and nature or humor? If a jew decides to leave the fold, do they also forfeit this gift?

I know, the whole thing is compltely ludicrous to the point of being laughable in itself. But then again, I would think that, since not being jewish I obviously don't have the DNA to know from the funny.

Ook ook.

Mel's Culpa

Okay, I know, posting about Mel Gibson's getting all shitfaced and then exploding in a venomous anti-Semitic rant it hardly a unique thing to do.

In fact, I bet thousands of these (blog opinions) have popped up on the net since old Mel got busted for drunk driving and showed his true sense of privilege and entitlement - you know, boasting how he owned Malibu and how he was going to make sure he "fucked" the cop who nailed him.

What a great guy! And certainly proof that conservative, Bush-loving, war-supporting Hollywood types can be as annoying, petulant, and immature as those on the left.

But there is more to Mel's meltdown than just that nugget. There was that little matter of a really disgusting barrage of old fashioned Jew-hating. Aside from the repugnant nature of his remarks and the sort of mindset and value system that would allow someone to say those things, Mel's assault on Jews is a great way to throw real anti-Semitism into sharp relief against those who are called anti-Semites by hard-core Israel-supporters simply because they don't follow lock-step behind every single action the Israeli government takes.

Unfortunately, nowadays anyone daring to raise the idea that perhaps (just perhaps) the fact that Israel's bombing the hell out of south Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers, killing (up to now) hundreds of innocent women and children in the process might just perhaps be a bit disporportionate is immediately branded by the Israel pimps as being anti-Semitic Nazis who threaten castration, coddle terrorists and ought, therefore, to be shunned, insulted, ignored, and ridiculed (at the very least). And that's on a good day.

The logic seems to follow the pattern that questioning Israel is de facto proof of hatred of Isreal, and thus, Jews as a whole. Israel-supporters will give you the argument that Israel is being proactive agasint the terrorist organization Hezbollah - and on the whole that position is a legitimate one. But, it begs the counter argument of whether those actions are reasonable. This is not a question of whether Israel has the right to defend itself (it does); whether it has the right to exist (it does); or whether its own civilian population has been victimized by horrifying terrorist attacks in the past (it has). However, it is a question of whether the current action is reasonable, viable, and responsible. An opinion saying "Israel has every right to be as brutal in response to the kidnapping because anything less would invite more assaults by the terrorists" is as valid as the counter-opinion that says "Israel's invading Lebanon and escalating the attacks to the point of open warfare just because two soldiers were kidnapped is overkill and will only lead to a much greater and more destructive confilct."

Note, the latter opinion does not (as Mel did) imply Jews are evil, Israel should be eradicated, or anything of that sort. What it does imply is the government of Israel is at fault for conducting an action that is inappropriate, counter-productive, and short sighted. Another way of saying it is by using a machine gun to kill a snake, Israel is screwing the pooch in a big way, and that they should be called out for it.

However, inevitably, those who support Israel, either blindly or not, will point out historical facts ("well, in 1978 ..."), or other so-called relevant points to try and prove that the anti-Israel action opinion is based on incomplete or improper assumptions, and is thus flat out wrong. If the offending opinion is not recanted and changed to whole-heartedly support the current Israeli action, it will quickly degenerate into name calling (usually along the lines of idiot, fucktard, or dumbass), and eventually charges of anti-Semitism.

Which is where Mel comes in. Here is a true anti-Semite. From his thinly veiled (well, not too thinly veiled) swipes at Hebrews in Passion to his re-connection to a sect of Catholicism that makes the Vatican look like the voice of tolerance, Mel has obviously got issues with those that follow the Torah. And when he launched into a slurred, vodka soaked tirade about how "Jews are responsible for every war in the world" and the like, well ... we get a good look at an old fashioned jew hater. The kind who really does believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was non-fiction. The sort of guy who should put those of us who do sometimes wonder at the nature of Israel's actions into the proper perspective, and make a distinction between anti-Israel (on certain topics) and anti-Semitic.

However, he won't. Pimps for Israel, like any other idealogue are basically by definition unable to see or acknowledge that distinction. The funny thing is how the most ardent and blind supporters will whip out some trivial incident in which they disagreed with the Israeli government as proof that they are not idealogues. Much like the most die-hard Bushwipes claiming disagreement with dubyas immigration plan is proof that they aren't sycophantic toadies. But all that does is prove how blindly they actually do follow. And, as anyone knows, you can't voice a contrary opinion to someone like that. Not unless what you want is name-calling, disrespect, and shouting.

Me, I just want a cool beer on a hot afternoon.

This is my opinion. Now call me names.

Ook ook

Middle East Discussion

"Blah blah blah Israel is the bad guy blah blah. "
"Blah blah blah the Arabs are the bad guys blah blah."
"Yadda yadda yadda Israel kills children yadda."
"Yadda yadda yadda Muslim terrorists kill innocent civilians yadda."
"Gibber gibber gibber Israelis think Arabs are subhuman gibber."
"Gibber gibber gibber Arabs want to exterminate Jewish infidels gibber."
"Argue argue argue Jewsish aggression leaves the Palestinians no option argue."
"Argue argue argue Arab hatred doesn't leave Isreal any choice argue."
"Insult insult insult Zionist pig insult."
"Insult insult inuslt anti-Semitic bastard insult."

Sigh.

Forced Patience

Is it 2008 yet?

Ook ook

Tetra

Happy Happy -Joy Joy

Anti-climactic seems to be a pretty good (if not somewhat sanitary) word to describe the end of this cup. Or, as I mumbled to my buddies Duende, Eggs, and Oso, it's more like having the most incredible sex with the most beautiful woman for hours, engaging in every act imaginable, and she just knows exactly how to touch, moan, caress, sigh, lick, and nibble you to set each of your pleasure senses burning, then, just a few moments before the most powerful and physically & emotionally satisfying orgasm anyone has ever had, she stops, get's up, and has to answer the phone, leaving you there with your raging chubb and a hand.

Buzzkill. I mean, in the end, you still shoot your goo, but it really just isn't the same.

Yeah. That whole sex thing is a much better description of this final. A world cup final should never be decided by penalty kicks. Ever. Never. When it happened for the first time in 1994, it was a huge letdown. It doesn't feel any different now even though the Azzurri finally managed to come out on top. There is something just fundamentally wrong with this ending. Just like having to manually bring yourself off after being immersed in your dream lover for hours.

At least the good guys won.

Shame on you, Frenchie!

The most bittersweet moment was also the strangest one I've ever seen in any world cup match since the opening kickoff of Spain '82: French icon Zizou turning around, gaining a full head of steam, lowering his melon, and barreling full-bore into the chest of Italian defender Marco Materazzi. It was surreal, and overshadowed a match that, frankly, really needed some sort of spark. Certainly in the afterglow of the game, that was the topic that controlled discussion. As in, "What the fuck happened to cause Zidane to snap?" Duende, who is no fan of the French, simply said, "Good" but now, a day later, it strikes me as just another piece to the whole incredible sex with no happy ending metaphor. Watching one of the best footballers of a generation leave the pitch in disgrace after something as incongruous as that just adds to the entire sense of confusion and hallucination.

El Sexo antes del futbol!

As it is, I've been questioning a lot of yesterday as I sip my morning coffee. Was that really Shakira shaking her perfect ass before the match? Don't get me wrong, if there was ever a woman I would cast in the role for the succubus of my opening paragraph, it would be her, but what the hell was she doing gyrating and grinding before a world cup final?

Still and all, the day ended in an appropriate, if not in a not-fully-satisfying manner. The Azzurri earned the tetra, avenging not only the ghost of the Euro 2000 final (fitting that Trezeguet was the Frenchie that popped the crossbar), but also the 94 cup final.

We're all getting laid by Shakira!

Now I have to settle in to a long, four-year hibernation until South Africa 2010. It sure seems a long time away.

Ook ook