Rules of the road

Kasama

On the Shelf

« Bhutan: Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom | Main | We must name the system »

August 31, 2007

Comments

bedrester

Kathy Griffin is hilarious even though most of her humor is incredibly shallow and celebrity-obsessed. But I do think the reason FOX censored her is not because she said Jesus wasn't responsible for her award--its because she said, "Suck it, Jesus!" Now, while you and I might think that is not worth censoring--I don't think FOX is setting any new standards in prudery and first amendment speech violations by censoring this particular comment.

bedrester

Kathy Griffin is hilarious even though most of her humor is incredibly shallow and celebrity-obsessed. But I do think the reason FOX censored her is not because she said Jesus wasn't responsible for her award--its because she said, "Suck it, Jesus!" Now, while you and I might think that is not worth censoring--I don't think FOX is setting any new standards in prudery and first amendment speech violations by censoring this particular comment.

r. john

my point was not about the censorship... but about how rare and welcome it is for someone publicly to mock all the constant jesus-thanking.

There is a visible rise in atheist and agnostic and antitheistic assertiveness -- and this is one pointed recent example.

The fact that she may be (otherwise!) shallow and "celebrity obsessed" is completely beside the point.

We make revolution with the forces bequeathed to us by this fucked up society, not by a "people" flown in for the purpose from a parallel universe.

bedrester

Well, MY point was about the censorship. I wasn't making a jab at you, just musing on the Kathy Griffin bruhaha.

I was just giving a little context on Kathy Griffin--that she is not usually the most transgressive comedian out there. And that can be a good thing--when comedians who are not usually thought of as political make jabs at the status quo instead of talking about how self-centered Oprah is or how gay Clay Aiken is or whatever.

And I'm all for making revolution with real people--though my money would be more on Bill Mauer and Chris Rock before Kathy Griffin. But she does make me laugh.

And this time I won't post twice.

r. john

to take up your point on censorship:

Fox censored two people at the same time: Sally Fields who made a statement against "goddamn wars" and Kathy Griffin who mocked god-thanking.

Each time there was a mild "profanity" involved -- of a kind that is ordinary in television. (Does anyone expect "goddamn" to be bleeped?)

No one would disagree with your assessment of her comedy (or your preference for Mauer or Rock.)

But....

You wrote: "And I'm all for making revolution with real people -- though my money would be more on Bill Mauer and Chris Rock before Kathy Griffin. But she does make me laugh."

That's kinda the issue.

I don't want to "put words in your mouth" -- or draw inferences from your remark that are not your actual intent.

But my response to your sentence is: this is exactly not how I look at it.

[After all, she does NOT "make me laugh." I find her humor to be the kind of celebrity drivel that makes me cringe. It's like she is an aspiring Joan rivers wannabe. And then, on the other hand, the fact is that she -- with all she represents and believes -- is stepping out in a fearless way to mock and expose the god-sucking trends in the culture! That's kinda the point here. No?]

The assumption that any coming turmoil (and the efforts at revolutionary movement) are unlikely to draw in the Kathy Griffin's (and dare I say Pauly Shores!) have to be seen (and honestly considered) as an argument over HOW unlikely a revolution mood and movement are.

Sure there is a segment of society that is CURRENTLY more openly and consciously "political." But one of the problems of "the left" is their fixation on "us and people like us."

I have often thought about it as the "Stevie Wonder Question": I.e. any revolutionary attempt that didn't have someone like Stevie Wonder on board would be unlikely to win -- since success requires degrees of support from that vast segment of people of which he is a great symbol (i.e. honest, loving, concerned about humanity, inclined toward progressive thinking, etc.)

So my hit is exactly different from the sentence i just quoted:

I think that if you look at the "blue state -- red state" divides... it is possible to say:

The Democratic Party base and its loose coalition is (sociologically) roughly co-extensive with what I envision as a "united front" for revolution.

To win (with real people) a revolution would need (at least) to have something like that alignment... with the core "social bases" of the Democrats (including like black people, sections of latino people, employed workers, intellectuals and cultural circles) having "come over" through a real-world process.

And in which other segments are at least in a form of "active neutrality."

And it would require slices of the "red coalition" being neutralized, passive, fragmented, and (even) in some cases won over.

If you look at it that way, Kathy Griffin (and all the kinds of people in her ballpark politically) are not on our "maybe" list -- they are part of that "hollywood crowd" who viscerally and justifiably hate the Christian right (for example)-- for deep cultural and political reasons.

If our thinking were to revolve around "the usual suspects" (i.e. the Bill Mauers and Chris Rocks and Rage against the Machine etc) -- then we are really missing the whole question of winning over "masses of people" -- i.e. real sections of social and cultural life -- for a revolutionary cause.

Stealth

Groups like the RNC Welcoming Committee are a breeding ground for home grown terrorists in their larval stages. Breaking windows of business is called vandalism.

Agilm

buy gucci china for promotion code gucci 2010 collection to get new coupon

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hot Shots