The Republicans, still smarting from their losses in the 2008 elections, have taken a new stance. Gone are the Bush I and II philosophies of ‘Compassionate Conservatism’. The new motto is ‘Cold-Blooded Conservatism’. This new attitude will focus on further crushing the working and middle class with less rights and diminished wages, which they’ve been doing anyway, just now they won’t smile and pretend they aren’t anymore.
Gone will be the pretense that they are concerned with the average person and instead will be forthright about their steamrolling over America both legally and financially.
Some conservatives have even more extreme viewpoints. A few Republicans want ‘Carnage Conservatism’, especially amongst NRA members. Arnold Schwarzenegger has spoken out for ‘Clobbering Conservatism’. A few scary ones want ‘Castration Conservatism’ and ‘Cauterizing Conservatism’. The idea of ‘Cut-throat Conservatism’ also has followers.
Detractors say it all adds up to ‘Cement-head Conservatism’.
Fenton: Nice that you could drag up a supporting citation from someone who died in 1906…. Maybe if you’d have quoted Leonard Plinth-Garnell it would have been more appropriate.
Maybe if Garnett had lived to see two world wars, the russian revolution, AIDs, etc, his sense of satire would be more mature.
If this were true, then the essence of satire would change from reader to reader. If a reader found something not to have humour, then, by the same token, it could not be satirical. How absurd!
A Clockwork Orange is a great satire, and if the truth be known, when it isn’t scaring the HELL out of you, it is tremendously funny.
The key to satire is the use of wit, as in insight and intelligence. To imagine the purpose of satire is only to make you smile and laugh, is to think that the purpose of wine is to make you drunk.
Satire is usually humourous to everyone who isn’t the object of the satire. So if you don’t get it, maybe you are IT!
~Rev Mike
“Satire, in its literary aspect, may be defined as the expression in adequate terms of the sense of amusement or disgust excited by the ridiculous or unseemly, provided that humour is a distinctly recognizable element, and that the utterance is invested with literary form. Without humour, satire is invective; without literary form, it is mere clownish jeering.”
Richard Garnett, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edition, Vol. XX, p. 5. Chicago, 1959; quoted on page 1 in “Satire, Theory and Practice,” edited by Charles A. Allen and George Stephens, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California, 1962.
Dave, that’s called a disanalogy. It would be a good point if it in any way applied. To suggest none read the article is beyond incorrect, it’s plain foolish.
Luckily he fell asleep in the middle of his post, which is fairly typical due to the average age of conservatives. Poor ol’ dear just got tuckered out. :p
P Beckert bring up a very good point about satire. I would add to that a question: if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to provide a satirical description does the tree make a sound? ZZZZZZZZZ
P. is correct. Satire is the process of using wit to examine a subject and bring about change or improvement. Wit can be interpreted as any tool in the arsenal to include even personal invective. Some of the best satirical works in English have ended in depressing, scary themes. Humor is a great tool, but it isn’t a panacea. Sometimes satire is only effective when it induces indignation, scorn, or even rage. The sad part is when people on both sides of an argument interpret the satirical as factual. Well, actually, that’s funny sometimes….
~Rev
Not that everyone here doesn’t already have the ability to look this up, I took the time because it settles at least one issue in these posts and that is “whether or not this particular article, written as satire, needed to tickle anyone’s funny bone.”
According to the definition of satire, which is “1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn,” this piece of satire holds up very well under the definition. In fact, it can be argued that this particular article is a very good example of what political satire is and should be.
Although, Fenton erroneously implies that humor must drive political satire, I must disagree. And, for the record, I found the article amusing.
I might add that in my mind, there isn’t much that is more terrifying, unAmerican and anti-freedom than the image of Joe McCarthy.
It is hard to be satirical about politics at times. Today there are a number of extreme positions that are creeping into the mainstream, especially on the right. If you don’t see the humor in this article, it may be that the truth no longer mirrors reality and hyperbole is becoming the norm. I guess what is satirical here is the idea that the reality is just as scary as any fiction one could create. The true definition of satire isn’t to make us laugh, but to cause us to take a second look at things we often take for granted and forget to examine more closely.
I appreciate Fenton’s tone but his comments are peculiar. This story has not turned away readers. In fact quite the opposite. Even if it boils your blood you have to admit you can see why others would find it funny.
As for me taking a heavy editorial hand, well that would be unfair and un-American. Free presses here baby. Notice we also ran a piece today on debating progressives? I donLt find it funny or terribly meritorious, but the author has a voice and he needed it to be shared.
And you know satire doesn’t have to be laughs, it just has to make a point and rise some hackles… so, um, job well done I ‘spose.
One doesn’t have to be a liberal to see the hard edge the conservatives have developed lately. The term liberal is a knee-jerk, superficial, Ann Coulter type way of identifying someone in order to make it easier to dismiss them or typecast them much like the ‘witches’ were so labeled in Salem. Mash headed I guess is what happens when one ones head on too many times into cement heads.
The article is heavy handed and fenton does make a balanced, fair statement. As to whether it is funny or not is in the eye of the beholder.
“Cement-head Conservatism” is that kinda like Block-headed Conservatism”?
And what exactly is a mash-headed liberal?
I do not mean to be cruel, but … this just isn’t funny. There’s no wit here, no humor, certainly no satire that I can see.
I’ve read some good pieces on the site since I started looking in. Other bits, not so good. But that’s normal when so much is being posted. Quality of the writing varies. Humor levels vary. Contributors post 500 words that should have been pruned to 200. All of this, I understand.
But contributors can’t post political rants and call them satire. It diminishes the site. It’ll cost GlossyNews readership and hits.
Politics isn’t driving this comment. I don’t care if you do a number on Bush or Obama–as long as humor drives it, the take isn’t banal, the writing is reasonably sharp, and verbosity is verboten. Maybe another way of saying it is, if your main purpose in posting articles is to vent, to score political points, well, that’s going to come through. Humor shouldn’t be an afterthought on a satire site that’s trying to come up in the world.
I’ve stated personal opinions here. If you disagree with them, I won’t be offended. I hope that you are not offended by my attempt at constructive criticism.
It is the mash-headed liberals!!!!!!!
i think this is all crap
You’re right; cold blooded. I say it is time to get rid of the republicans. Those nasty buggers are about perform the ultimate stab in the back. As if no one knew it was coming, The WH is now floating a bipartisan commission to reduce the federal borrowing. Sounds great right? Well, after all their posing the republicans are going to use this opportunity to help the dems monitize the debt resulting from passing health care reform and economic stimulus bills. Dems and reps are a two part formula and it’s all about big government! Just like dems the republicans have no principles except to get re-elected and sponge off of ever increasing big government; your tax dollars. The privileged few are the only ones that ever benefit.