Gin and Tacos is a political satire website. This is the first and foremost guideline for beginners. If you read something there or on the Facebook page that serves as kind of a Fight Club for over educated, underemployed, and cynical Gen Xer types that doesn't make sense to you, then you should seriously consider refraining from commenting on it. The boss's name is Ed, and I for one am tired of him having lecture the community when their friends and family show up and bleat about him being a communist, socialist, elitist, and whatever ad hominem attacks bubble up from random synapse firings, with no sense of humor. Or worse, take the satirical posts as sincere. However and wherever you come into a GnT post, be assured that most members of the community (at least the politically left-leaning ones, including me) were once outsiders as well. Surrender your pride and go to the back of the line if you want to be a part of this rogue's gallery. Be prepared for hazing and ridicule if you comment and didn't get the joke, they aren't laughing with you.
We all wish we had had that friend to take us aside and explain the joke while growing up. The eldest child in a family, the youngest kid on the block who was lowest in the pecking order, the transplant from another school, or any of a million reasons why you are the new guy/gal. What happens when you are exposed to some new form of art, humor, pop culture, or biological function? Usually it's not pretty. Pull up a chair stranger, and let ol' Uncle Kraken slip a sticky, slimy tentacle over your shoulder and explain what's what around the barnyard. Like Fight Club, we have a few rules for clean livin'.
1. Ed is smarter than you. Lay aside your ego and remember that fact before popping off an indignant or self-righteous quip in the tone of "well I never!" Or a comment to the tune of "this can't be serious" because no, it's not. His essays on the actual site are often serious, as well as insightful and necessary analysis into the evils of right wing government and political types but many of the Facebook posts are sturdily-constructed jabs at rural baby boomers who have been such a drag on progress. If these upset you, reexamine your life.
2. This is our clubhouse, we are under no obligation to dumb it down for you. If you don't catch on to the satire or obscure pop culture references, remember that Google is your friend.
3. Everyone has a sad story to tell. Your's isn't unique. Unless it will add something immediate and relevant to the thread, save it. There's a reason many of Ed's posts include a section about their relative's friend's roommate, etc. Anecdotal evidence is dubious at best. If you can't prove something, don't bother introducing it.
4. The humor here is often on the dark side. As evidenced by the sometime slogan of "Everything is terrible, all the time" employed by Ed and occasionally featured on GnT-branded merchandise. If you believe in a limitless future where things will be significantly better, stow that dream sunshine it's not going to do you any good here.
5. Be prepared to defend your arguments and be on the unpopular side at least half the time. About the only thread tying us together is the intelligent observation that we were too young to have made it in the old economy but too old to have prepared for the new. There is great comical significance to things like "retirement", "paying off student loans", "finding a fulfilling and prosperous career." Everything else is debatable.
6. You can comment but you can't publish original posts. If you have objections to this, see rule #1 above.
7. Remember, most of #1's posts are satire but the rest contain a heaping dollop of irony. There is very little that is straight-forward. Ed likes it this way to confuse the low-information trolls. See rule #1 and #2, political analysis does not need to be dumbed down to a childlike level just because cosmopolitan sophistication makes doughfacedonny's supporters' heads hurt.
8. If you see satire and immediately take offense because it sounds like you... Just leave, we don't want to deal with trolls. You'd be happier somewhere else.
9. Pop culture references have a pretty long shelf life here. If you recognized the Joker's voice in #8 you might be okay. Jack Nicholson's Joker that is.
10. #1's influences include H.L. Mencken, if you are familiar with Mencken's work, welcome. If you had to look up the name and cannot fathom why we need a voice like Mencken's (minus the racism and other 1920s vices) in this insane asylum of a republic, seek political engagement elsewhere.
So, depending on your circumstances, this list forms a baseline of introduction. And again, this is only for the impulse-control issues crowd that MUST. COMMENT. ON. ANYTHING. THAT OFFENDS. ME. IMMEDIATELY!
Showing posts with label intellectuals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectuals. Show all posts
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Open letter to Mr. Pazienza
Dear Chez,
I have been noticing your descent from simple grumpiness to downright tongue-tied furiosity on the Bubble Genius show lately and wanted to express a parallel to maybe help or at least provide some small measure of comfort during this time of crisis. Yes, the republic is in peril. Yes, the spectacle of brain-damaged conservatives pulling off stunt after stunt is disheartening. And yes, there is plenty of reason to believe this is the final plunge. Perhaps someone calling himself "The Gloomy Historian" is not the wellspring of hope to reassure you or your readers that all is not lost, but hear me out because this is certainly not the first time our country and democracy has so brazenly embraced self-destruction. "Darkest before dawn" may be a tired cliché, but in the story to follow it turned out to be the truth and dawn held for a half century, until we forgot the lessons of that dark time.
A while back I sent you a message comparing Bob Cesca and yourself to the subjects of my MA thesis, Arthur Schlesinger jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr respectively. While I certainly do not consider myself an expert in the conventional sense on any of you, I believe there are enough similarities to make a convincing comparison. I know Bob loves history in the same way Schlesinger did and both combine that love with their advocacy of the pragmatic liberal position and pursuit of truth. You, Chez, on the other hand run from the religious faith that gave Niebuhr strength despite your regularly voicing the realist view Niebuhr developed and even quoting his Serenity Prayer. I am not suggesting you slide on down to the Triple Rock and catch Rev. Cleophus James for some churching up (YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST... I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!). In fact, your secularism provides evidence that religion is not required to find an ethical and moral code to live by.
It was the 1920s and conservative regression and reaction were ascendant and practically unchallenged. After beating back the war preparedness measures of the Wilson Administration and defeating America's entry into the League of Nations, Republicans unleashed and enabled corporate power beyond their wildest dreams. Reinhold Niebuhr was on the outside looking in. After a stint as a four minute man, selling a war he did not fully believe in and turning his back on his German ancestry, Niebuhr was deeply disillusioned by a trip to war-ravaged Europe that humanity really was doomed. The theologian abandoned many of his Christian convictions of pacifism in the belief that democracy and liberty were ideas worth fighting and sacrificing for, and suffered the disappointment of being alone on a weak branch. Niebuhr felt the Great War was the chance for America to live up to its ideals at home and finally exercise a responsible involvement among the community of nations. Instead, we abandoned the world and turned inward for profit and "normalcy." It was a horrible time to be a reformer and Niebuhr's writings of the time reflect his deep cynicism of opportunity lost and the incredible selfishness of American elites. I hope Chez, that you can see parallels. America has a tendency to let us down.
America of the 1920s was the jazz and automobile wonderland talked about in too many textbooks, but it was also a land of vast inequality in wealth and power. Labor was practically a spent force, workers scrambled on their own for scraps. Radio allowed news and entertainment to enter American homes, but it also gave a platform to venomous preachers of hate such as Charles Coughlin and Aimee Semple McPherson if that sounds familiar. Debt lost its traditional stigma as materialism and marketing, those twin banes of the American reform spirit, became a metaphorical plague of locusts. And the dark shades of speculation were rearing their voracious mouths to consume and destabilize the economy years before the crash in another familiar refrain. Henry Ford famously remarked that "history is bunk" but his outlook was not shared by the neo-confederate revisionists in the academy and the KKK. Lynching, intimidation, hate over the airwaves, and all against the backdrop of "entrepreneurial" con jobs and snake oil salesmen running roughshod over the quaint ideas of freedom and democracy chasing that almighty dollar.
The big difference today seems to be that the crash did not slap people out of this crassness, nor did Americans become "good neighbors" or find solidarity in shared privation against uncaring power. As a prominent writer, speaker, and thinker Niebuhr played a role in turning the tide after unbridled capitalism vomited all over the city on a hill. It is not easy to pinpoint when the change from "untamed cynic" to Christian Realist occurred in Niebuhr during America's great crisis. But after preaching the folly of 1920s vices that culminated in Moral Man and Immoral Society he was able to channel the revelations about human nature into an ideology of leftist reform that eschewed idealism for pragmatism. Niebuhr even had a nemesis on the left that you, Chez and Bob, could easily understand. The feud between Christian Realists and the followers of John Dewey's philosophy may be largely forgotten today, but it had much of the intensity (though not the venom) of rivalry between Greenwaldian emoprogs and the Daily Banter today.
It may be a long shot from our contemporary point of view, but Niebuhr's frustration and triumph (his ideas influenced everything from the New Deal to the Civil Rights movement) give evidence for hope that the confused and divided Children of Light will eventually get their act together and prevail over the moneyed interests and Children of Darkness that know no law beyond their own self-interest. Or we can give up and follow your prescriptions for dealing with the NRA, but you'd be on your own for that one. I have no stomach for force anymore.
Sincerely,
The Kraken
I have been noticing your descent from simple grumpiness to downright tongue-tied furiosity on the Bubble Genius show lately and wanted to express a parallel to maybe help or at least provide some small measure of comfort during this time of crisis. Yes, the republic is in peril. Yes, the spectacle of brain-damaged conservatives pulling off stunt after stunt is disheartening. And yes, there is plenty of reason to believe this is the final plunge. Perhaps someone calling himself "The Gloomy Historian" is not the wellspring of hope to reassure you or your readers that all is not lost, but hear me out because this is certainly not the first time our country and democracy has so brazenly embraced self-destruction. "Darkest before dawn" may be a tired cliché, but in the story to follow it turned out to be the truth and dawn held for a half century, until we forgot the lessons of that dark time.
A while back I sent you a message comparing Bob Cesca and yourself to the subjects of my MA thesis, Arthur Schlesinger jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr respectively. While I certainly do not consider myself an expert in the conventional sense on any of you, I believe there are enough similarities to make a convincing comparison. I know Bob loves history in the same way Schlesinger did and both combine that love with their advocacy of the pragmatic liberal position and pursuit of truth. You, Chez, on the other hand run from the religious faith that gave Niebuhr strength despite your regularly voicing the realist view Niebuhr developed and even quoting his Serenity Prayer. I am not suggesting you slide on down to the Triple Rock and catch Rev. Cleophus James for some churching up (YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST... I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!). In fact, your secularism provides evidence that religion is not required to find an ethical and moral code to live by.
It was the 1920s and conservative regression and reaction were ascendant and practically unchallenged. After beating back the war preparedness measures of the Wilson Administration and defeating America's entry into the League of Nations, Republicans unleashed and enabled corporate power beyond their wildest dreams. Reinhold Niebuhr was on the outside looking in. After a stint as a four minute man, selling a war he did not fully believe in and turning his back on his German ancestry, Niebuhr was deeply disillusioned by a trip to war-ravaged Europe that humanity really was doomed. The theologian abandoned many of his Christian convictions of pacifism in the belief that democracy and liberty were ideas worth fighting and sacrificing for, and suffered the disappointment of being alone on a weak branch. Niebuhr felt the Great War was the chance for America to live up to its ideals at home and finally exercise a responsible involvement among the community of nations. Instead, we abandoned the world and turned inward for profit and "normalcy." It was a horrible time to be a reformer and Niebuhr's writings of the time reflect his deep cynicism of opportunity lost and the incredible selfishness of American elites. I hope Chez, that you can see parallels. America has a tendency to let us down.
America of the 1920s was the jazz and automobile wonderland talked about in too many textbooks, but it was also a land of vast inequality in wealth and power. Labor was practically a spent force, workers scrambled on their own for scraps. Radio allowed news and entertainment to enter American homes, but it also gave a platform to venomous preachers of hate such as Charles Coughlin and Aimee Semple McPherson if that sounds familiar. Debt lost its traditional stigma as materialism and marketing, those twin banes of the American reform spirit, became a metaphorical plague of locusts. And the dark shades of speculation were rearing their voracious mouths to consume and destabilize the economy years before the crash in another familiar refrain. Henry Ford famously remarked that "history is bunk" but his outlook was not shared by the neo-confederate revisionists in the academy and the KKK. Lynching, intimidation, hate over the airwaves, and all against the backdrop of "entrepreneurial" con jobs and snake oil salesmen running roughshod over the quaint ideas of freedom and democracy chasing that almighty dollar.
The big difference today seems to be that the crash did not slap people out of this crassness, nor did Americans become "good neighbors" or find solidarity in shared privation against uncaring power. As a prominent writer, speaker, and thinker Niebuhr played a role in turning the tide after unbridled capitalism vomited all over the city on a hill. It is not easy to pinpoint when the change from "untamed cynic" to Christian Realist occurred in Niebuhr during America's great crisis. But after preaching the folly of 1920s vices that culminated in Moral Man and Immoral Society he was able to channel the revelations about human nature into an ideology of leftist reform that eschewed idealism for pragmatism. Niebuhr even had a nemesis on the left that you, Chez and Bob, could easily understand. The feud between Christian Realists and the followers of John Dewey's philosophy may be largely forgotten today, but it had much of the intensity (though not the venom) of rivalry between Greenwaldian emoprogs and the Daily Banter today.
It may be a long shot from our contemporary point of view, but Niebuhr's frustration and triumph (his ideas influenced everything from the New Deal to the Civil Rights movement) give evidence for hope that the confused and divided Children of Light will eventually get their act together and prevail over the moneyed interests and Children of Darkness that know no law beyond their own self-interest. Or we can give up and follow your prescriptions for dealing with the NRA, but you'd be on your own for that one. I have no stomach for force anymore.
Sincerely,
The Kraken
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Who needs them?
I took the Kraken Hatchling to the Shrine Circus the other night. We had a great time seeing the acrobats, the tigers, the elephants, the clown, and his baby elephant/puppy. We ate popcorn, cotton candy, had a snow cone that has left my entrails green, and even got to ride on an elephant. Well the Hatchling did, I took pictures. A friend came along too, and despite being half my age I think he had an alright time. Mrs. Kraken was working so she couldn't make it but was glad we went.
So my friend, let's call him Rakdos, is a young man with a good heart who really wants to make a difference in the world. We were chatting quite extensively about "direct action," considering the chaos going on around us, and the ever present possibility of right-wing vigilantes within earshot I was a little apprehensive about it. The word "sabotage" even came up. Personally, I'm not a fan of that word, and even less for the frames it evokes. Maybe I'm just too old now to believe that any sort of violence will help our situation. In fact, I'm very worried that any destruction of property carrying even a whiff of leftist action will set off the powder keg of right-wing vigilantism and cause the random mass murders of innocents by psychopaths to focus into a directed effort of posses, hunting down any young radicals they feel like. Ergo, direct action of the Weathermen style is to be condemned and discouraged. Utterly futile I know, but until it is absolutely and irredeemably certain that our democratic system is irretrievably broken there is still a chance to make it work for the public good. Eeek! Is that a sliver of optimism showing? Quick! Get the net!
The other topic we discussed, briefly though it was far more interesting from my perspective, was intellectuals. Hence the title of this post. Obviously disdain for thinkers by right-wingers and especially authoritarians runs very high, but our exchange was on different grounds. Rakdos brought up a rap song called "You can't be neutral on a moving train" and was actually surprised when I told him that is something of a classic of dissident literature by the late historian/activist Howard Zinn. I cannot remember the exact exchange from then on and I want to be fair to Rakdos but his argument seemed to sum up as "what have they ever actually done?" Specifically he was referring to Noam Chomsky. Now, putting aside that Professor Chomsky actually did march, demonstrate and work vociferously toward ending the war in Vietnam, yes, his main contribution has been intellectual and theoretical. "What has he done?" In the abstract I suppose this is a good question. I rarely venture beyond the idea of spreading the knowledge of problems. Pick and rank issues, joust with individuals and try to change their minds through persuasion or at least debunk the incredible misinformation out there.
The question I pose is often framed as "what can we do?" Hence where Rakdos and I started talking, he missed going to a camp out in the woods to learn about and practice this elusive concept of "direct action" and fretted about the lost opportunity. The answer to my question is to withhold, boycott, or avoid elements of corporate power as much as possible. Turning off the spigot of money, labor, and attention to these totalitarian institutions seems the safest way to reduce their power and the power of their owners/managers. The economic elite is the wellspring of most of the problems in our world and it takes an incredible amount of money to keep their little game going. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
How I was first exposed to leftist activism was through the works of Jello Biafra, former lead singer of Dead Kennedys. His spoken word albums held a great deal of content and led me to like-minded individuals, helping to end some of the alienation and apathy I felt as a young crustacean. Biafra also referenced Chomsky, Zinn, and "the guy who runs The Baffler magazine." That of course was Thomas Frank, an historian and great chronicler of both ends of the right-wing "conservative" movement. I put that word in quotation marks because there is really very little this movement is trying to conserve, a better word is the authoritarian movement but no one wants to think of themselves that way in the same way that racists get quite annoyed when you call out their racism. Fifteen years later and I have moved from listening to punk rock to audiobooks of serious issues by real scholars. Perhaps I am an anomaly. Perhaps we really do need more direct action and less intellectualism. If a loud minority of authoritarians can catapult their leaders into positions to really wreck things, maybe what the larger society needs is a few dedicated miscreants to wreck the twisted desires of the corporate elite; democracy be damned.
Then again, maybe not. I just hope my friend Rakdos and others whose youth clouds the larger picture or makes problems old-schoolers like Zinn or Chomsky have been dealing with for decades seem so urgent do not do something they will regret. To be continued, I hope.
So my friend, let's call him Rakdos, is a young man with a good heart who really wants to make a difference in the world. We were chatting quite extensively about "direct action," considering the chaos going on around us, and the ever present possibility of right-wing vigilantes within earshot I was a little apprehensive about it. The word "sabotage" even came up. Personally, I'm not a fan of that word, and even less for the frames it evokes. Maybe I'm just too old now to believe that any sort of violence will help our situation. In fact, I'm very worried that any destruction of property carrying even a whiff of leftist action will set off the powder keg of right-wing vigilantism and cause the random mass murders of innocents by psychopaths to focus into a directed effort of posses, hunting down any young radicals they feel like. Ergo, direct action of the Weathermen style is to be condemned and discouraged. Utterly futile I know, but until it is absolutely and irredeemably certain that our democratic system is irretrievably broken there is still a chance to make it work for the public good. Eeek! Is that a sliver of optimism showing? Quick! Get the net!
The other topic we discussed, briefly though it was far more interesting from my perspective, was intellectuals. Hence the title of this post. Obviously disdain for thinkers by right-wingers and especially authoritarians runs very high, but our exchange was on different grounds. Rakdos brought up a rap song called "You can't be neutral on a moving train" and was actually surprised when I told him that is something of a classic of dissident literature by the late historian/activist Howard Zinn. I cannot remember the exact exchange from then on and I want to be fair to Rakdos but his argument seemed to sum up as "what have they ever actually done?" Specifically he was referring to Noam Chomsky. Now, putting aside that Professor Chomsky actually did march, demonstrate and work vociferously toward ending the war in Vietnam, yes, his main contribution has been intellectual and theoretical. "What has he done?" In the abstract I suppose this is a good question. I rarely venture beyond the idea of spreading the knowledge of problems. Pick and rank issues, joust with individuals and try to change their minds through persuasion or at least debunk the incredible misinformation out there.
The question I pose is often framed as "what can we do?" Hence where Rakdos and I started talking, he missed going to a camp out in the woods to learn about and practice this elusive concept of "direct action" and fretted about the lost opportunity. The answer to my question is to withhold, boycott, or avoid elements of corporate power as much as possible. Turning off the spigot of money, labor, and attention to these totalitarian institutions seems the safest way to reduce their power and the power of their owners/managers. The economic elite is the wellspring of most of the problems in our world and it takes an incredible amount of money to keep their little game going. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
How I was first exposed to leftist activism was through the works of Jello Biafra, former lead singer of Dead Kennedys. His spoken word albums held a great deal of content and led me to like-minded individuals, helping to end some of the alienation and apathy I felt as a young crustacean. Biafra also referenced Chomsky, Zinn, and "the guy who runs The Baffler magazine." That of course was Thomas Frank, an historian and great chronicler of both ends of the right-wing "conservative" movement. I put that word in quotation marks because there is really very little this movement is trying to conserve, a better word is the authoritarian movement but no one wants to think of themselves that way in the same way that racists get quite annoyed when you call out their racism. Fifteen years later and I have moved from listening to punk rock to audiobooks of serious issues by real scholars. Perhaps I am an anomaly. Perhaps we really do need more direct action and less intellectualism. If a loud minority of authoritarians can catapult their leaders into positions to really wreck things, maybe what the larger society needs is a few dedicated miscreants to wreck the twisted desires of the corporate elite; democracy be damned.
Then again, maybe not. I just hope my friend Rakdos and others whose youth clouds the larger picture or makes problems old-schoolers like Zinn or Chomsky have been dealing with for decades seem so urgent do not do something they will regret. To be continued, I hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)