Ever attended a standup comedy show? The Jokester is on stage with a mic in hand. She’s pacing back and forth, eyes cast downward, maybe shooting a furtive glance at the teleprompter, or otherwise trying to conjure the next lines of her delivery all on her own. Either way, when eventually that next Funny Thing enters her brain, the first thing that happens is a constellation of motor neurons fire. This causes her mouth and tongue and vocal chords to activate in a just-so way, producing a sound wave in air, which is detected by the eardrum of the listener, there converted into a mechanical impulse, followed by conversion in the cochlea to an electrical impulse, which is conducted along the auditory nerve to the brain stem (initial processing), and from there relayed through the thalamus and on to the temporal lobe where it is finally – finally! – converted into the meaning of the Funny Thing spoken. Phew! I bet you thought hearing was simple.
What happens next? Pop quiz
A. You cry
B. You laugh
C. You cheer, like when your team scores a point
D. You experience a profound feeling of dread
E. None of the above
The correct answer of course is B. When someone tells a joke, unless you don’t find it funny, or don’t get it, you laugh (or chuckle, whatever, depending on the concentration of the Funny Thing. Because let’s face it, just like Love, Comedy is a drug). Hold this thought.
Now let’s turn our focus to an apologist for tRump. Say he accepts an invitation to participate on a prime time CNN news show, to give his take on the show’s topic du jour, namely: An assessment of presidential readiness for office. He’s joined on this panel by five hostile pundits, all of whom are all ideologically opposed to tRump (and by association, to our apologist as well). In this context, we’ll call the apologist the token republican punching bag. Feel free to imagine his appearance however you’d like. He and the five pundits are seated around a long and wide, boomerang-shaped, see-through glass table. Seated at one end of the table is a middle-aged, attractive black woman, necklaced in a plain string of pearls, who holds a law degree from a credible college and has professional creds working as a DA in under-served communities in Louisiana, and is said to have modeled her career on the same of VP Harris’ in California; seated next to her is another woman, white, also attractive, freshly primped in makeup, a young up-and-comer in the punditry circuit who’s cut her teeth as an embedded reporter to the Assad atrocities in northern Syria, so she’s come to understand the importance of a clear-eyed commander in chief in matters of foreign policy; next to her we have the roly-poly boomer, now a lecturer in academia, who’s old enough to recall he served as an advisor to an advisor to the Clinton administration, oh, and he’s also co-authored some bestsellers about politics; next to him we have the show’s lead, an attractive, high-cheek-boned news anchor, recently promoted to the role for her uncanny ability to cut to the heart of any issue and bring out the best of her guests through bitingly challenging questions – she’s dressed professionally in a blouse, jacket and skirt, with her stocking’d legs strategically crossed and visible through the glass tabletop, where she can be seen distractedly dangling a stylish nude pump; to her right is a retired military general wearing the jacket of his rank, replete with insignias running the length of his arm, staring directly at the camera, steely-eyed and humorless; and lastly, to his right, as if exiled from the discussion, our republican punching bag. Having a two-hundred-fifty pound, retired, four-star general who’d served multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, seated between the punching bag and the show’s lead is seen as no coincidence.
This is all made up by the way. You should not have the impression I’ve described a real CNN panel of pundits and guests. OK, with the table set, let’s move on.
After a commercial break the camera focuses on the lead. After she issues the boilerplate caution to viewers – that some viewers may be disturbed… – she queues several clips taken from tRump’s recent stump speeches. The panel turns to watch the clips on the studio monitor, the same thing TV viewers watch. Once the clips finish, focus returns back to the studio where all five pundits are aghast, their heads bowed and shaking in disgust. The punching bag is unmoved, stoic. The lead finally raises her head and turns to face the punching bag, and puts the questions to him, “Are you not horrified by this misogynistic bile that tRump spews at his rallies? Do you really think this is consistent with the character we want our president, the commander in chief, to possess?“
The punching bag straightens in his chair, casts a disappointed glance at each of the pundits, pauses briefly, then turns again to look at the lead. He smirks and says, He was joking!
You instantly see the problem with that answer, right? We’ve just reviewed the basic biology of a Joke as it passes from one brain into another, and the typical emotional response the average hearer of said joke would have. And the answer was not C. (cheer). And yet, when tRump spews at his rallies – I love women! Why I’m going to be the Bestest Protector of Women Ever. I’m going to protect them good and hard (whether they like or not) – how did His Followers respond? Like it was a joke? No, they cheered, uproariously they cheered. So unless His Followers are biologically atypical human beings, and I’ve no reason to presume they are atypical human beings in terms of their basic biology, then tRump could not possibly have been joking there. An audience doesn’t cheer when they hear a joke. To hear tRump’s promise that he’ll be the Grand Protector of women – like it or not! – and respond by cheering, that is consistent with approval of a point tRump scored, not the feeling of amusement. Cheering and laughter have very different emotional activators. And that’s a statement of biology, not prejudice.
But our (hypothetical) panel of very serious pundits at CNN didn’t swing when slow-pitched a softball. Why not? When the republican punching bag declared tRump was merely joking about what he spewed about women, a couple of them may have rolled their eyes, sure, but that was it. Why on earth did no one on that panel quickly respond as I did here? Why acquiesce like that when, surely to a one, each of their bullshit detectors was pegging? I hope it wasn’t due to a misplaced nod of collegial respect for a fellow pundit. Good grief, the man made a claim that was unequivocally false! That’s professional misconduct undeserving of anyone’s respect. He makes a fool of you, and all you do is abide it with a disapproving eye roll. Seriously, that’s it? You wouldn’t see the liberal punching bag on FOX’s The Five skate by unmocked were she to dismiss as a joke some Democratic candidate’s nonsense. No, to a one they’d be champing at the bit to have their turn with her. I am not a fan of allowing others’ putrid ethics guide my own, but for chrissake in a battle of wits try arming yourself next time CNN.
I recently heard what sounded like a credible report that the Joe Rogan Experience podcast has more subscribers than CNN & FOX combined. In addition to podcasting, Joe Rogan is also a comedian. Joe’s jokes make comedy club audiences laugh. I’ve personally watched only a couple of those performances online, though I feel confident that not once has his audience ever cheered when he cracked a joke. Whereas his breezy interview style on his podacst has gained him a gazillion likes, the online equivalent of a cheer of approval. Audiences respond differently to Joe depending on the context of his performance. On his podcast he is respectful of his guests, some say to a fault. Yet when he hosted tRump and challenged tRump’s belief that he won the last election, Joe laughed at tRump. He laughed because tRump is joke. I did not laugh when later Joe endorsed tRump. I also did not cheer. The human emotion of anger has different triggers entirely.
Unhappy about Trump being elected, I’d wager, Rod. Why so? Is it Trump’s character, or lack thereof? Or Trump’s perceived agenda as he takes the presidential reins, again? Would you have preferred Harris and the Dems progressive/socialist policies to become further entrenched in the minds of the American people? I’m cautiously optimistic about what Trump may be able to accomplish in dismantling the federal government bureaucracy down to a size that does not bleed Americans’ pockets dry.
Caution inlookers, some Tough Love ahead…
There can be no one with even the vaguest familiarity of my writing on this blog for the past ten years who can possibly have any lingering misunderstanding on where I stand re: the bankrupt character of that Human Stain headed for the white house. And yet, your question – smh. I respectfully direct your attention to the Search feature on this blog should you really need a review, John. Or, if you prefer allegories, you may want to read my recently posted parable, The Cock Short of that, I will not be repeating myself, I really have grown weary of taking the trash out
What’s next – “Or Trump’s perceived agenda as he takes the presidential reins?”
Oh my, where to begin with this… Agenda?!
Let me ask you something, John, you live in Michigan, right? The Orange One said Detroit was an unenviable city (that’s spinning it kindly) – while stumping in Detroit! You cannot make this stuff up, John. And this is the “man of character” who you suppose is going to make your (and other Michiganders) economic life better? He doesn’t give a flying f*ck about you or anyone else, only himself, and You Know It.
tRump and the Oligarchs are not your friends, John. Children believe in Santa Claus’ agenda, then they grow up.
Remember that campaign stunt at the McDonald’s, The Orange One handing delicious Golden Fries to a customer at the drive thru? That wasn’t really a stunt was it. It wasn’t cynical either. Not even the punching bag on CNN would say it was a joke. No, it was actually a metaphor for his “agenda,” wasn’t it. Free shit for everyone! Daddy Warbucks on steroids! I mean surely that’s what His Followers expect in order to become Great Again.
And you’re “cautiously optimistic” tRump and the Oligarchs will succeed. [cue the laugh track]
Again, tRump and the Oligarchs are not your friends, John. Or anyone else in Michigan or the rest of Flyover country. Most of which went for tRump; I mean talk about your irony. Ya’ll have been Duped.
Oh, and women, don’t despair! Donny and his Henchmen got something Big planned for you as well! Pregnant? Donny Warbucks gonna give the kiddies a free bag of Golden fries, Biggie-sized! Gonna make mamas and babies Grrreat Again! (whether they like it or not).
I mean “character”, we don’t want no stinkin’ character, we want the Orange One to make us Great Again!
Besides, isn’t the government interfering in the economy, you know, like manipulating prices on bacon, milk, eggs, gasoline, etc., isn’t that so much Socialist/Progressive pablum? Or worse, communist? [cue laugh track]
Speaking of Michigan, here’s something I found out
“Since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed, Michigan will receive $4.4 billion for transportation to invest in roads, bridges, public transit, ports and airports and roughly $213 million for clean water.”
That’s billion with a B, John. Most of that money will flow into the pockets of private contractors. But your dubious this a Good Thing for Michigan because the $1.9 Trillion (with a T!) plan was the work of a Socialist, right?
Had tRump and his Oligarchs got that thru Congress, His Followers would’ve been driving their pickups around town, MAGA flags waving behind, cheering, Told You So! But when a Democrat (“socialist”) does it… well.
I mean a thing is good or it’s not, John, right? Regardless of who done it?
BTW, Alaska got its share, too. Using it to build infrastructure up there, like a port in Anchorage to deliver food so The Folks don’t starve while they wait to be Made Great Again. And you know what else is not funny, MAGA republicans ridiculed the entire Infrastructure Bill!
I’ll stop there, leave you with this…
While We The Sheeple await the eagerly anticipated release of “The Best of tRump and the Oligarchs,” let me say in advance that should album sales fall well short of, you know, expectations, John, don’t you and the voters forget the election’s strict Absolutely No Returns policy (if you follow me). And in that case, don’t you be surprised when I find myself unable to resist snarking back at you and all The Hopefuls out there: Told You So.
Rod, I did not expect such a heated , or should I say “tough love,” reply. I only asked if you were of a mind to support Harris and her ilk rather than Trump. You express your disdain for Trump quite vociferously, and seem to suggest that any confidence, or should I say hopes, I, or any other individual have in Trump’s upcoming term in the office of president are misplaced. As for the Oligarchical individuals who are monetizing politicians and the oligarchs’ need for certain legislations in order to accumulate vast sums of money, at our expense, my disdain for them could not be higher. Do you not recall my writings at Improved Clinch over the years past?
You should be well aware that I find “democracy” rule by fools and simpletons, a system where fifty-one percent of “the people” can decide to rob the other forty-nine percent of the people and call it just because they “voted” with the fifty-one percent.
As for Trump himself and his character, or lack thereof, I could not care less about Trump’s character, I only care if Trump can make good on his intentions to gut government.
I will note that you seem unwilling to denigrate Harris.
And yes, I am in Michigan, still, but no longer in the city. I’ve permanently relocated to more northern latitudes where less of “the people” appeal to the government to solve their problems.
You actually asked three other questions, not just one. I answered. Snarky, yes. But I didn’t intend to direct any of it at you, personally, only tRump himself, his toadies, and his naive followers. Maybe at least you can understand how the millions of us who didn’t vote for him are a little on edge right now, fearful what this lunatic might do – what he’s actually promised, repeatedly, he will do – and cut us some slack. Already, today, in the news, we’re seeing evidence of the madness starting.
> I will note that you seem unwilling to denigrate Harris.
She doesn’t deserve denigration. That all deservedly went to tRump this time.
What would be the point anyway? Let the Democrats figure out the solution to their own problems.
I only cared to talk about the lunacy of the voters who put a convicted felon, twice-impeached election denier, malignant narcissist back in the White House, believing, naively, he is going to make them great again…somehow. Say what you want about Harris, she had none of those liabilities.
> As for Trump himself and his character, or lack thereof, I could not care less about
> Trump’s character,
Because there’s nothing there to care about.
Look, if you really believe a total absence of character is no problem so long as the president knows how to burn things down, and this one neat trick is going to improve the economic lot of you, your family, friends and community, I’ve got nothing else. Good luck with your cautious optimism. But eventually when you realize you’ve been swindled, I’ll be here – at least I hope I will – to remind you we told you character matters.
Morning, Rod, and thanks for your replies. A couple more questions, have you read Billy’s thoughts regarding election day? And what are your thoughts regarding Billy’s?
Here’s a link: It’s Election Day, 2024
My goodness, Billy Beck. I didn’t know he was still writing, albeit sparely these days it seems.
Talk about your memory lane. It choked me up a bit this morning, recalling our days together on USENET. Two friends of mine back in those days – what, 30 years ago now? – a husband and wife, I worked with them both in BigOil. He emailed recently to tell me his wife, the love of his life, soulmate, they did everything together, she died suddenly after a short illness. I was devastated. And now this. I’m feeling haunted by the past.
For as long as I e-knew Billy his politics was anarchy. Even as his ethics counseled reason over violence in human affairs. He was fastidiously honest about this in his postings to the forum, if not always clear how he imagined a reason-based anarchy, odd as that sounds, might avoid violence in its “implementation.” I appreciated his honesty.
I e-met many interesting and thoughtful people on that forum. I was an active participant for many years. We discussed all manner of things. When it came to politics, though, the Objectivists despised Billy for his anarchy. They believed in the ideal of an Objectivist government, ala Rand, a synonym for a form of government called Libertarian Minarchism (even as Rand, of course, despised that association). This idea or “theory” came to be referred to on the forum as Proper Government, dressed up as just the right pinch of government, staffed by ethical purists, the proper kind of people that proper Objectivists would approve of, and vote for. There’s a lot to ridicule there, of course, and I was one of those voices back then, along with Billy, who was often right there with me in the middle of the scrum. Of course anarchism as a “political system” is subject to ridicule as well.
The entire corpus of those arguments has been preserved in the Way Back Machine for posterity.
Billy wasn’t without his allies on the forum. There were some anarcho-capitalists there too (aka, ancaps). But even in their arguments, Billy spotted the contradiction with his principles. One of those arguments outlined how, by moving Law and Justice out of government hands and into private institutions, how that would end the monopoly of force the government enjoyed, also known as the rule of law by a show of hands – a phrase I think Billy may have coined himself to ridicule what he saw as The Will of the People insinuating itself, often by force, into the affairs of his life.
There were things to like about the argument, the burning down of the monopoly on force sure sounded good, but Billy was having none the idea of simply moving the chains of his oppressors into private hands. No self-loving anarchist would stand for that. Of course, anarchy wouldn’t get Billy what he wanted either, at least no historical examples of such were ever cited, but that fact didn’t seem to pester him much. Billy was a virtue ethicist, as well as an anarchist. Getting the Principles correct was really all that mattered to him, even – and maybe especially – when it came to politics. Getting rid of the extant problem of “force” in human affairs, regardless of how that force was institutionalized, held primacy for him, a first-things-first kind of approach. Consequences be damned (which is where I, frankly, parted ways with him).
Billy didn’t want to think or talk about “society.” He was all about the individual. He wanted the government off his back, pure and simple (who doesn’t!). But on the evidence of his writing, he could care less about “institutions,” unless it could be shown their formation was 100% un-coerced in any manner, and achieved solely through reason by its membership. Then that might be ok. Same for family, friends, colleagues, etc… all those human relationships should be un-coerced choices, left to the individual, based on the merits of the individual’s embodiment of the proper ethics. That might be ok too. And who would argue with any of that. But “Society?”
Society could go to hell. Society was a floating abstraction, void of any concrete basis in reality (to hear Billy define it), even a so-called “proper” government proposed by Objectivists couldn’t be trusted. Even the “improvements” promised by certain well-intentioned ancaps, with their “theories” for libertarian law, Billy scoffed at those too. He was wise. He was not going to be victim to having these ideas smuggled into his epistemology. He was good in that way at sanitizing his views. That was another thing I admired about him back then. He reminded me of the boat captain in Jaws, the lone genius running his fingers down a chalkboard to silence a roomful of community “experts” arguing over the best way to kill a man-eating shark.
Billy was an argumentative purist, the ancap’s “Armadillo” (as was I for a time, tbh). Because even by privatizing law and justice, for all its supposed promises to get America going with Libertarian-style law – a new “model” of rights protection Americans would welcome and supposedly be willing to pay for (in a “competitive” market) – that wouldn’t remove all force from human affairs. It would merely transform it into private hands! Billy spotted the “utility-first” approach in that argument right away, and he was having none of it. No rational anarchist is ever going to brook that. The only thing Billy felt he needed was his Objectivist ethics and his reason to live an unfettered life in freedom. If only all men in this world who would use force in their relations with him would piss off, go away, and leave him be, only then would he, and those who shared his ethics and worldview, experience the true promise of America.
That was the Billy I remember all those years ago. I liked his principles, for the most part. But I didn’t think then, or think now, they translate well into politics, that is, politics in the real world, you know, the world we all must live in, along with millions of other people. People who aren’t all virtue ethicists, or autodidacts who think in proper principles, who believe their own scrupulously better angels will carry them in their conduct of human affairs. Oh, that that were so. But it’s not so. And it’s not so because, for all the Russian Radical’s excellent insights into human nature, she never really did manage to span the Is/Ought gap with her otherwise persuasive books. And for me, that’s ok, because for the most part her upstream ethical arguments have a lot to recommend.
…
I read Billy’s thoughts on the election. I found it similar to the kind of stuff I remember him writing way back when. I found some morsels of agreement there. Overall, though, it had an apocalyptic tone to it, not unlike what I remember.
Although, bizarrely, he seems to hold out hope that tRump – “a New York lout that has a heart (yes, I am convinced)” – will be The One who finally lights the match to get the fire started? Maybe Billy sees today as America’s Reichstag moment. Hard to say, he can be a little obtuse at times. It’s also unclear to me whether he prefers a “disrupter” or an arsonist at this point in history.
But if I’m right, and he thinks tRump is good, then of course I find no agreement with his politics at all. And it’s weird, too, because I never knew Billy as an “incrementalist” in his politics. To the contrary, he wrote in absolute terms. So I must say it strikes me as curiously inconsistent that an anarchist would throw his support behind any government man whatsoever. Especially an ethically bankrupt one like the Orange One. I mean, I know you said you could care less about character, but nothing I recall about Billy would indicate he believes the same. To the contrary.
Love your wife and children, hold family and friends dear, enjoy the natural world, medicate as needed, get what’s yours from the government, pour a stiff drink and laugh at the absurdity of life in a universe that is cold, dark and uncaring.