Sit down, Comic

What's a comic's job? Number one job is to be funny. But too often, stand-up and TV comedians decide they want to be a social influencer. They seem to confuse sarcasm in aid of a political stance with being humorous. It doesn't work. How much "ally-ship" can a good joke survive?

Preaching is inherently non-amusing. You, Stand-up Comedian, are heir to a long line not of preachers but of the opposite. You represent the begging-to-differ folks. Your forebears are clowns, jesters and jocose performers for royal courts in which kings and queens had to be amused -- but not openly challenged. 

Court jesters got away with saying the unsayable, the unpopular, by cloaking it in word-play and subversive artifice. Too often today's comics want to be social commentators and influencers: they're talking to their tribe. So they don't subvert ("turn under"), they parrot the correctness slogans of the tribe. 

But that's no surprise. since mainstream media, TV specials and comedy clubs want comics to please a hip, "woke" crowd. So the comic seems to feel safe focusing their act on personal grievance, since a grievance culture is what we now live in and people relate to it; audience members curate their personal brands of victimization. 

What a distance the comics have come from their jesting antecedents, whose role was to challenge prejudices, not to follow the crowd -- but to challenge cleverly, subtly, with double-entrendre. Sadly, stand-up today mostly rises only to single-messaging, confusing propaganda with humour, and reacting to the threat of cancel-culture. When that fear rules, it's better for the comic to sit back down.

It was more entertaining when comic-as-social-critic lampooned and laughed at the prevailing message, the "right thought" of the moment. The comedian is not supposed to prop it up. Let the social-improvers do that, the self-appointed dictators of values.

It's a cultural loss when the comedy community joins that crowd, because we need humour more than ever to play its subversive role in boosting mental health. Transgressive laughter heals; correctness fosters anxiety. So do your traditional job, Comedians -- transgress!

It's better than merely parroting correctness, or being a weepy fish shoaling with the grieviance crowd. 

                   

See also: "The Comic in Tragic Times" -- https://satiricalscene.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-comic-in-tragic-times.html

The Poop-Up Art Show by J.M.W. Turder

The Anti-Dog lobby of Saanich BC has set up an activist art display by J.M.W. Turder. It features misty seaside paintings (scenes sans chiens, of course), plus a large central sculpture made of dried dog and cat turds. On-leash anti-dog "keep 'em out of parks" activists, joined by "keep cats indoors" activists, have been busily collecting desiccated dog and cat feces. The artist fashioned them into a fetching sculpture -- in protest against fetching by dogs of any sticks on beaches.

Unfortunately for the Poop-Up artist, someone mistakenly donated dried-out raccoon poop. A local turd-nerd noticed and attacked the anti-pet activists for misrepresentation of mammalian identity groups. 

A counter-art show in the style of Whistler is being planned by dog-walkers who dog-whistle their dogs very successfully at parks and beaches, and think it's the City Councillors who should be kept on a leash. 

"I don't want to have to read a 50-page Bylaw every time I take a stroll with Fido," says one citizen. 

She won't have to worry about the Poop-Up Art Show though, because the Health & Sanitation Bylaw has  banished feces from all indoor spaces. Freedom of Expression activists are protesting that one, but it's too late -- droppings-in at the gallery have dropped off due to atmosphere of municipal contentiousness.  

Trouble makers pictured here:       

       

                                  

      

    

Why is AuduBON now considered AuduBAD?

John James Audubon (1785-1851) was a mixed-race (French/Creole) son of a West Indies planter and slave owner. Growing up in France he became a painter. Birds were his specialty and his passion. At 18 he moved to North America,  eventually becoming an art teacher and professional portraitist of people and of birds. His avian drawings were well-received in Scotland and London, then published in book formats with text 1831-39 and now universally recognizable. Later Audubon moved to New York and brought out more bird books in partnership with other ornithologists, which led to the use of his name by the first Audubon Society in 1896.

Many regional and national Audubon Societies were formed, but as John Audubon has in recent years been called a racist white-supremacist, by 2023 many of the societies had dropped his name. Others haven't, because to them the name "Audubon" stands for conservation, not racism.

Plant and animal names derived from the names of those who first described them (genus and species nomenclature devised by Carl Linnaeus), have also come under attack. Many naturalists involved in description and nomenclature have been accused of "colonialism". 

But it isn't only individuals coming under attack; Science is as a whole. We'd expect scientific classification to be above or outside of identity politics ... but it's not allowed to be. Nothing is. Science, learning and study may no longer be a-political. Everything has to be absorbed by the Culture Wars. 

Many European naturalists whose names were attached to plants and animals became "colonials" when 18th - 19th century shipping technology made it possible to travel the world collecting specimens from distant regions which contained earlier settlers, the ab-original ones (the Latin prefix "ab" meaning before). "Our ancestors had already discovered those plants and animals", say their descendents. Of course they must have, but they didn't devise a scientific classification system for them -- they hadn't devised written language at all. The Linnean system is about species themselves and their biological descent, not about the people who brought the specimens from the field to the laboratories of Europe (where the microscope had also been invented, which made detailed description possible). 

Like other aboriginal people, in Celtic lands the pagana ("women of the countryside") knew all about native herbs and their properties for good and ill, health and disease. Plants, roots, leaves and berries could heal, or poison. Pagana, knowing which was which, were powerful and others might revere or fear them. Accordingly they were called wiccans, druids or witches. They were anonymous like the native peoples of the New World ... but the official classification of species was done later by biologists. It was never about race-politics.

Yet now, not only are Audubon, Linnaeus, and specimen collectors black-listed; the names of plants, birds and animals themselves are being laundered by Correctness. There are offenders in your own garden that you may have to re-name, or dig up. No longer will you be able to host fuschias (named after German botanist Leonhart Fuchs) or dahlias (named for the Swedish botanist Anders Dahl). And abandon your forsythia, named after the 18th century Scottish horticulturalist William Forsythe, and your gunnara, after Johan Erntegunnerus, the Norwegian bishop who compiled Flora norvegica, 1766-72.

Bannish any Clarkia you host, named for Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. But would your Echeverria be okay, named after Mexican botanist/artist Echeverria y Godoy? He drew the plants of Mexico and perhaps kept any views on slavery to himself. He might fare better than John Audubon. Lady Sarah Amherst, like Audubon an ornithological artist, painted her namesake-pheasant (and other) illustrations while living in India: terribly colonial. But no doubt "Joe Pye Weed", a lushly-purple pollinator-attractant, will be allowed to keep its name, as Joe Pye was a Mohican chief born in the northeast US in the 18th century.

There's a Cooper's hawk, a Harris hawk, and a Wilson's warbler -- common names all, so who knows which are infamous, and what for? How about the Rivoli hummingbird and the Anna's hummingbird, named for the Duke of Rivoli and his wife Anna? Do the name-censors know for what crimes they might have their names struck off the bird list? Or why an American Quaker naturalist and a Surgeon-General should be?

How far will this censorship go, we might ask? We can assume that in the present heated climate (societal, not planetary) it will spread like dandelion weeds. But Audubon Societies are conservation societies, and we should ask, given that 29% of all Earth's species are facing extinction, which is more urgent -- species-conservation, or race-activism? 

In any case, for many peace-loving gardeners uninterested in the Culture Wars, a dahlia will always be a dahlia and a fuschia always a fuschia. 

Passing the Parcel of Privilege

Remember the children's party game "pass the parcel"? A much-wrapped gift is passed around a circle of kids sitting on the floor; each one takes a layer of wrapping paper and ribbon off the gift and then passes it on. The person who ends up with the last layer unwraps, and "wins", the gift. S/he is usually meant to share it with the whole group (it's often a box of candy).

Are we playing the Gift of Privilege game, as adults? Who gets to be "privileged" now? It was originally (allegedly) white men, then all white people, all educated people, and eventually all races and nations were vouchsafed "equal rights" according to late-20th century western liberal-humanitarian values. 

But then, some identity groups claimed that this was only window dressing and that some groups were still more privileged than others. Black people, brown people, aboriginals, disabled people, trans-sexuals and a proliferation of other "identities" now clamoured for not equal but special rights. Equal rights were no longer an ideal, and "people" were no longer who we thought they were: they were not ethnic groups but "people of colour", not genders but "birthing persons" not women but "persons with vaginas" (though confusingly, not always ...) People were not physically or mentally handicapped but "differently abled". Then there's Non-binary people, Two-spirit people ... in short, there's no longer any "we" in "we the people".

This Pass the Parcel of Privilege game is the new infantilization, and it's gotten out of hand, as children's games tend to. Children start by agreeing to rules but end up howling "that's not fair" when they don't perceive themselves as winning. Now that attitude has invaded the world of universities (that speaker can't speak here), of government and corporate offices (follow DEI or your DEAD to this employer), and of media (take a look at current Submissions Guidelines of book publishers and magazines). The rules of academic, professional, public and media activities are in constant flux, depending on which participant howls "not fair" the loudest this week.

Remember when some decided that literacy and the existence of the "literati" was elitist? Elitist (from the French) simply means "chosen". Society's always going to make, and disagree about, choices. At present we've chosen a new elite army for the Culture Wars. These are the troops of the culture-cancelati. It looks like this uncivil war will be a long one. The fact that it will soon be fought by out of control Artificial Intelligence will only increase the casualty rate among independent-minded liberal-democratic classically-educated humanitarians.

Insensitivity Training Improves Workplaces

Sounds counter-intuitive? No. When employers tell you they are going to build trust -- mistrust them. "Corporate team-building" uses Sensitivity Training, which aims to promote diversity even as it enforces uniformity. Never trust a thing that is actually being its opposite. Better to do the real opposite: Insensitivity Training.

How would that work? It would do what 19th C investigative journalist & magazine editor Ida Tarbell recommended: practice not minding things that you can't change anyway. In the workplace, stop minding that everyone's not the same. Some will be a pain, some delightful, some in-between: diversity. 

1. Resist group-obsessing about skin colour, ethnicity, and diverse ableisms.

2. Forget "identities".

3. Drop the word "racism" (especially after the adjective "systemic"). Also drop "harm", "triggering" and "stigma".

4. In the name of freedom of expression, appropriate whatever you like. (Let's call it intersectional creativity.)

5. As far as respect is concerned, respect the right to privacy.

6. Let no manager harass and bully you into giving up your right to introverted non-participation in group whining and parroting.

7. Understand that the core of democratic liberal humanistic civilization is acknowledgement of other people's right to express opinions you despise. Then, ignore them. (You'll get better with practice.)

8. While it is unkind to express hate, there are times when hearty dislike is unavoidable. 

9. Forget micro-aggression, make your just aggressions adult-sized. Share them when appropriate, and then retreat into dignified silence.

10. Don't get drawn into competitive victim-narratives.

11. Embrace the Enlightenment ideal of merit. Who wants to live in a shabby, meritless world of self-obsessed equitable mediocrity?

12. Claim your right to walk away from offensively invasive staff "training" meetings to the safety of your own desk. 

Let's let the Sensitivity Elephant leave the room

The Haunted Car

Some homeless people live in cars or vans. It's more cosy and private than a tent on the street, but are they living in a haunted vehicle? Those ones are the recent models. 

Some low-income folk drive old cars, with their lovely old atmosphere. You can roll up the window, switch on the analogue radio, cruise along, enjoy the view, dog in the passenger seat, backpack in the back ... 

By contrast, new vehicles which are to be eventually government-mandated, are haunted. Nothing comes out of the exhaust pipe, and everything going into the car is digital and monitored: haunted by ghostly digital spies. 

Electric means demon-filled. E-car spy devices know (and tell authorities) by "global positioning" where you are, and where you've been. They know when you got into the driver's seat, when you got out, where you got charged up, what sites you listened to online, who you texted, whether you drank alcohol, whether you exceeded the speed limit. Eventually, will police agencies be able to lock your door and stop your engine remotely? Who needs an old-fashioned police chase when you can be arrested by remote?

It's bad enough for those living in high-tech houses bristling with digital devices (spy techware smuggled in under the label of "convenience"); soon we'll be forced to drive demonic cars as well. Ghouls and evil apparitions will travel abroad -- as our stowaway passengers.

🎃 🎃 🎃

For a description of the Digitally-Haunted House -- a story: 

https://treewatchvictoria.blogspot.com/2022/10/haunted-house-on-digital-halloween-night.html

Here's a tale of the old-fashioned ghost:   https://www.shorthumour.org.uk/10writersshowcase/everyday.htm

Oh no ... it says here we're being replaced by computers!

Remembering Librarianship Past

 What has happened to the time-honoured scholarly side of librarianship? Even in the 1980s, at the UBC School of Librarianship there was still an assumption that librarianship had something to do with books, reading, literacy and scholarship. There was recognition of the historic role of public libraries in extending knowledge free of charge to the populace. Libraries were agents of democracy, free speech, and equal access to information. 

And now, in the 2020s? Judging from the Agenda of the Burnaby Public Library’s Board, libraries are no longer distributors of diverse information but arbiters of “misinformation”. They appoint themselves judge and gatekeeper of what the public should be allowed to read, in print and on-line.

Some libraries have or intend to have Social Workers on staff, as well as extra security staff prepared for “trauma-informed incidents” in the branches. They used to provide research material about drugs and addiction, now they provide the drugs  – onsite. They provide “safety”: safe spaces for the racialized, indigenous, those in need of “equity, diversity and inclusion”, those feeling “harmed” by other people’s ideas, and those needing a whole alphabet to define them (2SLGBTQIA … etc…) but not necessarily the alphabet used by the literate reader.

The public library is now much concerned with mental illness, but in its early days it was a zone of mental health, being a quiet peaceful place where patrons could wander among book shelves, calmly peruse a newspaper, borrow a book from the magical trove of novels, verse, and sundry non-fiction. Every citizen had access to the haven of literature in peaceful civil surroundings – a blessed retreat for those living in crowded quarters or blighted urban ghettos. 

Now the space for books has shrunk, while libraries find space (and budgets) for “non-traditional resources” such as video games, juggling kits, blood pressure cuffs, bike repair kits, radon detectors, vehicle diagnostic scanners, and ukuleles. Seriously. And this despite the fact that fully 48% of Canadians have inadequate literacy skills (according to the Conference Board of Canada). Instead of fretting about non-traditional resources and “non-binary” culture, why don’t libraries concern themselves once more with the literacy/illiteracy duality, and resources for bridging it?

As for novels, librarians now approach them with fear and suspicion in case they harbour non-correct thought or ideas that make others feel “triggered”. To trigger readers is the reason a writer goes to the effort of writing a book in the first place: to trigger imagination, new ideas, open-mindedness. Maybe, instead of appointing themselves the judges and censors of books, librarians should simply stock them all and let readers make up their own minds about them. Never mind "non-traditional resources" – diverse reading is what their taxpayer-based budget is for in the first place.

It’s time for public libraries to return to their core role as protectors of free speech and to be run by librarians, not social workers, not climate action leaders, not thought-police and anti-misinformation crusaders. The public are smart enough to figure out the information wars for themselves – if they can read. According to Statistics Canada, 49% of adult Canadians read below high-school literacy levels – immigrants, indigenous and low-income being the lowest. These are the very groups the library "social work" and mental health mission is particularly targeting. So both schools and public libraries are failing to deliver on their core responsibility: supplying books and advancing literacy.