Heh. Satire is satire... until it's your ox that's gored.
There has been a long email exchange amongst numerous milbloggers about a new skit over at The Onion. Watch it for yourself. You might want to note the advertisers.
In The Know: How Can We Make The Iraq War More Handicap Accessible?
I find as I get older, I'm losing my sense of humor.
That's not truly accurate. More accurate would be to say that as I get older, I've heard most of the jokes already, and they aren't that funny anymore, having lost their newness to me. But to a 20-something, they're still new and fresh and hilarious.
As ever, my parents get smarter as I get older. Hi Dad!
Gad, ever since Lenny Bruce broke the last barrier - pottymouth shock value - there ain't been much new in humor that isn't simply some form of scatology. Not that there aren't some excellent performers out there who can make it seem new and have the true gift of being funny without being a toilet in a brothel, even as they tell jokes that were old when Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata.
Heh. I had a classic education, didn't I?
Anyway, I like the Onion, generally. But here they gored my ox a bit.
I get it - they're mocking the fact that DoD has lowered some barriers to wounded warriors returning to full active service and even combat. I get the point.
What they miss is that THE WOUNDED FORCED THE CHANGE.
The "system," and some of the Generals and some of the Bureaucrats who inhabit it, wanted to process those guys and gals out of the service and into the ranks of the disabled, and let them be the VA's problem.
Those wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen instead wanted to continue to serve - and at the sharp end - and were, and are, determined to prove they could do so without being a risk to their fellow warriors.
They wanted to be with their buddies.
That's not so hard to understand, when you've been among 'em. It's apparently very hard to understand if you haven't.
I recommend the producers, writers, and actors in that skit go visit Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke and Balboa military medical centers and meet some of those guys and gals. And then go to Iraq and Afghanistan and meet some of the ones who've made it back to the fight.
Good satire is hilarious and useful as a tocsin against pugnacious stupidity.
Satire that misses the mark? That's just tacky. And starts to look pugnaciously stupid. And in this case, unintentionally and hopefully unknowingly mocks people who are going to great lengths to rise above the obstacles put in their way - and don't need to be mocked, however unwittingly, for their efforts.
There are others who are a bit annoyed as well.
Greta.
Laughing Wolf.
Mrs. Greyhawk.
Cassandra
Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure.
Bouhammer
And Chuck Ziegenfuss, wounded warrior, issues a real smack-down.
There has been a long email exchange amongst numerous milbloggers about a new skit over at The Onion. Watch it for yourself. You might want to note the advertisers.
In The Know: How Can We Make The Iraq War More Handicap Accessible?
I find as I get older, I'm losing my sense of humor.
That's not truly accurate. More accurate would be to say that as I get older, I've heard most of the jokes already, and they aren't that funny anymore, having lost their newness to me. But to a 20-something, they're still new and fresh and hilarious.
As ever, my parents get smarter as I get older. Hi Dad!
Gad, ever since Lenny Bruce broke the last barrier - pottymouth shock value - there ain't been much new in humor that isn't simply some form of scatology. Not that there aren't some excellent performers out there who can make it seem new and have the true gift of being funny without being a toilet in a brothel, even as they tell jokes that were old when Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata.
Heh. I had a classic education, didn't I?
Anyway, I like the Onion, generally. But here they gored my ox a bit.
I get it - they're mocking the fact that DoD has lowered some barriers to wounded warriors returning to full active service and even combat. I get the point.
What they miss is that THE WOUNDED FORCED THE CHANGE.
The "system," and some of the Generals and some of the Bureaucrats who inhabit it, wanted to process those guys and gals out of the service and into the ranks of the disabled, and let them be the VA's problem.
Those wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen instead wanted to continue to serve - and at the sharp end - and were, and are, determined to prove they could do so without being a risk to their fellow warriors.
They wanted to be with their buddies.
That's not so hard to understand, when you've been among 'em. It's apparently very hard to understand if you haven't.
I recommend the producers, writers, and actors in that skit go visit Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke and Balboa military medical centers and meet some of those guys and gals. And then go to Iraq and Afghanistan and meet some of the ones who've made it back to the fight.
Good satire is hilarious and useful as a tocsin against pugnacious stupidity.
Satire that misses the mark? That's just tacky. And starts to look pugnaciously stupid. And in this case, unintentionally and hopefully unknowingly mocks people who are going to great lengths to rise above the obstacles put in their way - and don't need to be mocked, however unwittingly, for their efforts.
There are others who are a bit annoyed as well.
Greta.
Laughing Wolf.
Mrs. Greyhawk.
Cassandra
Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure.
Bouhammer
And Chuck Ziegenfuss, wounded warrior, issues a real smack-down.
As I watched the video and read your post, I could see my Dad, he died 25+ years ago. But I could see him look at some of the nonsense that happened to me and feel his anger. Over time, the problems worked themselves out. My Father was literally a genius, his tested IQ was in the top 1% but there was nothing he could do for me. The fact of the matter is this, you reminded me of him in more ways than I can count.
Sorry, about some of the language, still THANK YOU!
Grumpy
Let's see if I've got it right.
"It's just a thang. Don't mean nuthin..." What does it mean? Well, "Don't" and "nuthin" are both negatives and the absence of a qualifier say, it means a great deal.
Grumpy
Our culture, society, whatever, has been barraged by active attempts to "gender norm" and feminize the young men growing up within it for a full generation now. Some of the success of that is obvious to see in much of our general population.
But, there's also a very hard core of very old school manhood in a bunch of the young men that grew up under that attempt to force a weakening.
I was rather amazed by some of the events that sprang up regarding recruiting during a war, volunteer response to increases in end-strength for our combat services and such.
One thing that really amazed me is something that is often not known by so many, even in military service. When the fighting was hardest and casualties were heaviest for the Marines in Al Anbar and Fallujah, the Commandant of the Marines had to issue two temporary stop orders. Stop recruiting for infantry MOS, stop allowing intra service transfers from other MOS to the infantry MOS. The harder things got, the more young men wanted to be where the fight was.
And then there were the stories coming out of theater about young men refusing evac for wounds. Stories of young men willing to violate medical orders and sneak their way back to their units that were neck deep in the hard fight. Stories of young men, and women, who received such wounds as they could legitimatly quit the service with a pension but fought tooth and nail to stay, not only in uniform, but prove they could still fight.
I sometimes wonder if we're not seeing the birth of an actual warrior class in our society.
In every war.
Whether it was the Ia Drang or Mogadishu, Port Salines or Heartbreak Ridge.
Bloody Pond to the Bloody Angle.
I could go on. It's why some people came back from Vietnam with 5 Purple Hearts, vice leaving when they had three.
We've always had a warrior class.
As the song says, "When we were needed, we were there."
Your post reminded me of a story about a wounded soldier I know who never got any attention for it, but had the same kind of determination. He and about half a dozen other guys in his unit had some pretty serious burns from a gas-fueled IED (fortunately armor, protected a lot of skin area0. After they were transported the Combat Support Hospital, he pulled a gun on the medical team. He was disarmed, but later led the men from his unit in a sneak out of the hospital and got on one of the buses on the base, complete with bloody bandages and guys on crutches.
They threatened the driver, who took them to their unit, where a very wise commanding officer finally talked them into accepting their medical fates. As the soldier told me later, 'Besides, the painkillers were wearing off and my head was hurting." (he had TBI from the explosion).
Or there was the special ops Master Sgt I knew in 2004 who was still having headaches from a "close call" with an explosion and was still deployed but said, "Like hell they're gonna take me away from my men," when I suggested maybe he should see a doctor.
And so on, and so on...
We see all the high-profile cases like the amputees who fight so hard, but among the combat troops that same "never say die" attitude is widely engrained, I believe.
You're right. It's always been here with us. But, I guess what caught me off guard was how much of it survived the cultural conquestors of the irrational left.
Oh, and as for pugnaciously stupid, that's my shtick.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34329
I found the story to be boorish, even for satire.
2 Thumbs down for the onion.
Deep down it's cruel.
Really. What we see here is the feeling of those targeted by humour. Here we see people we admire the military disabled as targeted. Normally it's others who get targeted. How many gay jokes are cruel? How many black jokes? How many jew jokes? How many disabled jokes? How many <insert your favourite rejected or different people here> jokes are cruel? How many of you laughed? We automatically laugh at the most difference we experience it's primitively natural.
Until you can empathise with the targeted you are blind to the cruelty of humour but now some of you can see it because you care deeply about the targets.
But there's the other side of humour, the healing side. Humour lightens the significance of faults real and percieved. For some reason some people have much difficulty laughing at themselves. But it's a good thing to do. Then we laugh at our mates and families. Then we laugh at others. You see instead of laughing at others we laugh with others.
Humour is two edged. Do you know how many doctors and nurses make jokes of the terminally ill, sick and even the dead? Look at the mechanisms. It's not nice at all but it's healing for them because without it the doctors and nurses would function less well in order to serve those very people they laughed at. Military people probably do similar as well.
Was the onion cruel? Sure were. Humour usually is. Were they wrong? Yes and no depends if you took their words seriously, but why take a comedy skits words seriously? Have they dared to belittle good people? Sure have humour does it all the time. They belittle all. To me the problem with the skit is it emphasises the negative cruel aspect while minimising the healing aspect. It's not quality comedy. Nor, however, do i see it as a big deal. I'm not sure i ever see comedy as a big deal.
Taking things like a comedy skit seriously is amazing odd to me.
Disabled Soldiers (and other miltary personel I keep forgetting some of you don't use the Soldier term) returning to work after recovery of their own free will is obviously fine. In fact I think it's fantastic because it dispells the irritating poor you paralysing bullshit all of us with disabilities cop and it shows disabled people can and do work and function more than adequately as long as the disablity is assisted or does not significantly degrade work performance.
Don't think the Onion can stop that.
Regarding the men and women that you all talked about, who have fought to overcome their injuries in order to continue wearing the uniform, and continue fighting alongside their buddies...I'm really in awe of these people. I'm not the teary sort but I'll be damned if I don't get a little watery in the eyes every time I hear about them. That level of dedication, courage, and honor is both moving and humbling. Ever notice that every movie in the theaters these past few years is some painfully stupid comic book superhero film? Aside from the fact that I find these things intensely boring, they're also sort of strange and grotesque...why do we make comic book characters our heroes when there are real live heroes all around us?
I agree with there being heroes all around us. In the military and beyond. I guess some like to believe in heroes that have special powers to do or fix any problem on the spot no matter how insurmountable or silly, real heroes are so much more human than that.
Did I call for a boycott? Did I demand (as others have) the video be withdrawn?
No. I pointed out one - as you age, what constitutes humor changes, and I pointed out that the skewer, in this instance, was aimed at the wrong target. And I had to have that in there in my clearly vain attempt to let the reader know that I really do know what satire is.
If the intent of satire is to both spoof and affect behavior (and it is, don't fool yourself) this spoof fails on several levels, and is actually counter-productive, from the perspective of the wounded who have been fighting the system to get back in the fight.
The thrust of the spoof was clearly aimed at what is in fact a strawman - though the writers may not have thought so or realized it
The target was the brass, and what the Onion portrays as a crass and venal policy of squeezing the last drop of utility from the wounded.
Which is exactly the opposite of the truth. The brass have been resisting letting the seriously wounded return to combat.
How is it wrong to point that out?
Because let's face it - the Onion has a much larger readership than I have.
And how many people now believe (because, as you point out, satire has to have a kernel of truth) that the brass are trying to make people return to duty who are neither able, nor willing, when the kernel of truth is that the wounded made the brass do it?
“For a soldier's humor, there are few things that are off the table. We often laugh at things that would appall even the editorial staff at The Onion. We tease each other seemingly without mercy, in the way that brothers often do. The Army teases the Marines, the Air Force, the Navy; we are equal opportunity abusers, and we get the same in return. There is one caveat; you must belong to that club. I'm sure that those men in the wards tease each other, but they belong to that club that none of us wants to pay the price of admission to.
The Onion is not in that club; nor are their advertisers.”
I am a firm believer that no one has the right to never be offended (I read the US Constitution, it’s not there). That said, I think it is very appropriate for those among us who made it back in one piece to raise the bull$hit flag over this misguided, uninformed dribble.
"The Onion is not in that club; nor are their advertisers."
It is "insider humor"; I was an EMT/vol FF and I recognized it. I also recognized where the outrage orginated--it was 'performed' by non-members of the club for an even larger audience of non-members.
"......and I pointed out that the skewer, in this instance, was aimed at the wrong target."
Larger problem now comes from what John has pointed out here. I happen to know that it is the wounded who wish to return to duty and that it is the brass who are resisting. I can assure you that an awful lot of non-military people do not. I don't read the Onion and so don't know what the comments said--but would it have been better to leave it up with a commentary pointing out just how the 'wrong target" was skewered?
"The Onion is not in that club; nor are their advertisers."
It is "insider humor"; I was an EMT/vol FF and I recognized it. I also recognized where the outrage orginated--it was 'performed' by non-members of the club for an even larger audience of non-members.
"......and I pointed out that the skewer, in this instance, was aimed at the wrong target."
Larger problem now comes from what John has pointed out here. I happen to know that it is the wounded who wish to return to duty and that it is the brass who are resisting. I can assure you that an awful lot of non-military people do not. I don't read the Onion and so don't know what the comments said--but would it have been better to leave it up with a commentary pointing out just how the wrong target was skewered?
Of course, the people who didn't know what it was that bothered us are also the people who don't read us.
But, Google will help with that for a while.
I was particularly referring to what you said about humor being cruel...yes, you can take it that way. I'm just saying that as I see it, humor only has to be cruel if you decide to dwell on the insult instead of the laughter, just like driving a racecar only has to be a bad experience if you focus on the sore shoulders instead of the thrill of going through a corner sideways at 80 mph. Maybe I'm an optimist?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ten_silver_stars
That story is about my son's outfit.
I would love to meet those in that video on the street.
Because comic book heroes never die--permanently.
I could spend all day reading about the real heroes of the world, but often, the bigger the heroe, the more amazing the feat of heroism, the more painful it is in the end. I've been reading hero stories all my life. I started with comics (coming of age as the first Marvel issues hit the stand), but moved into historical fiction (Cooper, Irving, etc.), and later into non-fiction. The first NF book I remember reading was These Men Shall Never Die, by Lowell Thomas. It was great stuff, but saddening too, as is every real hero story, because usually, someone dies. I both love and hate MoH citations. They inspire, they make me swell with pride, they make me want to race toward the danger to show I am worthy, to help... But I always dread the part where it says, suffered fatal injuries, or was mortally wounded. Too late, and too sad, and after a while, just too hard to read. it is not something you do for fun and entertainment.
Comic book heroes on the other hand are all the best things, usually, each with his or her own special flaw that keeps them human or a little humble, and in the end, no matter how long it takes, no matter how hard the fight, the hero wins. Period. I love hero movies, especially the comic book movies, for the same reason I loved the LotR trilogy (extended edition only, though). They bring life worlds and characters that heretofore only lived inside my mind. Yeah, I thought the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan was the most awesome, fearful thing I've ever seen on screen. and Schindler's List moved me beyond words, but sometimes, what I really want is fantasy, where the bad guys are losers and the good guys win. And no one dies who matters--unless it really, really, had to happen to make the rest of the story better. All except the Spiderman comics, when Marvel killed Gwen Stacy. I hated that and still do. In fact, that was when Spiderman stopped being my favorite comic.
But I do digress, eh....
I'm not thinking of the Onion but of the people who read the Onion. I figure the Onion blew it, some squirming is a small price to pay for this idiocy. Thing is, I get the impression that their audience is likely to have a good number among their readers who actually DO buy into the fallacy that the wounded are victims of the military, in the sense they are forced to go back instead of wanting to go back of their own free will and pride. Yanking that video due to outrage over the utter tastelessness of the so-called humor leaves the impression that the wounded are in need of such protection and that the implication--that of the wounded being forced back against their will by a heartless military beauracracy--is true.
Am I defending that skit? No, I agree that an editor should have used a few brain cells. But I think the skit conveyed two entirely different messages to two entirely different audiences--who will now proceed to draw two entirely different conclusions from the skit and its removal.