“All across the globe, couples engaged in premeditated, pre-processed, spontaneity-free sexual congress. It was Valentine’s Day, after all, the night the western world sits in restaurants and stares across the table at the object of its affection thinking, “In three hours, if there isn’t a fight, I’m going to have part of my anatomy enmeshed in part of their anatomy.””
The monotony of life once more ruining the thrill of being alive. -rudhro
Why you should have sex in your car
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012
Another Valentine’s Day has come and gone. Chocolates were purchased. Flowers procured at the last minute. Proposals were made.
All across the globe, couples engaged in premeditated, pre-processed, spontaneity-free sexual congress. It was Valentine’s Day, after all, the night the western world sits in restaurants and stares across the table at the object of its affection thinking, “In three hours, if there isn’t a fight, I’m going to have part of my anatomy enmeshed in part of their anatomy.”
This Valentine’s Day, however, was a troubling new development. People were dumping on the act of having sex in your car. One national media outlet ran a lame “Is it a good idea to have sex in your car?” video segment. Though I was perturbed by the stupidity of the headline – if it’s consensual, it’s always a good idea to have sex – I was most dismayed by the attack on car sex.
The woman in favour spoke of “being with your sweetheart and showing that you love him anywhere and everywhere” (I’ve actually had car sex and believe me that’s not what it’s about) and the guy who was against car sex said he was opposed because it is difficult and cramped. Note to nerd: How can you tell when you’re having great sex? It feels difficult and you start cramping.
Then the newspapers were filled with reports of a B.C. RCMP officer who was being docked 10 days pay for having sex with a subordinate officer in a police patrol car two years ago. Hey, British Columbia RCMP – if you don’t want people to have sex in your patrol cars don’t make them so sexy! Flashing lights, handcuffs, strong sturdy exterior, pressed uniforms, hats, who can resist?
The anti-automotive Valentine’s Day vibe let the air out of my tires. It’s bad enough that, as a car lover in a car-hating world, I have to hang my head and wear a scarlet “D” for driver. Now it looks like it is open season on car fornication. Is nothing sacred?
So it’s up to me (again) to champion freedom, to summon the ghosts of bucket seats and fogged windows and defend the pursuit of paradise by the dashboard light. To tell the world why car sex is not only good but should probably be mandatory. So, I present my completely unbiased treatise.
Why You Should Have Sex in Your Car: (more…)
[VIDEO] Slavoj Zizek: The Monstrosity of Christ
The Monstrosity of Christ
Paradox or Dialectic?
Slavoj Zizek and John Milbank
Edited by Creston Davis
What matters is not so much that Žižek is endorsing a demythologized, disenchanted Christianity without transcendence, as that he is offering in the end (despite what he sometimes claims) a heterodox version of Christian belief.
—John Milbank
To put it even more bluntly, my claim is that it is Milbank who is effectively guilty of heterodoxy, ultimately of a regression to paganism: in my atheism, I am more Christian than Milbank.
—Slavoj Žižek
In this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion’s illusions; in the other corner, “radical orthodox” theologian John Milbank, an influential and provocative thinker who argues that theology is the only foundation upon which knowledge, politics, and ethics can stand. In The Monstrosity of Christ, Žižek and Milbank go head to head for three rounds, employing an impressive arsenal of moves to advance their positions and press their respective advantages. By the closing bell, they have proven themselves worthy adversaries–and have also shown that faith and reason are not simply and intractably opposed.
Žižek has long been interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology. And Milbank, seeing global capitalism as the new century’s greatest ethical challenge, has pushed his own ontology in more political and materialist directions. Their debate in The Monstrosity of Christ concerns nothing less than the future of religion, secularity, and political hope in light of a monsterful event—God becoming human. For the first time since Žižek’s turn toward theology, we have a true debate between an atheist and a theologian about the very meaning of theology, Christ, the Church, the Holy Ghost, universality, and the foundations of logic. The result goes far beyond the popularized atheist/theist point/counterpoint of recent books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others.
Žižek begins, and Milbank answers, countering dialectics with “paradox.” The debate centers on the nature of and relation between paradox and parallax, between analogy and dialectics, between transcendent glory and liberation.
Short Circuits series, edited by Slavoj Žižek
About the Authors
Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher and cultural critic. He has published over thirty books, including Looking Awry, The Puppet and the Dwarf, and The Parallax View (these three published by the MIT Press).
John Milbank is an influential Christian theologian and the author of Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason and other books.
Creston Davis, who conceived of the encounter between Slavoj Žižek and John Milbank, studied under both men.
ENDORSEMENTS
“The contemporary return to the theological most dramatically occurs in this book, as Zizek fully realizes his earlier Hegelian and Lacanian theological work, a work that Milbank can essentially know as a uniquely modern expression of nihilism. Nonetheless Milbank enters into a genuine theological dialogue with this nihilism, and a truly new theological discourse occurs. This effects a paradoxical union between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and between radical orthodoxy and radical heterodoxy, which is perhaps the deepest motif of the contemporary return to the theological.”
—Thomas J. J. Altizer, author of Godhead and the Nothing
“In this dazzling dialogue, Zizek and Milbank change words and cross swords, until the point where both recognize that Christ and Hegel, in their monstrosity, look very much alike. A phenomenal achievement!”
—Catherine Malabou, Maître de Conferences, Philosophy Department, Université Paris-X Nanterre
[AUDIO] I am my own grandpa
“I’m My Own Grandpa” (sometimes rendered as “I’m My Own Grandpaw“) is a novelty song written by Dwight Latham and Moe Jaffe, performed by Lonzo and Oscar in 1947, about a man who, through an unlikely (but legal) combination of marriages, becomes stepfather to his own stepmother — that is, tacitly dropping the “step-” modifiers, he becomes his own grandfather.
In the ’30s, Latham had a group, the Jesters, on network radio; their specialties were bits of spoken humor and novelty songs. While reading a book of Mark Twain anecdotes, he once found a paragraph in which Twain proved it would be possible for a man to become his own grandfather. In 1947, Latham and Jaffe expanded the idea into a song, which became a hit for Lonzo and Oscar. (more…)
[AUDIO] PHILIP LARKIN – PERHAPS MY FAVOURITE POET
Philip Arthur Larkin, CH, CBE, FRSL (9 August 1922 – 2 December 1985) is widely regarded as one of the great English poets of the latter half of the twentieth century. His first book of poetry, The North Ship, was published in 1945, followed by two novels, Jill (1946) and A Girl in Winter (1947), but he came to prominence in 1955 with the publication of his second collection of poems, The Less Deceived, followed by The Whitsun Weddings (1964) and High Windows (1974). He contributed toThe Daily Telegraph as its jazz critic from 1961 to 1971, articles gathered together in All What Jazz: A Record Diary 1961–71 (1985), and he edited The Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse (1973).[1] He was the recipient of many honours, including the Queen’s Gold Medal for Poetry.[2] He was offered, but declined, the position of poet laureate in 1984, following the death of John Betjeman.
After graduating from Oxford in 1943 with a first in English language and literature, Larkin became a librarian. It was during the thirty years he served as university librarian at the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull that he produced the greater part of his published work. His poems are marked by what Andrew Motioncalls a very English, glum accuracy about emotions, places, and relationships, and what Donald Davie described as lowered sights and diminished expectations. Eric Homberger called him “the saddest heart in the post-war supermarket”—Larkin himself said that deprivation for him was what daffodils were for Wordsworth.[3]Influenced by W. H. Auden, W. B. Yeats, and Thomas Hardy, his poems are highly structured but flexible verse forms. They were described by Jean Hartley, the ex-wife of Larkin’s publisher George Hartley (The Marvell Press), as a “piquant mixture of lyricism and discontent”,[4] though anthologist Keith Tuma writes that there is more to Larkin’s work than its reputation for dour pessimism suggests. MORE POETRY AUDIO BELOW (more…)
[VIDEO] SO WE’VE HAD NAKED NEWS, FOX NEWS, THE COLBERT REPORT, AND THE DAILY SHOW–BUT HAVE YOU SEEN THE “RAP NEWS”? LIKE A TRUTH INJECTION TO THE BRAIN…
These videos may be the most incredible thing i’ve discovered online…(click under the first video to see the others–they get better each time–episode 9 is my favourite)
[AUDIO] “The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says Buckcherry’s Crazy Bitch is okay for the airwaves. It’s not an issue of free speech or anything like that that led the panel to determine that the lyrics aren’t abusive or discriminatory toward women. It’s that there was only one “crazy bitch.”"
THE RATIONALITY OF CANADIAN REGULATORS AMUSES AND PLEASES ME.
-rudhro
Panel okays Buckcherry song as not ‘aimed at womanhood’
Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011
“The panel reviewed some of the CBSC’s previous decisions involving the word ‘bitch’ and concluded that the use of the word in the song ‘Crazy Bitch’ did not reach the level of abusive or unduly discriminatory comment as the song only referred to one particular woman rather than generalizing all women as ‘crazy bitches,’” the CBSC said in a statement today.
The case stems from a complaint by a listener, who said it was offensive to women, after it was broadcast on CKQB-FM in Ottawa, so the panel looked at the issue under the human rights sections of the Canadian Association of Broadcaster code of ethics.
The panel said it’s troubled by the “lowering of the bar for coarse language,” but in this case it’s not a breach.
“The panel recognizes, however, that the complainant was also concerned about the context in which the term was employed in this particular song. She asserted that the message of the song was an objectification of women, in her words, that ‘a crazy bitch remains useful as long as she is good in bed.’ The panel does not agree with that interpretation; it does not consider that the expression ‘crazy bitch,’ as used in the song, is aimed at womanhood in general.”
[AUDIO] RICHARD CHEESE’S INCREDIBLE LOUNGE-STYLE COVER SONGS OF WIDELY RECOGNIZABLE SONGS OF THE PAST GENERATION — WARNING EXPLICIT LYRICS
Mark Jonathan Davis (born 27 November 1965), known by his stage name Richard Cheese, is an American musician and comedian. He was born in New York. He fronts Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine, a Los Angeles based cover band and comedy act, performing popular songs in a lounge/swing style reminiscent of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Tony Bennett.
Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine specialize in playing lounge-style arrangements of recent popular rock, metal, rap and hip hop songs, sung in a croony traditional swing vocal style, contrasting an elegant jazz treatment of the music with often profane and ribald lyrics to create a humorous dissonance
[VIDEO] BBC SERIES: How TV Ruined Your Life written and presented by Charlie Brooker
How TV Ruined Your Life is a six-episode BBC Two television series written and presented by Charlie Brooker.
Charlie Brooker, whose earlier TV-related programmes include How to Watch Television, Charlie Brooker’s Screenwipe and You Have Been Watching, examines how the medium has bent reality to fit its own ends. Produced by Zeppotron, the series aired its first episode in January 2011.
The series was reviewed mildly positively, with some criticism of the series’ topic (criticism of television), some positive remarks about specific segments, and some abuse in jest from Brooker’s colleagues at The Guardian: “Ha! I mean, boo! I hate him.” In the Scotsman, it was noted that “though so far Brooker hasn’t been pulling any punches”, some of Brooker’s topics were deemed too broad, some of his targets were called “too familiar”, like his mockery of 1970s public service safety announcements, and Brooker himself “may be heading towards one of those programmes he has so savagely parodied.” The Metro enjoyed Brooker’s making “merrily sardonic hay“, and found his skewering of some TV fearmongering “spot on”, but found his targets pretty easy, “nicking TV news (‘like looking directly in the face of terror’) with flesh-wounds when once upon a time he would have gone for the heart”, and described the show as “cobbled together.” All six full episodes below: (more…)
The tale of Rob Ford and how he’s lost the plot
Dan Yashinsky
Special to the Star
Aug 19 2011
Stories capture more votes than policies, and the strongest metaphor wins the election.
Humans are story-tropic creatures, we like suspense and we’re drawn to tales of heroes, quests, and courage, even in politics.
The right understands this better than the left these days. We saw, south of the border, how the positive rallying cry of “yes we can!” lasted about two years before the “tea party” — a perennially evocative trope in American politics — kicked its metaphoric butt. President Obama, a master storyteller before his election, lost his narrative mojo as the Republicans found a vocabulary that, true or not, was more emotionally vivid. George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics, rather wistfully pointed out in a blog last winter, it would be good to “loosen the conservative grip on public discourse.”
The Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe, a great believer in the power of stories, wrote that, “Storytellers threaten all the champions of control.” Stories enrich our expressive vocabulary, and give us new ways to imagine and talk about social and political change.
Aesop knew this well. In one of his more subversive fables, Lion, Fox, and Donkey go hunting. Lion asks Donkey to divide the meat, and Donkey divides it into three equal parts. Then Lion kills him, tosses the carcass on the pile, and asks Fox to try. Fox pushes everything over to Lion except for one dead crow. “How did you learn to divide things so equally?” Lion asks. “I studied with the dead donkey,” replies the fox. A useful, if chilling, story to remember in the age of Enron, Lehman Brothers, and the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us. (more…)
[VIDEO] I LOVE THIS SONG – “Syrian protest song that killed its writer: When Syrian musician Ibrahim Qashoush began singing his protest song calling on Bashar al-Assad to leave the country he could not have realised it would cost him his life.”
Alastair Good
10 Jul 2011
The lyrics to the song are simple, the meaning clear “It’s time to leave, Bashar,” its lyrics go. “Freedom is near.”
But according to a video circulating widely online, Mr Qashoush was found with his throat slit floating in the River Orontes in his home-town, Hama.
Hama has been the scene of large protests against the regime of President Assad and the Syrian leader has sent tanks and troops to quell the dissent.
In singing his song to crowds that gathered there, Qashoush made himself a target for the Syrian security forces who, local dissidents have confirmed, silenced him forever.
IRONIC HUMOUR: HOW TO LOSE PEOPLE AND ALIENATE CATS
ETYMOLOGY
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The term irony has its roots in the Greek comic character Eiron, a clever underdog who by his wit repeatedly triumphs over the boastful character Alazon. The Socratic irony of the Platonic dialoguesderives from this comic origin.
According to Richard Whately:
Aristotle mentions..Eironeia, which in his time was commonly employed to signify, not according to the modern use of ‘Irony, saying the contrary to what is meant’, but, what later writers usually express by Litotes, i.e. ‘saying less than is meant’.
The word came into English as a figure of speech in the 16th century as similar to the French ironie. It derives from the Latin ironia and ultimately from the Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation, ignorance purposely affected.
________________
Irony is a much-misunderstood form of humour. It is somewhat culture-specific, being more prevalent where wordplay is common (notably in the UK, where the pun has been raised to an art form), so many people fail to ‘get’ irony, while others apply the term incorrectly. It is a technique beloved of satirists, and one which is hard to master (there is always the danger of slipping into overt sarcasm which is, as has been observed, the lowest form of wit).
WHAT IS IRONY?
Irony is defined as…
- The humorous (or mildly sarcastic) use of words to imply something different from, and often opposite to, their literal meaning.
- An expression marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning, usually to draw attention to some incongruity1 or irrationality.
- A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
- Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs, or an occurrence or circumstance notable for such incongruity.
Dramatic irony is a special case where the irony is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the book or play. Socratic irony2 is the process whereby a questioner feigns ignorance in order to lead another to expose their own ignorance.
These types of irony give the clue to the true definition of an ironic statement. An ironic statement must appear as if you are sincere, there must be no hint of sarcasm, and you must not be self-consciously droll. The line must be delivered straight, so that the recipient misses the hidden message but onlookers get it loud and clear. The saying ‘Irony is wasted on the stupid’ works well as long as the person addressed believes themself to be a sage despite making an absolute ass of themself, and nods wisely in assent.
Thus Fowler’s Modern English Usage defines irony as…
… a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware of that more and of the outsider’s incomprehension.
-wikipedia
________________
VERBAL IRONY VS SARCASM
A fair amount of confusion has surrounded the issue regarding the relationship between verbal irony and sarcasm.
Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage states:
Sarcasm does not necessarily involve irony and irony has often no touch of sarcasm.
This suggests that the two concepts are linked but may be considered separately. The OED entry for sarcasm does not mention irony, but the irony entry reads:
A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.
The Encyclopædia Britannica has “Non-literary irony is often called sarcasm”; while the Webster’s Dictionary entry is:
Sarcasm: 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain. 2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual.
Partridge in Usage and Abusage would separate the two forms of speech completely:
Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, … manner.
Sarah Silverman
The psychologist Martin, in The psychology of humour, is quite clear that irony is where “the literal meaning is opposite to the intended”; and sarcasm is “aggressive humor that pokes fun”. He has the following examples: For irony he uses the statement “What a nice day” when it is raining. For sarcasm, he cites Winston Churchill who, when told by a lady that he was drunk, said “my dear, you are ugly … but tomorrow I shall be sober”, as being sarcastic, while not saying the opposite of what is intended.
Psychology researchers Lee and Katz (1998) have addressed the issue directly. They found that ridicule is an important aspect of sarcasm, but not of verbal irony in general. By this account, sarcasm is a particular kind of personal criticism leveled against a person or group of persons that incorporates verbal irony. For example, a woman reports to her friend that rather than going to a medical doctor to treat her cancer, she has decided to see a spiritual healer instead. In response her friend says sarcastically, “Oh, brilliant, what an ingenious idea, that’s really going to cure you.” The friend could have also replied with any number of ironic expressions that should not be labeled as sarcasm exactly, but still have many shared elements with sarcasm.
Most instances of verbal irony are labeled by research subjects as sarcastic, suggesting that the term sarcasm is more widely used than its technical definition suggests it should be (Bryant & Fox Tree, 2002; Gibbs, 2000). Some psycholinguistic theorists (e.g., Gibbs, 2000) suggest that sarcasm (“Great idea!”, “I hear they do fine work.”), hyperbole (“That’s the best idea I have heard in years!”), understatement (“Sure, what the hell, it’s only cancer…”), rhetorical questions (“What, does your spirit have cancer?”), double entendre (“I’ll bet if you do that, you’ll be communing with spirits in no time…”) and jocularity (“Get them to fix your bad back while you’re at it.”) should all be considered forms of verbal irony. The differences between these tropes can be quite subtle, and relate to typical emotional reactions of listeners, and the rhetorical goals of the speakers. Regardless of the various ways theorists categorize figurative language types, people in conversation are attempting to decode speaker intentions and discourse goals, and are not generally identifying, by name, the kinds of tropes used (Leggitt & Gibbs, 2000).
-wikipedia
________________
IRONIC HUMOUR EPITOMIZED
–NOT SURPRISING THAT THE NATIONAL POST ( CANADA’S RIGHT-OF-CENTRE SLANTED NATIONAL PERIODICAL) DID NOT UNDERSTAND HUMOUR WHEN IT REPUBLISHED ‘NEWS’ FROM IT I USE MY HUMOUR AS A FILTER FOR WAVELENGTH ANYWAYS, HEHE- rudhro
If you enjoy absolutely deadpan, straightforward humour without obvious hints of irony, you have hopefully heard of the summer series from CBC Radio One, appropriately titled This Is That. It’s a hilarious send up of the daily news. This Is That, produced by CBC Radio 3′s Chris Kelly, is already infamous for its straightforward, deadpan antics.
The show tells ridiculous news stories, but executed 100% seriously without a drop of parody upon first glance, besides the ludicrous subject matter. In fact, the show’s headlines and stories have been taken seriously numerous times including the National Post picking up a fake story as if it were real.
Each “news” story drips with comedic flare, but unlike The Onion, the stories sound at least remotely plausible. There’s not the same kind of one-liner jokes and sarcastic tone. With the multitude of ridiculous stories in today’s 24-hour news cycle, it makes each story sounds all the more possible.
This Is That often addresses their absurd premises and go to great lengths to feature “interviews” with their subjects. This makes it all the harder to tell it’s not real. The fact that the show airs on Canadian public radio in between real news, is all the more deceptive.–blue text above taken without permission from:
________________
STAND UP COMEDIAN DANIEL TOSH – STYLE: IRONY
(HE’LL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU AS HE GOES–I…TRY TO AS WELL, IF I WISH NOT TO OFFEND, ALTHOUGH, AS SARAH SILVERMAN MENTIONED…ONCE YOU EXPLAIN IT, IT’S NOT A JOKE ANYMORE)
CLIP ONE:
DANIEL TOSH – ‘HAPPY THOUGHTS’ 41:29 VIDEO LINK
[AUDIO] HIS REVOLUTION WAS NOT TELEVISED – GIL SCOTT-HERON
by DAOUD TYLER-AMEEN
May 27, 2011
Gil Scott-Heron died Friday afternoon in New York, his book publisher reported. He was 62. The influential poet and musician is often credited with being one of the progenitors of hip-hop, and is best known for the spoken-word piece “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.”
Scott-Heron was born in Chicago in 1949. He spent his early years in Jackson, Tenn., attended high school in The Bronx, and spent time at Pennsylvania’s Lincoln University before settling in Manhattan. His recording career began in 1970 with the album Small Talk at 125th and Lenox, which featured the first version of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” The track has since been referenced and parodied extensively in pop culture.
Scott-Heron continued to record through the 1970s and early ’80s, before taking a lengthy hiatus. He briefly returned to the studio for 1994′s Spirits. That album featured the track “Message to the Messengers,” in which Scott-Heron cautions the hip-hop generation that arose in his absence to use its newfound power responsibly. He has been cited as a key influence by many in the hip-hop community — such as rapper-producer Kanye West, who closed his platinum-selling 2010 album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy with a track built around a sample of Scott-Heron’s voice.
Scott-Heron struggled publicly with substance abuse in the 2000s, and spent the early part of the decade in and out of jail on drug possession charges. He began performing again after his release in 2007, and in 2010 released a new album, I’m New Here, to widespread critical acclaim.
Gil Scott-Heron, a godfather of rap, dies in New York
NEKESA MUMBI MOODY
NEW YORK— The Associated Press
Saturday, May. 28, 2011
Long before Public Enemy urged the need to Fight the Power or N.W.A. offered a crude rebuke of the police, Gil-Scott Heron was articulating the rage and the disillusionment of the black masses through song and spoken word. (more…)
