George Carlin and the politics of discernment

I recently had the pleasure of being called an "elitist, liberal, snob" by an anonymous poster on Youtube. What had I done to inspire his ire? Very little. I had merely pointed out that, to appreciate George Carlin's humor, a certain level of intellect and discernment was a prerequisite. I have been a huge fan of Carlin since I was a child when his albums "FM/AM" and "Class Clown" spent an inordinate amount of time on the turntables of my youth. I parroted his bits ceaselessly and can, to this day, do many of them verbatim. I grew less enamored of his work in later years as he became something of a polemicist and his routines seemed to incorporate less humor and more attacks (many quite ugly) on admittedly deserving targets. Nevertheless, he was always fascinating to watch—a first rate, blindingly quick mind nimbly navigating the jagged face of his barbed opinions. In the wake of his death, in addition to replaying some of those albums, I went on Youtube to peruse some of his bits and enjoy a reprise of his brilliance. Posted underneath a wonderfully observed bit he did about death and the hackneyed, predictable responses that people have to it (If there's anything I can do, please let me know! Yeah? Okay, how about you paint the fucking garage and then mow the lawn? Hah? Call their fucking bluff!), some putz had posted, "Who is this old guy, he's not funny and why does anyone care?" I ought to have known better than to descend into the fetid sink that frequently passes for discourse on Youtube (and all too many places online) but I couldn't stop myself. I wrote: "Carlin often requires a certain level of discernment and intelligence to appreciate and is widely acknowledged as one of the great comic minds", which, considering the wit and insightfulness of his bit on death and the bald ignorance of the poster, seemed apt. In a very short time, someone responded to my posting, calling me "a typical liberal, elitist snob" or words to that effect. I found this striking because if an appreciation of insight and keen powers of observation is a hallmark of liberalism, then what are the hallmarks of the more right-leaning individual? Surely not only liberals and "progressives" can see that O'Reilly and Hannity and their ilk are bullies who engage in indictment by insinuation? Is it only liberals like me that find themselves becoming unaccountably violent and fantasizing about using Sean Hannity's lying fat head for a piñata when they see his smug, dissembling, propagandizing piehole spewing unattenuated garbage day after day? Is it only "liberals" who recognize that their mad-dog ravings cheapen our discourse even as they seduce the dull? MSNBC's sad attempt to counter Hannity and O'Reilly and their ilk with the likes of Keith Olbermann does nothing to elevate our profoundly debased level of discourse. You cannot beat these swine at their own game. Their hostility and bullying is a pose; one that obviously resonates with huge numbers of people who, I suspect, are unwilling to actually take the time to think. I am reminded of O'Reilly's appearance on Letterman in which he hectored Letterman and demanded that he answer the question: "Dave, do you want us to win in Iraq? It's a simple, yes or no question!" To which Letterman responded, "Well, it's not a simple question for me Bill, because I'm thoughtful". That was a beautiful moment and one that needs to be magnified a thousandfold.
  There are plentiful Ivy leaguers, PhDs and MBAs among the right-wing (Rice was a Stanford professor)—intellectualism is not the sole province of the left. But the appearance of strength finds its simplest expression in the anti-intellectualism that is the stock in trade of Hannity et al (taunting, bullying, hectoring) which a dishearteningly large number of people in the U.S. seem to connect with. It was great to see Obama on O'Reilly (I only watched a brief segment) and the firm way in which he refused to let O'Reilly play his standard game of essentially using a (usually more liberal) foil to bray his opinion. Obama was having none of it and politely yet firmly refused to allow himself to be interrupted and steamrolled by O'Reilly's usual tactics. O'Reilly, faced with Obama's stature as a presidential candidate (rather than his usual hapless, faceless victims...er...interviewees) and unimpeachable poise, couldn't play his usual game, though he tried.
  One of my closest friends is a hardcore right winger—thinks Giuliani is wonderful, lifetime member of the NRA, the whole bit. He also lives on the upper west side near 96th and Broadway. I frequently tease him and tell him that he's living in the belly of the beast. He laughs and says that he likes how liberals live. I think that, in some ways, he must share more liberal opinions than he's willing to let on or else he couldn't stomach living in such an unabashedly left-leaning place. When we're out with friends, I often say, "I don't want to say that Jimmy's right wing, but he thinks the Klan is soft on minorities". This usually gets a good laugh and smiling protestations from Jimmy who, for all his posturing, is one of the kindest, most supportive people that I know and possesses a genuinely warm heart. I'm sure there are many such conservatives. Why aren't any of them on television, propounding more considered and thoughtful views?

visit www.foxattacks.com for a fair and balanced view of Fox "News"'s propagandizing.