Wednesday, July 18, 2007

SWNID Interactive: Choose Preferred Parody

We invite gentle readers to indicate via comments their preferred approach to the parodying of last night's media-political event.

1: Democrats Hold "Awesome" Sleepover

The sound of girlish giggles echoed through the halls of the the Capitol Building last night as Democrats held a sleepover.

Led by Senators Boxer and Feinstein of California but joined by such unlikely sleepover participants as Nevada's Harry Reid, the event included senators in fuzzy slippers and cute flannel jammies giving each other facials, hairdos and pedicures. In one corner a wide-screen TV was showing The Notebook on a continuous loop. In another corner, Senators played board games.

"Barbara Mikulski brought her old 'Barbie, Queen of the Prom' game," remarked Indiana's Evan Bayh. "Of course, back in Indiana, people used to refer to me and my wife as 'Ken and Barbie.' But imagine what it was like when Robert Byrd won the game and became Queen of the Prom!"

Republicans largely boycotted the event. Some were seen in the Old Senate Office Building clustered around a TV and X-Box playing "Halo." Most, however, reported using earplugs to block out the sounds of the slumber party and get some actual sleep.


2: Democrats Hold Successful "Senate Telethon"

Taking a page from Jerry Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Democrats turned the Senate into an all-night television fundraiser.

"We thank C-SPAN for donating free airtime for this important event," announced telethon emcee Harry Reid. "They've given us the means to prove to our most ideologically driven supporters our symbolic, albeit totally ineffectual, commitment to ending the War in Iraq."

Most similar events announce incremental progress in resolving the issue for which the funds are being raised, inspiring a degree of hope that spurs donations. This one did the opposite. Despite mounting evidence of military progress in Iraq, emcee Reid introduced Senators whose "acts" were repeated declarations that Iraq is a lost cause. Senator after Senator asserted that there's no reason to wait for a report from General Petraeus in September, as it's clear that the "Bush administration's failed strategy" admits of nothing other than perpetual disaster. "Events may overtake our assessment," said Senator Carl Levin, "but they can never overcome our stubborn rhetoric."

Democrats report that netroots contributors were pleased by the event. Admitting that they made no legislative headway whatsoever, Senator Diane Feinstein declared that the event was all entirely symbolic, to prove Democrats' commitment to ending the war by staying up past their bedtimes.

Then she began tearfully to sing, "You'll Never Walk Alone, Unless You're in the Middle East."


3: Senators Stay Up All Night Talking; Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen Stay Up All Night Catching and Killing Bad Guys

"Nero fiddled while Rome burned," as the saying goes. Last night in Washington, Democrat Senators stayed up to talk while in Iraq, America's servicemen and women stayed up all night subduing the enemy.

While their elected officials were prematurely announcing their defeat, the elite armed forces of the United States managed to knock out yet another al Qaida stronghold. Similarly, military officials announced the recent capture of the man they deem the most senior al Qaida figure in Iraq.

Army Staff Sergeant Dewey Dewourduty, returned from a nighttime raid, details of which are classified, responded wearily to reporters' questions about the Senate's all-nighter. "I hear they've held up defense appropriations for this media circus," he stated flatly. "Maybe they think we can hunt down terrorists with slingshots and spitwads."

"I don't like being here one bit," Sgt. Dewourduty continued. "But what I hate worse than being here is leaving before we finish our job. I wish those Senators would shut up long enough to hear me say that, Jim Webb included."

Postscript: Look here for how rigorous an all-nighter Reid and company actually managed.

9 comments:

Unknown said...

#3, although it's not a parody, is it.

drkmstr said...

I like #1, barbie rocks! A friend of mine cried during the notebook, so I refuse to watch it...

Jake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake said...

The whole things was certainly a political farce, done primarily for show and not really accomplishing anything. Of course, it was still a political farce the last time the Republicans did it, just 4 years ago . . . http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/12/senate.debate.ap/index.html.

#3, while funny, does seem a little unfair. You could produce a headline saying "Republican and Democrat Senators Debate Merits of War; Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen Risk Lives in War" or something similar . . . but it doesn't invalidate the need for the discussion. So I'm not sure what the proposed alternative is supposed to be . . .

Anonymous said...

Jake, you want parody to be fair? On a blog?

Jake said...

Jim,

As far as I know, and I know this is true for SWNID, we're all still concerned about truth, whether it is in parody or on a blog. And parody, while it naturally relies on exaggeration, still attempts to make a point - that particular parody certainly does, and should still be open to comment. Besides that, perhaps its worth noting Bryan D's comment about #3 - "although its not a parody, is it." I would say that certainly makes it appropriate to comment on the parody itself.

Besides, I did say it was funny, and I'm certainly not saying it was inappropriate to post. But I do think it implicitly directs a criticism at the Democrats that isn't really valid, which is what I was commenting on.

Anonymous said...

Little sensitive there, Jake?

First, what's up with saying that it's not true or fair or whatever to lampoon Democrats for political theater without at the same time lampooning Republicans? Is this "Fairness Doctrine" for blogggers?

Second, your complaint is logically akin to an argument from silence. I.e. SWNID doesn't make fun of Republicans in this piece, so he excuses them. No, he just doesn't mention them because they're not in this instance being totally stupid, so they're not as funny.

Third, you are hoist by your own petard. Your CNN reference was about a Republican piece of political theater in response to a Democrat piece of political subterfuge. Democrats had started demanding cloture on judicial nominees, something technically within the rules but unprecendented in the Senate. Republicans called their bluff by having an actual fillibuster session. Further, they got results: minority Democrats finally agreed to a compromise with Republicans on the judicial nominees, though the all-nighter had less to do with that than did the general perception that the Democrats were acting foolish.

But now it's the Democrats who control the Senate and who won't let any amendment come up except their own. Not Lugar-Warner, not anything. They are bound and determined to blame whatever happens on Bush, even if it's something that they force like a quick, premature withdrawal.

All politicians are theatrical, dishonest and self-serving schmucks. But these days, Senate and House Democrats are intensely schmucky.

Fourth, I'm guessing you're one of those people who's tired of midwesterners or Christians or however you identify yourself being identified with the Republican party, so you're calling for equal treatment all over the place. Just be happy, then, in the middle of the road where you get run over by traffic coming from both directions.

Jake said...

Jim,

I'm not sure why my reply shows any more sensitivity than your own . . . but whatever. :)

No, I'm not really saying that each party must be equally lampooned at all times - and yes, it is worth pointing out the silliness of each party whenever it occurs. Still, I read SWNID often, and know that he certainly leans towards the Republican end of the spectrum. Which is fine . . . but that doesn't mean that comments pointing out the other side of things are out of order here.

Regarding the Republican's use of similar tactics, I'm not sure that the reason behind it makes it any less political theater, or any less something to lament. You can claim that it is justified . . . so can those who believe that the current war is problematic, as is the way Bush has approached it (and no, I do not agree with some Democrats that a quick withdrawal is a sufficient answer).

While I agree that all politics is theatrical, you'll pardoning me for not agreeing that Democrats are particularly bad in that regard these days. Yes, there are plenty of examples there - but lets not pretend that there aren't plenty of examples coming from Republicans as well. I don't think we need "equal" treatment in the sense that you're accusing me of, but I do think some Christians have blinders on regarding the absurdities of the Republican party. Its all too easy to point out the foibles of those you disagree with.

You can call it "middle of the road" to say that Christians should not be automatically identified or allied with the Republican party. I call it recognizing that neither party fully represents a Christian worldview and acknowledging that Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality. And at the risk of sounding "sensitive" again - perhaps your quick categorization of my thinking isn't the most constructive approach.

My apologies to SWNID - I'm truly not trying to hijack the discussion from this thread.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Any reasonably polite discussion is OK with us. We know that it's utterly impossible to keep people on a subject via the www, as our experience with blogging and distance education consistently indicates.

We believe Bryan D's remark that #3 is not parody has to do with the fact that it largely contrasts actual facts for sadly ironic effect, versus fictionalizing things for humorous ironic effect. We submit that the interview with the staff sergeant in #3 is made up, so it's at least quasi-parody.

We stipulate that all politicians are dogs, Republicans included. We stipulate further that we are broadly in philosophical agreement with Republicans. We insist that Republicans have most of the facts and sound judgments on their side these days, thanks to the Democrats' fealty to the false gods of pacifism, which kills people, and socialism, which impoverishes them. That doesn't equate Republicans with those who sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, but it does broadly guide our political comments herein.

Republicans may be dogs, but they are our dogs, so to speak. Good dog, GOP! Now, fetch that tax cut! Bite that bad guy! Good dog!