Wednesday, September 28, 2005
*sigh*
Okay, I normally don't try to do this kind of thing, because others should be a lot better at it than me. But I have to give Fred Taylor-Hochberg a brief humor lesson.
I love science. It makes sure that things don't fall up and that baking soda plus vinegar in a papier-mache volcano equals good times. If you stopped to think about everything science did for you, you'd be overwhelmed and feel so grateful that you would give Stephen Hawking a foot massage, just because.
But unfortunately, not everyone thinks this way. Some people do not respect science's contributions to this world and choose to ignore it, brushing its gifts aside like I brush the dirt off Stephen Hawking's shoes when he comes home after a long day at the lab. These people have chosen to remain ignorant of the iron laws that govern our universe and create a perverse, reactionary ideology that has seeped into all levels of American society, even the highest office in the land. That's right: I'm talking about the theory of intelligent design.
When you build up to a topic by referring to it indirectly but obviously enough that people will draw a conclusion, it's just not funny to spit out the very topic people are thinking of. Funny is when people draw a conclusion and it turns out to be wrong.
Luckily, I can pull an example of this kind of thing done well from my large sack (text file) of funny I've read over the years. In the flurry of press coverage over the Pope Swap, this piece from Aussie Tim Blair executes this reasonably well:
A certain globally influential organisation has been much in the news recently. You know who I'm talking about: that corrupt cabal led by a weirdly named fellow whose election no one understands, and whose underlings seem to specialise in sex scandals, corruption, accumulation of vast wealth, and causing the deaths of millions in the Third World. From where, exactly, does this venal, outdated body derive its authority? Why do so many remain in its thrall when every one of its programs ends in controversy and division? Why is it so violently resistant to reform? Why do furious crowds not storm the luxurious buildings in which this group's elite, unaccountable princes and princelings sit planning their next amoral incursion against elemental human rights? How is it that we even tolerate the existence of this vile, poisonous outfit, with its sickening claims to moral superiority despite a history – continuing to this very day! – of sucking up to some of the worst tyrants the planet has ever known?
But enough about the United Nations. Let's talk about the Catholic Church instead.
Note that he doesn't even have to change his topic, he just has to change his punchline. He's going to write about the Catholic Church anyway, as people would conclude as they read the paragraph, but it just wouldn't be funny for him to say "Yes, I'm talking about the Catholic Church."
. . .
|
. . .
|
