Far from being "satire", this article is actually incredibly offensive.

I'm not talking about the parts which are obviously meant to be "humorous" - I'm referring to the serious points which I believe you are trying to make:

"They've had a military dictatorship for like, what, 45 years or something? So I guess the people there must really like that form of government, to have kept it all this time"

The military junta seized power in a military coup in 1962 and have ruled as a dictatorship ever since. In 1990 in the only election allowed during this period, the opposing National League for Democracy won with a landslide 80%+ of the vote but the election was annulled and the NLD leader was put under house arrest (and has been for over a decade).

Each time the Burmese has tried to overthrow the junta since then (most notably on 8.8.88), it has responded by slaughtering unarmed civilians.

No-one "likes" the dictatorship, except the dictators themselves.

"Western values (like democracy and free speech and non-butchery of unarmed protesters)"

These are not "Western values". These are basic human rights which are being denied to the Burmese.

Please think a little longer before you speak lightly of such issues.

RJ,

Sometimes even droll humor crosses the line. I know the point you are trying to get across - but it just don't work. Massacres and rivers of blood are never funny....

When some people come in to your house, shoot your brother, take his computer, and they say 'if you make your move, you mother will be next'.

And no one knows your brother's death. Coz, he was burnt in crematorium before no one can confirm that he is dead.

Then you will understand.

This is not only offensive, it's bad humour. Sorry to say..

There is a fine line between humour and being offensive. Unfortunately for you and the rest of us, you've fallen very short of being funny.

Writing what you like under the label of satire may cover your backside, but it lets everyone know from the outset you are a bit of a coward.

This is not satire.

Please remove the actual photo of a murdered monk. If you ever have to go through the horror of having a family member of friend murdered whilst standing up for freedom and justice I'm sure the last thing you would want is to see their photo on a blog like this.

Tasteless.

Badly-written and offensive, whatever point you were trying to make.

Oops, looks like your phone number and address can be found by searching for your e-mail address.

I hope it doesn't end up on the support burma group with 270,000 members!!!

i'd say i have a fairly healthy borderline dark sense of humour but this is sick. tasteless, insensitive and utterly ignorant. arsehole.

I think your post brought up valid points. Nothing is so sacred as to not be subject to criticism or satire. Good job! (Now hide those personal details before some nutjob starts harassing you)

this: *Anyway, who are we to impose our own personal, subjective beliefs upon the proud people of Burma? Surely, attempting to impose Western values (like democracy and free speech and non-butchery of unarmed protesters) at the point of a gun would be nothing more than cultural imperialism. Interfering in the government affairs of a sovereign nation like Burma would require unmatched arrogance on our part. (And I suspect some of the people most loudly calling for action against Burma secretly have an eye on that country's massive rice reserves.)*...is the core of the article and is satirical

the rest reads kinda like...well...like comparing a blown up vet to a thalidomide baby

RJ - are you in therapy for that ol' personality disorder - ?

What an obvious example of the gross injustice of this world that some subhuman specimen like this one would probably not suffer the same fate as those incredibly brave and selfless fallen monks of Burma?

poster #14 (troll) - you're completely right - the part you've quoted is satirical when quoted in isolation, but the rest of the post is in just bad taste.

As for the photo of the monk used to "illustrate" this article, if you look at the jpeg's properties, you'll see that it's been "hilariously" named by the blogger

"deadmonktryingtoswim"

Satire depends on a humorous exposition of some idea through exaggeration, but the author of this article seems utterly humorless. Thus, the article just ends up sounding bitter and shrill.

JR

I've read many satire magazines. I'm sorry, kid, this is the kind of thing that gets ripped up before ever seeing the printer. This is one of the real dangers of running a magazine of this kind.

I'm not writing to criticize you. I think you've figured out that you've done far better work by now. But you've seriously hurt people by what you have written here.

And who the hell edited this piece? Editors are there to do more than just make sure the graphics, links and spelling work! There are some rare instances when communicating with the writer and telling him/her that piece is not appropriate for publication and suggesting serious changes is also part of the job.

"i have your details cocksucker and i'm coming to get you....."

Who knows? You might just save he writers life.

beautifully swiftian. if you can piss off this many idiots you're doiing something right. pity they aren't bright enough to direct their rage at the right target.

Dave: "I hope it doesn't end up on the support burma group with 270,000 members!!!"

Facebooking for bad taste.

People. Satire is not funny. It inspires uncomfortable laughter. This article certainly fits the definition of satire because it illustrates the outrageousness of the situation in Burma, not because it's humorous in any way.

It troubles me that there are people out there so literal minded that they don't see the difference between satirizing something and endorsing it.

Dave

Maybe they do, but they just think RJ's piece is bollocks (sorry RJ, but you know, there's only one thing worse than having people talking about you ...)

I didn't expect humour, didn't find any, and didn't think it was the kind of thing that should be satirised anyhow.

That's just me, though.

Your crude attempt at trying to draw an analogy between mass murders in Burma and our involvement in Iraq makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Further, it's utterly tasteless, and smacks of a disregard not only for Buddhists, but all people who place human rights above personal agendas.

If the regard for human rights has become so diluted that we can't see beyond an "I'm alright, Jack" mentality, we're in serious trouble as a dominant species on this planet.

Dave, I don't think RJ's intent was to directly comment on the situation in Burma.

I think his satire was directed at the attitude of those who defend the regimes of countries like Iran, then turn around and express outrage at the actions of the Burmese junta.

That said, there is a fine line between satire and crass insensitivity, and while I got RJ's point, I think his aim was wide by some distance.

"Massacres and rivers of blood are never funny...."
- Ruvy in Jeruselam

Dittos, Ruvy. Unless your concept of war is listening to the Rush Limbaugh program, or playing video X-box games...
(MCH)

I want to thank you all for your very supportive comments. I eagerly await further death threats from followers of peaceful Buddhist monks.

I guess the only thing edited on this site is the comments section.....

Actually, the more morbid the pictures and satire, the bigger the point you are trying to make these people understand. It all depends on your point of view...the same ones saying this satire is disgusting are the first ones to call our U.S. military baby killers and say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

They are incensed by Darfur but could give a crap about the Iraqi people. Saddam killed 6,200 of his own people a day folks.

Er, gotit?

Good to see you 'got' RJ's point. However, I don't know where you 'got' your figures of 6200 people slaughtered by Saddam per day.

The population of Iraq is 27 million, give or take. Saddam was in power from July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003. By my quick calculation, that's 8669 days. If you multiply that by your figure, you get a total of 53,747,800 killed.

Even allowing for the most enthusiastic copulation by the surviving Iraqis on any given day, if your figures were anything like accurate it's hard to see how there would have been any population left for Saddam to dictate to, or for us to liberate.

My mistake...here was the quote:

Compare with an average death toll of 6,200/month for 27 years under Saddam.

Actually, this IS good satire. Political satire isn't meant to create a type of humor that encourages happy feelings, its designed to expose the heartless types of thinking that cause real tragedies to happen and its designed to make the reader squirm uncomfortably. Its cynical, its brutal, and its honest about things we all wish would just go away.

Swift didn't really want to eat Irish babies obviously...and even though his classic essay was criticized as grotesque and unconscionable, it served a purpose of promoting awareness and shining a spotlight on the real horror of the situation and the cold & calculating mentalities that make it happen.

"...the same ones saying this satire is disgusting are the first ones to call our U.S. military baby killers and say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam."
- gotit

I thought this satire was disgusting, and I've never called our U.S. military baby killers.

And just out of curiosity, gotit, have you ever done anything besides write macho words on a blogroll to free the oppressed Iraqis?

#28:
Do you mean the same Saddam whose atrocities we ignored as long as it served our interests in the region, even sending Rumsfeld(!)personally to appease him in the early '80s?

Just wondering: Would contemporary massacres of Christians or Jews, or terrorist attacks against the West be given a Mad Magazine treatment complete with funy fotos here, too?

D'you have to label it satire RJ so they 'gotit'? You dislike only left-wing dictators? What about left-wing elected govts? Don't give away too much,do you? Let Burma be Burma? A new doctrine for the US? That'd be the day.

I'm sure E coli tainted spinach is good for you. Seriously man you should've picked a different subject for your little satire.

Satire is wry humor, or 'black' humor, if you will. The author exposes the horror by pretending to find it amusing or even plausible. Usually, by the administration of incongruities. Jonathan Swift has "A Modest Proposal", which is quite immodest. We should be warned. But swifts point is well taken: we are often offered proposals which seem quite modest on the face of it, yet are full of dire consequences. Like, "oh, let's go invade Iran".

Boletwah, it says 'satire' in the title and most of the commenters STILL didn't get it. I think you don't even get it for that matter, despite discussing the fact that the article is satire.

The problem here is that most people don't understand Satire, it's purpose, how it is used and what it is aimed to accomplish - which is basically to piss off idiots and make them look even stupider, which this has certainly accomplished.

Dave

Satire speaks to universal truths, not partisan viewpoints. The atrocities in Burma are in no way linked to US policies in the Middle East.

Dave, you are totally wrong in your assumption that this article "pisses off idiots." Your own prejudices are showing. Are people opposed to mass killings idiots?

You obviously have no idea what satire is. I recommend you look up a man by the name of Kurt Tucholsky, who was a master of satire and wrote some of the best literature in this genre during the Nazi Years in Germany. (... not unlike the situation in Burma).

"Revolution! The people howls and cries, Freedom, that's what we're needing! We've needed it for centuries, our arteries are bleeding. The stage is shaking, the audience rock. The whole thing is over by nine o'clock." Kurt Tucholsky

You may be in a masters program for Criminal Justice (judging from your writing here is unfortunate for this country's already troubled justice system). But before you write another horrendous story, please do your research. You're a student! You should know how it's done.

This is hilarious. Right from Wikipedia under "Misconception of Satire:"

Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.

Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.

From Wikipedia, eh?

Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood

Okay. . .You can quote definitions, but you fail to fail to show any "irony" or "sarcasm" to illustrate your premise.

The only people it didn't piss off seems to be the idiots. And that definitely isn't the point of satire.

"The problem here is that most people don't understand Satire, it's purpose, how it is used and what it is aimed to accomplish - which is basically to piss off idiots and make them look even stupider, which this has certainly accomplished."
The Tao of Nalle

Most people do understand satire when they step in it and this crap just smells like shit.

One possible reason for the negative comments could be that many people who are reading this likely searched 'Burma articles', not 'satirical articles for people who like to argue on messageboards'. If you are close to this situation, by, say, being a Burmese national and English is not your first language, the satire would be quite lost, wouldnt it?

"One possible reason for the negative comments could be that many people who are reading this likely searched 'Burma articles'"

Got it in one, Mike - this article comes up when you do a google search for "Burma News" (not just Burma articles) - many of the people searching for news are people who have family and friends caught up in the troubles and they're not going to appreciate some punk using their plight as fodder for hilarious overstatement.

As for comparisons to Swift - well, Swift was satirising overpopulation - no-one was offended by him tackling the subject; they were outraged by his "solution". Oh, and Swift could actually write.

In this case, I (and others, I suspect) aren't bothered by the solutions (ie I "get it" - LOL - he's not really saying that monks' blood makes teak flourish - insert appropriate smiley face) - I just don't think the subject itself is ripe for satire.

I once saw a similar "satirical" article on 9/11 which, as well as being about the calibre of this article, had that picture of the poor guy who leapt to his death - the caption said "yippee!".

Yeah - "satirical".

Whatever people say, IMHO some subjects are "sacred" (whatever you wanna call it) - call me humourless, but I don't find jokes about rape funny either, however much the joker might want to claim

"Yes - this is actually a mirror into the darkness of our souls and I'm making you confront your fears with my edgy comedy - aren't I witty and incisive?"

RJ, if you wanna say "You guys are all bleeding heart liberal hypocrites for crying about Burma and not caring about Iraq/Darfur/Tibet" then say it.

If you wanna say we shouldn't intervene because it looks like imperialism then say it.

If you wanna say we should intervene because everyone deserves democracy then say it.

Satire only works if the underlying message is intelligible.

Heavy-handed sarcasm as employed here is not the same thing as satire, so it's hard to work out what the heck you're saying (apart from "Aren't I clever - I can use I-RON-Y").

I'm sure RJ likes to think of himself as a shining wit .


Bless you , you genius

Awww, am I making you think too hard, meemalee?

:-(

[Edited]

RJ;

[Edited]

I still think the editor who let this thing through should not have done so without demanding major changes. It is highly offensive in tone, and if it is under "news" in Google as one commenter reported, too many people are reading it who shouldn't.

The damage cannot be undone now, unfortunately. Just watch your back, for your own sake.

It's not often that you encounter heroes of this magnitude; holy men (and others) willing to put their lives on the line to fight for freedom, only to be massacred for their beliefs. It's reminiscent of the brave students in Tiananmen Square who were similarly gunned down.

These men and women deserve to be honored and memorialized, not mocked and ridiculed. Their courage and dignity in the face of death should stand as a model for all of us.

First oil, now rice. America will be unstoppable.

A book titled 'The Elephant Boy of Burma' was one of my childhood favorites, but this macabre piece of writing has disturbed pre-conceptions about danger in the Asian nation. The television news stories show film sequences of the monks gathering, and then the cameo of a Lincolnesque young man baring his chest among them, as if wishing to have an airlift out. A Japanese reporter dies, as if the "damn yankees" are settling a score. This entry is not a satire -- it is a horror story that mistakes men for monkeys.

#43 Awww, am I making you think too hard, meemalee?

RJ

You obviously don't do any of that RJ, do you, except for your sorry little pathetic self?

wow. personally speaking, i know more about burma from this levely exchange --c'mon people, it's no hard to spot the real news in italics and the intentionally outrageous spoofing of it in the original post--than i did before. Which obviously is not a glowing testament to my knowledge of the country, but so be it.
To the people who love condescendingly calling this young man out as a "kid" or a "student who should know better," etc: get a fucking grip! He's got more on the ball than the humorless prigs whose panties get all twisted when they alight upon something that doesn't jibe with their notions of decency and good taste.
To quote the old Jew on the mountain:

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony.

And nothing is phonier than misplaced indignation.

and save the cracks about the typographical errors in the preceding post: the truth has no time to wait for proper punctuation!

No but pictures would have helped. :<)

RJ,
Why don't you put a stop to this?
If your blog was supposed to be "taking the piss" then come out and say so instead of letting other people do it for you. If you support these inhumane acts then come out and tell it like it is. Satire may be an entertaining way to get a point across but some people just don't get it. It sure as hell isn't the clearest way of going about it. Apart from the fact that a lot of people probably hate you right now you are probably offending and hurting a lot of confused people.
Put a stop to these comments and let people get over it...
Unless that is, you are trying not to stem the flow of traffic to your personal blog so that you can benefit from a little thing called Google AdSense.
Is that it?
Come out and tell the people your personal views straight up.
In the words of RD Blackmore, "satire is the very lowest, and most mean and common. It is the equivalent in words of what bullying is in deeds".
Let the people rest and speak your true mind!
All bullies are just cowards.

The sophomoric, smartass tone is classic RJ.

As has been pointed out, good satire is defined by how well it's written, not by how deliberately offensive it is. If this piece were better written, it might make a point worth making even with more blood. As it is, it's just low-rent snarkiness.

Real satire would be a literary piece describing a fictional product line of Star Trek Funeral items -- instead, there is a real marketplace and website set up to market Star Trek branded urns and caskets.

Not only Burma, the rest of the world has to let Afganistan and Iraq remain Afghanistan and Burma. Interesting satire.

Can't wait on your satire about the Mongorians. ;<)

I have to go back to #36 and point out that the definition of satire posted there is like a point for point description of this article and the response to it.

dave

I have to go back to #36 and point out that the definition of satire posted there is like a point for point description of this article and the response to it.

Fine, let's stipulate that the article is satire. Can we also agree that it's really, really bad satire?

Not sorry to say. but your post has shown that your an extremely careless, uneducated person. if you were one of the ones that got killed would you still think it's funny? lol and whatever colledge in florida u graduated from. never heard of it.

"Fine, let's stipulate that the article is satire. Can we also agree that it's really, really bad satire?"

Agreed.