Janeane Garofalo: Instrument Of Irony And Ire

Janeane Garofalo never seems to surprise any of us. Her entire career has been built on comedy that relies heavily on shocking statements that create a jolt. Some of those statements have been based in reality, while many others have not.

In the end, it is up to the analytical abilities of the person listening to her, as to whether or not it can be determined which is the case in this latest instance:



From the linked article:

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."

Such anger and vindictiveness, such inner rage. It seems that her anger is the only thing suppressing her rage, otherwise she would be saturated with it. It is more than apparent, she fights herself to keep it reasonably contained.

What I find really interesting is, her attempt to present herself as an expert in neurology:

The actress went on to describe the brain size of typical "right-winger, Republican or conservative or your average white power activist."

"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she said. This isn't the first time she's offered this analysis, either. Ms. Garofalo said similar things about Alaskan GOP Governor Sarah Palin's brain last February in an interview with an environmental blog.

This further persuades me to believe, she is quite angry. She probably has trouble in her personal relationships, as well. She has no expertise in anything medical (her degree is in English). Yet, she tries to present herself as someone who has a certain level of authority in this particular area of science.

Let's not play coy here. She doesn't.

What I think she does have is not hard to notice, some deeply rooted serious psychological issues. It may be losing her mother to cancer when she was a young girl or other things, not readily known or understood by this writer. She may blame the cancer on the petroleum industry, where her mother and father both worked for years. The latter was an executive, so it's possible that some (or much) of her anger may be directed towards him.

In a 2003 interview with Tucker Carlson, she was speaking about the invasion of Iraq:

"It's testosterone that is driving this war." "It's a lust for oil." "They're lying to us." Why not just address the arguments directly?

This is nothing more than bitter rhetoric, with more angry delivery. Some of this may go back to Erickson's Trust vs. Mistrust stage of development, which could be more directed toward her mother.

In this article from Ms. Magazine, she is quoted uttering more bitter words toward the substance that allowed her parents to make a living, so they could feed and clothe her as a child. Take a look at these gems:

While the U.S. marched to war, the actor and stand-up comedian opposed a preemptive attack on Iraq, urging diplomacy and cooperation with the United Nations instead. Given the military victory in Iraq and the triumphalism that permeates the airwaves, was she sorry for earlier predictions of the war’s dire consequences? Not by a long shot.

“Why should I apologize?” she said when we spent an afternoon together at a coffeehouse near her Greenwich Village apartment. “We have more looting than liberation. We protected the Ministry of Oil but not the treasures of the National Museum. We have photographs of a statue brought down and an Iraqi kissing a soldier, but meanwhile where are the weapons of mass destruction, where is democracy? So, no, I’m not apologizing, and I’m not letting them shut me up.”

Now, the irony in all of this not only comes from Garofalo in her angry diatribes against those she overtly despises, but from others in the angry Left as well.

Here are the words of the author of this article, later on in the same piece:

Consider these words: “Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize.

The right to hold unpopular beliefs.

The right to protest.

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us does not? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.” Those sentiments were uttered by a Republican U.S. Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. She happened to be the only woman in the U.S. Senate and, concerned about the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, she spoke those courageous words from the Senate floor on June 1, 1950. The speech itself should prompt us to ask: Who is speaking up for free speech now? Where is today’s oratory defending the right to question, debate and dissent?

Now that we have come full circle, these people have their people in power. And, the people they despised so much are now labeled as the opposition. When Garofalo's people were dissenting, it was patriotic to express disagreements with the Administration. Now that they are in power, it's racist to disagree with the President.

How convenient for them.

So, whether it's ironic or just plain hypocritical, you can decide for yourself. I just know, if it's good for one side, it's good for the other as well. I also know that when an angry person attempts to speak, write, or in any other way express him/herself, he/she can only communicate in emotional terms. Rarely can they rationalize much of anything intellectually, rarely can they make a cogent argument.

Keep in mind here that all people can and do get angry. I know I do and I am sure you do, too. But as long as that anger is allowed to resolve, it not unhealthy. It's when we cannot resolve the issues which make us mad, this is when it becomes a personality trait. This is also when it becomes difficult to process information objectively and have a reasonable conversation with someone who is consumed by it, as it looks to be in the case of Ms. Garofalo.