TheMillerCircle.org

Like many of you, I was shocked and saddened to learn of George Carlin’s death. It seems that we grew up with him, beginning with his early appearances on the Tonight Show, right through his many special shows that aired on HBO, the last of which I saw just a few weeks ago. Indeed, when HBO got started Carlin was one of the top draws for them and continued as a permanent staple to their programming. HBO is currently having a celebration of his performances in celebration of his HBO connection by showing his past video recordings in clusters. Carlin did what no other comedian that I know of has ever succeeded in accomplishing: that of staying current and popular as a stand-up comedian for his entire career. Most comedians have a period of intense exposure and popularity, but then inevitably move on either through burnout or boredom. But Carlin didn’t just survive as a stand-up comedian, he got better and became more relevant and engaging with his audience. Certainly his relationship with HBO was helpful in maintaining his continuity, but his survival was secured by the continued relevance of his insights and his novel choice of topics, as he diversified and expanded his comedic focus. And, of course like no other comedian before him, there was nothing sacred or untouchable about his choice of topics. No subject was out of bounds and no one could make the subject matter more intelligently wrapped in linguistically-evoked laughter than Carlin. He made you giggle as you shook your head. Carlin seemed to transcend the definition of comic genius, we just haven’t found the right category for his brilliance and the illuminant nature of his message.

I have heard many comedians describe how essential Carlin was for their own careers, because he opened up the venue of being an insightful social critic and comedian by blending them in a way that simultaneously offended no one and yet no one could escape his wit or focal humor. He had an easy subject–the American culture and its fascination with reality avoidance. He gave his audience the impression that they were the exception to his generalizations about the American culture, but then proceeded to leave no doubt about how inclusive they really were to his topics for the evening. His audience was always put on the spot, but laughed hoping they were the exception. He took seemingly impossible subjects and turned them into stories that made you laugh and think at the same time. As his stand-up routines grew and diversified, he acquired new topics and evolved new methods of delivery. He used every word in the language, every offensive word that seemed previously taboo and defied anyone to challenge his use of the language or the insights he derived and discussed from them. He was emphatic in his conclusions, as if he was bringing a message from God, although one was certain he didn’t believe in God. He made you laugh, but at the same time, made you think more deeply about the topic he honored with words and a stylistic, animated delivery. Dressed in black with tennis shoes, he would move gracefully on stage, stopping to reveal an awkward expression with a facial twist or contortion that by itself could evoke laughter. Sipping water from a glass on the table he then glided further on the stage to resume or begin anew. This was a comedian that did more than comedy. He was a genius comedian for the ages and his evolution within his own brand of comedy separated him from all others, those before and those that have tried to follow with Carlin emulations. At times, it seemed like he had a Ph.D. in something, but it was never clear what, except that it wasn’t biology or physics. But he could poke meaningful jabs at them too.
One area that increasingly caught Carlin’s attention was the cultural evolution of popularized euphemisms. In this mode Carlin was a kind of self-educated phrase linguist, but covered the subject with sentences, not paragraphs or papers. Every insight has a cadence and every topic had to have a rhythm: a comedic linguist for the entertainment industry.

Juan Cole has posted one of Carlin’s most brilliant descriptions of phrase evolution, as we try to find a comfort zone for horrific events, with an obliging government who participates in the sanitization of warfare. The evolution of "shell shock" to "battle fatigue" to "Operational disorder" to "post-traumatic stress disorder"– words that are all designed to make war more like an obligatory clinical syndrome rather than what it really is, what it really does to young men and women who witness the horrors of warfare, always perpetrated by those who never witness the horrors of what they unleash. So, I have copied Juan Cole’s web posting for June 25, 2008, so that you don’t have to get there through a link. What fallows is all from his website:
"Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Kelly Kennedy, George Carlin, and the Reason for Traumatized Iraq Veterans

The late George Carlin did not like the phrase "post-traumatic stress disorder." He famously said,

‘ I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality. I don’t like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I’ll give you an example of that.

There’s a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It’s when a fighting person’s nervous system has been stressed to it’s absolute peak and maximum. Can’t take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.

That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we’re up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It’s totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it’s no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

I’ll bet you if we’d of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I’ll betcha. I’ll betcha.’

I have concluded that Carlin was right about that issue. Being traumatized by war is not a disorder. In fact, if you are not traumatized by the sight of body parts flying all around you as you are splattered with the blood of people you know, then you would have a disorder. Why not just say "war-traumatized"? Or better yet, "war-scarred"? The PTSD phrase has the unfortunate effect of making it seem abnormal for people to be negatively affected by wartime violence.

It is like the phrase "Vietnam syndrome," in which the understandable reluctance of the Baby Boom generation to launch big, long-lasting land wars in Asia was medicalized, as though there was something wrong with them that they were not warmongers. Why not say that they had ‘learned the lessons of Vietnam,’ or were ‘Vietnam-scarred’? Why suggest that there is something wrong with them for it?

So below is a report from CBS on how the US networks have sanitized the Iraq War for viewers, and how we cannot understand the long-term trauma suffered by US troops who served in Iraq unless we understand what they’ve been through. Warning: her description of what she and others saw in Iraq is explicit and disturbing. Carlin would be proud of her:

"Army Times reporter Kelly Kennedy saw first hand the horrors of the war in Iraq. She spoke to CBS News about her experiences and about how post traumatic stress disorder is affecting the troops.""

At Juan Cole’s website, you can see a YouTube posting as a reporter describes the real horrors of war eluded to in Carlin’s brilliant description. Where else can you find this kind of material, but from George Carlin. He will be missed. Others will replace him I am sure. Perhaps John Stewart is a kind of badly needed new comedian who also brings us the real news.