Political Comedy or Absurdity?

I'm not a Grinch, really I'm not! I love a good comedian and a good laugh. The great ones can touch on subjects that would normally infuriate many and make everyone laugh just by pointing out some small absurdity within the situation. Comedy has been, and probably always will be, a running commentary on our society: good, bad, and downright hilarious that it may be.

But then there are idiots like Bill Mahr who HBO saw fit to give a show. Trouble with this man is that comedy in most part is supposed to be unbiased. If you want biased commentary, you listen to Fox News, MSNBC, or talk radio. Why is Bill on HBO rather than these other venues? Simply because he has no fucking clue what he is talking about in any real sense. Yeah, he gets some laughs from the crowd, but how much of that is the result of the stage "Applaud" and "Cheer" lights that any TV show uses during taping?

Now, I don't mean to say that EVERYTHING he does isn't funny. I do get laughs out of some of the stuff that he does, even when he is pointing out some of the more absurd things that either party does. But for the most part, painting all Republicans as "warmongers" and "oil tycoons" while portraying the Democrats as "peace loving humanitarians" who "have all the answers" just isn't historically correct. It is merely a play on words calling Iraq (at this stage at least) a "war" while our actions in Mogadishu was a "peace keeping" expidition. Folks, our young men and women in the military died in both places! It is just that for peace keeping you don't have to have Congressional approval or oversight.

But ok, I'll accept my oil fortune and the painting by Bill Mahr, just as long as it comes with permission to do my own, equally unfair, painting of Democrats as lazy welfare junkies with big mouths and no ideas (or even worse, a cable TV show!).

Thoughts from "The Man of the Year"

I know, it's a comedy, and a rather good one at that. But then I am biased since just about anything Robin Williams does I like (after Mork and Mindy that is). I thought the movie would just me be laughing my ass off about the idea of electing a comedian President, but then I find I was actually thinking about some of the stuff that the movie brought up.

First, the actual election process. I know computers are supposed to make our lives easier, but when does that ease start getting in the way of our democratic process? Put all the safe guards in place you would like, and quite frankly in the megabytes and gigabytes of code that enables the voter to go in and push a button on a computer screen is still easy to compromise. All it takes is one programmer with an agenda (politics and agendas... imagine that!) and the results can come out as anything the said programmer wants it to be. Fact is, once the code is finalized, there is very little review of it as long as it functions. Now, combined with the fact that it is largely taboo to talk about who you actual vote for, who is to say that the election results are acurate? The government? The folks that are benefiting from those very same results? Sounds a bit fishy. But think about it, if you go in and vote for Candidate A but Candidate Y wins, the reaction is largely "oh well, my person didn't win, maybe next time." Except for the scenario of a huge popular vote landslide being overturned, who the hell would think that a popular vote difference of seven or eight percent would be anything but the democratic process at work? Apparently I would.

Secondly, the whole debate structure. I know we need order and civility in debates, and since they are televised they need to be somewhat choreographed, but come on. How many times have we all sat around listening to someone answer prescreened questions that they have had their handlers give them answers (or non-answers more often than not) that follow the party line. Are we supposed to be so naive that we don't realize that these are canned answer? Even though we have been listening to the same fucking answer from both parties for the past twenty years?

Third and last, the whole idea of the financing that goes into the campaigns. Yes, there was supposed to be campaign finance reform (in case you don't know, that largely when out the window when Sen. McCain needed to get re-elected), but regardless of how you reform it as long as the money for the campaigns and the television ads comes from lobbies and the national party coffers there won't be any real reform. We are a capitalistic economy, but does that mean that our government has to be a capitalistic entity also? Wouldn't it be nice to actually be able to elect someone on the basis of what they think and what they can do other than throw mud? Maybe I'm dreamin'.

We won't get into the actual "who" we are ever electing, that is something for another time.

Anyway, get a bowl of popcorn and a copy of "The Man of the Year" and see where it takes your mind.

On the Passing of Mr. Falwell

It has taken me a couple of days to get my thoughts in order about the passing of Jerry Falwell. I cannot say that I was ever a fan of his, I didn't heed much of what he ever had to say, and I was never a member of the Moral Majority. That being said, I don't necessarily like the idea of speaking ill of the dead. Which creates a tad bit of a sticky spot for me if I want to now ever again want to speak of the subjects this man held dear. Thus, it took me a little bit to get my brain to work out a solution. And here it is:

DISCLAIMER: I do not, have not, and will not be in agreement with the vast majority of what Mr. Falwell had to say during his life, or with his probable legacy after the media creates it. That being said, I hold him personally (begrudgingly) in high regard for one reason: he spoke his mind, and truly believed what he said. Please take anything I have to say further as a debate or attack on those ideas, not on the man expressing them.

Alright, so shall we get down to what I really think now? Great...

Ever heard the saying "walk softly and carry a big stick"? That is sorta the way I have always viewed Falwell. Yes, he formed the Moral Majority in the late 1970's. Yes, he enjoyed a great deal of influence within the workings of the Republican party. But you know what? I have a hard time believing that there are that many neo-conservative right wing religious fanatics in this country to go along with the idea that he, alone, controlled a huge voting block of the American people. And if he did, then something is definitely amiss in this country.

What I believe is closer to the truth is that Falwell had the biggest stick, the media, and the ability to use it. As so often happens in any society, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and he was a prime example of it. Do I think he was speaking on behalf of any "moral majority" in this country? Yes and no. Yes, when he was talking just plain old generic common-sense Christian values. Hell no when he started spouting off about gays, lesbians, women libbers, Democrats, non-Bible thumpin' Christians, or Teletubbies! It is just that the media allowed him to express these views, and express them loudly enough, that he created the "appearance" that he was speaking for some silent majority. Meanwhile, most of that silent majority were shaking their heads in disbelief.

So what will his legacy be? I don't know. That is for the media to create and decide, not for me. However, what he said, what he promoted and espoused and preached, does leave a legacy in my mind. He gave the "Moral Majority" and the neo-conservatives free reign and liscense to absolutely hate indescriminately. He, more than anyone else in my mind, is responsible for the widespread reaction to things we do not like or agree with as them being unAmerican, unChristian, unpatriotic, evil, dirty, and downright sinful. That is Jerry Falwell's legacy through what he said and preached. But hey, what do I know, I'm not a member of the Moral Majority, just a victim of it.

The Political Wrongness of Political Correctness

I do not think the whole phenomena of being "politically correct" started with some public relations spin doctor who coined the phrase (or at least thrust it into the spotlight of main stream media. I'm not sure who or when it was coined.) in the mid 1990's. The ideas behind it, and the fact that in society in general we try not to intentionally be nasty or hurt any one's feelings, have always been here. The only difference is that in the time before it was considered common decency. It was just how you acted. On the other hand, it was not restrictive when it came to your own thoughts on a subject. Prior to the political correctness craze, we had a good idea, or could get a good idea quickly, of the topics between ourselves and who ever we were talking to that should be avoided in polite, social conversation. Not that they would be avoided at all times, and not that one or the other should have to change their views. If you were in the mood for a good informal debate, you knew who to talk to, and you could.

The version of this concept that is presented through political correctness is not quite like that. It literally states that I am to express no thoughts, feelings, or opinions, that might potentially be offensive to anyone, at anytime. I just don't get that. I got the idea of "picking my battles" and the fact that some things were just off limits depending on the company, but I just cannot get my head around the idea that a change in company (to one more akin to my thinking or opinions on a subject) still does not open that subject up to discussion. It simply makes for more "pariahs" that shouldn't think that way.

So why is this so politically wrong? Simply because of the way that our laws are formed. We have a "representative" government. The whole "By the people, for the people..." thing. The greatest measuring stick our elected officials have to go by are the conversations that happen between normal folk. Gallop polls, CNN polls, MSNBC polls, or any other poll, do not even come close to giving an accurate depiction of what Americans think. Talking to us candidly does, though. However, as long as we adhere to the idea of political correctness, we cannot have candid conversations about issues effecting our society. We can merely dance around them and hope we do not step over some invisible line somewhere and perhaps offend someone.

I'm sure there's some comedic quote I could put here, but the fact is this. The Bill of Rights grants us all kinds of wonderful liberties, but it does not grant us the right to never be pissed off, or disagreed with. In fact, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, gives us the right to be pissed off at, and disagree with, our government. Seeing as how that very same government is representative, by inference, we all have the right to be pissed off at each other and disagree. If our policies and laws are derived from public feeling on a particular subject, we then have to keep open the avenues of discussion and debate, no matter if it pisses us off or we get disagreed with. The alternative, closing these through the idea of political correctness, means that only the lobbyists, the people with enough money to donate so they are heard, get a say in how the policies and laws are formed. This in not the American way! Nonetheless, if you support the idea of political correctness, as it is now, this is the very thing you supporting no matter what comes out the other side of your mouth.

Want to change it? Start living by, and teaching the children, the idea of social decency, and throw the flawed ideals of political correctness out the fucking window.

Who's Gonna Win?

Ahh, the wonders of an early Saturday morning... What the hell am I doing out of bed already? Oh well, I'm here, so let's see what I have to talk about this morning...

Paris Goes To Jail: Wasn't that a movie about a decade ago? Oh wait, that was Ernest Goes To Jail... Paris, Ernest, what's the difference? Who cares?

Was reading through some of the articles this morning about the first Republic debate of this primary season. Gotta say that nothing really stood out to me. I think we are still looking at the exact same candidates in the Presidential election as we were prior to the two debates (Democrats debated last week). So I will go out on a limb, and make my predictions for the actual election now, and we will see how good of a prophet I am.

Democrats: Hillary hands down. Obama may indeed become our first African American President but right now there are two things working against him. First, liberals have been clamoring to get Hillary into the Whitehouse since the day she left with Bill eight years ago. Second, Obama needs more experience. He was a dark-horse nobody during the last Congressional election which he won his seat quite easily, but he still needs more experience in Washington for people to feel comfortable about whether or not he can actually do the job as well as talk the walk.

Democrat Presidential Nominee: Hillary Clinton

Republicans: John McCain is the foil again this year. He hasn't been a serious contender for winning the nomination previously, and this time around that isn't going to change. But he is actually going to play a role this time by becoming a foil between the two that do have a serious chance at the nomination: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Romney is doing everything his speechwriters and his mouth can do to convince everyone that he is just as downright conservative as the Republicans seem to want their people to sound. The only trouble is, he's not, and we know it. Giuliani, at least, isn't running away from his moderate stances on social issues and will get the nomination in spite of it since a good portion of the votes Romney will need will go to McCain in the hope that Republicans can get their true blue conservative.

Republican Presidential Nominee: Rudy Giuliani

Then comes the election. This one will come out close because of Giuliani's moderate stances, but Hillary will indeed become the first woman President of the United States. She has the momentum, and since she is a woman there is a good chance she can pull many Republican women to her instead of them simply voting the party line. There is also enough to Republican backlash in the press to get people who wouldn't normally vote to hit the polls to vote for ANYTHING not Republican. Personally, I think either candidate would make a decent President, but neither is going to be outstanding.

Alright, there's the predictions. We will see how I do.

Men and Abortions

I know this is a topic that I'm not supposed to talk about. I know it is taboo to even think, in the dark corners of my mind, that a mere man might be able to tell a woman what to do with their bodies... But guess what? I'm going to anyway.

This is one of the things that I mentioned in a previous post that I would like to see changed when it comes to the laws about abortion in this country. We accept the fact that it takes two people, male and female, to make a child. Even the most scientific methods of artificial insemenation cannot get past the fact that you at least need a sperm donor.

We accept the fact that men who father children have a responsibility to that child and its mother even if the adult couple is no longer together, or even if the child was conceived during a "one night stand" with no relationship. Neither of these things do I have the least bit of trouble understanding or accepting. If you are a male in this day and age and do not know how to keep from fathering children you do not want, you ought to be castrated. Plain, pure, simple, and let's save everyone a whole damn lot of money!

But, here's the thing that gets me. In our society, it is readily accepted that it take two to make the child, it takes two to raise it, but for that couple of months right at the beginning of the pregnancy... It only takes one to make all the decisions.

I do not have the right to force a woman I impregnate to have an abortion. I cannot physically pick her up and take her to the clinic. It is absurd to most that I would even mention the possibility of such a thing, myself included. On the other hand, I have no right to stop an abortion that I am against even if I am the admitted father of the child. I have no right to demand that the woman I slept with carry that child for nine months. I have no say either way. In fact, depending on the age of the woman involved, her parents have more say in the matter than I do as the child's father.

Once the child is born, I still have no say, but I do once again have responsibility. I pay child support regardless. Every family court in this country awards child support as a matter of course. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of child support, it wasn't the child's fault the relationship between its parents went to shit. A man cannot go into family court and tell a judge that "Well, sir, I am not going to pay child support because I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused." He would be laughed out of the room and all the way into a jail cell most likely.

I don't have an easy answer to this dillemna that presents itself day in and day out in our society. But I do have some ideas. One, the father's opinion must be heeded. If we expect the father to take responsibility then there should not be a break in the middle when he is considered as nothing more than a donor without an opinion. I do believe a man should have the right to request the option of being able to compensate the woman for carrying a child if he is against abortion and abortion is her choice.

I suppose what it all comes down to is equality between the sexes. Yes, equality. But equality is not very popular when it comes to this subject. We still live in a mindset that a man's contribution to a child is nothing more than a little sweat, a squirt or two of semen, and eighteen years of bill paying if it comes to that. When will we ever learn that "equality" has nothing to do with weighting one side against the other? Point blank, if it takes two to make the child, then it should take two to make the decisions about the future of that child from the day of conception, not the day of birth. Even if it means that us men have to start paying child support early, during pregnancy, to cover things such as medical bills and trying to make sure the mother has a proper diet. I would much rather be faced with that possibility than what I am faced with now. Afterall, what is another nine months of bills when I am literally faced with 18 years of them due to a decision that I have no say in, no control over? Equality isn't necessarily fun, and it definitely isn't pretty, but dammit, it is time that we stop paying lip service to equality and actually start living in an equal world, on this subject and all the others.

Social Engineering

When it comes to politics one of the things I hate to see is promises of "social engineering." Regardless of the candidate, it seems that abortion is the one topic that seems to come up in the platform. I don't know if it is because of the two opposing lobbying parties, or a perception of what the public thinks matters that I just don't get, but I wish it would go away.

First, let me explain my position on it. Personally, I dislike the idea of abortion, and I have made sure that all of my sexual partners either have had similar views or would be willing to abide by mine. I just cannot stomach the idea of a child I had fathered being aborted. Politically, however, I remain convinced that abortion must be protected and remain legal. There are a couple of different reasons for the political side to it.

One, abortions did not just start happening with Roe vs. Wade. They were being performed even when they were either downright illegal and quasi-legal. Unfortunately, the abortions performed during those days were often just as fatal to the mother as to the child. The idea that a bunch of lawmakers in Washington can write up a bunch of new laws and then there wouldn't be anymore abortions just doesn't make common sense and can only be formed with a total disregard of both history and human nature. Abortions would simply go underground again, and as a result we will have a bunch of doctors and would-be mothers sitting in prisons and jails.

Second, abortion is a social morals question, not a legal one. If, like me, you don't personally approve of abortion, then it is not an option for you. You have the power to talk about it on a personal level with your partner, and teach your children and instill your values in them. However, there are a lot of people that do not hold the same social morals and do not see a problem with the option. That is their right. They also have the ability to talk about it and teach their children just like I do.

So, any legislation on the subject, other than the basic keeping it safe variety, is only an attempt at social engineering. History tells us our government is not very good at social engineering. Remember Prohibition and the 18th Amendment of the Constitution? During the fourteen years that the 18th Amendment was in place, it had the EXACT opposite result of what was planned by its social engineers. The idea was that by banning intoxicating beverages (except those used in religious ceremonies) the country's social morals would improve. Instead, we produced more alcoholics during that period that at any time in history, gave rise to numerous all powerful illegal cartels dealing in illicit booze, and host of horrific social disasters. It was a mitigated disaster, as attested to by the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th in its entirety.

Social engineering does work, but it is not a machination of legislation. It works when children are taught, and continue to uphold, the morals of the generation before. This is the only way it works outside of a totalitarian state.

This is not to say that I wouldn't like to see SOME changes in the laws dealing with abortion, but that is a topic for another post.

The Hallowed Institute of Marriage

I have to laugh when I think of how some people, who are otherwise perfectly rational individuals, when the topic of marriage comes up. There are so many different views to the subject, and so many bodies and institutions that want everyone to be married that it is hard to believe that the institution of marriage really means much anymore.

I am not married and have no plans to ever get married. I am just as committed to my girlfriend, and she to I, as if we were married. We just do not have the piece of paper. And that is really what "marriage" comes down to anymore, a piece of paper. Sure, that one little piece of paper has a lot of advantages. You get lower tax rates for a married couple than two non-married individuals. Insurance companies insure wives/husbands and families but not boyfriends and girlfriends.

But I just get stuck at the point that you have to pay for a license, pay for the ceremony, and should it not work out, I'm gonna pay to get out of it. So let me get this straight: I am going to pay some disinterested third party for the right to spend the rest of my life with someone? Are they going to live with her when she is on the war path? Are they going to step in when she "has a headache"? I don't think so. The latter would more than likely end with me paying the same disinterested third party to get me away from my wife before one of us is dead! So what exactly is the advantages of being married?

And then, to top it all off, we have gay marriages. I'm all for it, since it really is a decision between two individuals. But the very same disinterested party that is going to get more money out of the deal are strikingly against it. Now they want to protect the hallowed institution by keeping it limited only to mixed-sex marriages. Gotta protect the family! Excuse me, but homosexuals are perfectly able to adopt, or find other means to have a family. How is excluding them from being able to marry protecting family? And worse than that, why is our government protecting a largely religious structure when we are supposed to have separation between Church and State?

They Are NOT Peacekeepers!

Republican here, and I must say I did not want to see Bush Jr. become President the first time he won in 2000. I was sitting in my little apartment watching the election returns with a buddy of mine and I told him that night that we were heading back to Iraq. Now, I didn't predict 9-11, but I knew Bush Jr. would use any and all pretense to get us back into Iraq to take out Saddam. Not saying that Saddam didn't need to go. All things considered he probably did.

My trouble started when the actual "war" in Iraq (you know, the actual military action) was over. We eliminated Saddam's army, his Red Guard, even had his butt once we found the whole he crawled into. Everything was going good, then they turned what we are trying to do over there into a "peace keeping" mission rather than a military mission.

I'm sorry, but our military are not peacekeepers! We developed the most advanced military in the world for two reasons, and two reasons only: To kick people's asses and to use the threat of power. It's their job, and they are the best in the world at it. The trouble starts when we start trying to harness that power into a little box called "peacekeeping" or "advisor." We train our soldiers to shoot, to kill, to completely dominate their enemy. And believe me, they are quite good at what we trained them to do. But we never trained them to take fire WITHOUT returning it because suddenly they aren't soldiers but Peacekeepers because some idgit in Washington decided that a name change would be a good idea.

Bush Jr. isn't the only President to not understand what the military is good for. Clinton didn't get it either (think Mogadishu). Kennedy sure as hell didn't get it when we went into Vietnam as "advisors." Bush Sr. did get it. He used the military to kick Saddam's sorry ass out of Kuwait, then brought them home.

I know the world needs "peacekeepers," but if the US is going to supply them we need to develop a "peacekeeping force" that is separate from our military. Until we are willing to cough up the tax dollars to do so, please, let our young men and women in the military do what they do best and come back home. If that means that Iraq ends up under US Martial Law (like Japan at the end of WWII) to keep our military safe, so be it. But trying to man road blocks between the Shiites and Sunnis (who have hated, and been killing, each other for a thousand years) is NOT doing us or them any good.

I don't want to see any more people die in Iraq, us or them. But, if I have to choose, let it be them.

Religion In Politics

I live in a country where Church and State are supposedly separated, but are they really? Our laws, customs, social norms, just about everything in our society is based on a religious idea. We are uptight about sex, why? Because our country was largely founded by Protestants and Puritans escaping persecution in Europe and they were uptight about it. All of our Presidents have been Christians... All but one have been Protestant. Coincidence?

I am not saying that we therefore live in a "religious state" the likes of Iran where a cleric rules the country. But, our laws are reflect a decidely Christian moral standard. Is this a bad thing? In the big picture, no. The majority of our country is Christian, and the fact that we do not enforce sectarian differences helps. It is definitely more livable than the days when you could be burned, hung, stoned and ostracized by simply thinking maybe Luther was more right than the Pope. All the same, we live by a Christian moral code whether we be Christians or not, and it is this moral code upon which our laws are derived.

So what happens to the minority of non-Christians? Mostly we are quiet on the topic of religion in general. Not because our views cannot be supported, but because over the years we have become tired of having to explain our beliefs to the incredulous majority. Luckily, most religions have very similar moral codes so we go along our daily lives without much trouble.

True, there are the "extremists" who want to twist and turn ancient words and misinterpretations to validation for their personal vendettas, but Christianity has had, and still has, their own fair share of those idiots. The only difference is instead of hiding them in a cave, we put them in the glass house of the Whitehouse for all to see.

Here's to the first Pagan President, and a Maypole on the West Lawn!

Systemic Overhaul!

By registration, I'm Republican. By thought, I'm usually nowhere near Republican, or the Democrats for that matter. I am usually to be found right smack dab in the middle somewhere in LaLa Land.

This country has basically three political parties: Republicans are the conservative tight asses who seem to believe the government was just fine in 1905, Democrats are the liberal suck asses that figure we can all either be in government or at least get a check from it, and the third affiliation I call the "Green Piecers", not just because they are the environmental fundamentalists out huggin trees but they seem to piece together platforms on what is the most current social outrage.

I am firmly convince that like me, most Americans are somewhere in the middle of this quagmire. Sorta like walking right down the double yellow line hoping like hell you don't get sideswiped by some redneck's mirror on the old Ford or get the hood ornament of a yuppy's new Mercedes shoved up our own tailpipes. On some issues, I am conservative, on others, I'm down right liberal, then on others, I just don't give a shit!

Now, when our system is working like it is supposed to, the running of the country ends up being somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservative because our system is designed around the concept of compromise between the two. Great, that puts most things right in line with me walking the double yellow. But every once in awhile, we get one group or the other that refuses to compromise and gains the power so that for a time it doesn't need to. By the end of Bush Jr.'s tour, we will have basically spent 16 years in this situation!

I say we force the politicians to once again realize they have to compromise with each other. How? Simple. We hold general elections, and the candidate with the most votes becomes President, and runner-up is the VP. Yeah, I know, we would end up with a Republican President and Democrat VP (or vice versa), but you know, they would have to compromise and so would Congress! This shit of us leaving our country up to "the lesser of two evils" and getting an entire branch of our government that is NEVER elected save for one has got to stop!