The Palin family is raising holy hell over a crack David Letterman made about A-Rod knocking up their daughter. It was a quip Letterman made over a picture of the Palin clan at a Yankees game recently. The Palins made much ado over the fact that the daughter in attendance was 14 year-old Willow Palin and not her 18 year-old slutty sister Bristol.
The joke doesn’t seem exceptionally funny but with Letterman it’s often not the joke but his delivery. In fact, most jokes don’t seem funny when they’re in print. Letterman would be the first person to tell you that most of his jokes are duds. How he handles a dud is what makes him funny.
The Palins have gone on the offensive. Todd (Sarah Palin’s boy toy who doesn’t have a real job) is getting all macho about it and Sarah is hitting up all the usual suspects in the media to drum up sympathy. They’re accusing Letterman of promoting the raping of a 14 year-old girl.
Letterman made the mistake of trying to explain the joke and apologized but the Palins aren’t having any of it. Letterman even suggested that the Palins could come on his show but they won’t have that either. The Palins don’t want to help Letterman improve his ratings and, as a Palin spokesminion put it, they don’t think it’s a good idea to have Willow around Letterman.
That’s just ridiculous. I’m not saying that the Palins don’t have any reason to be upset. Even if the joke’s about Bristol, they don’t have to like it. Bristol is a valid subject when discussing Sarah Palin’s brand of morality and her stance on birth control and sexual education. She an abstinence-only advocate and Bristol drives home just how ignorant and futile that position is. If a controlling bitch like Sarah Palin can’t keep penises out of her daughter, who can?
Sarah Palin could have scored more points with me if she would have just responded to Letterman’s joke by suggesting that it was a shame that a guy who’s been in the comedy business so long can’t find a better subject. Then make fun of him for not having the sense to verify that the girl he clearly intended to make fun of wasn’t at the game. Let other people feign disgust over Willow’s age, but take the high road.
This is just another example of Sarah Palin insulating herself with her children. During the campaign she made a big deal about the media violating Bristol’s privacy when they started asking about her baby bump but it was Sarah Palin who eagerly presented herself as a devoted mother. Palin put her children on center stage because her political career lacked anything resembling substance. So when people asked her what adversity she faced she could always play the “working mom” card.
The best thing for David Letterman to do is let it slide. His fans aren’t going to buy the accusations being hurled at him by the Palins. They’ve already become so shrill that most of the right wing whack-jobs who support them are probably getting tired of the whining.
Some people are asking why Letterman isn’t making fun of Obama’s daughters, as if there’s some sort of conspiracy but the fact of the matter is Obama’s daughters aren’t being used as props. They’re far too young to be getting knocked up and while Obama has spoken of his family, he hasn’t used them as a qualification. Michelle Obama might be the smartest and most educated first lady we’ve ever had and she’s been surprisingly quiet. You’d almost think that she was a Republican first lady.
It’s also not fair to lump Letterman in with the media and fuel those “liberal media” conspiracies. Letterman is a comedian who hosts a late night talk show. He owns the production company that handles the writing and personnel for that show. CBS basically leases the show from Worldwide Pants. Letterman does not represent the CBS network and he is not a news reporter or even a pundit.
It’s really not for the Palins to say whether Letterman crossed the line. That decision is made by the public, which is an entity Palin removed herself from when she got into politics. She is now a public figure and by extension (and her conscientious decision) her family is as well. The means the entire Palin clan is fair game. They will be lampooned, critiqued and made mockeries of until the general public decides they’ve had enough.
Palin’s outrage over the Letterman joke will prove to be counterproductive. Reasonable people know that Letterman didn’t mean to insinuate anything untoward about Willow Palin and nobody believes the he endorses statutory rape, sexual abuse or pedophilia. By making a mountain out of a molehill Palin will only encourage more people to make fun of her family, not because it’s funny but because Palin’s reaction is.
What’s big deal; the age of consent in Alaska’s got to be 13 anyway.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Obama goes old school, confuses conservatives.
I do my best to avoid network news. It’s garbage. I don’t blame the networks, they’re only giving the public what it wants. That’s why the focus is on the personalities that read the news rather than the news itself. Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, these people are not news reporters at all. They are quasi-celebrities who read teleprompters that feature hard work done by real reporters who get paid much less and rarely get due credit for their work. If you watch closely you might see some names flash by the screen at the end of these so-called news shows. The real reporters and the producers who put it all together are listed there.
MSNBC has positioned itself as a liberal counterpoint to Fox News. Unfortunately MSNBC comes off as a poorly executed clone of the Daily Show. Keith Olberman’s vendetta against Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding, I find MSNBC offensive. As a self-described liberal I can honestly say that I don’t want to be associated with the nonsense that goes on there. I don’t necessarily disagree with their views but I think they lack professionalism. Don’t pawn yourself off as a serious commentator and then act like a less refined version of Jon Stewart.
Fox News is just ridiculous. They don’t even pretend to be informed or intelligent. They cater to middleclass conservatives and people who don’t want their point of views challenged. Everything is a commentary and there is a clear bias to their commentary. Even though Fox and conservative pundits insist that the rest of the media harbor a liberal bias, it’s quite clear that Fox has positioned itself as a propaganda machine for the right wing.
Case in point? Obama’s recent speech in Cairo. Obama reached out to the Muslim world in hopes of establishing a dialogue that might allow the US to resolve differences without dropping bombs and casting aspersions. Fox News and the pundits they employ jumped on the speech and accused Obama of turning his back on Israel, weakening our nation and apologizing for our actions after 9-11. Obama talked about nuclear weapons and told his audience that his ambition was to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Fox scoffed at this notion, stating that nuclear weapons are here to stay.
They’re right, of course. That genie is out of the bottle. We’re also not going to get rid of chemical and biological weapons. But Obama, by virtue of being an intelligent man, knows this. The reason he’s telling the Muslim world that he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons is so Muslim people don’t feel like they’re being picked on when they’re told their countries can’t develop nukes. It’s a platitude, not a promise. And while it might be insincere, the gesture is more effective at building cooperation. Bush’s policy was to tell other countries they couldn’t have nukes and then wave his around singing na-nee-na-nee-boo-boo.
Obama also expressed some regret at the way the previous administration handled the aftermath of 9-11. It wasn’t an outright apology but Obama did offer that both the United States and the Muslim world shared blame for the state of the world today. That’s called diplomacy. Rather than pointing his finger at all of Islam, as George W. Bush was prone to do, Obama extended his hand and offered Muslims the opportunity to meet him halfway. President Obama simply realizes that we can’t bomb people into our way of thinking. Compromises must be made. By taking the first step, Obama has put the US in a position of power. We can dictate the nature of those compromises.
One fact Fox pointed out was a poll that reveals a very low favorability rating in the Islamic world. “These people don’t like us; why is Obama trying to woo them,” one bleach-blond bimbo asked. Of course Jon Stewart quickly countered on The Daily Show that you’re supposed to woo people who don’t like you.
You’d think that Fox and the conservative pundits are in favor of waging all out war on Islam. While there are certainly whackos on the right who see this as a holy war, most of the people criticizing Obama are simply grasping at straws. They have to object to everything he does, even if it’s the right thing to do. Obama could turn the Middle East into a utopia where people of every culture and creed embrace one another as brothers and Fox would find something to take issue with. “God wanted the Middle East to be violent,” they’d complain.
It’s too early to tell if Obama’s right. I don’t know if he’s doing a good job or not. He’s clearly not perfect but it certainly seems like he’s on the right track. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney demolished our nation’s good will around the world and that was after the entire world was in our corner after the 9-11 attacks. In all of six months Bush and Cheney managed to alienate everybody except Tony Blair and his loyalty to Bush destroyed his reputation. Before we commemorated the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks the rest of the world was pretty much thinking that we had it coming and when we turned our attention to Iraq, we were, in the eyes of the world, the evil empire.
It seems as though Obama has mended a few fences. By simply respecting the rest of the world he is earning the respect of people around the world. The US has a chance to be a great country again and that’s because Barack Obama isn’t running around pointing fingers at other countries and using terms like “evil”, “rogue,” and “terror.” He hasn’t claimed to be on a mission from God, like some inbred version of Elwood Blues. Most importantly, he speaks clearly, forms complete sentences and uses words that are actually in the dictionary.
Perhaps 8 years of George W. Bush has conditioned the people at Fox and the idiots who watch them to expect our president to act like a professional wrestler, but back before “the man of god” overtook the White House, this is how Presidents behaved. It's old school diplomacy. Communicating with class, respect and intelligence. It takes some getting used to but it works.
MSNBC has positioned itself as a liberal counterpoint to Fox News. Unfortunately MSNBC comes off as a poorly executed clone of the Daily Show. Keith Olberman’s vendetta against Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding, I find MSNBC offensive. As a self-described liberal I can honestly say that I don’t want to be associated with the nonsense that goes on there. I don’t necessarily disagree with their views but I think they lack professionalism. Don’t pawn yourself off as a serious commentator and then act like a less refined version of Jon Stewart.
Fox News is just ridiculous. They don’t even pretend to be informed or intelligent. They cater to middleclass conservatives and people who don’t want their point of views challenged. Everything is a commentary and there is a clear bias to their commentary. Even though Fox and conservative pundits insist that the rest of the media harbor a liberal bias, it’s quite clear that Fox has positioned itself as a propaganda machine for the right wing.
Case in point? Obama’s recent speech in Cairo. Obama reached out to the Muslim world in hopes of establishing a dialogue that might allow the US to resolve differences without dropping bombs and casting aspersions. Fox News and the pundits they employ jumped on the speech and accused Obama of turning his back on Israel, weakening our nation and apologizing for our actions after 9-11. Obama talked about nuclear weapons and told his audience that his ambition was to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Fox scoffed at this notion, stating that nuclear weapons are here to stay.
They’re right, of course. That genie is out of the bottle. We’re also not going to get rid of chemical and biological weapons. But Obama, by virtue of being an intelligent man, knows this. The reason he’s telling the Muslim world that he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons is so Muslim people don’t feel like they’re being picked on when they’re told their countries can’t develop nukes. It’s a platitude, not a promise. And while it might be insincere, the gesture is more effective at building cooperation. Bush’s policy was to tell other countries they couldn’t have nukes and then wave his around singing na-nee-na-nee-boo-boo.
Obama also expressed some regret at the way the previous administration handled the aftermath of 9-11. It wasn’t an outright apology but Obama did offer that both the United States and the Muslim world shared blame for the state of the world today. That’s called diplomacy. Rather than pointing his finger at all of Islam, as George W. Bush was prone to do, Obama extended his hand and offered Muslims the opportunity to meet him halfway. President Obama simply realizes that we can’t bomb people into our way of thinking. Compromises must be made. By taking the first step, Obama has put the US in a position of power. We can dictate the nature of those compromises.
One fact Fox pointed out was a poll that reveals a very low favorability rating in the Islamic world. “These people don’t like us; why is Obama trying to woo them,” one bleach-blond bimbo asked. Of course Jon Stewart quickly countered on The Daily Show that you’re supposed to woo people who don’t like you.
You’d think that Fox and the conservative pundits are in favor of waging all out war on Islam. While there are certainly whackos on the right who see this as a holy war, most of the people criticizing Obama are simply grasping at straws. They have to object to everything he does, even if it’s the right thing to do. Obama could turn the Middle East into a utopia where people of every culture and creed embrace one another as brothers and Fox would find something to take issue with. “God wanted the Middle East to be violent,” they’d complain.
It’s too early to tell if Obama’s right. I don’t know if he’s doing a good job or not. He’s clearly not perfect but it certainly seems like he’s on the right track. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney demolished our nation’s good will around the world and that was after the entire world was in our corner after the 9-11 attacks. In all of six months Bush and Cheney managed to alienate everybody except Tony Blair and his loyalty to Bush destroyed his reputation. Before we commemorated the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks the rest of the world was pretty much thinking that we had it coming and when we turned our attention to Iraq, we were, in the eyes of the world, the evil empire.
It seems as though Obama has mended a few fences. By simply respecting the rest of the world he is earning the respect of people around the world. The US has a chance to be a great country again and that’s because Barack Obama isn’t running around pointing fingers at other countries and using terms like “evil”, “rogue,” and “terror.” He hasn’t claimed to be on a mission from God, like some inbred version of Elwood Blues. Most importantly, he speaks clearly, forms complete sentences and uses words that are actually in the dictionary.
Perhaps 8 years of George W. Bush has conditioned the people at Fox and the idiots who watch them to expect our president to act like a professional wrestler, but back before “the man of god” overtook the White House, this is how Presidents behaved. It's old school diplomacy. Communicating with class, respect and intelligence. It takes some getting used to but it works.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Poor Little Beauty Queen
For Carrie Prejean losing the Miss America Pageant could prove to be a brilliant career move. Most people can only name Vanessa Williams when they try to think of previous pageant winners and she was best know for having her title stripped when nude photos of the aspiring entertainer surfaced. While the ordeal must have been terribly humiliating at the time, Vanessa ended up getting more publicity than other winners and she parlayed that into a successful recording and acting career.
Vanessa Williams was OK as a singer cranking out a few pedestrian pop hits and she was a fairly decent actress once she stopped milking the cameo circuit and focused on the craft but her she’s best known for the Miss America debacle. Long after people have forgotten about most winners, Vanessa Williams was the center of attention.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, didn’t win but she managed to grab all the attention by stirring up a controversy when guest celebrity judge and shameless media whore Perez Hilton asked her for an opinion on the legalization of gay marriage. Her response:
"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”
Besides the fact that she sounded inherently bimbish, as most beauty contest participants do—come on, they’re making a living on their looks—the statement wasn’t exactly something to call the ACLU over. The problem is that the Miss America Pageant is all about politics. Neutral politics. Fluff is the key.
Prejean has been making the rounds on all the talk shows insisting that she lost the contest because she had the courage to speak from the heart. She’s also been thumping the bible angle pretty consistently which means she’ll soon have a talk show on FOX probably bridging the time slot between Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
People like Perez Hilton say she’s just a dumb bitch with a bad dye job as if that distinguishes her from the rest of the pageant circuit. Those leaping to her defense talk about liberal bias and freedom of speech.
For me it’s not about liberal bias. I’m a liberal and I couldn’t care less about marriage. I suppose if two people really want to get married they should be able to, but I don’t know why they want to ruin a perfectly good relationship by wrapping it up in red tape. I also think that people who are opposed to gay marriage are, without exception, idiots. If you think gay marriage is wrong you just aren't thinking enough. That includes Carrie, but I really don't have a problem with what she said because I've accepted the fact that I have to share this country with a lot of idiots. I tolerate it because it's illegal to run around punching people in the neck just because they're ignorant.
The problem I have with Carrie’s pity party is that she has nobody to blame but herself. She has a right to speak her mind. She has a right to form an opinion. But if you opt to put those two rights together and people don’t like the result you are subject to reprisals. Freedom of speech is not free of consequences. You and your opinion are not entitled to respect. That's something you earn by being informed and expressing yourself thoughtfully.
Prejudice is wrong. It’s not fair to look at somebody and judge them based on things that are beyond their control but the manner in which you express yourself, be it through word or deed, is something that you can control. When you speak, that provides the people around with an opportunity to judge you. That's the way it's supposed to be. Martin Luther King dreamed of a world where a person would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. When you open your mouth you reveal the content of your character.
The trick to beauty pageants is to remember that it’s all superficial. Miss America should really be labeled Miss Future Trophy Wife. We want her to look good, demonstrate a mildly interesting talent and possess just enough intelligence to not embarrass her powerful husband when she is forced to open her mouth in social situations. When you’re asked a question at the Miss America Pageant you’re supposed to form a coherent sentence that glosses over the issue, and then bat your eyes so people remember that your real purpose in life is to be pretty.
Truly intelligent women don’t enter these pageants. Could you imagine somebody with Tina Fey’s wit being asked a question about gay marriage? I’m opposed to gay marriage because I think it’s unfair that the man of my dreams—conscientious of his looks, impeccable style, neat, polite, able to help me pick out a dress or even do my hair in a pinch—is gay. Totally not fair. Why am I stuck choosing between the chronically flatulent frat boy and the guy who wears throwback jerseys?
We’d all laugh, but she wouldn’t win because deep down beauty pageants are chauvinistic. When women are beautiful, talented and smart it threatens us. Not just men, but also other women. Nobody should have it all. That's why even the talent portion is repleat with a number of usless superficial talents. Has a Miss America contestant ever rebuilt a transmission or belched the alphabet during the talent portion? Nope. It's always sub-collegiate gymnatics, baton twirling or some average musical skill. Nothing meaningful or funny.
The ironic thing is that Miss California didn’t pull off looking smart, she just didn’t have the sense to keep her politics neutral. She didn’t pander to the crowd that controlled her destiny as a Miss America contestant, but she still pandered. Her audience was just too busy watching NASCAR at the time.
Some people are really happy with what Miss California had to say. They agree with her and she will soon become an iconic figure in their circles. She will become a conservative media darling and easily have a better career than the Barbie doll wannabe who edged her out. So it’s probably not a good idea to feel sorry for her. If she planned this, I have to give her credit for recognizing an opportunity but I suspect she’s just another dingbat regurgitating the same neo-conservative bile her dad spews at the dinner table everyday. Either way, she’s set for life.
Vanessa Williams was OK as a singer cranking out a few pedestrian pop hits and she was a fairly decent actress once she stopped milking the cameo circuit and focused on the craft but her she’s best known for the Miss America debacle. Long after people have forgotten about most winners, Vanessa Williams was the center of attention.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, didn’t win but she managed to grab all the attention by stirring up a controversy when guest celebrity judge and shameless media whore Perez Hilton asked her for an opinion on the legalization of gay marriage. Her response:
"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”
Besides the fact that she sounded inherently bimbish, as most beauty contest participants do—come on, they’re making a living on their looks—the statement wasn’t exactly something to call the ACLU over. The problem is that the Miss America Pageant is all about politics. Neutral politics. Fluff is the key.
Prejean has been making the rounds on all the talk shows insisting that she lost the contest because she had the courage to speak from the heart. She’s also been thumping the bible angle pretty consistently which means she’ll soon have a talk show on FOX probably bridging the time slot between Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
People like Perez Hilton say she’s just a dumb bitch with a bad dye job as if that distinguishes her from the rest of the pageant circuit. Those leaping to her defense talk about liberal bias and freedom of speech.
For me it’s not about liberal bias. I’m a liberal and I couldn’t care less about marriage. I suppose if two people really want to get married they should be able to, but I don’t know why they want to ruin a perfectly good relationship by wrapping it up in red tape. I also think that people who are opposed to gay marriage are, without exception, idiots. If you think gay marriage is wrong you just aren't thinking enough. That includes Carrie, but I really don't have a problem with what she said because I've accepted the fact that I have to share this country with a lot of idiots. I tolerate it because it's illegal to run around punching people in the neck just because they're ignorant.
The problem I have with Carrie’s pity party is that she has nobody to blame but herself. She has a right to speak her mind. She has a right to form an opinion. But if you opt to put those two rights together and people don’t like the result you are subject to reprisals. Freedom of speech is not free of consequences. You and your opinion are not entitled to respect. That's something you earn by being informed and expressing yourself thoughtfully.
Prejudice is wrong. It’s not fair to look at somebody and judge them based on things that are beyond their control but the manner in which you express yourself, be it through word or deed, is something that you can control. When you speak, that provides the people around with an opportunity to judge you. That's the way it's supposed to be. Martin Luther King dreamed of a world where a person would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. When you open your mouth you reveal the content of your character.
The trick to beauty pageants is to remember that it’s all superficial. Miss America should really be labeled Miss Future Trophy Wife. We want her to look good, demonstrate a mildly interesting talent and possess just enough intelligence to not embarrass her powerful husband when she is forced to open her mouth in social situations. When you’re asked a question at the Miss America Pageant you’re supposed to form a coherent sentence that glosses over the issue, and then bat your eyes so people remember that your real purpose in life is to be pretty.
Truly intelligent women don’t enter these pageants. Could you imagine somebody with Tina Fey’s wit being asked a question about gay marriage? I’m opposed to gay marriage because I think it’s unfair that the man of my dreams—conscientious of his looks, impeccable style, neat, polite, able to help me pick out a dress or even do my hair in a pinch—is gay. Totally not fair. Why am I stuck choosing between the chronically flatulent frat boy and the guy who wears throwback jerseys?
We’d all laugh, but she wouldn’t win because deep down beauty pageants are chauvinistic. When women are beautiful, talented and smart it threatens us. Not just men, but also other women. Nobody should have it all. That's why even the talent portion is repleat with a number of usless superficial talents. Has a Miss America contestant ever rebuilt a transmission or belched the alphabet during the talent portion? Nope. It's always sub-collegiate gymnatics, baton twirling or some average musical skill. Nothing meaningful or funny.
The ironic thing is that Miss California didn’t pull off looking smart, she just didn’t have the sense to keep her politics neutral. She didn’t pander to the crowd that controlled her destiny as a Miss America contestant, but she still pandered. Her audience was just too busy watching NASCAR at the time.
Some people are really happy with what Miss California had to say. They agree with her and she will soon become an iconic figure in their circles. She will become a conservative media darling and easily have a better career than the Barbie doll wannabe who edged her out. So it’s probably not a good idea to feel sorry for her. If she planned this, I have to give her credit for recognizing an opportunity but I suspect she’s just another dingbat regurgitating the same neo-conservative bile her dad spews at the dinner table everyday. Either way, she’s set for life.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Conservative Politics
I really didn’t like George W. Bush. Not only did he make me feel shame over being an American, I honestly was disgusted that I had to share being the same species with the guy. He was awful. Without a doubt he was our worst president and his ascension to power illustrates that the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about is alive, well and capable to stripping this country of all its rights whenever it wants.
I cringed every time he opened his mouth because I knew that the rest of the world would not give me and the other half of the country who voted against Bush credit for trying to stop him. I knew that the rest of the world wasn’t going to fuss over niggling details like lost ballots and defective voting machines in battleground states like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. I’m convinced that fraud played a major role in both elections and I’m sure that both sides cheat on Election Day. It’s just that in 2000 and 2004 the race was so close that the fix actually worked. I can’t attest to Florida, I only know what was reported, but I live in Ohio and I know that there was something fishy going on. Globally, however, Bush was the United States. Think about that for a minute.
Through it all, I hated Bush but I opted to bide my time. I took comfort in the jokes offered by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They got me through some pretty tough times and reminded me that this country has managed to endure lousy leadership in the past. Perhaps they weren’t as incompetent and destructive as Bush, but we were going to survive.
I enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama because he represented change. I know that was his mantra but as a candidate he was really a departure from the norm. He stuck by his words, even when they were twisted and used against him. Rather than back-tracking and pretending he didn’t say something, like his comments about embittered people in Western Pennsylvania, Obama took ownership of his statements and explained his position. He seemed to keep his head out of the muck and stayed on point. That was refreshing. McCain was a grouchy old man who was desperately trying to play everybody under the GOP’s big tent. Unfortunately at speaking engagements and rallies the ugly side of his campaign reared its ugly head. The Republican party tried to stir up a lot of fear with regard to Obama and it resulted in the real people McCain pretended to care about saying some pretty awful things. Obama didn’t waste time obsessing with it. He did a great job of staying away from the negative tactics that had stirred up such a divide in this country.
That being said I know that he’s just a man and I realize that his political experience is limited. So the political games people play in Washington DC are going to catch him off guard. I believe he really wants to bridge the gap between the parties but loyalists on either side are going to stand in his way. People like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy have axes to grind over the way Republicans ran amuck for most of the last 10 years so Republicans are naturally going to circle their wagons and try to ride out the first two years of the Obama Administration. If Obama manages to maintain a how approval rating and Democrats hold sway, then the GOP will retool its message. They don’t want to reach across party lines just yet, not when the jury is still out on Obama the President.
And that’s OK. Nobody is going to change the game of politics overnight and the task Obama faces is monumental. He’s going to be forced to shelve a number of his ideas and make a lot of compromises. By the time the midterm elections come around, the Democrats are probably going to lose a lot of ground because 2 years isn’t enough time to plug the holes in our economy. Let alone address issues like energy independence, and upgrading our infrastructure to support alternative fuels and an efficient power grid.
The problem I have isn’t with the politics, it’s with the pundits. I don’t put much stock in what pundits from either side of the aisle have to say, but a lot of people do and it demeans the discussion. I’ve had people tell me that Jon Stewart is a liberal pundit but I don’t see it. He’s certainly liberal in his personal political beliefs but his show is all about satire. He pokes fun at Democrats and Republicans equally. During the Bush Administration most of the jokes centered on Republicans because Democrats were successfully marginalized but Stewart and his staff took shots at Democrats for being so disorganized and impotent. It was all fair. Every comic in the country confirmed that the Bush Administration wrote its own material.
Now, Stewart has found comedy gold in conservative pundits. It’s hard to pass up an opportunity to skewer Rush Limbaugh for stating that he wants Obama to fail or to overlook Glen Beck tearfully lamenting the direction this country is heading. I doubt that Limbaugh or Beck actually believe most of what they say. They have cornered an inherently stupid audience that wants to indulge prejudice and fear. So Beck and Limbaugh make lots of money selling ignorance and hatred. They do it well.
You can throw guys like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Vanity into that discussion too, although Ann’s so crazy that most conservatives try to distance themselves from her…officially anyway. I think she’s actually lampooning the conservative point of view but Conservatives are too stupid to realize that the joke is on them. It’s like Larry the Cable Guy’s fan base. Larry went from being the punch line to a joke about rednecks to chicken-fried cult hero. Now Dan Whitney, the disc jockey who created Larry, never appears out of character. He’s become a mascot for people who lose their virginity to a sibling.
O’Reilly and Hannity seem to enjoy humiliating people who disagree with them, not by presenting an intelligent counterpoint backed up with facts but by screaming at them like spoiled children and having the technicians turn off their microphones. It’s good drama and their core audience seems to think they’re good at debating.
Conservative pundits are bullies. They deal in petty insults and when they find themselves intellectually outmatched (which is often) they resort to violent physical posturing. I’ve seen Bill O’Reilly pound his fist on the desk and scream “DON’T CALL ME A LIAR!” when a guest noted that O’Reilly presented an argument that wasn’t accurate. Glenn Beck is also a big fan of bluster and Sean Hannity does more than his share of yelling and pointing.
These guys get away with it because their behavior is so far out of line that people simply can’t respond to it. Their fans eat it up because their fans enjoy that same aspect of professional wrestling. Glenn Beck would never act the way he does to guests on his show to a stranger in a bar because he knows that he’d end up eating his meals through a straw for the next six to ten weeks. It’s easy to be a tough guy when you’re screaming at somebody who is civil and mature enough to believe that debates aren’t supposed to disintegrate into tantrums, but Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Beck aren’t tough guys. They’re soft old white guys who live in gated communities and scurry across the street when approached by somebody who hasn’t shaved in the past four hours.
That’s one thing all of these blustery conservative pundits have in common: they’re all talk. With the exception of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, who are haggard old men, these are pudgy little white men who haven’t done an honest day’s work in decades. Hannity and Beck might huff and puff on a treadmill three times a week to stay out of size 48 underpants and Limbaugh probably sweats when he eats but non of these jerks is tough enough to back up all that bravado. Sadly, none of them are smart enough to gain the upper hand in a conversation without stooping Randy “Macho Man” Savage tactics.
What I find extremely funny is that Jon Stewart, who gets ridiculed by these clowns because he’s a late night funnyman, can roll up his sleeves and debate the best of them. After a week of bellyaching on national TV over being the subject of Daily Show jokes, Financial Analyst Jim Cramer sat down with Jon Stewart and got bitch-slapped. Stewart clearly did his homework, on both Cramer and the financial markets, and proceeded to spend an entire show taking Cramer to task.
Stewart usually mixes a few good points in with a number of solid questions, clever jokes and comical facial expressions but when he feels so inclined he can shred an opponent in a debate. A few years ago Stewart excoriated Bill Bennett for his statements on homosexuality and he hit Mike Huckabee with a couple of sharp blows on the same subject. Stewart jokingly takes credit for Tucker Carlson’s demise on the pundit circuit when Stewart went on Tucker’s show and called him out for being a polemicist. Fortunately Tucker Carlson has enough class to avoid balling up his fists and screaming threats at people, but Carlson didn’t demonstrate a lot of brainpower either.
And maybe that’s because a lot of the pundits are playing to the crowd. Perhaps they don’t buy a word of what they say. They’re like huckster evangelists selling salvation in six easy credit card installments. It doesn’t matter whether or not they think it’s right; it’s all about what keeps the money coming in. Limbaugh and Beck are college drop outs who struggled with regular employment. Limbaugh spent plenty of time on the public dime collecting unemployment and Beck blames a tough family life for his drug and alcohol dependence early on. They’re also total hypocrites. Beck routinely contradicts himself and Limbaugh famously ducked into rehab when news of his drug addiction became public.
What’s funny to me is that conservatives will justify the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter by comparing them to people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. Bill O’Reilly so loathes Olberman that he has ordered Fox security staffers to confront callers who have mentioned Olberman on his show, but I don’t get much out of guys like Olberman or Matthews. In fact, I really don’t care for their posturing either. I suppose I find them a little less offensive because they aren’t pandering to inbred bigots and theological bullies who want to impose a specific puritanical version of morality on the entire country, but I have little use for pundits on either side.
Even if my theory is correct and the pundits really are just hamming it up for a paycheck, the fact that guys like Limbaugh and Beck have no problem with their appeal to the KKK set is disturbing, and when you pull the curtain back and take a look at the inner machinations of the Republican Party you see a very unnerving relationship with the kind of people who thought the assassinations of the King, X and the Kennedys made sense at the time.
The 2008 election was a departure from lunacy. Sensible people had an alternative to partisan affiliations. Most Republicans think that their party would be better served if it would drop the abortion issue and forget about gay marriage, but the party leaders are terrified of facing a world where they can’t count on coots, hicks and rednecks. When the Democratic Party decided to turn its back on the pro-segregation Dixie-crats back in the 60s, the Republican Party was more than happy to welcome them in. Officially the party distances itself from offending people who aren’t sexist, racist and homophobic by hiding behind the issue of “States’ Rights” but everybody knows that that’s code for endorsing those very things. Reagan championed State’s Rights with a gleam in his eye as he winked at KKK Grand Wizards on his tour of the Deep South in 1980. Republicans even skirt the abortion issue by claiming that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned so the states can legislate abortion laws, but yet the Republican politicians choose where to stand on the issue based on where they need more votes.
The problem is that the handful of Republicans who try to distance themselves from the conservative pundits find themselves in hot water within their own party. Michael Steele, taking a cue from the 2008 election tried to distance the base of the party from Rush Limbaugh by marginalizing the irascible radio blabbermouth as an entertainer. Within a few days Steele was on his hands and knees trying to figure out which of Rush’s ample butt cheeks would put him back in good graces with the angry white people who steer the GOP. Newt Gingrich, who was once Rush Limbaugh’s wet dream when he was raging against Bill Clinton, picked up that baton and ran with it but Gingrich is drawing criticism from his party for dividing the base.
The people accused of being liberal pundits don’t pander to the wild-eyed extremists. The lines that have been drawn were carefully created by Conservatives who characterize anything remotely liberal as a socialist plot. Ironically it’s the liberals who want government to be less invasive. Conservatives pundits rage against issues like national healthcare and the federal government’s involvement in education but the goal isn’t to have the government dictate how people are educated or cared for, it’s to make sure that people have the same opportunities. It’s not socialist to expect that a poor kid growing up in Parkersburg, West Virginia will get the same opportunities to succeed as the rich in Orange County. Obviously, wealth is going to provide the rich kid with certain advantages but there should be a massive disparity in the basic education provided by the public school system.
It’s also ridiculous that simple medical care is becoming a luxury in this country. Finding a way to leverage the wealth and power of the people, who are represented by the federal government, against the corporate greed that fuels exorbitant costs is reasonable. Nobody wants to eliminate private medical practice. Nobody wants a truly socialized system. What we want is to make the basic procedure affordable to everybody. But there’s no middle ground with conservative pundits. There never is. It’s black and white; yes or no; with us or against us.
The problem is that it’s advantageous. Simplicity is easy to argue, and easy to defend. Most of the issues are complicated. People see the federal government investing trillions of dollars back into the economy and they wonder why the banks are getting a windfall when the average Joe is living in his car. Divy that money up for the working stiff, they cry, we’ll stimulate the economy. Then of course, conservatives will line up and rally for corporate tax cuts and more breaks for the wealthy. Trickle down economics. It’s simple.
The problem is that the economy isn’t simple. It’s complex. Most of the problems we face are. They require complex solutions, not pithy sound bites. The conservative pundits don’t care. They found an audience that doesn’t like to think. They’re the same people who think Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck” act qualifies as intellectual humor. They find the nuances of NASCAR to be fascinating and they love professional Rasslin’. It’s because those things are simple. So it makes sense to reduce the business of government and politics to the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t even matter if it’s right or wrong, because at the end of the day it’s all about the money.
I cringed every time he opened his mouth because I knew that the rest of the world would not give me and the other half of the country who voted against Bush credit for trying to stop him. I knew that the rest of the world wasn’t going to fuss over niggling details like lost ballots and defective voting machines in battleground states like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. I’m convinced that fraud played a major role in both elections and I’m sure that both sides cheat on Election Day. It’s just that in 2000 and 2004 the race was so close that the fix actually worked. I can’t attest to Florida, I only know what was reported, but I live in Ohio and I know that there was something fishy going on. Globally, however, Bush was the United States. Think about that for a minute.
Through it all, I hated Bush but I opted to bide my time. I took comfort in the jokes offered by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They got me through some pretty tough times and reminded me that this country has managed to endure lousy leadership in the past. Perhaps they weren’t as incompetent and destructive as Bush, but we were going to survive.
I enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama because he represented change. I know that was his mantra but as a candidate he was really a departure from the norm. He stuck by his words, even when they were twisted and used against him. Rather than back-tracking and pretending he didn’t say something, like his comments about embittered people in Western Pennsylvania, Obama took ownership of his statements and explained his position. He seemed to keep his head out of the muck and stayed on point. That was refreshing. McCain was a grouchy old man who was desperately trying to play everybody under the GOP’s big tent. Unfortunately at speaking engagements and rallies the ugly side of his campaign reared its ugly head. The Republican party tried to stir up a lot of fear with regard to Obama and it resulted in the real people McCain pretended to care about saying some pretty awful things. Obama didn’t waste time obsessing with it. He did a great job of staying away from the negative tactics that had stirred up such a divide in this country.
That being said I know that he’s just a man and I realize that his political experience is limited. So the political games people play in Washington DC are going to catch him off guard. I believe he really wants to bridge the gap between the parties but loyalists on either side are going to stand in his way. People like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy have axes to grind over the way Republicans ran amuck for most of the last 10 years so Republicans are naturally going to circle their wagons and try to ride out the first two years of the Obama Administration. If Obama manages to maintain a how approval rating and Democrats hold sway, then the GOP will retool its message. They don’t want to reach across party lines just yet, not when the jury is still out on Obama the President.
And that’s OK. Nobody is going to change the game of politics overnight and the task Obama faces is monumental. He’s going to be forced to shelve a number of his ideas and make a lot of compromises. By the time the midterm elections come around, the Democrats are probably going to lose a lot of ground because 2 years isn’t enough time to plug the holes in our economy. Let alone address issues like energy independence, and upgrading our infrastructure to support alternative fuels and an efficient power grid.
The problem I have isn’t with the politics, it’s with the pundits. I don’t put much stock in what pundits from either side of the aisle have to say, but a lot of people do and it demeans the discussion. I’ve had people tell me that Jon Stewart is a liberal pundit but I don’t see it. He’s certainly liberal in his personal political beliefs but his show is all about satire. He pokes fun at Democrats and Republicans equally. During the Bush Administration most of the jokes centered on Republicans because Democrats were successfully marginalized but Stewart and his staff took shots at Democrats for being so disorganized and impotent. It was all fair. Every comic in the country confirmed that the Bush Administration wrote its own material.
Now, Stewart has found comedy gold in conservative pundits. It’s hard to pass up an opportunity to skewer Rush Limbaugh for stating that he wants Obama to fail or to overlook Glen Beck tearfully lamenting the direction this country is heading. I doubt that Limbaugh or Beck actually believe most of what they say. They have cornered an inherently stupid audience that wants to indulge prejudice and fear. So Beck and Limbaugh make lots of money selling ignorance and hatred. They do it well.
You can throw guys like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Vanity into that discussion too, although Ann’s so crazy that most conservatives try to distance themselves from her…officially anyway. I think she’s actually lampooning the conservative point of view but Conservatives are too stupid to realize that the joke is on them. It’s like Larry the Cable Guy’s fan base. Larry went from being the punch line to a joke about rednecks to chicken-fried cult hero. Now Dan Whitney, the disc jockey who created Larry, never appears out of character. He’s become a mascot for people who lose their virginity to a sibling.
O’Reilly and Hannity seem to enjoy humiliating people who disagree with them, not by presenting an intelligent counterpoint backed up with facts but by screaming at them like spoiled children and having the technicians turn off their microphones. It’s good drama and their core audience seems to think they’re good at debating.
Conservative pundits are bullies. They deal in petty insults and when they find themselves intellectually outmatched (which is often) they resort to violent physical posturing. I’ve seen Bill O’Reilly pound his fist on the desk and scream “DON’T CALL ME A LIAR!” when a guest noted that O’Reilly presented an argument that wasn’t accurate. Glenn Beck is also a big fan of bluster and Sean Hannity does more than his share of yelling and pointing.
These guys get away with it because their behavior is so far out of line that people simply can’t respond to it. Their fans eat it up because their fans enjoy that same aspect of professional wrestling. Glenn Beck would never act the way he does to guests on his show to a stranger in a bar because he knows that he’d end up eating his meals through a straw for the next six to ten weeks. It’s easy to be a tough guy when you’re screaming at somebody who is civil and mature enough to believe that debates aren’t supposed to disintegrate into tantrums, but Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Beck aren’t tough guys. They’re soft old white guys who live in gated communities and scurry across the street when approached by somebody who hasn’t shaved in the past four hours.
That’s one thing all of these blustery conservative pundits have in common: they’re all talk. With the exception of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, who are haggard old men, these are pudgy little white men who haven’t done an honest day’s work in decades. Hannity and Beck might huff and puff on a treadmill three times a week to stay out of size 48 underpants and Limbaugh probably sweats when he eats but non of these jerks is tough enough to back up all that bravado. Sadly, none of them are smart enough to gain the upper hand in a conversation without stooping Randy “Macho Man” Savage tactics.
What I find extremely funny is that Jon Stewart, who gets ridiculed by these clowns because he’s a late night funnyman, can roll up his sleeves and debate the best of them. After a week of bellyaching on national TV over being the subject of Daily Show jokes, Financial Analyst Jim Cramer sat down with Jon Stewart and got bitch-slapped. Stewart clearly did his homework, on both Cramer and the financial markets, and proceeded to spend an entire show taking Cramer to task.
Stewart usually mixes a few good points in with a number of solid questions, clever jokes and comical facial expressions but when he feels so inclined he can shred an opponent in a debate. A few years ago Stewart excoriated Bill Bennett for his statements on homosexuality and he hit Mike Huckabee with a couple of sharp blows on the same subject. Stewart jokingly takes credit for Tucker Carlson’s demise on the pundit circuit when Stewart went on Tucker’s show and called him out for being a polemicist. Fortunately Tucker Carlson has enough class to avoid balling up his fists and screaming threats at people, but Carlson didn’t demonstrate a lot of brainpower either.
And maybe that’s because a lot of the pundits are playing to the crowd. Perhaps they don’t buy a word of what they say. They’re like huckster evangelists selling salvation in six easy credit card installments. It doesn’t matter whether or not they think it’s right; it’s all about what keeps the money coming in. Limbaugh and Beck are college drop outs who struggled with regular employment. Limbaugh spent plenty of time on the public dime collecting unemployment and Beck blames a tough family life for his drug and alcohol dependence early on. They’re also total hypocrites. Beck routinely contradicts himself and Limbaugh famously ducked into rehab when news of his drug addiction became public.
What’s funny to me is that conservatives will justify the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter by comparing them to people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. Bill O’Reilly so loathes Olberman that he has ordered Fox security staffers to confront callers who have mentioned Olberman on his show, but I don’t get much out of guys like Olberman or Matthews. In fact, I really don’t care for their posturing either. I suppose I find them a little less offensive because they aren’t pandering to inbred bigots and theological bullies who want to impose a specific puritanical version of morality on the entire country, but I have little use for pundits on either side.
Even if my theory is correct and the pundits really are just hamming it up for a paycheck, the fact that guys like Limbaugh and Beck have no problem with their appeal to the KKK set is disturbing, and when you pull the curtain back and take a look at the inner machinations of the Republican Party you see a very unnerving relationship with the kind of people who thought the assassinations of the King, X and the Kennedys made sense at the time.
The 2008 election was a departure from lunacy. Sensible people had an alternative to partisan affiliations. Most Republicans think that their party would be better served if it would drop the abortion issue and forget about gay marriage, but the party leaders are terrified of facing a world where they can’t count on coots, hicks and rednecks. When the Democratic Party decided to turn its back on the pro-segregation Dixie-crats back in the 60s, the Republican Party was more than happy to welcome them in. Officially the party distances itself from offending people who aren’t sexist, racist and homophobic by hiding behind the issue of “States’ Rights” but everybody knows that that’s code for endorsing those very things. Reagan championed State’s Rights with a gleam in his eye as he winked at KKK Grand Wizards on his tour of the Deep South in 1980. Republicans even skirt the abortion issue by claiming that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned so the states can legislate abortion laws, but yet the Republican politicians choose where to stand on the issue based on where they need more votes.
The problem is that the handful of Republicans who try to distance themselves from the conservative pundits find themselves in hot water within their own party. Michael Steele, taking a cue from the 2008 election tried to distance the base of the party from Rush Limbaugh by marginalizing the irascible radio blabbermouth as an entertainer. Within a few days Steele was on his hands and knees trying to figure out which of Rush’s ample butt cheeks would put him back in good graces with the angry white people who steer the GOP. Newt Gingrich, who was once Rush Limbaugh’s wet dream when he was raging against Bill Clinton, picked up that baton and ran with it but Gingrich is drawing criticism from his party for dividing the base.
The people accused of being liberal pundits don’t pander to the wild-eyed extremists. The lines that have been drawn were carefully created by Conservatives who characterize anything remotely liberal as a socialist plot. Ironically it’s the liberals who want government to be less invasive. Conservatives pundits rage against issues like national healthcare and the federal government’s involvement in education but the goal isn’t to have the government dictate how people are educated or cared for, it’s to make sure that people have the same opportunities. It’s not socialist to expect that a poor kid growing up in Parkersburg, West Virginia will get the same opportunities to succeed as the rich in Orange County. Obviously, wealth is going to provide the rich kid with certain advantages but there should be a massive disparity in the basic education provided by the public school system.
It’s also ridiculous that simple medical care is becoming a luxury in this country. Finding a way to leverage the wealth and power of the people, who are represented by the federal government, against the corporate greed that fuels exorbitant costs is reasonable. Nobody wants to eliminate private medical practice. Nobody wants a truly socialized system. What we want is to make the basic procedure affordable to everybody. But there’s no middle ground with conservative pundits. There never is. It’s black and white; yes or no; with us or against us.
The problem is that it’s advantageous. Simplicity is easy to argue, and easy to defend. Most of the issues are complicated. People see the federal government investing trillions of dollars back into the economy and they wonder why the banks are getting a windfall when the average Joe is living in his car. Divy that money up for the working stiff, they cry, we’ll stimulate the economy. Then of course, conservatives will line up and rally for corporate tax cuts and more breaks for the wealthy. Trickle down economics. It’s simple.
The problem is that the economy isn’t simple. It’s complex. Most of the problems we face are. They require complex solutions, not pithy sound bites. The conservative pundits don’t care. They found an audience that doesn’t like to think. They’re the same people who think Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck” act qualifies as intellectual humor. They find the nuances of NASCAR to be fascinating and they love professional Rasslin’. It’s because those things are simple. So it makes sense to reduce the business of government and politics to the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t even matter if it’s right or wrong, because at the end of the day it’s all about the money.
Friday, February 20, 2009
A dude writing about a dude complaining about a dude disguised as a dude playing another dude
I have to admit that I was surprised when I read that Robert Downey Jr. had received an Oscar nomination for his role in Tropic Thunder. Then I thought about his turn as a “dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.” It was brilliant. The movie wasn’t, but like most of Ben Stiller’s work there were moments of crisp satire and the entire cast brought solid acting chops to the table. Part of Ben Stiller’s appeal is the manner in which he merges impressive acting skills with the totally absurd.
Tropic Thunder is a send up of popular culture. It wasn’t a spoof of action movies or 80s era Vietnam retrospectives. It was a commentary on our consumption of entertainment, disguised as a parody. And Robert Downey Jr. stole the show. His portrayal of Australian method actor Nick Lazarus not only lampooned how seriously some actors take themselves, but it took a shot at the audience for indulging these guys. It was brilliant and not the least bit insensitive to racial issues.
I’m not surprised that there was controversy. There are always people out there looking for a reason to be offended and, speaking as somebody who often finds ways to oblige them, I have to admit that it can be a lot of fun. I think that’s why Ben Stiller peppered his production with a number of jabs at the mentally challenged by using the term “retard” and he also used Jack Black as a vehicle to crack jokes at the expense of drug addicts. And perhaps the obese. Of course most of the jokes about “retards” centered around how the mentally challenged are portrayed in film and one of Ben Stiller’s closest friends is still trying to overcome a substance abuse problem so I trust that his humor wasn’t based in cruelty.
Tropic Thunder wasn’t a great movie but it made me laugh and that’s about all I expected. I didn’t even stop to think about how offended some people would be at some of the jokes. I guess that just goes to show you how stupid people can be. Satire requires a little effort on the part of the audience. You have to be smart enough to get it. I don’t think Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. have to apologize because there are so many people who are too dense to get the whole joke.
Mel Gibson, Guy Pearce and Hugh Jackman have more business getting offended since they hail from down under…one of them might be offended if they’re actually from New Zealand and I lumped him in with all those kangaroo punchers…but Why did Stiller and Downey opt to skewer Australian actors? Clearly that’s an intentional shot at somebody. Still, there hasn’t been any word about the Aussies organizing a ban. Not that those Aussies are a particularly organized lot.
The worst aspect of the outrage is that it brings out the real racists. If you bother reading comments after articles or message board posts you’ll see plenty of crackers saying that black people now have more rights than white people and slavery was over 200 years ago. Neither of those comments is true, but that’s what they say and it validates why some black people are offended by what has been called a “blackface” performance.
Racism isn’t over and in spite of what some white people say it is not a two way street. Whites still have the power. That doesn’t make it OK for black people to indulge racial prejudice but the fact remains that white racism is far worse because white racism has a measurable impact. I don't get offended when I hear black people use terms like cracker or honky because my grandparents weren't lynched and I've never been beaten down by the cops.
Hollywood has made tremendous strides in recent years and I can’t abide the playing of the race card when it comes to movies. We all know that The Color Purple got screwed by the academy and Denzel Washington’s portrayal of Malcolm X was so spot on I don’t know how anybody could have picked Al Pacino over him, but I personally thought Clint Eastwood was the best actor that year. I also thought Denzel deserved the Oscar over Kevin Spacey in 2000, but I often don’t agree with the Academy…Just like I didn’t agree with them when he won an Oscar for his overwrought performance in Training Day.
But Denzel is one of the most respected actors in Hollywood and he deserves that esteem. He’s a brilliant performer and his charisma is even more impressive when you realize that he has transcended race. You might not have noticed it, but black actors are becoming headline stars. They’re earning roles that aren’t necessarily written with race in mind which was unheard of 20 years ago. When Denzel broke into the business, black actors played black characters. Period. Opportunities were limited and sometimes the roles were just offensive, sterotypical garbage. Like Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch. Now Will Smith is the most bankable star in Hollywood and he's getting good parts. He’s the Bruce Willis of the new millennium; a believable everyman with a trademark sense of humor. That’s huge.
The character of Nick Lazarus is an interesting commentary on the state of affairs in Hollywood. In a comedic way, Tropic Thunder demonstrated how things have changed. 20 years ago black actors were just happy to get parts, now they are playing characters so compelling that white actors are jealous. Nick Lazarus is a fictional character who went to an extreme no real actor would consider but the fact remains that we’re living in a moment where, at least in Hollywood, equality is within reach.
It’s too bad that people didn’t get it. It’s a shame that I had to find a deep meaning in a movie as inane as Tropic Thunder. It’s terrible that there are white people who think that a handful of black scholarships and a few affirmative action quotas have solved the problem of racism. But at least we’re getting somewhere.
Tropic Thunder is a send up of popular culture. It wasn’t a spoof of action movies or 80s era Vietnam retrospectives. It was a commentary on our consumption of entertainment, disguised as a parody. And Robert Downey Jr. stole the show. His portrayal of Australian method actor Nick Lazarus not only lampooned how seriously some actors take themselves, but it took a shot at the audience for indulging these guys. It was brilliant and not the least bit insensitive to racial issues.
I’m not surprised that there was controversy. There are always people out there looking for a reason to be offended and, speaking as somebody who often finds ways to oblige them, I have to admit that it can be a lot of fun. I think that’s why Ben Stiller peppered his production with a number of jabs at the mentally challenged by using the term “retard” and he also used Jack Black as a vehicle to crack jokes at the expense of drug addicts. And perhaps the obese. Of course most of the jokes about “retards” centered around how the mentally challenged are portrayed in film and one of Ben Stiller’s closest friends is still trying to overcome a substance abuse problem so I trust that his humor wasn’t based in cruelty.
Tropic Thunder wasn’t a great movie but it made me laugh and that’s about all I expected. I didn’t even stop to think about how offended some people would be at some of the jokes. I guess that just goes to show you how stupid people can be. Satire requires a little effort on the part of the audience. You have to be smart enough to get it. I don’t think Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. have to apologize because there are so many people who are too dense to get the whole joke.
Mel Gibson, Guy Pearce and Hugh Jackman have more business getting offended since they hail from down under…one of them might be offended if they’re actually from New Zealand and I lumped him in with all those kangaroo punchers…but Why did Stiller and Downey opt to skewer Australian actors? Clearly that’s an intentional shot at somebody. Still, there hasn’t been any word about the Aussies organizing a ban. Not that those Aussies are a particularly organized lot.
The worst aspect of the outrage is that it brings out the real racists. If you bother reading comments after articles or message board posts you’ll see plenty of crackers saying that black people now have more rights than white people and slavery was over 200 years ago. Neither of those comments is true, but that’s what they say and it validates why some black people are offended by what has been called a “blackface” performance.
Racism isn’t over and in spite of what some white people say it is not a two way street. Whites still have the power. That doesn’t make it OK for black people to indulge racial prejudice but the fact remains that white racism is far worse because white racism has a measurable impact. I don't get offended when I hear black people use terms like cracker or honky because my grandparents weren't lynched and I've never been beaten down by the cops.
Hollywood has made tremendous strides in recent years and I can’t abide the playing of the race card when it comes to movies. We all know that The Color Purple got screwed by the academy and Denzel Washington’s portrayal of Malcolm X was so spot on I don’t know how anybody could have picked Al Pacino over him, but I personally thought Clint Eastwood was the best actor that year. I also thought Denzel deserved the Oscar over Kevin Spacey in 2000, but I often don’t agree with the Academy…Just like I didn’t agree with them when he won an Oscar for his overwrought performance in Training Day.
But Denzel is one of the most respected actors in Hollywood and he deserves that esteem. He’s a brilliant performer and his charisma is even more impressive when you realize that he has transcended race. You might not have noticed it, but black actors are becoming headline stars. They’re earning roles that aren’t necessarily written with race in mind which was unheard of 20 years ago. When Denzel broke into the business, black actors played black characters. Period. Opportunities were limited and sometimes the roles were just offensive, sterotypical garbage. Like Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch. Now Will Smith is the most bankable star in Hollywood and he's getting good parts. He’s the Bruce Willis of the new millennium; a believable everyman with a trademark sense of humor. That’s huge.
The character of Nick Lazarus is an interesting commentary on the state of affairs in Hollywood. In a comedic way, Tropic Thunder demonstrated how things have changed. 20 years ago black actors were just happy to get parts, now they are playing characters so compelling that white actors are jealous. Nick Lazarus is a fictional character who went to an extreme no real actor would consider but the fact remains that we’re living in a moment where, at least in Hollywood, equality is within reach.
It’s too bad that people didn’t get it. It’s a shame that I had to find a deep meaning in a movie as inane as Tropic Thunder. It’s terrible that there are white people who think that a handful of black scholarships and a few affirmative action quotas have solved the problem of racism. But at least we’re getting somewhere.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Rush Limbaugh: "I'm back, baby! I'm back"
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. That’s not an opinion, mind you, it is an irrefutable fact. Water is wet, the sky is blue and Rush Limbaugh is a morbidly obese hypocrite who happens to be a complete and total idiot.
More importantly people who agree with him are idiots too. I make no apologies for saying that. Intelligent people can disagree on a number of issues but when it comes to Rush Limbaugh there is no room for discussion. You either believe that he is an idiot or you are an idiot yourself.
I’ve known this for quite sometime. I’ve actually listened to him and I was stunned by how misinformed he is. I was also taken aback by how crude and hateful his rhetoric can be. Even though I’m smart enough to realize the Rush is simply pandering to a surprisingly large segment of stupid people I still believe that Rush is an idiot because he doesn’t seem to understand where to draw the line. We all need to make a living but that doesn’t mean you should trade intelligence and decency for a paycheck.
Just when I thought my opinion of the guy couldn’t be any lower, Rush upped the ante with another gem. Now that Barack Obama is our president, Rush has conveyed his sincere desire to see Obama fail. Not only does Rush want Obama to fail, he insists that Republicans who want Obama to succeed are “drinking the Kool-Aide” and rolling over for Barack Obama. Rush goes on to lament the fact that people are supportive of the new President and feels that people want him to succeed because he is black.
Rush has proven time and time again that he is a racist. His apologists will sometimes insist that much of what he says is sarcastic and should be taken with a grain of salt but when it comes to racial issues Rush has made it very clear that he is a bigot. He’s careful not to throw around gratuitous epithets but suggesting that Obama is being given special consideration because he’s black is offensive at best. It’s not much of a stretch to characterize Limbaugh’s comments as treacherous.
This isn’t the first time Rush has forced race into a conversation in order to discuss his belief that “blacks” get treated with kid gloves. Rush famously got the boot from ESPN for insinuating that Donovan McNabb got a free pass from “The Media” because certain liberals were “desirous” of a black quarterback being successful. Never mind the fact that McNabb’s numbers indicate that he’s successful regardless of what people want. Rush is one of those cowardly racists. He finds clever ways to express his bigotry and poses obtuse questions that underscore his beliefs but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Rush doesn’t like black people.
Rush doesn’t have to like Barack Obama and he certainly doesn’t have to give Obama a free pass if Obama screws up. I’m sure there will be no shortage of venom coming from all of the conservative pundits over the next four years and since the Republican Party is definitely trending toward a more centrist platform, idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will be even more popular in their niche. In fact, they probably want Obama to be successful so they can go back to selling lies and innuendoes to the NASCAR set.
Think about it. When was Rush Limbaugh at the pinnacle of his career? During the Clinton Administration. Rush Limbaugh was on the cover of every magazine and was a special guest on every news show. He was the king of talk radio and his format spawned a number of similar acts that managed to find an audience. Rush lost a lot of ground during the Bush Administration. When it comes to his career, which is the only thing Rush really cares about, Bush was the worst thing that could have happened to him. Conversely, Obama might be the worst thing that could have happened to The Daily Show.
The sad thing is that there are some conservatives who really do want Obama to fail. Rush doesn’t mean what he says but his audience takes him at his word and believes he’s right. It’s fine if they don’t like Obama and they should feel free to criticize him at every turn, but hoping that he fails is pretty rash. If Obama fails we all go down.
Bush was a failure and I can honestly say that I hated him and everything he stood for during his campaigns as well as his presidency. After 8 years of watching him crap on the entire world I can’t begin describe how much I dislike him. It makes me sick to think that he’s going to be drawing a fat presidential pension when it’s pretty obvious he should be doing time in federal prison. He’s the worst president we’ve ever had but additionally and more importantly, he is a sorry excuse for a human being. I loathe him.
Strong words indeed, but in spite of that I never wished that he would fail. In 2000 I knew that his campaign tactics were despicable, I was concerned with his religiosity and I was unimpressed with his intelligence but I held out hope that he would rise above all of that and be successful. I wanted him to exceed my expectations and do right by this country. While I can’t say that I was surprised by his failures, I certainly didn’t want them to happen.
By 2004 I understood exactly how bad Bush could be and I knew another four years of his antics would put this country in exactly the same hole it’s in right now. The problem with Bush is that he’s not only stupid but he’s arrogant as well. I can respect stupid people when they’re smart enough to know that they aren’t smart enough, but Bush is one of those rare clods who thinks that he’s a really smart guy. Combine that with his spoiled rich boy sense of entitlement and the chip on his shoulder because Daddy didn’t love him enough and you have a tyrant on your hands. If he’d been molested by an uncle or slightly less lazy, Bush would have been a serial killer.
Even though I despised Bush in 2004 I still wanted him to do the right thing and do it well. I wanted him to see the bitter division in the country and work hard to bridge the gap. Instead of viewing his narrow reelection as a warning sign that something was amiss, he pressed on as though the American people unanimously supported him in every endeavor.
At no point did I want him to fail. Even when I knew he was embarking on another hopeless journey I held out hope that he’d prove me wrong and everything would work out in the end. I’m really sorry that it didn’t.
You see the difference between liberals like me and the sort of idiotic conservatives who worship chunky opiate addicts is that liberals would love it if conservative policies worked. The world would be a wonderful place if we could just ignore the environment, burn up our nonrenewable resources with reckless abandon and impose rigid morality on the masses without infringing upon their rights. Unfortunately the world is far too complex for simplistic conservatism. I don’t want it to fail, it just does.
I voted for Barack Obama because I believe in him. He seems to grasp the complexity of the problems this country is currently facing. I don’t want him to be successful because he’s black. I don’t want him to be successful because he’s a Democrat. I want—I need Barack Obama to succeed because it’s in the best interest of this country. Failure, while possible, is not an option.
Rush doesn’t care about this country. He cares about his ratings and, in spite of Bush’s tax cuts working in his favor, his revenue has been down over the past few years. That’s about to change and he knows it. To Rush it doesn’t matter that he has had his way for the past 8 years. It’s not important that conservatism as prescribed by the rightwing pundits was a colossal failure. Rush is right back to where he was in 1992 and he’s not going to let this dash for cash slip by without a fight. Rush might be an idiot, but when it comes to lining his pockets he’s definitely not stupid.
More importantly people who agree with him are idiots too. I make no apologies for saying that. Intelligent people can disagree on a number of issues but when it comes to Rush Limbaugh there is no room for discussion. You either believe that he is an idiot or you are an idiot yourself.
I’ve known this for quite sometime. I’ve actually listened to him and I was stunned by how misinformed he is. I was also taken aback by how crude and hateful his rhetoric can be. Even though I’m smart enough to realize the Rush is simply pandering to a surprisingly large segment of stupid people I still believe that Rush is an idiot because he doesn’t seem to understand where to draw the line. We all need to make a living but that doesn’t mean you should trade intelligence and decency for a paycheck.
Just when I thought my opinion of the guy couldn’t be any lower, Rush upped the ante with another gem. Now that Barack Obama is our president, Rush has conveyed his sincere desire to see Obama fail. Not only does Rush want Obama to fail, he insists that Republicans who want Obama to succeed are “drinking the Kool-Aide” and rolling over for Barack Obama. Rush goes on to lament the fact that people are supportive of the new President and feels that people want him to succeed because he is black.
Rush has proven time and time again that he is a racist. His apologists will sometimes insist that much of what he says is sarcastic and should be taken with a grain of salt but when it comes to racial issues Rush has made it very clear that he is a bigot. He’s careful not to throw around gratuitous epithets but suggesting that Obama is being given special consideration because he’s black is offensive at best. It’s not much of a stretch to characterize Limbaugh’s comments as treacherous.
This isn’t the first time Rush has forced race into a conversation in order to discuss his belief that “blacks” get treated with kid gloves. Rush famously got the boot from ESPN for insinuating that Donovan McNabb got a free pass from “The Media” because certain liberals were “desirous” of a black quarterback being successful. Never mind the fact that McNabb’s numbers indicate that he’s successful regardless of what people want. Rush is one of those cowardly racists. He finds clever ways to express his bigotry and poses obtuse questions that underscore his beliefs but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Rush doesn’t like black people.
Rush doesn’t have to like Barack Obama and he certainly doesn’t have to give Obama a free pass if Obama screws up. I’m sure there will be no shortage of venom coming from all of the conservative pundits over the next four years and since the Republican Party is definitely trending toward a more centrist platform, idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will be even more popular in their niche. In fact, they probably want Obama to be successful so they can go back to selling lies and innuendoes to the NASCAR set.
Think about it. When was Rush Limbaugh at the pinnacle of his career? During the Clinton Administration. Rush Limbaugh was on the cover of every magazine and was a special guest on every news show. He was the king of talk radio and his format spawned a number of similar acts that managed to find an audience. Rush lost a lot of ground during the Bush Administration. When it comes to his career, which is the only thing Rush really cares about, Bush was the worst thing that could have happened to him. Conversely, Obama might be the worst thing that could have happened to The Daily Show.
The sad thing is that there are some conservatives who really do want Obama to fail. Rush doesn’t mean what he says but his audience takes him at his word and believes he’s right. It’s fine if they don’t like Obama and they should feel free to criticize him at every turn, but hoping that he fails is pretty rash. If Obama fails we all go down.
Bush was a failure and I can honestly say that I hated him and everything he stood for during his campaigns as well as his presidency. After 8 years of watching him crap on the entire world I can’t begin describe how much I dislike him. It makes me sick to think that he’s going to be drawing a fat presidential pension when it’s pretty obvious he should be doing time in federal prison. He’s the worst president we’ve ever had but additionally and more importantly, he is a sorry excuse for a human being. I loathe him.
Strong words indeed, but in spite of that I never wished that he would fail. In 2000 I knew that his campaign tactics were despicable, I was concerned with his religiosity and I was unimpressed with his intelligence but I held out hope that he would rise above all of that and be successful. I wanted him to exceed my expectations and do right by this country. While I can’t say that I was surprised by his failures, I certainly didn’t want them to happen.
By 2004 I understood exactly how bad Bush could be and I knew another four years of his antics would put this country in exactly the same hole it’s in right now. The problem with Bush is that he’s not only stupid but he’s arrogant as well. I can respect stupid people when they’re smart enough to know that they aren’t smart enough, but Bush is one of those rare clods who thinks that he’s a really smart guy. Combine that with his spoiled rich boy sense of entitlement and the chip on his shoulder because Daddy didn’t love him enough and you have a tyrant on your hands. If he’d been molested by an uncle or slightly less lazy, Bush would have been a serial killer.
Even though I despised Bush in 2004 I still wanted him to do the right thing and do it well. I wanted him to see the bitter division in the country and work hard to bridge the gap. Instead of viewing his narrow reelection as a warning sign that something was amiss, he pressed on as though the American people unanimously supported him in every endeavor.
At no point did I want him to fail. Even when I knew he was embarking on another hopeless journey I held out hope that he’d prove me wrong and everything would work out in the end. I’m really sorry that it didn’t.
You see the difference between liberals like me and the sort of idiotic conservatives who worship chunky opiate addicts is that liberals would love it if conservative policies worked. The world would be a wonderful place if we could just ignore the environment, burn up our nonrenewable resources with reckless abandon and impose rigid morality on the masses without infringing upon their rights. Unfortunately the world is far too complex for simplistic conservatism. I don’t want it to fail, it just does.
I voted for Barack Obama because I believe in him. He seems to grasp the complexity of the problems this country is currently facing. I don’t want him to be successful because he’s black. I don’t want him to be successful because he’s a Democrat. I want—I need Barack Obama to succeed because it’s in the best interest of this country. Failure, while possible, is not an option.
Rush doesn’t care about this country. He cares about his ratings and, in spite of Bush’s tax cuts working in his favor, his revenue has been down over the past few years. That’s about to change and he knows it. To Rush it doesn’t matter that he has had his way for the past 8 years. It’s not important that conservatism as prescribed by the rightwing pundits was a colossal failure. Rush is right back to where he was in 1992 and he’s not going to let this dash for cash slip by without a fight. Rush might be an idiot, but when it comes to lining his pockets he’s definitely not stupid.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Times, They are a-Changin'
Barack Obama will soon be inaugurated and I’m giddy at the prospect. I know that he’s not going to solve all the world’s problems with a magical pump of his fist but for the first time since I can remember I actually respect the man who is about to take office.
I was born in 1970 and while I can’t remember anything about Richard Nixon I firmly believe that he played a major role in shaping my cynicism toward elected officials. The guy was a crook, a liar and an egomaniac. Looking back I realize that Jimmy Carter was a nice guy who made the grave mistake of being honest with the American people but the fact remains that he was not an effective president. It didn’t help his cause that Teddy Kennedy treated him with nothing but contempt. If you can’t command the respect of your own party you have no hope.
Notice how I forgot to mention Gerald Ford? Exactly.
I do remember Ronald Reagan. Growing up in Northeastern Ohio I witnessed the effects of Reagan’s economic policies. To this day the Midwest is a shell of what it once was before Reagan declared war on unions and used blue collar workers as fodder for the cannons. A lot of people hold Reagan in high esteem. I don’t know why. Rumor has it that his face will soon make its way to the dime. Fitting considering that’s about how much he valued the American worker.
The first Bush was similar to Carter in the sense that he projected weakness. Unlike Carter he was a sniveling liar who got saddled with the fallout of his predecessor’s illegal and unethical activities. Bush presided over a grim recession and demonstrated a complete inability to understand how it affected the average American. Not surprising considering he comes from a family that doesn’t ever have to worry about its finances.
Clinton was a pig. He enjoyed living the life of a celebrity and indulged in all the perks that come with it. 30 years earlier nobody would have cared about his penchant for cheap women but in the 1990s people forgot that there’s a difference between personal life and public life. Besides Bill didn’t exactly go out of his way to be discreet. Even so, Clinton managed to ramp up the economy and got a lot accomplished in spite of the fact that a Republican Congress suspended doing its job in order to undermine Clinton at every turn.
The second Bush is proof that a combination of inbreeding and money yields disturbing results. I’ve read about all of our presidents and watched documentaries on most of them. George W. Bush will be viewed as the worst and that’s just based on what we know right now. Over the next 20 years a lot of secrets are going to come out and the level of corruption that occurred over the past 8 years will be mind boggling.
Worse than that are the clods who ran against Bush. Al Gore and John Kerry are very similar in the sense that they lacked any semblance of a personality. Gore is clearly the smarter of the two and probably would have been an excellent president but he was not able to project his positive qualities publicly. Kerry simply lacked the guts to stand behind his convictions. They were cut from the same cloth as Mondale and Dukakis, two other notable failures the Democrats foisted upon us and if it had been up to the brilliant minds that favored those four, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been his party’s nominee.
Republicans haven’t fared much better in the campaign process. Reagan was highly charismatic. Even though he lacked substance, he projected a paternal quality that made people feel like they could trust him. After Reagan the pool gets really shallow. You have to go all the way back to Ike before you find a guy who is the least bit appealing. In addition to charm, Ike had a functioning brain which is not always a prerequisite for the job. Aside from Clinton, the Democrats have to go back to JFK to find somebody worthy of respect.
The point I’m making is that in my lifetime there hasn’t been a President or a Presidential Candidate I really believed in. Granted, I think Clinton did a great job and believe he was a good president but the guy was a creep and at the time I wasn’t so sure about him. I had to step back and put his administration into context. I realize that there are some conservatives who like to say that Clinton is to blame for the current state of our economy and the instability we see around the world, but I’m far too smart to buy it. I know how the system works. I've been paying attention.
You could say that I’m jaded. I’ve seen the best and the brightest both parties have to offer and I’m unimpressed. That’s been a fairly accurate assessment of how I've felt year after year.
Until now.
Barack Obama is a very smart man. That alone makes him immensely more qualified than two thirds of anybody who has run for political office in the past 40 years. I stopped and thought about the fact that I might be judging Obama by the standard that has been set by our current President but that’ not it. Bush might very well be the dumbest man to sit in the Oval Office, but that doesn’t diminish what Obama is bringing to the table.
More than being smart, Obama is appealing. He is every bit as charismatic as Ronald Reagan which is impressive seeing as how Obama is so young. The fact that a black man with that name was able to get elected is a testament to his personality but then this guy, who was born after 1960, exudes a sense of strength and wisdom that puts everybody at ease. Most importantly, Obama seems to have enough humility to admit what he doesn’t know and surround himself with people who do. Most Americans realize that the President can't do it all, so it's nice to see a guy who is comfortable in addressing his weaknesses.
This country is facing its darkest era since the great depression and the fact that the deep recession we’re in has global influences makes the challenges ahead that much harder. How can we reinvigorate the American economy if the rest of the world is struggling? Obama and his people have been analyzing that very question and they seem to have a couple of promising ideas. Additionally, Obama has to salvage diplomatic relationships that have all but ended. We can't extricate ourselves from turmoil if our allies aren't willing to lend a hand.
It’s a tough job, but the guy has already made progress. I’ve never seen a President-elect step up and demonstrate the level of leadership Obama has shown us...and we haven’t even heard his inaugural address. I’m actually excited to see what happens after he is sworn in. I know that he’s going to make mistakes but at least he seems like the kind of guy who will make an effort to correct them. We’ve spent the last 8 years letting a spoiled rich boy ignore his messes so having a President who is willing to accept responsibility for his decisions will be refreshing.
I was born in 1970 and while I can’t remember anything about Richard Nixon I firmly believe that he played a major role in shaping my cynicism toward elected officials. The guy was a crook, a liar and an egomaniac. Looking back I realize that Jimmy Carter was a nice guy who made the grave mistake of being honest with the American people but the fact remains that he was not an effective president. It didn’t help his cause that Teddy Kennedy treated him with nothing but contempt. If you can’t command the respect of your own party you have no hope.
Notice how I forgot to mention Gerald Ford? Exactly.
I do remember Ronald Reagan. Growing up in Northeastern Ohio I witnessed the effects of Reagan’s economic policies. To this day the Midwest is a shell of what it once was before Reagan declared war on unions and used blue collar workers as fodder for the cannons. A lot of people hold Reagan in high esteem. I don’t know why. Rumor has it that his face will soon make its way to the dime. Fitting considering that’s about how much he valued the American worker.
The first Bush was similar to Carter in the sense that he projected weakness. Unlike Carter he was a sniveling liar who got saddled with the fallout of his predecessor’s illegal and unethical activities. Bush presided over a grim recession and demonstrated a complete inability to understand how it affected the average American. Not surprising considering he comes from a family that doesn’t ever have to worry about its finances.
Clinton was a pig. He enjoyed living the life of a celebrity and indulged in all the perks that come with it. 30 years earlier nobody would have cared about his penchant for cheap women but in the 1990s people forgot that there’s a difference between personal life and public life. Besides Bill didn’t exactly go out of his way to be discreet. Even so, Clinton managed to ramp up the economy and got a lot accomplished in spite of the fact that a Republican Congress suspended doing its job in order to undermine Clinton at every turn.
The second Bush is proof that a combination of inbreeding and money yields disturbing results. I’ve read about all of our presidents and watched documentaries on most of them. George W. Bush will be viewed as the worst and that’s just based on what we know right now. Over the next 20 years a lot of secrets are going to come out and the level of corruption that occurred over the past 8 years will be mind boggling.
Worse than that are the clods who ran against Bush. Al Gore and John Kerry are very similar in the sense that they lacked any semblance of a personality. Gore is clearly the smarter of the two and probably would have been an excellent president but he was not able to project his positive qualities publicly. Kerry simply lacked the guts to stand behind his convictions. They were cut from the same cloth as Mondale and Dukakis, two other notable failures the Democrats foisted upon us and if it had been up to the brilliant minds that favored those four, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been his party’s nominee.
Republicans haven’t fared much better in the campaign process. Reagan was highly charismatic. Even though he lacked substance, he projected a paternal quality that made people feel like they could trust him. After Reagan the pool gets really shallow. You have to go all the way back to Ike before you find a guy who is the least bit appealing. In addition to charm, Ike had a functioning brain which is not always a prerequisite for the job. Aside from Clinton, the Democrats have to go back to JFK to find somebody worthy of respect.
The point I’m making is that in my lifetime there hasn’t been a President or a Presidential Candidate I really believed in. Granted, I think Clinton did a great job and believe he was a good president but the guy was a creep and at the time I wasn’t so sure about him. I had to step back and put his administration into context. I realize that there are some conservatives who like to say that Clinton is to blame for the current state of our economy and the instability we see around the world, but I’m far too smart to buy it. I know how the system works. I've been paying attention.
You could say that I’m jaded. I’ve seen the best and the brightest both parties have to offer and I’m unimpressed. That’s been a fairly accurate assessment of how I've felt year after year.
Until now.
Barack Obama is a very smart man. That alone makes him immensely more qualified than two thirds of anybody who has run for political office in the past 40 years. I stopped and thought about the fact that I might be judging Obama by the standard that has been set by our current President but that’ not it. Bush might very well be the dumbest man to sit in the Oval Office, but that doesn’t diminish what Obama is bringing to the table.
More than being smart, Obama is appealing. He is every bit as charismatic as Ronald Reagan which is impressive seeing as how Obama is so young. The fact that a black man with that name was able to get elected is a testament to his personality but then this guy, who was born after 1960, exudes a sense of strength and wisdom that puts everybody at ease. Most importantly, Obama seems to have enough humility to admit what he doesn’t know and surround himself with people who do. Most Americans realize that the President can't do it all, so it's nice to see a guy who is comfortable in addressing his weaknesses.
This country is facing its darkest era since the great depression and the fact that the deep recession we’re in has global influences makes the challenges ahead that much harder. How can we reinvigorate the American economy if the rest of the world is struggling? Obama and his people have been analyzing that very question and they seem to have a couple of promising ideas. Additionally, Obama has to salvage diplomatic relationships that have all but ended. We can't extricate ourselves from turmoil if our allies aren't willing to lend a hand.
It’s a tough job, but the guy has already made progress. I’ve never seen a President-elect step up and demonstrate the level of leadership Obama has shown us...and we haven’t even heard his inaugural address. I’m actually excited to see what happens after he is sworn in. I know that he’s going to make mistakes but at least he seems like the kind of guy who will make an effort to correct them. We’ve spent the last 8 years letting a spoiled rich boy ignore his messes so having a President who is willing to accept responsibility for his decisions will be refreshing.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Salary Gripe
CC Sabathia is a professional baseball player. He's a big, strong left-handed pitcher who can throw a baseball 100 miles per hour. More importantly, CC can throw that baseball accurately. So CC landed himself a huge contract that will guarantee him more than 20 million dollars per year over the next seven years.
A lot of people think that's ridiculous. Some even go so far as to say that it's unfair and believe that something should be done to limit those salaries. Then they look at Hollywood and hear about actors who make 20 million dollars per picture and say the same thing.
How can we, they lament, live in a world where a dumb jock makes millions while teachers get paid a pittance? They always bring up teachers. Well, I've met a few teachers in my life and I have to tell you that in spite of the fact that most of them were entrenched firmly in the middle of the middle class, a lot of them were overpaid. Growing up I had more teachers than I can count. You see, if so many of them hadn't been incompetent I might be able to count them, but most teachers are like most people. They do just enough to keep themselves employed and they live for the weekend. I had a couple of great teachers but I can count them on one hand. And because so many of my teachers were lousy, I actually have to count on my hands if I want to be remotely accurate.
I can see why people think actors and athletes make too much money, but the economics of entertainment dictates rates of pay and when you stop and look at how those salaries are determined you realize that they are fair. The reason CC Sabathia is going to make 23 million dollars a year for the next 7 years is because there are only one or two people in the world who can do what he does. Most people can't throw a ball 60 feet and 6 inches with any sort of accuracy let along break 90hMPH on a regular basis. CC is going to do that about 90 times every time he starts. More important he is going to be asked, not to throw the ball over the plate, but to work the edges of the plate. You see, that's the difference between a Major League Pitcher and the guy you knew in high school who spent four years playing minor league ball. You don't throw the ball through a window known as the strike zone, you throw the ball at various places on the window frame. It's not easy.
I don't even find it offensive that professional athletes are getting paid so well in spite of the economic problems we're seeing around the world. It's not like I would turn down a raise in pay or a better opportunity because other people are out of work so I'm not going to begrudge CC getting his. I do take issue with the economy of baseball but only because I think that Major League Baseball is doing its fans a disservice by making it impossible for smaller market teams to remain competitive when teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can absorb so much payroll. But that's a different discussion for a different time.
I enjoy professional sports but I rarely spring for tickets. It's too expensive to attend games and I don't feel that I get enough entertainment out of the experience to justify the cost. So by not buying tickets I am making my point. When more people reach that squeal point teams will have to evaluate what they must do to increase ticket revenue. If they have to lower prices to sell tickets and improve volume at the gate, so be it. That's when teams will have to make adjustment in what they pay players. That's how the economy of professional sports works. It's all about ticket sales and it's fair. Sports are all about the relationship between the fans and the players. We're drawn to professional sports because those athletes do it better than we can. That's why arenas around the country sell out when LeBron James comes to town but nobody's at the Y watching the pickup basketball games.
Movies are no different. The reason certain actors and actresses make 20 million bucks to star in a movie is because they will generate that much money in ticket sales. Will Smith is a hot commodity in Hollywood right now because people buy tickets to see him. They don't care if the movie is any good. His name alone will draw an audience. After the first week the quality of the movie will dictate whether or not sales remain strong but big stars generate big money in the opening week. So production companies are willing to spend a lot of money to ensure that a big star will be attached to the picture in order to make sure that the venture makes a profit in that first week.
I'm not going to lie. I pay attention to the cast of a movie. If a movies can afford a big star they probably didn't spare any expense on the rest of the production. That doesn't always mean the movie will be good but it helps. Big stars also understand that their credibility is important so most aren't willing to risk squandering their marketability on a lousy movie just because there's a big paycheck attached to it. We've seen plenty of big stars fall from the heavens because they let themselves get cast in a couple of crappy pictures.
I'll agree with people who say that doctors are more important than actors but a doctor isn't going to draw $350 million on opening weekend. I really don't know what comparison people are trying to make here. Are they suggesting that doctors should charge more for their services, or would they rather have the government step in and dictate salaries?
There's not much in life that's fair, especially when the economy has finished circling the bowl and left streaks on the way down. Some people deserve to make more money for what they do and other people deserve less. That's the way it works. The one place salaries are fair is in the entertainment business. Those salaries are dictated by the free market and it's the one industry where a person can actually make what they are worth. It's also a place where people are actually held accountable for poor performance.
A lot of people think that's ridiculous. Some even go so far as to say that it's unfair and believe that something should be done to limit those salaries. Then they look at Hollywood and hear about actors who make 20 million dollars per picture and say the same thing.
How can we, they lament, live in a world where a dumb jock makes millions while teachers get paid a pittance? They always bring up teachers. Well, I've met a few teachers in my life and I have to tell you that in spite of the fact that most of them were entrenched firmly in the middle of the middle class, a lot of them were overpaid. Growing up I had more teachers than I can count. You see, if so many of them hadn't been incompetent I might be able to count them, but most teachers are like most people. They do just enough to keep themselves employed and they live for the weekend. I had a couple of great teachers but I can count them on one hand. And because so many of my teachers were lousy, I actually have to count on my hands if I want to be remotely accurate.
I can see why people think actors and athletes make too much money, but the economics of entertainment dictates rates of pay and when you stop and look at how those salaries are determined you realize that they are fair. The reason CC Sabathia is going to make 23 million dollars a year for the next 7 years is because there are only one or two people in the world who can do what he does. Most people can't throw a ball 60 feet and 6 inches with any sort of accuracy let along break 90hMPH on a regular basis. CC is going to do that about 90 times every time he starts. More important he is going to be asked, not to throw the ball over the plate, but to work the edges of the plate. You see, that's the difference between a Major League Pitcher and the guy you knew in high school who spent four years playing minor league ball. You don't throw the ball through a window known as the strike zone, you throw the ball at various places on the window frame. It's not easy.
I don't even find it offensive that professional athletes are getting paid so well in spite of the economic problems we're seeing around the world. It's not like I would turn down a raise in pay or a better opportunity because other people are out of work so I'm not going to begrudge CC getting his. I do take issue with the economy of baseball but only because I think that Major League Baseball is doing its fans a disservice by making it impossible for smaller market teams to remain competitive when teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can absorb so much payroll. But that's a different discussion for a different time.
I enjoy professional sports but I rarely spring for tickets. It's too expensive to attend games and I don't feel that I get enough entertainment out of the experience to justify the cost. So by not buying tickets I am making my point. When more people reach that squeal point teams will have to evaluate what they must do to increase ticket revenue. If they have to lower prices to sell tickets and improve volume at the gate, so be it. That's when teams will have to make adjustment in what they pay players. That's how the economy of professional sports works. It's all about ticket sales and it's fair. Sports are all about the relationship between the fans and the players. We're drawn to professional sports because those athletes do it better than we can. That's why arenas around the country sell out when LeBron James comes to town but nobody's at the Y watching the pickup basketball games.
Movies are no different. The reason certain actors and actresses make 20 million bucks to star in a movie is because they will generate that much money in ticket sales. Will Smith is a hot commodity in Hollywood right now because people buy tickets to see him. They don't care if the movie is any good. His name alone will draw an audience. After the first week the quality of the movie will dictate whether or not sales remain strong but big stars generate big money in the opening week. So production companies are willing to spend a lot of money to ensure that a big star will be attached to the picture in order to make sure that the venture makes a profit in that first week.
I'm not going to lie. I pay attention to the cast of a movie. If a movies can afford a big star they probably didn't spare any expense on the rest of the production. That doesn't always mean the movie will be good but it helps. Big stars also understand that their credibility is important so most aren't willing to risk squandering their marketability on a lousy movie just because there's a big paycheck attached to it. We've seen plenty of big stars fall from the heavens because they let themselves get cast in a couple of crappy pictures.
I'll agree with people who say that doctors are more important than actors but a doctor isn't going to draw $350 million on opening weekend. I really don't know what comparison people are trying to make here. Are they suggesting that doctors should charge more for their services, or would they rather have the government step in and dictate salaries?
There's not much in life that's fair, especially when the economy has finished circling the bowl and left streaks on the way down. Some people deserve to make more money for what they do and other people deserve less. That's the way it works. The one place salaries are fair is in the entertainment business. Those salaries are dictated by the free market and it's the one industry where a person can actually make what they are worth. It's also a place where people are actually held accountable for poor performance.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Bail Out? Not so fast...
The American automotive industry isn’t in as much trouble as people think. While it’s true that the so-called “Big Three” are in serious trouble, people forget that many of the foreign makes are manufactured right here in the United States. Honda has been cranking out cars in Central Ohio since 1982 and other companies such as Toyota and Subaru build cars domestically as well.
The economy is taking a toll on all everybody but it’s the American companies that need the American consumer to float them a loan. Why is that?
Conservatives are quick to point the finger at the unions. They, the conservatives say, bled the industry dry. That’s not entirely accurate. Those executives who went to Washington to beg for money didn’t hitchhike and share a room at Motel 6; they flew in on private jets and stayed in luxurious penthouse suites. It’s likely they ate $50 steaks and drank single malt scotch by the bottle. There’s no question that UAW workers are overpaid for the simple task of working on an assembly line but somehow the corporate suits have always managed to find enough money for country club dues and six figure quarterly bonuses. Perhaps the American consumer got the shaft in the way of inferior vehicles, but everybody is getting their money.
The reason the bottom fell out of the market is because gas prices spiked and sent the economy into a tailspin. Now Americans are unemployed in record numbers and the handful of people who are in the market for a new car are still shell-shocked by the $4 per gallon prices at the pump this summer. So the demand is for smaller cars that get better mileage and that has never been something the “Big Three” was any good at.
In fact, Ford, GM and Daimler-Chrysler force-fed trucks on the American public. Trucks are simply more profitable to manufacture. Engineers don’t have to worry a much about emissions controls, fuel economy or crash safety when they build trucks so Detroit invested heavily into building bigger and flashier trucks while they farmed out the manufacture of compact and subcompact vehicles to the lowest bidder.
It was fine and dandy as long as gas prices were low. American consumers didn’t see the need to worry about getting 8 miles per gallon when gas was cheap. Then prices started to rise and when the national average went over $3, people started parking those trucks. Suddenly the demand was for hybrids and dealers couldn’t give away trucks.
Honda and Toyota offered trucks and SUVs, but they didn’t base their entire business around it. They could have stopped making high-quality compact cars and offered 30 variations on their full-sized truck, but they didn’t compromise their vision. Rather than looking for loopholes the Japanese-based companies exceeded regulatory standards and continued to offer the best vehicles they could build at a fair price.
Somehow the Japanese-based companies have also managed to avoid unions. In a stroke of brilliance, these companies actually treat their workers with respect and offer fair compensation. It took a while for the two cultures to adjust but after 26 years in Central Ohio both Honda of America and Honda employees seem to be quite happy with the arrangement. Central Ohio endured a tremendous labor shortage in the late 1990’s but s Honda managed to retain and recruit great employees.
The “Big Three” have always been at odds with their employees. Unions were formed in the early 1900s to help mistreated workers take a stand against powerful companies. As badly as unions are maligned, with conservatives comparing union labor to socialism, there’s really nothing more American than disadvantaged people standing together to effect change. That’s what unions do and to this day most unions are respectable and fair.
The problems occur when the corporation fosters an adversarial relationship with the union. For years the “Big Three” automakers worked together to undermine the United Automotive Workers union. The companies would tell the union that they couldn’t offer raises or increase medical coverage for workers only to hand their CEOs a multimillion dollar bonus when share prices increased. So the UAW fought back and eventually the corporations caved.
The same situation occurred when the steel industry hit rock bottom. Steel companies insisted that they were running out of money but the unions didn’t believe them. Finally, after years of fighting back and forth the steel companies open their books to the unions and showed them the truth. There was no money. The unions quickly agreed to roll back wages and benefits in order to keep the industry afloat but it was too little, too late. Foreign steel was too cheap, and wouldn’t you know? It was companies like Ford, General Motors, and Chysler that were all too happy to buy it. That’s greed.
The Japanese-based companies are greedy too, but not in the short-sighted manner that the “Big Three” have been. The Japanese companies operate with a global view in mind and anticipate market changes. Every elementary school student knows that oil is a non-renewable resource and that means that it is going to run out. So the Japanese-based companies didn’t balk when oil prices stayed so low in the US for so long. They understood that the market would correct itself and they were positioned to thrive in that market.
It was that sort of thinking that brought those factories to the US in the first place. It would be much cheaper to manufacture Civics and Accords in Mexico but back in 1982, when the American manufacturers were trying to find the cheapest source of labor Honda wondered who would buy their cars if Americans weren’t earning good wages. So they made a long term investment in the American consumer.
It wasn’t altruistic of them…this was not a charity case. It made good business sense in the long term. By investing more money up front, Honda would realize long term rewards. It was much more expensive to build the Marysville factory than it would have been to put that same facility in Mexico and Mexican workers would happily accept a fraction of the wages American workers required. But Honda was also able to avoid import tariffs and they brokered tax abatements to offset initial costs and in the 26 years since that plant opened Honda has become one of the most successful companies in the world.
When you contrast that with what the American automotive companies have done you have to wonder why anybody would want to give them money. What investments have they made in this country over the past 20 years?
When you look at all the facts, this country would be better off if the “Big Three” went away. In the sort term the impact of losing those companies would be severe but when you take a look at the big picture it’s hard to see what we’d be missing.
The economy is taking a toll on all everybody but it’s the American companies that need the American consumer to float them a loan. Why is that?
Conservatives are quick to point the finger at the unions. They, the conservatives say, bled the industry dry. That’s not entirely accurate. Those executives who went to Washington to beg for money didn’t hitchhike and share a room at Motel 6; they flew in on private jets and stayed in luxurious penthouse suites. It’s likely they ate $50 steaks and drank single malt scotch by the bottle. There’s no question that UAW workers are overpaid for the simple task of working on an assembly line but somehow the corporate suits have always managed to find enough money for country club dues and six figure quarterly bonuses. Perhaps the American consumer got the shaft in the way of inferior vehicles, but everybody is getting their money.
The reason the bottom fell out of the market is because gas prices spiked and sent the economy into a tailspin. Now Americans are unemployed in record numbers and the handful of people who are in the market for a new car are still shell-shocked by the $4 per gallon prices at the pump this summer. So the demand is for smaller cars that get better mileage and that has never been something the “Big Three” was any good at.
In fact, Ford, GM and Daimler-Chrysler force-fed trucks on the American public. Trucks are simply more profitable to manufacture. Engineers don’t have to worry a much about emissions controls, fuel economy or crash safety when they build trucks so Detroit invested heavily into building bigger and flashier trucks while they farmed out the manufacture of compact and subcompact vehicles to the lowest bidder.
It was fine and dandy as long as gas prices were low. American consumers didn’t see the need to worry about getting 8 miles per gallon when gas was cheap. Then prices started to rise and when the national average went over $3, people started parking those trucks. Suddenly the demand was for hybrids and dealers couldn’t give away trucks.
Honda and Toyota offered trucks and SUVs, but they didn’t base their entire business around it. They could have stopped making high-quality compact cars and offered 30 variations on their full-sized truck, but they didn’t compromise their vision. Rather than looking for loopholes the Japanese-based companies exceeded regulatory standards and continued to offer the best vehicles they could build at a fair price.
Somehow the Japanese-based companies have also managed to avoid unions. In a stroke of brilliance, these companies actually treat their workers with respect and offer fair compensation. It took a while for the two cultures to adjust but after 26 years in Central Ohio both Honda of America and Honda employees seem to be quite happy with the arrangement. Central Ohio endured a tremendous labor shortage in the late 1990’s but s Honda managed to retain and recruit great employees.
The “Big Three” have always been at odds with their employees. Unions were formed in the early 1900s to help mistreated workers take a stand against powerful companies. As badly as unions are maligned, with conservatives comparing union labor to socialism, there’s really nothing more American than disadvantaged people standing together to effect change. That’s what unions do and to this day most unions are respectable and fair.
The problems occur when the corporation fosters an adversarial relationship with the union. For years the “Big Three” automakers worked together to undermine the United Automotive Workers union. The companies would tell the union that they couldn’t offer raises or increase medical coverage for workers only to hand their CEOs a multimillion dollar bonus when share prices increased. So the UAW fought back and eventually the corporations caved.
The same situation occurred when the steel industry hit rock bottom. Steel companies insisted that they were running out of money but the unions didn’t believe them. Finally, after years of fighting back and forth the steel companies open their books to the unions and showed them the truth. There was no money. The unions quickly agreed to roll back wages and benefits in order to keep the industry afloat but it was too little, too late. Foreign steel was too cheap, and wouldn’t you know? It was companies like Ford, General Motors, and Chysler that were all too happy to buy it. That’s greed.
The Japanese-based companies are greedy too, but not in the short-sighted manner that the “Big Three” have been. The Japanese companies operate with a global view in mind and anticipate market changes. Every elementary school student knows that oil is a non-renewable resource and that means that it is going to run out. So the Japanese-based companies didn’t balk when oil prices stayed so low in the US for so long. They understood that the market would correct itself and they were positioned to thrive in that market.
It was that sort of thinking that brought those factories to the US in the first place. It would be much cheaper to manufacture Civics and Accords in Mexico but back in 1982, when the American manufacturers were trying to find the cheapest source of labor Honda wondered who would buy their cars if Americans weren’t earning good wages. So they made a long term investment in the American consumer.
It wasn’t altruistic of them…this was not a charity case. It made good business sense in the long term. By investing more money up front, Honda would realize long term rewards. It was much more expensive to build the Marysville factory than it would have been to put that same facility in Mexico and Mexican workers would happily accept a fraction of the wages American workers required. But Honda was also able to avoid import tariffs and they brokered tax abatements to offset initial costs and in the 26 years since that plant opened Honda has become one of the most successful companies in the world.
When you contrast that with what the American automotive companies have done you have to wonder why anybody would want to give them money. What investments have they made in this country over the past 20 years?
When you look at all the facts, this country would be better off if the “Big Three” went away. In the sort term the impact of losing those companies would be severe but when you take a look at the big picture it’s hard to see what we’d be missing.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Yes, We Can.
I watched the election results from a small movie theater on the north side of Columbus. It's interesting that on the day I celebrated my the 20th anniversary of my first election this country was witness to history in the making. Barack Obama won by a wide margin. He secured a lot of votes in states where Democrats don't tend to fare well and where black men don't usually get the benefit of he doubt. Even if Obama had been white the victory would have been impressive. I had a feeling that Obama's support was stronger than most polls were anticipating and boldly told a coworker that I figured McCain would take the stage for his concession speech at 11:30. Obama won thanks in large part to serious economic problems. Historically people look to Democrats to stabilize the economy, which is baffling since Republicans claims to be the champions of commerce.
But Obama didn't win because people wanted a regime change. He didn't win because people believe he's better for the economy. Obama won because people believe in him. I've watched a number of presidential elections and I've studied many of the presidencies. Barack Obama is one of the most charismatic figures we've seen elected to the presidency. He's inspiring and commanding. He's got a tremendous presence. He exudes strength and compassion and rarely seems to pander. As the campaign went on I bought into him more and more. Not just his politics, but his personality.
I liked Bill Clinton and respect a lot of what he did as a president but I didn't feel strongly enough to vote for him over a third party candidate. Similarly I was unimpressed with Al Gore so I voted for Ralph Nader in order to make a point. In 2004 I was disgusted by John Kerry but I would have happily voted for a sea monkey over George W. Bush. I thought that was going to be the case in 2008 as well. That was before Barack Obama emerged as such an intriguing candidate. For the first time in my life I voted for somebody I really believed in and I was excited to watch the election unfold on a movie screen. Nearly 100 other people were in attendance and all of them erupted into cheers whenever a state went to Obama.
People have argued that Obama doesn't have a lot of substance. They say he talks a good game but that he doesn't seem to have much of a plan. I didn't vote for a plan, I voted for a leader and his vision. I know Obama doesn't have all the answers but I believe he has the intelligence, judgment and humility to find them. I trust that he will surround himself with the sort of people who will help him solve problems rather than sweep them under the rug and hope nobody sees them. After 8 years of watching, in horror, the Bush Administration squander every last penny our nation's diplomatic currency, I am suddenly confident that the US can once again become the best country in the world. Obama's election alone raised global perception of the US and that's going to come in handy over the next several years as the US extricates itself from ill-advised endeavors.
Michelle Obama took some flack for making a comment about her sense of pride in our nation. Well, I'm not afraid to say that I've often wondered what I was supposed to be proud of. I've always been disappointed in the disparity between rhetoric and deed. What this country says it stands for and what it actually has stood for have always seemed divergent. I won't say that Obama's election has restored my pride in this country but for the first time in my life I think that we have a chance to be a nation I can take pride in.
But Obama didn't win because people wanted a regime change. He didn't win because people believe he's better for the economy. Obama won because people believe in him. I've watched a number of presidential elections and I've studied many of the presidencies. Barack Obama is one of the most charismatic figures we've seen elected to the presidency. He's inspiring and commanding. He's got a tremendous presence. He exudes strength and compassion and rarely seems to pander. As the campaign went on I bought into him more and more. Not just his politics, but his personality.
I liked Bill Clinton and respect a lot of what he did as a president but I didn't feel strongly enough to vote for him over a third party candidate. Similarly I was unimpressed with Al Gore so I voted for Ralph Nader in order to make a point. In 2004 I was disgusted by John Kerry but I would have happily voted for a sea monkey over George W. Bush. I thought that was going to be the case in 2008 as well. That was before Barack Obama emerged as such an intriguing candidate. For the first time in my life I voted for somebody I really believed in and I was excited to watch the election unfold on a movie screen. Nearly 100 other people were in attendance and all of them erupted into cheers whenever a state went to Obama.
People have argued that Obama doesn't have a lot of substance. They say he talks a good game but that he doesn't seem to have much of a plan. I didn't vote for a plan, I voted for a leader and his vision. I know Obama doesn't have all the answers but I believe he has the intelligence, judgment and humility to find them. I trust that he will surround himself with the sort of people who will help him solve problems rather than sweep them under the rug and hope nobody sees them. After 8 years of watching, in horror, the Bush Administration squander every last penny our nation's diplomatic currency, I am suddenly confident that the US can once again become the best country in the world. Obama's election alone raised global perception of the US and that's going to come in handy over the next several years as the US extricates itself from ill-advised endeavors.
Michelle Obama took some flack for making a comment about her sense of pride in our nation. Well, I'm not afraid to say that I've often wondered what I was supposed to be proud of. I've always been disappointed in the disparity between rhetoric and deed. What this country says it stands for and what it actually has stood for have always seemed divergent. I won't say that Obama's election has restored my pride in this country but for the first time in my life I think that we have a chance to be a nation I can take pride in.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Strike One!
Most people don’t understand why the US Government should give failing financial institutions nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money. A number of those people happen to be members of the House of Representatives and the US Senate. That doesn’t mean that they’re incompetent, the economy is complicated. Just because your neighbor starts every sentences with the phrase It’s Economy 101, doesn’t mean that the basic principals taught in remedial courses at your local junior college have any impact on the market forces that move our nation’s economy. The people who came up with the idea of this massive bail out are economic scientists who have made economics their life’s work. It’s not something normally people are supposed to understand.
So politicians panicked. There’s an election coming up and 750 billion dollars is a lot of money. Voters could be upset. Polls indicate that public opinion of this bailout is low and what’s worse, George W. Bush said we needed to do it. That guy hasn’t been right about anything.
To the untrained eye it looks like a bunch of CEOs screwed up and want some free money to fix things. Millions of Americans are facing dire financial problems and nobody is there to help them. Regular folks have endured layoffs and foreclosures in addition to revolving debt and inflation. Times are tough and people are being forced to scrape by. So why should the fat cats who got us into this mess get a life line? It’s probably not fair or productive to expect the government to cover the debt of 200 million Americans but it certainly doesn’t seem fair to provide assistance to a handful of companies that simply failed to manage their businesses better. The American public doesn’t trust this proposal and given the circumstances of the past 8 years, you can’t blame them.
The Bush Administration has been consistent in one thing and one thing only: deceit. Congressional leaders have stood idly by and watched while our own version of Nero set fire to the empire. Even if this country wasn’t facing a financial crisis the mess Bush has made of our diplomatic relations, national security and our civil rights would take years to correct, but Bush and his cronies exploited their power to give big corporations a free pass to circumvent responsible business practices. It almost seems as though the plan was to let the crap hit the fan when the next president took office. It would appear that, just as they did with Iraq, Bush’s advisors “misunderestimated” the hole they were digging.
Maybe this bailout is necessary. Stabilizing the economy makes a lot of sense but where does Bush get off thinking his support of this issue is going to win us over? Most Americans are so fed up with Bush they can’t express how they feel for fear of being arrested. If you want to convince the American people that this bail out is necessary you need it presented by somebody they respect and trust more than Bush like OJ Simpson.
More importantly, you need to address the anger the American people are feeling. You don’t just ask for 750 billion and not offer up a sacrifice. Who screwed up and what are we going to do to them? Heads need to roll…first born need to be sacrificed…wives and daughters need to be sold into prostitution. We just need to know that the people who made this happen aren’t being rewarded for their incompetence. It would be a real shame if the CEOs who signed off on those bad financial practices end up eating caviar-stuffed lobster for Christmas dinner while the rest of us slurp pork and beans straight from the can.
That’s been the problem all along with Bush and his administration. Nobody gets held accountable. They haven’t even taken Bin Laden to task for 9-11 yet. Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and didn’t even apologize. All the glaring problems, the huge mistakes, the lives lost and the money wasted but yet nobody has been punished. Now they want a trillion dollars and they don’t want us to ask where it’s going or why? No, that’s not going to stand. You’ve got to give us something.
Finally, and only because of impending Election Day accountability, elected officials listened. Most of the politicians who voted against Bush’s bail out vocally supported it, but when it came time to pass it they had to pass. They knew that their constituents wouldn’t allow it. It’s too bad the voters only matter when the election is a month away, but for once the system worked. Lincoln was right, you can fool all of the people come of the time but you at least have to try. The American people are stupid, but they’re not idiots. You have to pander to them if you want to screw them over.
So politicians panicked. There’s an election coming up and 750 billion dollars is a lot of money. Voters could be upset. Polls indicate that public opinion of this bailout is low and what’s worse, George W. Bush said we needed to do it. That guy hasn’t been right about anything.
To the untrained eye it looks like a bunch of CEOs screwed up and want some free money to fix things. Millions of Americans are facing dire financial problems and nobody is there to help them. Regular folks have endured layoffs and foreclosures in addition to revolving debt and inflation. Times are tough and people are being forced to scrape by. So why should the fat cats who got us into this mess get a life line? It’s probably not fair or productive to expect the government to cover the debt of 200 million Americans but it certainly doesn’t seem fair to provide assistance to a handful of companies that simply failed to manage their businesses better. The American public doesn’t trust this proposal and given the circumstances of the past 8 years, you can’t blame them.
The Bush Administration has been consistent in one thing and one thing only: deceit. Congressional leaders have stood idly by and watched while our own version of Nero set fire to the empire. Even if this country wasn’t facing a financial crisis the mess Bush has made of our diplomatic relations, national security and our civil rights would take years to correct, but Bush and his cronies exploited their power to give big corporations a free pass to circumvent responsible business practices. It almost seems as though the plan was to let the crap hit the fan when the next president took office. It would appear that, just as they did with Iraq, Bush’s advisors “misunderestimated” the hole they were digging.
Maybe this bailout is necessary. Stabilizing the economy makes a lot of sense but where does Bush get off thinking his support of this issue is going to win us over? Most Americans are so fed up with Bush they can’t express how they feel for fear of being arrested. If you want to convince the American people that this bail out is necessary you need it presented by somebody they respect and trust more than Bush like OJ Simpson.
More importantly, you need to address the anger the American people are feeling. You don’t just ask for 750 billion and not offer up a sacrifice. Who screwed up and what are we going to do to them? Heads need to roll…first born need to be sacrificed…wives and daughters need to be sold into prostitution. We just need to know that the people who made this happen aren’t being rewarded for their incompetence. It would be a real shame if the CEOs who signed off on those bad financial practices end up eating caviar-stuffed lobster for Christmas dinner while the rest of us slurp pork and beans straight from the can.
That’s been the problem all along with Bush and his administration. Nobody gets held accountable. They haven’t even taken Bin Laden to task for 9-11 yet. Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and didn’t even apologize. All the glaring problems, the huge mistakes, the lives lost and the money wasted but yet nobody has been punished. Now they want a trillion dollars and they don’t want us to ask where it’s going or why? No, that’s not going to stand. You’ve got to give us something.
Finally, and only because of impending Election Day accountability, elected officials listened. Most of the politicians who voted against Bush’s bail out vocally supported it, but when it came time to pass it they had to pass. They knew that their constituents wouldn’t allow it. It’s too bad the voters only matter when the election is a month away, but for once the system worked. Lincoln was right, you can fool all of the people come of the time but you at least have to try. The American people are stupid, but they’re not idiots. You have to pander to them if you want to screw them over.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Recession?
We’re not in a recession.
Forget about the fact that the US Government, in debt beyond anybody’s ability to fathom, is coming up with hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and insurance companies that have fallen on hard economic times.
We’re not in a recession.
Pay no mind to the cost of fuel, the loss of jobs and the stasis of wages.
We’re not in a recession.
Foreclosures? Housing crisis? Lending Crunch?
We’re not in a recession.
Apparently they covered denial in the more advanced economics courses I didn’t take in college because all of these so-called experts and politicians absolutely refuse to use the “R” word. Well I have another “R” word for them: retarded.
I’m just a regular working stiff like everybody else. I don’t know that much about the economy but I do know a thing or two about bullshit and that’s what all of these experts seem to be feeding us. For some reason they seem to believe that admitting that the economy is in dire straits will make matters worse. So they refuse to attach the word recession to our current state of affairs.
To me it’s insulting. So it’s my fault I haven’t seen a significant raise in three years? It’s my fault that I haven’t been able to build my personal savings outside of my 401(k)? There’s nothing wrong with the system, it’s me that’s broken. That’s what they’re saying, right?
All the people I know who are out of work, the realtors who haven’t seen a commission check in eight months and the people lining up outside the temporary services office are all victims of their own stupidity then. We’re just experiencing a minor “adjustment” everything is fine. Go back to work, live long and prosper.
Get real. We are in a recession and you can hang that on George W. Bush. His economic policies have stimulated greed and economic stagnation and the massive debt he is running up will make it impossible for future presidents to provide Americans with significant tax relief.
When Bill Clinton took office in the early 1990s we were in the midst of a recession. George H W Bush took the heat for the failures of Reaganomics and Clinton focused on economic change when he ran for office. He fought to have his economic policies enacted and by the time his second term began things were much improved. The economy was fantastic from the mid through the late 90s.
Things cooled off quickly when George W. Bush took over. A Republican Congress forced a deregulation bill through that effectively created the loopholes necessary for things the Enron disaster. High level executives were simply able to fudge numbers and shift assets in a manner that eventually hurt the economy. Even before the 9-11 attacks in 2001 the economy had drastically cooled because Bush’s economic plan had stymied growth in favor of greed.
Unfortunately Bush has managed to avoid being held accountable for his economic policies. He was able to hide behind 9-11 and religious values throughout his presidential career and most people bought it. Now, at the end of his term we’re seeing economic pillars topple before our eyes and Bush doesn’t have to do a thing about it. Worse, as a lame duck president he is in a position to do even more damage and leave the next president holding the bag.
You don’t have to be an economist to realize just how bad things have become. These are tough times and it looks like things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Not calling it a recession isn’t going to change that.
Forget about the fact that the US Government, in debt beyond anybody’s ability to fathom, is coming up with hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and insurance companies that have fallen on hard economic times.
We’re not in a recession.
Pay no mind to the cost of fuel, the loss of jobs and the stasis of wages.
We’re not in a recession.
Foreclosures? Housing crisis? Lending Crunch?
We’re not in a recession.
Apparently they covered denial in the more advanced economics courses I didn’t take in college because all of these so-called experts and politicians absolutely refuse to use the “R” word. Well I have another “R” word for them: retarded.
I’m just a regular working stiff like everybody else. I don’t know that much about the economy but I do know a thing or two about bullshit and that’s what all of these experts seem to be feeding us. For some reason they seem to believe that admitting that the economy is in dire straits will make matters worse. So they refuse to attach the word recession to our current state of affairs.
To me it’s insulting. So it’s my fault I haven’t seen a significant raise in three years? It’s my fault that I haven’t been able to build my personal savings outside of my 401(k)? There’s nothing wrong with the system, it’s me that’s broken. That’s what they’re saying, right?
All the people I know who are out of work, the realtors who haven’t seen a commission check in eight months and the people lining up outside the temporary services office are all victims of their own stupidity then. We’re just experiencing a minor “adjustment” everything is fine. Go back to work, live long and prosper.
Get real. We are in a recession and you can hang that on George W. Bush. His economic policies have stimulated greed and economic stagnation and the massive debt he is running up will make it impossible for future presidents to provide Americans with significant tax relief.
When Bill Clinton took office in the early 1990s we were in the midst of a recession. George H W Bush took the heat for the failures of Reaganomics and Clinton focused on economic change when he ran for office. He fought to have his economic policies enacted and by the time his second term began things were much improved. The economy was fantastic from the mid through the late 90s.
Things cooled off quickly when George W. Bush took over. A Republican Congress forced a deregulation bill through that effectively created the loopholes necessary for things the Enron disaster. High level executives were simply able to fudge numbers and shift assets in a manner that eventually hurt the economy. Even before the 9-11 attacks in 2001 the economy had drastically cooled because Bush’s economic plan had stymied growth in favor of greed.
Unfortunately Bush has managed to avoid being held accountable for his economic policies. He was able to hide behind 9-11 and religious values throughout his presidential career and most people bought it. Now, at the end of his term we’re seeing economic pillars topple before our eyes and Bush doesn’t have to do a thing about it. Worse, as a lame duck president he is in a position to do even more damage and leave the next president holding the bag.
You don’t have to be an economist to realize just how bad things have become. These are tough times and it looks like things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Not calling it a recession isn’t going to change that.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Dirty Liberals
Republican spin doctors don't want to make Sarah Palin available for interviews until they feel that the press can be trusted to show her respect. They believe that the liberals in the media are only going to twist her words and make her look bad. Republicans have mastered the art of turning every criticism into liberal bias. Now they're playing that card to protect their shiny new VP nominee. Why? What are they hiding? Surely in Sarah's vast experience she's mastered the art of public speaking. Oh, right.
The reality is that Sarah Palin is there for two reasons. She's a neo-conservative fascist who can rally the short-bus wing of the Republican party to McCain's ticket and she's a woman which will make the militant feminists happy. Plus she's pretty attractive so she might score a few boner votes along the way. It's worth a shot. McCain doesn't want Palin talking to the mainstream audience because she's rude and a little naive. If she is put in the cross hairs of the international media she will put her foot in her mouth, which, if done literally, could be kind of hot but we're not talking about how limber she is.
So instead, the blame is falling on the media. They'll be mean to Sarah. Pretty little Sarah with her family values, high powered firearms and relentless hunger for raw moose. Those liberals can't be trusted.
Go ahead and label me a liberal. I think that providing tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations actually causes the economy to slow down. These practices encourage greed. When the middle and lower class have their tax burden eased they spend the extra money and everybody is better for it. This has been proven time and time again. I also believe in protecting the environment, providing sensible support for the poor and disabled, and, while I believe in the second amendment, I think gun control is necessary. Don't like it? Tough cookies.
That being said, Sarah Palin is a fraud. Not only is her experience limited, she ran campaigns based on polarizing issues. She rallied social conservatives to her cause in Podunkia, Alaska by focusing on issues that mayors have no business focusing on. In fact most of those issues nobody should focus on. Tend to the plank in your eye and all that. She used her charisma (looks) and her outlandish conservative platform to sneak in to the Governor's office and has not even completed a full term at the level. To top it all off, it would appear that she has abused her power in that short period of time. Palin is also a liar several times over with her “Bridge to Nowhere” denials.
Obama's experience is not as limited, he's more educated and he didn't kick start his career path as a beauty pageant contestant. As far as McCain's vast experience goes I have reservations about his rather limited list of accomplishments in his lengthy political tenure. He fashions himself as a maverick but he’s really just a blowhard…a fuming old man who stomps his feet and sucks on his dentures for a while before he finally toes the party line. He’s a buffoon. His military experience and years as a POW are worthy of respect but they have no bearing on his ability to lead. In fact, McCain was a legacy case who attended the Naval Academy because his father and grandfather were notable Navy officers. If anything McCain was mediocre throughout his military career.
For me this election isn’t about being a liberal. It’s about who has the country’s best interest at heart. Barack Obama is focusing on drastic changes. He wants to cultivate our international relations to find peaceful ways to improve our national security. McCain is insulting and rude. Obama has dynamic economic plans that will help this country become a major player in the changing global market; McCain wants to invest in the status quo. He believes our economy is fundamentally sound and you almost believe him until the phone rings and some telemarketer from India tries to sell you a subscription to Soldier of Fortune.
Obama’s not perfect but he’s consistent, he’s strong and he’s willing to recognize the obstacles we face as this country tries to get back on track. McCain’s been in Bush’s back pocket since the 2004 election. That’s obvious. The way I see it, McCain is an aged political hack. A grouchy old ne’er do well who lacks class and charisma. Sarah Palin is a loud-mouthed beauty contestant who only brings looks and rhetoric to the table. She’s done nothing in her career other than pay lip service to lip service issues. Beauty on the Beast…yeah, they know what’s best for America.
The reality is that Sarah Palin is there for two reasons. She's a neo-conservative fascist who can rally the short-bus wing of the Republican party to McCain's ticket and she's a woman which will make the militant feminists happy. Plus she's pretty attractive so she might score a few boner votes along the way. It's worth a shot. McCain doesn't want Palin talking to the mainstream audience because she's rude and a little naive. If she is put in the cross hairs of the international media she will put her foot in her mouth, which, if done literally, could be kind of hot but we're not talking about how limber she is.
So instead, the blame is falling on the media. They'll be mean to Sarah. Pretty little Sarah with her family values, high powered firearms and relentless hunger for raw moose. Those liberals can't be trusted.
Go ahead and label me a liberal. I think that providing tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations actually causes the economy to slow down. These practices encourage greed. When the middle and lower class have their tax burden eased they spend the extra money and everybody is better for it. This has been proven time and time again. I also believe in protecting the environment, providing sensible support for the poor and disabled, and, while I believe in the second amendment, I think gun control is necessary. Don't like it? Tough cookies.
That being said, Sarah Palin is a fraud. Not only is her experience limited, she ran campaigns based on polarizing issues. She rallied social conservatives to her cause in Podunkia, Alaska by focusing on issues that mayors have no business focusing on. In fact most of those issues nobody should focus on. Tend to the plank in your eye and all that. She used her charisma (looks) and her outlandish conservative platform to sneak in to the Governor's office and has not even completed a full term at the level. To top it all off, it would appear that she has abused her power in that short period of time. Palin is also a liar several times over with her “Bridge to Nowhere” denials.
Obama's experience is not as limited, he's more educated and he didn't kick start his career path as a beauty pageant contestant. As far as McCain's vast experience goes I have reservations about his rather limited list of accomplishments in his lengthy political tenure. He fashions himself as a maverick but he’s really just a blowhard…a fuming old man who stomps his feet and sucks on his dentures for a while before he finally toes the party line. He’s a buffoon. His military experience and years as a POW are worthy of respect but they have no bearing on his ability to lead. In fact, McCain was a legacy case who attended the Naval Academy because his father and grandfather were notable Navy officers. If anything McCain was mediocre throughout his military career.
For me this election isn’t about being a liberal. It’s about who has the country’s best interest at heart. Barack Obama is focusing on drastic changes. He wants to cultivate our international relations to find peaceful ways to improve our national security. McCain is insulting and rude. Obama has dynamic economic plans that will help this country become a major player in the changing global market; McCain wants to invest in the status quo. He believes our economy is fundamentally sound and you almost believe him until the phone rings and some telemarketer from India tries to sell you a subscription to Soldier of Fortune.
Obama’s not perfect but he’s consistent, he’s strong and he’s willing to recognize the obstacles we face as this country tries to get back on track. McCain’s been in Bush’s back pocket since the 2004 election. That’s obvious. The way I see it, McCain is an aged political hack. A grouchy old ne’er do well who lacks class and charisma. Sarah Palin is a loud-mouthed beauty contestant who only brings looks and rhetoric to the table. She’s done nothing in her career other than pay lip service to lip service issues. Beauty on the Beast…yeah, they know what’s best for America.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Atheism defined
I’m an atheist. Normally I don’t go out of my way to espouse my beliefs because that’s one of the reasons I hate religion. If somebody asks, I tell them…but unlike most Christians I know I don’t get satisfaction from regaling people with what I’ve chosen to accept, which is reality. At least in my mind.
I could write a book about why I’m an atheist and I probably should. I really need to parlay my ability to write into a means of earning money but I tend to flit around on my blogs and various message boards when I have a few minutes to spare. Such is life.
The reason I’m bringing atheism up is that I was recently made aware of an event that took place in Columbus. It was a coming out party for atheists. At first blush, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Religion gets bludgeoned into us at an early age and even though Christians often lament the secularization of society, they still have more influence than they should. Religion, particularly when it is imposed upon people, is a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with individual spirituality but most religions, particularly Christianity feel a need to recruit members and vilify those who reject their dogma.
Again, I don’t want to get into these gory details. George Carlin said it best: he worshipped the sun because it’s there, but he prayed to Joe Pesci because Joe’s a good actor and seems like a guy who can get things done. Honestly it makes a hell of a lot more sense than basing a religion around a guy who may or may not have walked on water 2000 years ago. The water into wine thing would have been pretty cool but until Jesus pops into my office and converts the five gallon jug in the break room into a nice shiraz, I’m going to have to question the validity of that story.
No, my beef today is with the atheists who attended this party. I take issue with the concept because one of the reasons I’m an atheist is that I don’t like conforming to somebody else’s beliefs. One thing I’ve learned in speaking to other atheists is that we all have different opinions about what we believe and reasons for believing it and that’s OK. There are atheists who feel the need to organize around a common theme. I don’t know if they realize that they’re trying to build a religion.
During this coming out party the atheists made a mockery of baptisms by conducting a de-baptism service with the so-called blow dryer of reason. That sounds funny and from a purely satirical perspective it is but the joke is on you when you go so far as to conduct de-baptisms to symbolize breaking the bond with religion. I wonder if they discussed setting up a vomitorium of ex-communion. How else can former Catholics purge themselves of the body and blood of Christ they’ve been noshing on all these years?
I might be biased but it takes courage to put yourself out there as an atheist. It makes people nervous because most religious people harbor a lot of doubt that they simply don’t like to talk about. That’s why they need to form denominations of similar theological thought. That and money, but let’s stay on point. Atheism is supposed to be the absence of theology.
It would be unfair for me to speak on behalf of all atheists but those I know seem to share a common trait. We’ve taken a long hard look at what religion has to offer and passed. Personally I’ve studied a number of different spiritual concepts and when I was engaged in that study I considered myself an agnostic. When I felt pretty comfortable that all religion was a little hokey I decided I was an atheist. There was no need for any ceremonies. I didn’t need to have my lack of faith affirmed by other atheists. The only thing I had to accept was the fact that being willing to declare myself an atheist came with certain social consequences.
People are comfortable with agnostics because agnostics tend to believe, or at least want to believe, in something. Atheists simply choose not to believe. Atheists can be spiritual in a very broad sense but they would never claim to have faith. Faith, you see, is the inherent flaw in religion. Faith can cloud reason and impair judgment. Faith has led people to join cults and take their own lives as well as the lives of others. Faith can be very dangerous.
So I have to take issue with people who call themselves atheists but seek some form of validation for their beliefs. They want their faith affirmed and that’s not what it’s all about.
The so-called atheists who attended the coming out party bandied about topics such as conversion and they whined over the fact that so many atheists seem to turn back to religion once they start families.
I’ve talked to religious people who take issue with the manner in which most churches convert people. Shameless pandering, childhood brainwashing, scare tactics, predatory psychology, name the method and somebody has put it to good use. The reason most religions recruit followers is because they want to consolidate the two things that make the world go ‘round: money and power. Ironically that’s why Jesus raised a little hell within the Jewish religion a couple thousand years ago. It’s ironic because it took people like Paul all of a few years to turn Jesus’ legacy into the very thing he railed against.
In this country people reject Christianity. It’s the most pervasive religion and while it’s not nearly as oppressive as fundamentalist Islam, Christians do a mighty fine job of forcing their beliefs on others. They also do a pretty good job of making themselves out to be the victims. Most atheists want to distance themselves from this. So why stoop the religion’s level and convert the masses?
The answer to that question also answers why so many of these atheists go back to religion. They have faith. All they’re doing is changing the object of that faith. That’s not atheism, it’s juvenile rebellion. The self-described atheists who attended the coming out party in Columbus had a lot more in common with melancholy teen-aged girls who pretend to dabble in witchcraft. There’s not really anything wrong with that but it’s a real shame when the actions of a few confused malcontents cast a shadow on everybody else.
Being an atheist doesn’t make you special. You’re not necessarily better than those who have faith in something. Atheism is just one way of looking at things. It’s just a word that describes a very broad line of thought. There’s nothing to practice, no dogma to follow, no power or presence to have faith in. Atheism is nothing more than being at peace with the fact that you have absolutely no idea what’s beyond our mortal existence. I think all atheist hope that there’s something wonderful waiting for us after we die but we just don’t see any reason to convince ourselves to have faith in what we can’t prove.
We don’t need no stinking parties.
I could write a book about why I’m an atheist and I probably should. I really need to parlay my ability to write into a means of earning money but I tend to flit around on my blogs and various message boards when I have a few minutes to spare. Such is life.
The reason I’m bringing atheism up is that I was recently made aware of an event that took place in Columbus. It was a coming out party for atheists. At first blush, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Religion gets bludgeoned into us at an early age and even though Christians often lament the secularization of society, they still have more influence than they should. Religion, particularly when it is imposed upon people, is a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with individual spirituality but most religions, particularly Christianity feel a need to recruit members and vilify those who reject their dogma.
Again, I don’t want to get into these gory details. George Carlin said it best: he worshipped the sun because it’s there, but he prayed to Joe Pesci because Joe’s a good actor and seems like a guy who can get things done. Honestly it makes a hell of a lot more sense than basing a religion around a guy who may or may not have walked on water 2000 years ago. The water into wine thing would have been pretty cool but until Jesus pops into my office and converts the five gallon jug in the break room into a nice shiraz, I’m going to have to question the validity of that story.
No, my beef today is with the atheists who attended this party. I take issue with the concept because one of the reasons I’m an atheist is that I don’t like conforming to somebody else’s beliefs. One thing I’ve learned in speaking to other atheists is that we all have different opinions about what we believe and reasons for believing it and that’s OK. There are atheists who feel the need to organize around a common theme. I don’t know if they realize that they’re trying to build a religion.
During this coming out party the atheists made a mockery of baptisms by conducting a de-baptism service with the so-called blow dryer of reason. That sounds funny and from a purely satirical perspective it is but the joke is on you when you go so far as to conduct de-baptisms to symbolize breaking the bond with religion. I wonder if they discussed setting up a vomitorium of ex-communion. How else can former Catholics purge themselves of the body and blood of Christ they’ve been noshing on all these years?
I might be biased but it takes courage to put yourself out there as an atheist. It makes people nervous because most religious people harbor a lot of doubt that they simply don’t like to talk about. That’s why they need to form denominations of similar theological thought. That and money, but let’s stay on point. Atheism is supposed to be the absence of theology.
It would be unfair for me to speak on behalf of all atheists but those I know seem to share a common trait. We’ve taken a long hard look at what religion has to offer and passed. Personally I’ve studied a number of different spiritual concepts and when I was engaged in that study I considered myself an agnostic. When I felt pretty comfortable that all religion was a little hokey I decided I was an atheist. There was no need for any ceremonies. I didn’t need to have my lack of faith affirmed by other atheists. The only thing I had to accept was the fact that being willing to declare myself an atheist came with certain social consequences.
People are comfortable with agnostics because agnostics tend to believe, or at least want to believe, in something. Atheists simply choose not to believe. Atheists can be spiritual in a very broad sense but they would never claim to have faith. Faith, you see, is the inherent flaw in religion. Faith can cloud reason and impair judgment. Faith has led people to join cults and take their own lives as well as the lives of others. Faith can be very dangerous.
So I have to take issue with people who call themselves atheists but seek some form of validation for their beliefs. They want their faith affirmed and that’s not what it’s all about.
The so-called atheists who attended the coming out party bandied about topics such as conversion and they whined over the fact that so many atheists seem to turn back to religion once they start families.
I’ve talked to religious people who take issue with the manner in which most churches convert people. Shameless pandering, childhood brainwashing, scare tactics, predatory psychology, name the method and somebody has put it to good use. The reason most religions recruit followers is because they want to consolidate the two things that make the world go ‘round: money and power. Ironically that’s why Jesus raised a little hell within the Jewish religion a couple thousand years ago. It’s ironic because it took people like Paul all of a few years to turn Jesus’ legacy into the very thing he railed against.
In this country people reject Christianity. It’s the most pervasive religion and while it’s not nearly as oppressive as fundamentalist Islam, Christians do a mighty fine job of forcing their beliefs on others. They also do a pretty good job of making themselves out to be the victims. Most atheists want to distance themselves from this. So why stoop the religion’s level and convert the masses?
The answer to that question also answers why so many of these atheists go back to religion. They have faith. All they’re doing is changing the object of that faith. That’s not atheism, it’s juvenile rebellion. The self-described atheists who attended the coming out party in Columbus had a lot more in common with melancholy teen-aged girls who pretend to dabble in witchcraft. There’s not really anything wrong with that but it’s a real shame when the actions of a few confused malcontents cast a shadow on everybody else.
Being an atheist doesn’t make you special. You’re not necessarily better than those who have faith in something. Atheism is just one way of looking at things. It’s just a word that describes a very broad line of thought. There’s nothing to practice, no dogma to follow, no power or presence to have faith in. Atheism is nothing more than being at peace with the fact that you have absolutely no idea what’s beyond our mortal existence. I think all atheist hope that there’s something wonderful waiting for us after we die but we just don’t see any reason to convince ourselves to have faith in what we can’t prove.
We don’t need no stinking parties.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
American Idiots
Foreign oil is the latest evil facing our nation. George W. Bush is using the current fuel crisis to open the door for more drilling domestically and John McCain is heeding that call making domestic oil part of his battle cry.
Of course nobody's talking about the fact the US Oil reserves are paltry compared to those in the Middle East. The much debated oil reserve under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been optimistically estimated to be capable of producing 3 billion barrels of oil over a period of 22 years. The United States currently consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil per day with more than 9 million barrels going to gasoline. In short, we can't pump domestic oil fast enough to meet a fraction of current demand and if we could there isn't enough oil to last more than a few years. Economists around the world agree that if the US managed to develop oil producing technology that allowed US reserves to have an impact on global prices, OPEC would simply reduce production to maintain pricing integrity.
What's funny is that people think the strategic manipulation of supplies to maintain prices is unfair in some way even though this practice has been around since the beginning of commerce. In the US farmers are paid subsidies to not plant crops in order to keep prices level. If that market manipulation backfires in the wake of floods or droughts the consumer ends up paying the price, quite literally, at the register.
The problem we have in this country is not an addiction to foreign oil. We're addicted to fossil fuels. The problem with oil and its cousin coal go beyond the environmental concerns. While drilling and mining take a tremendous toll and the problems with emissions are well documented, the real concern is the fact that dependency on these resources puts the consumer under the thumb of corporate powers that have proven themselves to be rather heartless. The nature of these industries limits competition so prices are easily set in boardrooms rather than in the open market. When alternatives such as wind and solar power are discussed proponents of coal and oil are quick to produce a litany of problems but the one they are most concerned with is how it will affect their bottom line. How dare we consider using a renewable resource that would reduce energy prices?
It's not just fuel consumption that causes problems. A considerable amount of petroleum is used in a variety of industrial applications with plastics being the most notable. Plastic consumption might be the easiest area realize meaningful reductions. Modified corn and potato starch can be used to replace most of the plastic containers we see and those products are not only biodegradable, they can be composted in your own back yard. Resusable grocery bags are becoming increasing popular and more and more people are carrying their own containers to purchase beverages such as coffee and soft drinks. Plastic packaging represents a significant area of petroleum consumption but you don't hear people talking about doing away with those 20 ounce bottles. Our presidential candidates aren't concerned about how much recyclable material is ending up in our landfills. Not caring about the environmental impact is one thing, but what about the oil? Reusing or recycling a container reduces the amount of oil used to create new containers.
You see, the problem is that Americans have nobody to blame but themselves for their dependency on oil. The rising prices we see at the pump aren't because of OPEC, India or China. The United States is the number one consumer of oil around the world. Global consumption is at 85 million barrels per day and the US consumes more than a quarter of that. Granted, we are a highly industrialized nation that represents a significant portion of the global economy but the fact remains that 5% of the world's population is using 25% of the world's oil. We can do better. And until we're willing to look ourselves in the mirror and accept that responsibility, sticking a drill in every square mile of this country is not going to help.
But Americans don't want to hear it. Parking the F-150 is not an option. People are better at finding reasons not to carpool or take public transportation than they are at overcoming the minor inconveniences associated with leaving the car at home. We don't want to recycle, or be troubled with the hassle of toting our own shopping bags around. So in November people will cast their vote for the candidate who does the best job of flattering them. Bomb Iran...open the continental shelf for drilling...stick a coal mine in the middle of the Grand Canyon...just don't ask us to take responsibility.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Idiot's Guide to Elections.
A lot of people seemed pretty upset that Barack Obama and his wife knocked knuckles before he delivered his post primary speech. OK. To an almost 40 guy who grew up in Cleveland it didn't seem like a big deal and I suspect to the pundits its not either. It is, however, a very easy thing to focus on.
When I listen to or read the opinions of conservative pundits I get the distinct impression that they think their audience is stupid. So instead of intelligently discussing the differences between McCain and Obama they reduce the argument to hateful diatribes. Before McCain became the front runner people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck were denouncing him as a RINO, which is a clever tag neo-conservatives hung on moderate Republicans in 200 and 2004 in order to push forceful social conservative legislation.
So now that McCain is the only option for them they have thrown their support behind him by attacking Obama. Which is fine. That's the way the game is played. The problem is that they are attacking him with ridiculous assertions. They're using his name as a link to terrorism and his connection to Jeremiah Wright makes him a racist. Of course John McCain hails from a state that doesn't recognize Martin Luther King Day and there's a possibility that he was brainwashed when he was held as a POW. I've seen the Manchurian Candidate.
Yes, it's silly. McCain's not a hypnotized sleeper waiting to destroy this country any more than Obama is a socialist. The fact is these men differ on some key issues but when you get down to it they are very similar. McCain and Obama share a desire to address Global Warming and conservation. Where they differ is in economics, taxes and the war in Iraq.
Obama believes that we need to put existing trade agreements on hold until we find out why the US seems to be getting the short end of the deal. NAFTA and GAFTA are great ideas on paper but when other countries are cheating on the pacts they stop working. Obama wants to make sure the US is getting a fair return on its investments. McCain doesn't support dismantling NAFTA. Instead he wants to train out of work laborers hit hard by free trade to find work in science and technology. The problem is that those jobs are being outsourced to places like India. McCain didn't mention what he would do to stop outsourcing.
In reference to taxes, Obama wants to eliminate tax breaks and subsidies for corporations, particularly the big oil companies. McCain feels that this would put a financial burden on the people who make jobs and that playing hardball with oil companies will only force gas prices to rise. It'sa great argument except for the fact that we've had a very business friendly administration for 8 years. Gas prices have more than doubled, wages have gone down and people are facing the hardest economic times since the mid 80s. Shifting the tax burden back to corporations and the exceedingly wealthy makes sense.
As far as Iraq goes, that's a disaster. Our military is overstressed. Nation Guard and Reserve troops have been on active status far too long and stop loss initiatives have delayed discharges for years. People aren't volunteering. The war on terror has a lot of vocal support but nobody seems interested in going beyond lip service. Everybody is willing to stick a magnetic ribbon on their car but nobody is signing up for a stint in the Army.
McCain wants to win. Obama wants to put the onus on Iraqi officials and bring our troops and our money back home. The question is which plan is better. Will Obama's plan allow fundamentalist Islam to thrive? Will McCain's commitment to seeing Iraq through weaken the US as Russia and China are building their Armies? This is what we should be arguing about.
But nobody wants to talk about the issues. Instead they want to make issues out of soundbites and knuckle knocks. Are Americans really that stupid? Or is the average voter too lazy to think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)