page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
Monday, December 13, 2010
Christmas: The Revenge
Here's another Christmas one I did. No weird back story to this one. Just sheer wackiness.
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Christmas
Christmas brings out the best in me. Well, the strange and "where the hell did that come from" part of me, at least.
I wrote something called "RUDOLF THE PEOPLE'S REINDEER" many years ago. The idea was "How would the story of Rudolph be told in the 1952 Soviet Union?"
The original idea was to do a tourist guide to one of those old industrial towns in the Soviet Union. But I didn't really have anything to go on after that initial idea. Then it became a tourist guide of Long Beach if it had gone communist. Yeah, I know.
Then I found this old Rudolph book, scanned it, and wrote it. That's it.
There's one more, titled "What About Holiday Safety?" to come soon. Here it is for you now. . .
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
I wrote something called "RUDOLF THE PEOPLE'S REINDEER" many years ago. The idea was "How would the story of Rudolph be told in the 1952 Soviet Union?"
The original idea was to do a tourist guide to one of those old industrial towns in the Soviet Union. But I didn't really have anything to go on after that initial idea. Then it became a tourist guide of Long Beach if it had gone communist. Yeah, I know.
Then I found this old Rudolph book, scanned it, and wrote it. That's it.
There's one more, titled "What About Holiday Safety?" to come soon. Here it is for you now. . .
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thoughts on Comedy, Part 3
I wrote a paper as a final for my Comparative Lit class(320IC) 120 years ago at good ol’ Cal State Long Beach.
My position was that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was awesome. Better than you think, actually. Funnier than Life of Brian, in my opinion. Some references I make to types of comedy (such as 'inversion') are a reference to Enre Bergson's 7 elements of the comic, which I was studying at the time.
Anyway, here’s most of it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is quite possibly the funniest and most intelligently written comic adventure in film history. By my count, there are thirty four distinct episodes in the film, all of which have their own thread of humor. In this paper I will examine some of the funniest individual scenes, analyzing them to see what makes them humorous. I will also look at the basic comic elements not previously mentioned and see where in the film they can be found. Monty Python’s Holy Grail is a brilliantly funny movie that deserves to be ranked with the best of all time.
Monty Python was a comedy troupe that was keenly aware of history. This is why they are so adept at mocking historical events. They are also very intelligent. This translated into their humor at almost every level. This brings us to the first scene.
Thoughts on Comedy Part (something)
The “Constitutional Peasant Scene.” This scene occurs when King Arthur (the late Graham Chapman) approaches a castle with the intent of finding out the name of the lord who lives there. When Arthur tries to find out, he runs up against an unusually intelligent peasant (Michael Palin.) The peasants in this scene are actually just toiling in the fields; stacking mud. There is a bit of Bergson’s ‘inversion' here as the lowly peasant berates Arthur for “wielding supreme executive power” without a mandate from the masses.
A female peasant expresses surprise that they even have a king because she didn’t vote for him, and she thought they were an autonomous collective. Now, this type of conversation just DID NOT happen at this time. The intelligence of the humor makes it funny. There are also ‘political’ references here. Palins character goes on and on about living in a dictatorship where there are class differences. The allusions to Modern England are very clear. There is also a bit of ‘mistaken identity’ with nobody knowing who King Arthur is and who he is the king of (“Who are the Britons?” “We all are, and I am your king.”) The scene ends with Arthur becoming upset with the peasant for not shutting up and calling him a “Bloody peasant.” Palin then looks at his fellow downtrodden peasants and asks them if they saw him being ‘repressed.’ The present creeping into the past. The confusion and out-of-time political jargon is what makes the humor.
The next scene to look at is the “Black Knight” scene. Every scene is, of course, a farce and a parody of the quest for the holy Grail stories, and the accompanying heroics which are always included. In this scene, Arthur stumbles along to find a fight between two knights. The battle is fierce and the black knight wins. Arthur asks this brave knight to join him at his court in Camelot. The knight remains silent until Arthur tries to cross the nearby bridge (which seems to span a very small stream). “None shall pass,” says the black knight. They argue and a fight ensues. Arthur chops off one of the knight’s arms. The knight refuses to admit his arm is off and calls it merely a “flesh wound”. The black knight loses another arm and his legs to Arthur’s sword, and throughout will not concede defeat, or even that he is not winning. Finally, Arthur leaves the black knight torso behind and crosses the bridge. This scene succeeds because the black knight suffers from Bergson’s ‘absence of feeling’. His limbs are systematically removed and he has no reaction whatsoever. Also, the way in which the arms just fall off and blood spurts from the body is so silly and unreal as to be funny. This is a great ‘sight gag’. And through it all, the scene is played very straight, as if this were a serious film and not a comedy.
Python just HAD to include a scene where someone might be burned at the stake. This is the case in the May We Burn Her? scene. Villagers bring a young girl to Sir Bedevere claiming she is a witch. They have obviously dressed her up as a witch. But, keeping in line with the Pythonic ways, they still go through the process, of trying to find out, logically, how they can tell if she is a witch or not. If she weighs the same as a duck she’s made of wood, and since both wood and witches burn, she would , naturally, be a witch. Absolutely ridiculous logic. Beautifully funny. This scene makes a farce out of ancient knowledge. It also has a little of the ‘mistaken identity,’ as the young girl looks like a witch and is subsequently burned. The humor comes from the fact that it is VERY obvious that she is innocent, (with one villager actually says “burn her anyway”) and from the strange process that proves her guilty.
One of the most overlooked scenes, in terms of people acknowledging its humor, is the A Blessing From the Lord scene. In this scene, Arthur and his knights are traveling along when they get an animated message from the Lord. The Lord, in a booming, majestic voice, calls to “Arthur, King of the Britons.” Then, as Python likes to do, they give the Lord a very human side to him. He, the Lord, sort of stops being his booming majestic self to step aside and be cross at Arthur for groveling. He then becomes upset at Arthur for saying he is sorry, averting his eyes and goes on to complain that “those miserable psalms. They’re SO depressing.” And after being angry and oh so human, the Lord becomes regal again and continues his grand oratory, directing Arthur and his knights to find the Holy Grail. Very funny when you break it down. The “language” used, as in many other scenes, is modern in its nature and easy to identify with. A very short scene, but one that has some mimicry and some great parody of divine intervention.
A peculiar scene comes far later in the movie when, led by the very strange Tim the Enchanter, the knights approach a cave guarded by “a creature so foul, so cruel, no man has fought with it. . .and lived!” This foul creature is later seen to be an ordinary looking white rabbit. The scene is played VERY straight, which creates the humor. The rabbit turns out to be as vicious as advertised, and the knights call upon Brother Manard and the Holy Hand Grenade. This is uproariously funny. Like a sacred religions ritual, the jewel encrusted grenade is presented to Arthur. The Book of Armaments ( a great ‘allusion’ to holy scriptures) is consulted. In language that is of the time, the grenade and its uses are described: “And Saint Atilla raised the hand grenade up on high saying, ‘O Lord bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’ And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and. . .” The brother goes on to describe, in wonderfully TOO MUCH detail, how to throw the weapon. The use of the old English with the odd references from the present day (the grenade, breakfast cereals, etc) bring the humor forth. When the rabbit attacks it is a great ‘sight gag’, much like the Black Knight scene.
There are other comic elements not mentioned, yet still in the movie. One is the ‘chase scene.’ After entering the cave, the knights must flee from the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaggghhh. This is all done through animation and the knights are saved from almost certain death “when suddenly the animator suffered a fatal heart attack, and the quest for the Holy Grail could continue.” Not much of a chase scene, but it was probably meant to be that way. ‘Romance’ almost makes it in the movie, although only in one scene. It is when Sir Galahad, sworn to chastity, goes to Castle Anthrax (a funny incidental name for a castle) to find the Grail, and is then surrounded by “eight score blonde and brunettes, all between the ages of 16 and 19 ½” who spend their days “dressing, undressing, and making exciting underwear.” Galahad is just about to give in to the hoard of beautiful women when he is saved by Sir Lancelot from the peril of oral sex (“Let me go back in there and face the peril.” “Nope, it’s too perilous.”) There is a Bergsonian ‘repetition’ when Arthur continually mistakes the number three for the number five. It is seen in the Holy Hand Grenade scene and the Bridge of Death scene. There are far too many sight gags to mention, but the film is chock to the brim with them. And, finally, there is a ‘coincidence’ when the knights all meet up in the forest with the Knights Who Until Recently Said Ni!
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a beautifully constructed comedy which uses intelligence and farce to bring about the humor. Modern times intrude on the past. Not every aspect of the comic is included in the film, but they don’t seem to be needed. Even the ‘happy ending’ is discarded as being too conventional, and the movie does not suffer for its loss. Holy Grail is at every level a top notch comedy that should be appreciated even more than it is now, which is saying something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZafURKRLPg&feature=related
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Why I'm Not Voting For You: The Final Part
Due to circumstances well within my control (laziness) I haven’t posted the rest of my “why I’m not voting for you” series.
I’d like to say it’s because you don’t deserve it. (You don’t) But I don’t want to say that. Nope, I’ll take the blame for my own lack of production.
So let me go from here.
Put on your hemp pants and light that incense stick. . .time for the GREENS.
On the surface, the Green Party is an innocuous little group. The sort of organization that you look at, smile, and then say “oh, those darned Greens.” And laugh.
But when you look closer you realize they are not in their right minds. First off, for an admittedly environmental party, they spend an AWFUL lot of time pinning their hopes and platform positions on social items (everyone that isn’t a white male is downtrodden). Yes, it’s the touchy feely tree-hugging you’ve all come to know and laugh at.
They do, though, have other positions that aren’t based on ‘recognition’ and ‘respect for diversity’ and ‘free kittens for seniors.’ Ok, I made that last one up.
Their “platform is in 4 parts: Democracy, Social Justice (their main focus, because if people don’t like you for some reason, dammit, we’ll FORCE them to), Ecological Sustainability, and Economic Sustainability.
Really, the final three are exactly what you’d think they’d be.
No nuclear, oil, coal power. Ride your bike to work. Small businesses are the best thing ever. Don’t be mean to animals. People deserve respect because they don’t have money. Blah blah blah. It’s nothing you haven’t heard a million times and when you read it you wonder, “What drum circle did they come up with this one around?” Reality is not their friend.
The first part of their platform, Democracy is just as silly and pie in the sky as the rest of their positions. Their “real path to Mideast peace” is just to blame Israel for everything and force them to do what we want, or we won’t give them any support. If we were to follow this program of theirs Israel would pretty much cease to exist. But I do give them credit for saying “we don’t want to be naïve about this”, but then they go on with more naïve positions.
Their platform, amazingly, has two, count ‘em, TWO items I actually agree with. The first is the elimination of the Electoral College. It’s an anachronism and they got that part correct. The second thing I agree with is their position is about Veterans rights. This is a group that is oft overlooked. They go and do what their country tells them to and when they get back they are sometimes in positions they can’t adjust to. Their position would increase combat pay, increase medical care and basically try to make things right with these young men that put their lives on the line for us slobs.
They also stress this make believe idyll that people live, shop and work in their own tiny little neighborhoods. In reality, that does not exist. People spend so much time out of their own area; they rarely have time for the ‘citizens committees’ to run the neighborhood. The country isn’t some late 60’s San Francisco community where everyone shops at the locally owned store, rides their bike to their used book store for work, and has time to kill going to a myriad of local issues. This is a world where people have to get up and work sometimes far away from home. (I travel 28 miles to work every day.)Once they get home after being away for 10+ hours, they might have a little time to do some shopping before trying to spend time with their families, if they have them, or to have some sort of recreational life. Reality trumps the dope haze on this one.
Other silly positions the Greens have:
-People in Jail should be able to vote. Because nothing says ‘socially conscious individual’ more than killers, thieves and rapists.
-70-80% of illness is because of stress, so let’s do some stress management training such as meditation techniques, yoga, tai chi, qigong, and biofeedback. Ok, now who’s been typing while using the bong?
-An end to the ‘war on drugs.’ Yes, that’s right heroin, coke and meth merchants, you now have free reign. Go forth and have fun.
Frankly, they have so many comically indefensible positions, to list them all would take way more time than I want to give it and more effort than I’m willing to put in.
To sum up the Greens, I’d say they’re an earnest group of people who just happen to be out of touch with the reality that most of us live in. They’re not bad people. They don’t beat kittens or knit radioactive dream-catchers. But I wouldn’t trust them to make any decisions on a governmental scale. Nope. I would let them run my garage sale. Or bake sale. Well, as long as they warned me which were their ‘special’ brownies.
Now the scariest group.
Libertarians.
Most of my interaction with Libertarians is similar to my experiences with born-again christians. They seem like normal, nice rational people. Then you say something that doesn’t jibe with their point of view and all of a sudden the door to crazy land is opened. And the level of seething anger there is quite disquieting. They react loudly and then very dismissively toward those who are not fellow ‘believers.’
I mean, honestly, is it such a threat to you that I possess a different opinion? I’m not stealing from you or hurting your loved ones. I am just not in agreement with you. Now stop twitching and raising your voice and try to enjoy your dinner. Jeez.
Libertarians are selling personal responsibility. I’m 100% for that. If you do something stupid, take the consequences. That lady who spilled the hot McDonalds (don’t call it “Mickey D’s” for god’s sake) coffee on herself, sued and won because it was too hot? A fucking idiot.
The old ‘big government is bad’ boogyman is the Libertarian bible. They have a hands-off attitude about things, which sounds right in a bubble, but which in reality might not quite work.
An example: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.” Ok, hard to have any sort of services if you do that, let alone, “We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.” Or “The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security.” Ok, but where is the money to maintain sufficient military power coming from? And what is ‘sufficient’? Sorry to say, but much of the reach of the US military is economic. You think we get such cheap oil (it IS cheap) because we’re nice folk? Nope, we have a huge military and can either guarantee support for governments or withhold support for governments. That is a key. We get produce, meat, clothing, electronics, cars, oil, and countless other consumer items from out of the country. If we decide to go all ‘isolationist’ on the world, you can bet your ass we’ll have far fewer of these items we enjoy. We live in a global economy. And that’s a GOOD thing. Retreating from international commitments is not a good idea.
“We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid.” So, despite supporting, in theory, the rights of people to “resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights” we will do nothing to support them. And, of course, starving nations. . .screw you. We’re in business for ourselves.
These kinds of laissez-faire attitudes sound good, but are certainly unsustainable and cannot help but destroy the standard of living you have now.
What else do they want? No social security. No government interference in business (goodbye minimum wage, safety regs, child labor laws, and hello a return to the ‘Jungle’, by Upton Sinclair), and, of course, a massive shift of power FROM the federal government TO the state and local governments (No way I’d trust these local nitwits more than the federal ones.) Quick, name a few successful countries that thrived with a weak central government where the power is in the hands of the individual near-sovereign states? Not many huh? Sorry.
In sum, the ‘government bad, people good’ ethos that is the overriding message of the Libertarians I just can’t get behind. I like having social security so old people can at least try not to live on the street. I like having drivable roads. I like the space program and bananas and I’m in favor of some form of government help for people who are poor and are trying.
Democrats
The problem with my support of democrats is that they seem to be really free with how they spend MY money. Sure, they have more of a ‘help the downtrodden’ attitude than the Republicans do, but at the core, they’re just as sleazy, slimy and rotten as their rivals. They take special interest money, they have their little pet projects, they waste money on programs they don’t need, but because of political favors passed around, they support.
I’m not saying they’re corrupt. (They are.) But they’re hardly saints. The common image of Democratic candidates is that they’re for the ‘common man’ and they are more like you and me than those evil Republicans are. Truth is, they’re the same as the Republicans. Same schools, same privileges. They’re politicians. And all politicians are essentially the same. They all spend more time solidifying their own position than doing anything real.
Socially, I’m more with the Democrats than the Republicans. Gay marriage? Sure, whatever. Doesn’t affect me in the least. Abortion? Not my decision as I don’t have a uterus, but I’m fine if a woman is. Evolution? Hell yeah! In this realm, I’m far more likely to be a “do what you wish” kinda guy, (except for drugs.)
Economically, I don’t like the direction we’re heading. The health care bill is fraught with problems.
Now, to be fair, I’m not a fan of socialized health care. It can work, in concert with private health care, but I’m not a fan of it because it is not really what this government has done and tends to stifle innovation. (Private health care made a big comeback in Britain and its profit and the free market that inspires innovation.) But, having said that, if you’re going to do something, DO IT RIGHT.
You want to have universal health care? Ok, then DO IT RIGHT. Set up the whole system, bottom up, to incorporate everyone. What we have now is a tacked on piece of garbage that rests its expensive head on the shoulder of the non-system we have now. Ungh. Forcing people to support a system they cannot benefit from and they don’t support is not good. (It’s not socialism, righties, it’s more like forced capitalism.) Plus, the cost of this ‘system’ given beforehand appears to be way off. Ick.
There are two types of tyranny of the majority. First is if 90% agree to make the other 10% do what they want. The other is when 51% gets to make the 49% squirm. That’s this health care bill. Notice how this bill was rammed through at warp speed? Because it’s not a good system. It was a “Let’s get this through and if it sucks, we can always adjust later.” Hardly a recipe for success.
What would I be in favor of? Old people covered. Children under, say, 9 covered. Long term diseases covered (ALS, MS, Cancer, etc). That’s a hell of a start I’d say. And I’d pay a little extra a week for that. Sure.
The democrats have also decided to take a page out of the Republican play book by pretending they have a mandate…because they have a majority. Much like during the Bush administration, the Democrats now have this arrogance because they CAN have one. THEY are in power and, dammit, they’re going to use it just like they couldn’t when Bush was in charge.
That’s the problems I have. I don’t think they’re bad folks. But they have that wonderful mixture of earnestness and arrogance I can’t, in good faith, support. I’d prefer fully thought out ideas and more fiscal responsibility.
Republicans
Just like the out-of-power Democrats while Bush was president, the Republicans have become whiney little girls. My god! Stop whining and complaining! Ok, done? Thanks.
Here’s a few problems I have with this here grand ol’ party.
-Catering to the religious right. This manifests itself with support for crap like prayer in school and states trying to teach creationism. No way can I support that. Not in a million years.
Let me get this straight. . you want to force children to pray to your god? That’s the definition of unconstitutional (unlike the health care law, which isn’t unconstitutional, but IS bad.) And you want to teach children creation myths. Not just any of them, oh no. Just the one in the bible.
I just have a problem with political decisions being made solely based on religious things.
When John McCain ran for president, he was supposed to be a ‘maverick’ and willing to shake things up. But as soon as he became the GOP candidate he fell in line with the same old Republican lines. Prayer in school, amendment against flag burning (you’re kidding right?), blind loyalty to the 2nd amendment, anti-abortion, anti-gay. It was all there on his presidential website. I was dismayed. Here was a guy I liked because he wasn’t, or didn’t seem to be, like all the other Republican politicians. But when reality set in and he needed the support and funding, he had to retreat into the same ol same ol that this party is known for.
-The well known anti-abortion stance.
-Anti-Gay marriage. Ok. I’m not gay. No harm in that. Or in being gay. But exactly HOW does two people you don’t know getting married hurt your marriage? That has been the tenor of the anti-gay marriage debate here in the golden state. If two gay people marry and it hurts your marriage, you have a pretty piss-poor marriage buddy. Sorry to say it. Again, this is PURELY a religious thing.
-State’s Rights. There was a war that eliminated the concept of state’s rights. It also happened to eliminate slavery, so that was good too. See, there’s no problem with doing a sort of downsizing of the federal government. It’s big and wasteful. We all know that. But giving more power to the states is not only stupid, it’s irresponsible. State’s rights folks want to have power to the states to decide things like abortion. They argue there’s a common social bond that people in a state feel that makes people in a state maybe not want to have legalized abortion. Not surprising that this state’s rights fever comes from the south. And this is the area that used its common social bond to require separate bathrooms and drinking fountains and places of worship and of eating for those of a different skin color. Yes, these are the people we want deciding how social laws are decided. No thanks. Go back to the early 1800’s if you want that. We here in the present don’t need that ignorance.
Which brings me to my next point.
-The past. There is either progressive or regressive. Going forward or backward. And the Republicans seem to have planted themselves clearly in the going backward area. Repeal health law. Undo the abortion laws. Go back to state’s rights. Teach creationism. Each step is a step back in time. That’s not what they should be doing. They should be moving forward. You know who wants to go back in time? Old people. Old people who are afraid and can’t adjust to what is new, modern and now. Not coincidentally, that’s the audience for Bill O’Reilly. (Sorry dad.)
My suggestion would be to move forward. You hate the health care bill? Ok, provide an alternative and move forward with it. You want to do something about immigration (which is a shambles)? Then do something positive about it. Come up with a plan. Don’t complain. Don’t blame. Give me a plan. You CAN’T go back in time. Do something real. Do something positive.
And finally, for the love of god, if you can’t have a political discussion without using the word “liberal” then you’re an idiot. All I read is “The liberals want to do this” and “The liberals want to do that.” Really? ALL people who are liberal believe all the things that your pal Rush Limbaugh says are evil? Sorry. That’s just wrong.
That’s it. That’s why I won’t be able to vote, in good conscious, for any of your parties. It’s not pretty, but there it is. Not one of those parties represents my interests. They all have their little niche interests and when they have to really nail down a position tend to retreat to odd little political positions.
If only there was a Bull Moose Party. Oh well, one can dream.
PS. For full disclosure here's my votes on the CA props
19-No no a thousand times no
20-yes
21-no
22-yes
23-no
24-yes
25-no
26-yes
27-no
(damn, a pattern)
I’d like to say it’s because you don’t deserve it. (You don’t) But I don’t want to say that. Nope, I’ll take the blame for my own lack of production.
So let me go from here.
Put on your hemp pants and light that incense stick. . .time for the GREENS.
On the surface, the Green Party is an innocuous little group. The sort of organization that you look at, smile, and then say “oh, those darned Greens.” And laugh.
But when you look closer you realize they are not in their right minds. First off, for an admittedly environmental party, they spend an AWFUL lot of time pinning their hopes and platform positions on social items (everyone that isn’t a white male is downtrodden). Yes, it’s the touchy feely tree-hugging you’ve all come to know and laugh at.
They do, though, have other positions that aren’t based on ‘recognition’ and ‘respect for diversity’ and ‘free kittens for seniors.’ Ok, I made that last one up.
Their “platform is in 4 parts: Democracy, Social Justice (their main focus, because if people don’t like you for some reason, dammit, we’ll FORCE them to), Ecological Sustainability, and Economic Sustainability.
Really, the final three are exactly what you’d think they’d be.
No nuclear, oil, coal power. Ride your bike to work. Small businesses are the best thing ever. Don’t be mean to animals. People deserve respect because they don’t have money. Blah blah blah. It’s nothing you haven’t heard a million times and when you read it you wonder, “What drum circle did they come up with this one around?” Reality is not their friend.
The first part of their platform, Democracy is just as silly and pie in the sky as the rest of their positions. Their “real path to Mideast peace” is just to blame Israel for everything and force them to do what we want, or we won’t give them any support. If we were to follow this program of theirs Israel would pretty much cease to exist. But I do give them credit for saying “we don’t want to be naïve about this”, but then they go on with more naïve positions.
Their platform, amazingly, has two, count ‘em, TWO items I actually agree with. The first is the elimination of the Electoral College. It’s an anachronism and they got that part correct. The second thing I agree with is their position is about Veterans rights. This is a group that is oft overlooked. They go and do what their country tells them to and when they get back they are sometimes in positions they can’t adjust to. Their position would increase combat pay, increase medical care and basically try to make things right with these young men that put their lives on the line for us slobs.
They also stress this make believe idyll that people live, shop and work in their own tiny little neighborhoods. In reality, that does not exist. People spend so much time out of their own area; they rarely have time for the ‘citizens committees’ to run the neighborhood. The country isn’t some late 60’s San Francisco community where everyone shops at the locally owned store, rides their bike to their used book store for work, and has time to kill going to a myriad of local issues. This is a world where people have to get up and work sometimes far away from home. (I travel 28 miles to work every day.)Once they get home after being away for 10+ hours, they might have a little time to do some shopping before trying to spend time with their families, if they have them, or to have some sort of recreational life. Reality trumps the dope haze on this one.
Other silly positions the Greens have:
-People in Jail should be able to vote. Because nothing says ‘socially conscious individual’ more than killers, thieves and rapists.
-70-80% of illness is because of stress, so let’s do some stress management training such as meditation techniques, yoga, tai chi, qigong, and biofeedback. Ok, now who’s been typing while using the bong?
-An end to the ‘war on drugs.’ Yes, that’s right heroin, coke and meth merchants, you now have free reign. Go forth and have fun.
Frankly, they have so many comically indefensible positions, to list them all would take way more time than I want to give it and more effort than I’m willing to put in.
To sum up the Greens, I’d say they’re an earnest group of people who just happen to be out of touch with the reality that most of us live in. They’re not bad people. They don’t beat kittens or knit radioactive dream-catchers. But I wouldn’t trust them to make any decisions on a governmental scale. Nope. I would let them run my garage sale. Or bake sale. Well, as long as they warned me which were their ‘special’ brownies.
Now the scariest group.
Libertarians.
Most of my interaction with Libertarians is similar to my experiences with born-again christians. They seem like normal, nice rational people. Then you say something that doesn’t jibe with their point of view and all of a sudden the door to crazy land is opened. And the level of seething anger there is quite disquieting. They react loudly and then very dismissively toward those who are not fellow ‘believers.’
I mean, honestly, is it such a threat to you that I possess a different opinion? I’m not stealing from you or hurting your loved ones. I am just not in agreement with you. Now stop twitching and raising your voice and try to enjoy your dinner. Jeez.
Libertarians are selling personal responsibility. I’m 100% for that. If you do something stupid, take the consequences. That lady who spilled the hot McDonalds (don’t call it “Mickey D’s” for god’s sake) coffee on herself, sued and won because it was too hot? A fucking idiot.
The old ‘big government is bad’ boogyman is the Libertarian bible. They have a hands-off attitude about things, which sounds right in a bubble, but which in reality might not quite work.
An example: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.” Ok, hard to have any sort of services if you do that, let alone, “We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.” Or “The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security.” Ok, but where is the money to maintain sufficient military power coming from? And what is ‘sufficient’? Sorry to say, but much of the reach of the US military is economic. You think we get such cheap oil (it IS cheap) because we’re nice folk? Nope, we have a huge military and can either guarantee support for governments or withhold support for governments. That is a key. We get produce, meat, clothing, electronics, cars, oil, and countless other consumer items from out of the country. If we decide to go all ‘isolationist’ on the world, you can bet your ass we’ll have far fewer of these items we enjoy. We live in a global economy. And that’s a GOOD thing. Retreating from international commitments is not a good idea.
“We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid.” So, despite supporting, in theory, the rights of people to “resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights” we will do nothing to support them. And, of course, starving nations. . .screw you. We’re in business for ourselves.
These kinds of laissez-faire attitudes sound good, but are certainly unsustainable and cannot help but destroy the standard of living you have now.
What else do they want? No social security. No government interference in business (goodbye minimum wage, safety regs, child labor laws, and hello a return to the ‘Jungle’, by Upton Sinclair), and, of course, a massive shift of power FROM the federal government TO the state and local governments (No way I’d trust these local nitwits more than the federal ones.) Quick, name a few successful countries that thrived with a weak central government where the power is in the hands of the individual near-sovereign states? Not many huh? Sorry.
In sum, the ‘government bad, people good’ ethos that is the overriding message of the Libertarians I just can’t get behind. I like having social security so old people can at least try not to live on the street. I like having drivable roads. I like the space program and bananas and I’m in favor of some form of government help for people who are poor and are trying.
Democrats
The problem with my support of democrats is that they seem to be really free with how they spend MY money. Sure, they have more of a ‘help the downtrodden’ attitude than the Republicans do, but at the core, they’re just as sleazy, slimy and rotten as their rivals. They take special interest money, they have their little pet projects, they waste money on programs they don’t need, but because of political favors passed around, they support.
I’m not saying they’re corrupt. (They are.) But they’re hardly saints. The common image of Democratic candidates is that they’re for the ‘common man’ and they are more like you and me than those evil Republicans are. Truth is, they’re the same as the Republicans. Same schools, same privileges. They’re politicians. And all politicians are essentially the same. They all spend more time solidifying their own position than doing anything real.
Socially, I’m more with the Democrats than the Republicans. Gay marriage? Sure, whatever. Doesn’t affect me in the least. Abortion? Not my decision as I don’t have a uterus, but I’m fine if a woman is. Evolution? Hell yeah! In this realm, I’m far more likely to be a “do what you wish” kinda guy, (except for drugs.)
Economically, I don’t like the direction we’re heading. The health care bill is fraught with problems.
Now, to be fair, I’m not a fan of socialized health care. It can work, in concert with private health care, but I’m not a fan of it because it is not really what this government has done and tends to stifle innovation. (Private health care made a big comeback in Britain and its profit and the free market that inspires innovation.) But, having said that, if you’re going to do something, DO IT RIGHT.
You want to have universal health care? Ok, then DO IT RIGHT. Set up the whole system, bottom up, to incorporate everyone. What we have now is a tacked on piece of garbage that rests its expensive head on the shoulder of the non-system we have now. Ungh. Forcing people to support a system they cannot benefit from and they don’t support is not good. (It’s not socialism, righties, it’s more like forced capitalism.) Plus, the cost of this ‘system’ given beforehand appears to be way off. Ick.
There are two types of tyranny of the majority. First is if 90% agree to make the other 10% do what they want. The other is when 51% gets to make the 49% squirm. That’s this health care bill. Notice how this bill was rammed through at warp speed? Because it’s not a good system. It was a “Let’s get this through and if it sucks, we can always adjust later.” Hardly a recipe for success.
What would I be in favor of? Old people covered. Children under, say, 9 covered. Long term diseases covered (ALS, MS, Cancer, etc). That’s a hell of a start I’d say. And I’d pay a little extra a week for that. Sure.
The democrats have also decided to take a page out of the Republican play book by pretending they have a mandate…because they have a majority. Much like during the Bush administration, the Democrats now have this arrogance because they CAN have one. THEY are in power and, dammit, they’re going to use it just like they couldn’t when Bush was in charge.
That’s the problems I have. I don’t think they’re bad folks. But they have that wonderful mixture of earnestness and arrogance I can’t, in good faith, support. I’d prefer fully thought out ideas and more fiscal responsibility.
Republicans
Just like the out-of-power Democrats while Bush was president, the Republicans have become whiney little girls. My god! Stop whining and complaining! Ok, done? Thanks.
Here’s a few problems I have with this here grand ol’ party.
-Catering to the religious right. This manifests itself with support for crap like prayer in school and states trying to teach creationism. No way can I support that. Not in a million years.
Let me get this straight. . you want to force children to pray to your god? That’s the definition of unconstitutional (unlike the health care law, which isn’t unconstitutional, but IS bad.) And you want to teach children creation myths. Not just any of them, oh no. Just the one in the bible.
I just have a problem with political decisions being made solely based on religious things.
When John McCain ran for president, he was supposed to be a ‘maverick’ and willing to shake things up. But as soon as he became the GOP candidate he fell in line with the same old Republican lines. Prayer in school, amendment against flag burning (you’re kidding right?), blind loyalty to the 2nd amendment, anti-abortion, anti-gay. It was all there on his presidential website. I was dismayed. Here was a guy I liked because he wasn’t, or didn’t seem to be, like all the other Republican politicians. But when reality set in and he needed the support and funding, he had to retreat into the same ol same ol that this party is known for.
-The well known anti-abortion stance.
-Anti-Gay marriage. Ok. I’m not gay. No harm in that. Or in being gay. But exactly HOW does two people you don’t know getting married hurt your marriage? That has been the tenor of the anti-gay marriage debate here in the golden state. If two gay people marry and it hurts your marriage, you have a pretty piss-poor marriage buddy. Sorry to say it. Again, this is PURELY a religious thing.
-State’s Rights. There was a war that eliminated the concept of state’s rights. It also happened to eliminate slavery, so that was good too. See, there’s no problem with doing a sort of downsizing of the federal government. It’s big and wasteful. We all know that. But giving more power to the states is not only stupid, it’s irresponsible. State’s rights folks want to have power to the states to decide things like abortion. They argue there’s a common social bond that people in a state feel that makes people in a state maybe not want to have legalized abortion. Not surprising that this state’s rights fever comes from the south. And this is the area that used its common social bond to require separate bathrooms and drinking fountains and places of worship and of eating for those of a different skin color. Yes, these are the people we want deciding how social laws are decided. No thanks. Go back to the early 1800’s if you want that. We here in the present don’t need that ignorance.
Which brings me to my next point.
-The past. There is either progressive or regressive. Going forward or backward. And the Republicans seem to have planted themselves clearly in the going backward area. Repeal health law. Undo the abortion laws. Go back to state’s rights. Teach creationism. Each step is a step back in time. That’s not what they should be doing. They should be moving forward. You know who wants to go back in time? Old people. Old people who are afraid and can’t adjust to what is new, modern and now. Not coincidentally, that’s the audience for Bill O’Reilly. (Sorry dad.)
My suggestion would be to move forward. You hate the health care bill? Ok, provide an alternative and move forward with it. You want to do something about immigration (which is a shambles)? Then do something positive about it. Come up with a plan. Don’t complain. Don’t blame. Give me a plan. You CAN’T go back in time. Do something real. Do something positive.
And finally, for the love of god, if you can’t have a political discussion without using the word “liberal” then you’re an idiot. All I read is “The liberals want to do this” and “The liberals want to do that.” Really? ALL people who are liberal believe all the things that your pal Rush Limbaugh says are evil? Sorry. That’s just wrong.
That’s it. That’s why I won’t be able to vote, in good conscious, for any of your parties. It’s not pretty, but there it is. Not one of those parties represents my interests. They all have their little niche interests and when they have to really nail down a position tend to retreat to odd little political positions.
If only there was a Bull Moose Party. Oh well, one can dream.
PS. For full disclosure here's my votes on the CA props
19-No no a thousand times no
20-yes
21-no
22-yes
23-no
24-yes
25-no
26-yes
27-no
(damn, a pattern)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Why I'm Not Voting For You
Why I’m not voting for you.
It has become more and more obvious that the major parties do not represent me or my interests. It shouldn’t really come as a surprise, as the parties don’t really represent the majority of citizens. Yes, that’s a HUGE problem. But, let’s face it, the parties don’t care. The reason they don’t care, so it seems, is that their primary (monetary) support comes from the fringe elements of the party. Are all Republicans far right religious nutbars? Nope. All Democrats are tin foil hat wearing hippies who hate America? Again, no.
But, I digress. I am starting a series of “Why I’m Not Voting For You.” I will take a look at the more major parties and explain why I can’t, in good conscience, vote for them.
The parties?
Tea Party (because of the topical and humorous nature)
Greens
Libertarians
Democrats
Republicans
Why I’m not voting for you, Part 1
Let’s begin with a brand new entry into fringe American politics, the Tea Party.
What do they stand for? Why, let’s look at their website to see what they stand for, shall we? (I will ignore the ignorant and skin crawling idiocy that comes out in full force during Tea Party rallies. They are as insulting as they are moronic. They are, I believe, just a very visible minority of those in the party.)
They have a self titled “Non-Negotiable Core Beliefs.” Eww. Whenever a group of people stake out positions that cannot be moved, I get a little nervous. But, before I judge (and I will) let me run down these Core Beliefs.
-Illegal aliens are here Illegally. Ok, nothing wrong with that. But when one of the cornerstones of your party is something that is short term, you can tell there’s no long term staying power here. 20 years from now people may view them as an anomaly, like Ross Perot.
-Pro-Domestic Employment is Indispensible. Ok, another anti-foreigner stance. Nothing to see here, move along.
-Stronger Military is Essential. Key worrying word: Stronger. Not just a Strong military is needed, but a stronger one than we have now. This adds a little to my belief that the % of ex-military in the ol’ Tea Party is higher than any other party. The military is mighty strong as it is. What it needs is to be more oriented toward future threats and less toward fighting the Soviet Union. The only big dog left out there is China. And despite their numbers, our military would be just fine.
-Special Interests Eliminated. A broad brush is used in this Core Belief. Special interests are fine. Politicians that cater to them are not. Unless you specify HOW you’ll eliminate them, this statement is just populist fluff.
-Gun Ownership is Sacred. Woah boy! Sacred? Sacred? SACRED? I can think of a lot of things that people care about. Some I’d consider sacred. Free Speech, religion, family, love, drinking water. I’d put all those things on a “sacred” list before gun ownership. The problem, though, is that there is this long standing right wing paranoid/masturbatory fantasy about THEM (the democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, hippies, elves, and peter pan) trying to “take our guns away, dag gummite.” Anyone remember when Clinton took office? The right wing gun nuts flipped out and pronounced that we’d all better get guns now because Clinton was going to try to take them all. Clinton didn’t take them all and didn’t even TRY to take them. Same thing happened with Obama. But, along with the military Core Belief, I think this if fueled by military and ex-military elements in this fringe that probably DO value gun ownership over free speech. I view this, being a CORE BELIEF, as a problem.
-Government must be Downsized. Another common Republican position. Smaller federal government, they should say. I’m pretty sure they want most authority to be given to the states (which is usually followed by the “I love the 10th amendment” speech.)
-National Budget Must Be Balanced. A fantastic goal. Fiscal responsibility is very important. The big problem: what to cut. In concert with the above CORE BELIEF, the cuts would come at the federal power level. It’s part of a general pattern with the far right.
-Deficit Spending Will End. Well, if there’s a balanced budget, as stated above, there will be no deficit spending. All good.
-Bail-out and Stimulus Plans are Illegal. This is not so much a position as an opinion. If they were, indeed, illegal, then there’d be a stampede of sleazebag lawyers filing lawsuits every 6 or 7 seconds. These are NOT illegal, though if you believe they shouldn’t be done, I can at least respect that opinion. Because it’s just that, an opinion.
-Reduce Personal Income Taxes a Must. I’d be all for getting some of the 35% of my tax money back. Yay. Problem is, we can’t afford a stronger military with even more $25million jets without tax money. Reduce, fine. But be wise. Can’t go down too much because there are still bridges that need to be built and roads that need paving and that isn’t done with good intentions and a bunch of American flags.
-Reduce Business Income Taxes a Must. Same as above. There’s a LOT of things we need to pay for with taxes. No, not the Strategic Helium Reserve. We can get rid of that. It’s a common Republican thing to believe that if we make it easier for business to thrive, then everyone will thrive. There have been, to be kind, mixed results with this belief.
-Political Offices Available to Average Citizens. This is a campaign reform position. I have no problem with it. Seems logical. Though, the Average Citizen knows more about the JERSEY SHORE than they do about history and politics, so I’d hesitate a little before I hand the keys to the Union on over to Cletus.
-Intrusive Government Stopped. This is both a reaction to the Health Care Package (appalling) and a continuation of the downsize-the-government theme. The government is probably one of the least intrusive in the world. No need to panic.
-English as Core Language is Required. Another anti-immigration position. While I believe speaking more than one language is great, I will say that having English as an OFFICIAL language would be just fine. I say that not because I hate Mexicans (face it, all the pro-English and anti-immigrant talk is about Mexicans), but because it would head off frivolous lawsuits by sleazebag lawyers.
-Traditional Family Values are Encouraged. This is a weak way of saying, “we hate gays.” It’s also a weak way of saying, “Everything in the past was better.” The traditional family is not what it once was. And what are the values exactly? Apple pie instead of gelato? Baseball instead of soccer? This is a fairly stupid and useless CORE BELIEF.
-Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance. That’s a mouthful. But it’s just another statement of traditional Republican positions, complete with some thinly veiled states-rights in there. Gotta love it.
In the end how many of these CORE BELIEFS do I believe in? Let me tally. . .hmmmmm. Maybe, maybe, five. And that includes a few “well I kinda think that’s ok” items.
See, the Tea Party is a fringe element of the Republicans. A dissatisfied element that hasn’t automatically driven itself off the right side of the spectrum, but has certainly pigeonholed itself as right wing, white, military or ex military, average educated or less, and somewhat out of touch with the average person (though that’s not exactly unique with political organizations.)
I will, though, give them credit for at least having their beliefs out there and available to see. They aren’t hiding and haven’t grasped onto delusional positions that sometimes grips fringe political groups. And they DID break free from the typical kowtowing that the Republican party does to the religious right. Huzzah!
I don’t think I can put my beliefs behind the Tea Party. Their CORE BELIEFS don’t coincide with mine and I doubt they do with most citizens. I think I should at least agree with, oh, 75% of a party’s beliefs for me to vote for or support. I just can’t do that here.
But, as they say in Baton Rouge, Vive la différence
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday Quick Hits 7-16
Sometimes you just gotta have some quick hits.
World Trade Center Boat. So they found a ship from the 1700's at the site of the World Trade Center in NY. Amazing. Fantastic. But really what is odd is that it wasn't found before. It's not like the ship was hundreds of feet down. It WAS under a building, right? Did they just toss up the buildings without looking around or doing a proper enough survey to find the hull of a big wooden ship? It seems odd. I have slightly less confidence in the buildings in NY now. Of course, I have no intention to go there, so it won't affect me. But still, come on guys. . . .
Is it just me or does it seem that, lately, every issue that Jessee Jackson is on is almost fatally the wrong side? We've all grown accustomed to Jackson being a philandering, spotlight hogging, attention whore, but it seems that he's on a spectacular run of misses. Here was a man that, at one time, fought for what was right and what was just. Now it just seems he goes where he'll appear on tv so he can keep money flowing in. It's sad. A man who worked and struggled hard fighting for civil rights has become a punchline. For many a bad joke.
Every time I'm in a store and I go to the checkstand and look at all the idiot rags such as "US Magazine" and "People" and so forth, I'm pleased to a greater degree than I should be that I don't know ANYONE on the covers. Not a one. "Vanessa splits with Ryan" and "Is Jared cheating on Crystal?" and on and on. I have no idea who these people are. It's fantastic! I feel myself a better person for not knowing something.
I got a little pissed the other day for something small and yet insidious. We all know food stamps. I used to cashier and there were little money like pieces of paper. But it was deemed easier to have a ATM-like card that you could use to buy things at a grocery store. This was also supposed to increase the self-esteem of the user. Which was important, I guess, for some reason.
The card is called EBT. Which stands for .. . . .something. It doesn't matter. I've already gotten over the anger of EBT users buying soda and fillet Mignon and cheetos and other non-essentials. That's one of those "well, people are slime, but I can't do anything about it" things. Even though it's MY money. And yours and anyone who has the gall to have a job and pay taxes. I'm over that.
But what got me cheesed-off, if I may borrow that expression, is that now fast food places have signs that say "now accepting EBT."
So let's get this straight. People who are getting government assistance to buy essentials to live on, can now spend our money on Macho size Mr. Pibb and curly fries and a side order of black beans.
To me, that's a bit too far. I'm fine with giving people a helping hand, but when that help is used frivolously, I have a problem with that. I'd rather keep my money than have people use it to buy a chalupa.
In the coming weeks I'm going to begin a feature called "Why I won't vote for you." I will highlight the platforms of the various parties and the reasons why their core values do not represent me and why I am reluctant to vote for them. I will being highlighting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Party (such as they are), the Greens and even the Libritarians. Should be a gas!
I'm a pretty prideful person. I think most people have certain levels of pride, but at a certain point you say "well, I think my boss/this law/you is stupid, but I have to live and so I won't fight battles not worth fighting."
I bring this up because someone I've known for years has let his pride land him on the streets. Not just pride, but a series of poor decisions that go back as far as I can remember.
But pride. A tricky thing. This friend would speak about losing jobs or apartments with a certain sense of pride. Because it was on his terms. HE made the decision not to put up with a job that made him do work he didn't want to do, and so he felt a sense of pride for not 'lowering himself' or 'compromising his integrity' or some such crap. And I'm sure, as he's sleeping in an alley tonight he's convinced that it's not him that's the problem, but everyone else. They just don't understand. Nobody understands. Only him. He's right. And he'll dream his dreamy dreams without a place to live and precious little sympathy.
I feel bad, but everyone has to take responsibility for their actions, and though he has, it seems it'll end sooner than it should.
How in the hell do Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell keep getting acting jobs? So so so so unfunny.
Oh, the picture at the top is a type of Henri Bergson's 'inversion'
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Job Interview
It's that time again. Time for political candidates to vie for your vote. But they don't so much tell you what they will do as tell you how bad the other guy is.
But isn't this election process just an elaborate job interview? Aren't we being approached by people for a position to do something to make our lives easier or less troubled or just plain better?
Employer: Hi Candidate A, thanks for coming in today. So, your resume says you have extensive experience in politics. Can you tell me about that?
Candidate: The guy you will interview after me has almost no experience.
Employer: Ok. . .but tell me what your accomplishments have been.
Candidate: The guy waiting to come in has never had to deal with real issues and has proven himself unable to handle even little issues properly.
Employer: Let's leave the next guy out of this, shall we? How about your policies? Taxes and education? Your plans for those?
Candidate: That other guy will tax everything you find important and cut education and probably pump toxic waste into YOUR drinking water.
Employer: No no no NO! YOU. Tell me about YOU!
Candidate: The other guy is unproven and has been described by the Auto Trader as "someone we just can't trust."
Employer: Why are we even interviewing you?
Candidate: Can we really put our trust and the lives of our children in someone like the guy waiting to come in?
Employer: Please leave.
Candidate: Candidate A, a plan for (fill in the position)
Employer: (loudly) Security!
I think that's what it would go, and should go, for these candidates.
Stop talking about 'the other guy.'
Tell me what YOU will do.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Friday Quick Hits 7-9
And the next adventure begins. . .
Here in California we have a budget problem. Frankly, we've had a budget problem for about 9/10ths of my life. But I have a way to solve it. And quickly.
We could earn enough money to cover everything if the police really crack down on people who talk on their phone while they drive.
Not a day goes by when I'm not almost rammed, run off the road, or having to brake hard to avoid some moron who is too lazy to look while changing lanes or stop at a stop sign.
My idea: Tell cops (in those sneaky all-white cruisers with no lights on top) to look for phone people. The money could be raised in a weekend!
The biggest problem is that the fine for talking while driving is about $150 and doesn't go up (as my girlfriend dutifully found out). My solution is that your first ticket is $150
the next one, $300
then $500
then a grand.
If you're too attached to your phone to either a)not use it while driving or b)use a bluetooth then you deserve to get a big-ass ticket.
Does anyone besides me remember when the History Channel had a lot of actual History content? It's like when MTV stopped showing music videos and the name of the station became an anachronism. "Pawn Stars" my ass!
Apart from the smugness exhibited sometimes, why do so many people sneer at Prius drivers? It seems like a win-win to me. They use less gas, produce less exhaust (yes, I know about the batteries) and I don't see a downside to filtering less of our money to the shady middle east kingdoms whose money supports things we have fundamental problems with (lack of human rights, poor woman's rights, support of radicalism, camel racing.)
Two things were embarrassing about Lebron James' little TV show the other night. One, Lebron himself and showing his arrogance, narcissism, and immaturity in having to have that attention (an HOUR of time to say "Miami"?) Two, ESPN. Fawning over this guy is as embarrassing as when they fall over themselves to praise the yankees endlessly. Jim Gray once again proved himself to be a tool.
I don't care that he left Cleveland. I've no rooting interest in that. But, my god that guy is a lame ass.
Ok, have a seat, I have something important to tell you before you go. You all ready? Good. Obama is just a politician. He's not the devil. He's not the savior. Just a politician. Got that? Write it down so you can reference that later. Ok, now you can go. Have an ice cream, it's hot out there.
Here in California we have a budget problem. Frankly, we've had a budget problem for about 9/10ths of my life. But I have a way to solve it. And quickly.
We could earn enough money to cover everything if the police really crack down on people who talk on their phone while they drive.
Not a day goes by when I'm not almost rammed, run off the road, or having to brake hard to avoid some moron who is too lazy to look while changing lanes or stop at a stop sign.
My idea: Tell cops (in those sneaky all-white cruisers with no lights on top) to look for phone people. The money could be raised in a weekend!
The biggest problem is that the fine for talking while driving is about $150 and doesn't go up (as my girlfriend dutifully found out). My solution is that your first ticket is $150
the next one, $300
then $500
then a grand.
If you're too attached to your phone to either a)not use it while driving or b)use a bluetooth then you deserve to get a big-ass ticket.
Does anyone besides me remember when the History Channel had a lot of actual History content? It's like when MTV stopped showing music videos and the name of the station became an anachronism. "Pawn Stars" my ass!
Apart from the smugness exhibited sometimes, why do so many people sneer at Prius drivers? It seems like a win-win to me. They use less gas, produce less exhaust (yes, I know about the batteries) and I don't see a downside to filtering less of our money to the shady middle east kingdoms whose money supports things we have fundamental problems with (lack of human rights, poor woman's rights, support of radicalism, camel racing.)
Two things were embarrassing about Lebron James' little TV show the other night. One, Lebron himself and showing his arrogance, narcissism, and immaturity in having to have that attention (an HOUR of time to say "Miami"?) Two, ESPN. Fawning over this guy is as embarrassing as when they fall over themselves to praise the yankees endlessly. Jim Gray once again proved himself to be a tool.
I don't care that he left Cleveland. I've no rooting interest in that. But, my god that guy is a lame ass.
Ok, have a seat, I have something important to tell you before you go. You all ready? Good. Obama is just a politician. He's not the devil. He's not the savior. Just a politician. Got that? Write it down so you can reference that later. Ok, now you can go. Have an ice cream, it's hot out there.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
McCartney, Best and Worst
This is an older thing I wrote, but since I'm a geek, here it is again.
It's my track by track mini-review of what I consider his best album and his worst album.
So there.
BEST:
1-Band on the Run (1973)
Preceded by: Red Rose Speedway
Followed by: Venus and Mars
Recorded almost entirely in Lagos, Nigeria, Band on the Run has everything you want in a McCartney album. Huge catchy singles, fun rockers, light acoustic numbers and a song about a dead painter. The only Wings were Paul, Linda, and Denny. The songs are solid, confident and complete works.
-Band on the Run. The title track starts slowly, but builds to an epic height with the help of the rising horns. A fun, interesting, rocker that uses a synthesizer minimally but to maximum effect. Though heard a million times by now, it’s still fun to listen to.
-Jet. This is an energetic song from beginning to end, no matter the silly lyrics. Easy choice as a single.
-Bluebird. A light and breezy acoustic tune just made to sing along with.
-Mrs. Vandebilt. Some very nice bass work on this song keeps the song bouncing along and very listenable. Nice lead guitar.
-Let Me Roll It. The perfect loud concert song. Searing lead guitar riff highlights this thumping rock song. Vocal echo has drawn comparisons to what Lennon would do, but McCartney has been known to sing a few rock songs in his time as well, so I’ll leave it be.
-Mamunia. Another easy sounding acoustic number that sounds like it could be played while sitting on the porch watching the rain fall.
-No Words. A McCartney/Laine number. Good tune that has a nice Paul/Denny vocal.
-Helen Wheels. An on-the-road loud screaming rock and roll song. Strong driving beat that keeps rolling along.
-Picasso’s Last Words (Drink to Me). An unassuming little song about the end of Picasso. Instead of just playing it straight, McCartney decided to try to take cubist ideas and distorted perspectives and use them in a musical form.
-Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five. A kind of throwaway song which could have been annoying except the synth actually works in the song, instead of making it more irritating. The song ends with a crescendo of horns, leading to a fadeout of the Band on the Run song.
WORST:
23-McCartney II (1980)
Preceded by: Back to the Egg
Followed by: Tug of War
Experimentation. Technology. Again, Paul plays everything himself, after jettisoning the rest of the Wings lineup for this disaster. Sometimes experiments shouldn’t be put on vinyl. God, this is an awful album.
-Coming Up. Big hit and a good song as well. Optimistic as per the usual.
-Temporary Secretary. Synthesizers can sometimes be the enemy. The chorus is more than annoying and the only redeeming part of the song is Paul’s voice in the body of the song.
-On The Way. A kinda-sorta blues tune with processed and massively echoed vocal. Could have been better if it had been taken more seriously.
-Waterfalls. Second single from the album. A tinny ballad that suffers from poor lyrics and a ridiculous video where soft focus tries to distract us from the silly sweater vest McCartney wears.
-Nobody Knows. Inspired by the same show on the blues that provided us with “On the Way”, “Nobody Knows” is faster paced and is far from inspired lyrically. It has a nice toe tapping beat.
-Front Parlour. Processed semi-song that spares us from any lyrics.
-Summer’s Day Song. A slow keyboard heavy song with McCartney’s voice sounding thin.
-Frozen Jap. Technology is not our friend in this over-long instrumental. The idea, I assume, was to produce crap.
-Bogey Music. What might have been at least an interesting 12-bar song is destroyed by the pathetic handling of the vocals. The vocal is layered and echoed enough so that it drowns out the words.
-Darkroom. Another synth heavy song that is not pleasing.
-One of These Days. After the rest of the album, a listener might be thrown by the sounds on this song. It’s called a ‘guitar’ and sounds quite good with Paul’s voice. After “Coming Up”, the best song on the album.
Bonus Tracks!!!!! The horror. The HORROR.
-Check My Machine. There’s a backing groove there. But the irritating repeating of “Check my machine” over and over for 6 minutes is cruel and unusual.
-Secret Friend. More experimentation. Vari-speed sounds might be interesting. . .if there was a point to it. Over 10 minutes of “why am I listening to this?” life waster.
-Goodnight Tonight. A single and a pretty good one. Another nod to olde music, generated by Paul’s bass and some deft dueling guitars from Juber and Laine.
It's my track by track mini-review of what I consider his best album and his worst album.
So there.
BEST:
1-Band on the Run (1973)
Preceded by: Red Rose Speedway
Followed by: Venus and Mars
Recorded almost entirely in Lagos, Nigeria, Band on the Run has everything you want in a McCartney album. Huge catchy singles, fun rockers, light acoustic numbers and a song about a dead painter. The only Wings were Paul, Linda, and Denny. The songs are solid, confident and complete works.
-Band on the Run. The title track starts slowly, but builds to an epic height with the help of the rising horns. A fun, interesting, rocker that uses a synthesizer minimally but to maximum effect. Though heard a million times by now, it’s still fun to listen to.
-Jet. This is an energetic song from beginning to end, no matter the silly lyrics. Easy choice as a single.
-Bluebird. A light and breezy acoustic tune just made to sing along with.
-Mrs. Vandebilt. Some very nice bass work on this song keeps the song bouncing along and very listenable. Nice lead guitar.
-Let Me Roll It. The perfect loud concert song. Searing lead guitar riff highlights this thumping rock song. Vocal echo has drawn comparisons to what Lennon would do, but McCartney has been known to sing a few rock songs in his time as well, so I’ll leave it be.
-Mamunia. Another easy sounding acoustic number that sounds like it could be played while sitting on the porch watching the rain fall.
-No Words. A McCartney/Laine number. Good tune that has a nice Paul/Denny vocal.
-Helen Wheels. An on-the-road loud screaming rock and roll song. Strong driving beat that keeps rolling along.
-Picasso’s Last Words (Drink to Me). An unassuming little song about the end of Picasso. Instead of just playing it straight, McCartney decided to try to take cubist ideas and distorted perspectives and use them in a musical form.
-Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five. A kind of throwaway song which could have been annoying except the synth actually works in the song, instead of making it more irritating. The song ends with a crescendo of horns, leading to a fadeout of the Band on the Run song.
WORST:
23-McCartney II (1980)
Preceded by: Back to the Egg
Followed by: Tug of War
Experimentation. Technology. Again, Paul plays everything himself, after jettisoning the rest of the Wings lineup for this disaster. Sometimes experiments shouldn’t be put on vinyl. God, this is an awful album.
-Coming Up. Big hit and a good song as well. Optimistic as per the usual.
-Temporary Secretary. Synthesizers can sometimes be the enemy. The chorus is more than annoying and the only redeeming part of the song is Paul’s voice in the body of the song.
-On The Way. A kinda-sorta blues tune with processed and massively echoed vocal. Could have been better if it had been taken more seriously.
-Waterfalls. Second single from the album. A tinny ballad that suffers from poor lyrics and a ridiculous video where soft focus tries to distract us from the silly sweater vest McCartney wears.
-Nobody Knows. Inspired by the same show on the blues that provided us with “On the Way”, “Nobody Knows” is faster paced and is far from inspired lyrically. It has a nice toe tapping beat.
-Front Parlour. Processed semi-song that spares us from any lyrics.
-Summer’s Day Song. A slow keyboard heavy song with McCartney’s voice sounding thin.
-Frozen Jap. Technology is not our friend in this over-long instrumental. The idea, I assume, was to produce crap.
-Bogey Music. What might have been at least an interesting 12-bar song is destroyed by the pathetic handling of the vocals. The vocal is layered and echoed enough so that it drowns out the words.
-Darkroom. Another synth heavy song that is not pleasing.
-One of These Days. After the rest of the album, a listener might be thrown by the sounds on this song. It’s called a ‘guitar’ and sounds quite good with Paul’s voice. After “Coming Up”, the best song on the album.
Bonus Tracks!!!!! The horror. The HORROR.
-Check My Machine. There’s a backing groove there. But the irritating repeating of “Check my machine” over and over for 6 minutes is cruel and unusual.
-Secret Friend. More experimentation. Vari-speed sounds might be interesting. . .if there was a point to it. Over 10 minutes of “why am I listening to this?” life waster.
-Goodnight Tonight. A single and a pretty good one. Another nod to olde music, generated by Paul’s bass and some deft dueling guitars from Juber and Laine.
Thoughts on Comedy, Part 2
In this installment I'm going to delve into the question of why 'old' tv comedy is NOT funny.
To be fair, it's not funny to us NOW.
There's no denying that shows like "The Honeymooners" and "I Love Lucy" were groundbreaking and masterpieces of comedy for their time.
But if you watch them now, having not seen them when they first ran, they come across as simplistic, unfunny and somewhat lame.
Why is this?
I watched a scene from a Honeymooners that was presented as a 'test' of comic sensibilities. It's supposed to be a 'classic' scene. In the scene, Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton are talking about golf. Ralph is going to go play and is reading a 'how to' book on golf.
The setup is classic. Character A is delving into an area he's unfamiliar with and will either embarrass himself because he doesn't know the game or is physically awkward or both. This situation is common throughout situation comedies.
But "The Honeymooners" has a problem translating to now because of several factors.
First is the style of physical comedy that was the base of the show. Television was relatively new and most of the watching public was either familiar with movies or vaudiville theatre. In the theatre, the physical movements and facial expressions had to be broad enough to project to the back of the theatre. This thought followed, naturally, the actors to the new medium. So what we have is the over exaggerated reaction: Big bug-eyed gaping toward the camera/audience, along with a sustained pause. To those watching, this was a continuation of the comedic acting style that they were used to. It made sense. There was no reason to assume that there would be any other way to present comedy.
Secondly, the show, to us in the here and now, is not surprising. One element of humor that is often overlooked, though essential to humor, is that of the surprising or unexpected. What that means is that the humor has to be clever enough to not let us, the loyal viewer, know what's coming up next. If we KNOW that something will happen, then when it does, the element of surprise is lost, and we're left with a joke we've already heard the punchline to. It's true that in shows like The Honeymooners the jokes they presented were original and the audience DID NOT see them coming. But, by this point, we all have seen these set-ups a million times. The joke is a surprise, but when the punchline, as it is, is already known, then the joke is no longer a joke. And, except in rare cases, a joke that falls flat is not funny (unless it's on purpose.)
Back to the Honeymooners scene. Kramden is reading to Norton. Step by step instructions about how-to golf. Kramden says "first, address the ball." What the viewer is supposed to do is think, "ahh, 'address' in golf is to approach and get in my stance." And I'm sure that at the time the home viewer thought that. But everyone over the age of 2 in this day and age knows what will happen next. And, yes, it does. Norton approaches the ball, bends over and says "hello ball. . ." which is followed by extremely exaggerated physical movements by Ralph Kramden. The joke was so obvious that the humor is lost. To us.
These shows just don't translate very well.
Classic show. Groundbreaking. But just not all that funny. I don't blame them. I blame every comedy since 1956.
To be fair, it's not funny to us NOW.
There's no denying that shows like "The Honeymooners" and "I Love Lucy" were groundbreaking and masterpieces of comedy for their time.
But if you watch them now, having not seen them when they first ran, they come across as simplistic, unfunny and somewhat lame.
Why is this?
I watched a scene from a Honeymooners that was presented as a 'test' of comic sensibilities. It's supposed to be a 'classic' scene. In the scene, Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton are talking about golf. Ralph is going to go play and is reading a 'how to' book on golf.
The setup is classic. Character A is delving into an area he's unfamiliar with and will either embarrass himself because he doesn't know the game or is physically awkward or both. This situation is common throughout situation comedies.
But "The Honeymooners" has a problem translating to now because of several factors.
First is the style of physical comedy that was the base of the show. Television was relatively new and most of the watching public was either familiar with movies or vaudiville theatre. In the theatre, the physical movements and facial expressions had to be broad enough to project to the back of the theatre. This thought followed, naturally, the actors to the new medium. So what we have is the over exaggerated reaction: Big bug-eyed gaping toward the camera/audience, along with a sustained pause. To those watching, this was a continuation of the comedic acting style that they were used to. It made sense. There was no reason to assume that there would be any other way to present comedy.
Secondly, the show, to us in the here and now, is not surprising. One element of humor that is often overlooked, though essential to humor, is that of the surprising or unexpected. What that means is that the humor has to be clever enough to not let us, the loyal viewer, know what's coming up next. If we KNOW that something will happen, then when it does, the element of surprise is lost, and we're left with a joke we've already heard the punchline to. It's true that in shows like The Honeymooners the jokes they presented were original and the audience DID NOT see them coming. But, by this point, we all have seen these set-ups a million times. The joke is a surprise, but when the punchline, as it is, is already known, then the joke is no longer a joke. And, except in rare cases, a joke that falls flat is not funny (unless it's on purpose.)
Back to the Honeymooners scene. Kramden is reading to Norton. Step by step instructions about how-to golf. Kramden says "first, address the ball." What the viewer is supposed to do is think, "ahh, 'address' in golf is to approach and get in my stance." And I'm sure that at the time the home viewer thought that. But everyone over the age of 2 in this day and age knows what will happen next. And, yes, it does. Norton approaches the ball, bends over and says "hello ball. . ." which is followed by extremely exaggerated physical movements by Ralph Kramden. The joke was so obvious that the humor is lost. To us.
These shows just don't translate very well.
Classic show. Groundbreaking. But just not all that funny. I don't blame them. I blame every comedy since 1956.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Friday Quick Hits 7-2
And away we go
First off, I seriously believe that physics hates me. Yes, I have my reasons.
Just an annoyance. It's about book covers. More accurately, the back of the book cover. I bought "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (ehh) and read about halfway through before I read the back cover which said, I'll paraphrase, that the character "lives loves and dies in the hills of Spain." What?! Kind of ruins it a bit. Hard to read a book and hoping a character survives when I now know he'll die. Very unhappy about that. "Go see 'The Empire Strikes Back' where Luke learns and fights and finds out Darth Vader is his father."
Same thing happened to my girlfriend who was reading a non-fiction book (The Story of Z) whose back cover somewhat gives away the ending. Come on now. Is there someone we can blame? Can we sue? Is there a chance for a hands across America protest?
Quickly. It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less." As I posted at some point earlier in my life, saying you 'could' care less means that you actually do care more than zero and up to the most you can possibly care. I will, from this moment on, assume that if anyone says "I could care less" it actually means they care passionately about that subject/person/pasta dish. If you're too stupid to use the phrase correctly, I should not be required to decode your idiocy.
The customer is always right? Do you know what that really means? No, you don't. It does NOT mean that the consumer should expect to get free stuff because they want it. What it DOES mean is that if a store is selling beta-max machines and customers want VHS machines, then the customer, or more correctly their money, is right. Their purchasing habits vis-a-vis a business standpoint are right. It should realistically be "The customer's money is always right." Or, to use a Spinal Tap line "Money talks and Bullshit walks."
Hey you, get the hell out of the fast lane if you're not willing to go fast. Driving the speed limit in the far left lane is NOT alright.
I heard the stupid phrase, "he's not MY president" alot during the Bush administration and thought the people saying it were, frankly, morons. "At least," thought I, "republicans won't do the same thing if a democrat gets in office." Nope! I have heard the same thing now that a democrat is president. And it's no less stupid. If you are a citizen of the United States, he's YOUR president. This applies to everyone of any party at any point in the future. Unless you wish to renounce your citizenship. If so, follow these instructions:
1. Go to nearest foreign country and walk into US consulate or embassy.
2. Tell officials there you wish to renounce your citizenship.
3. They will try to talk you out of it, but after you fill out a bunch of forms and make a oral declaration, you are now free! You no longer have to have a president you have disagreements with! Easy.
If you don't follow those steps, then be a man and shut the fuck up.
I find Jon Stewart to be pompous, unfunny and his conclusions faulty.
First off, I seriously believe that physics hates me. Yes, I have my reasons.
Just an annoyance. It's about book covers. More accurately, the back of the book cover. I bought "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (ehh) and read about halfway through before I read the back cover which said, I'll paraphrase, that the character "lives loves and dies in the hills of Spain." What?! Kind of ruins it a bit. Hard to read a book and hoping a character survives when I now know he'll die. Very unhappy about that. "Go see 'The Empire Strikes Back' where Luke learns and fights and finds out Darth Vader is his father."
Same thing happened to my girlfriend who was reading a non-fiction book (The Story of Z) whose back cover somewhat gives away the ending. Come on now. Is there someone we can blame? Can we sue? Is there a chance for a hands across America protest?
Quickly. It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less." As I posted at some point earlier in my life, saying you 'could' care less means that you actually do care more than zero and up to the most you can possibly care. I will, from this moment on, assume that if anyone says "I could care less" it actually means they care passionately about that subject/person/pasta dish. If you're too stupid to use the phrase correctly, I should not be required to decode your idiocy.
The customer is always right? Do you know what that really means? No, you don't. It does NOT mean that the consumer should expect to get free stuff because they want it. What it DOES mean is that if a store is selling beta-max machines and customers want VHS machines, then the customer, or more correctly their money, is right. Their purchasing habits vis-a-vis a business standpoint are right. It should realistically be "The customer's money is always right." Or, to use a Spinal Tap line "Money talks and Bullshit walks."
Hey you, get the hell out of the fast lane if you're not willing to go fast. Driving the speed limit in the far left lane is NOT alright.
I heard the stupid phrase, "he's not MY president" alot during the Bush administration and thought the people saying it were, frankly, morons. "At least," thought I, "republicans won't do the same thing if a democrat gets in office." Nope! I have heard the same thing now that a democrat is president. And it's no less stupid. If you are a citizen of the United States, he's YOUR president. This applies to everyone of any party at any point in the future. Unless you wish to renounce your citizenship. If so, follow these instructions:
1. Go to nearest foreign country and walk into US consulate or embassy.
2. Tell officials there you wish to renounce your citizenship.
3. They will try to talk you out of it, but after you fill out a bunch of forms and make a oral declaration, you are now free! You no longer have to have a president you have disagreements with! Easy.
If you don't follow those steps, then be a man and shut the fuck up.
I find Jon Stewart to be pompous, unfunny and his conclusions faulty.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Thoughts on Comedy, Part 1
A subject near and dear to my heart, Comedy.
In this installment on comedy, I wanted to ramble on about is an element of what Henri Bergson classified as the "ABSENCE OF FEELING."
An example of this can be easily seen in Buster Keaton's silent films. Keaton might fall down, get thrown off a roof or generally get thumped around, but it is ultimately humorous because he is NOT seen to be suffering. Our protagonist, Keaton, is apparently unharmed by what has happened, and it is therefore funny. If he had someone shoot him in the butt with a pellet gun (which happened in a film) and we saw him suffering and bleeding and becoming infected, it doesn't quite add to the comic.
Another, more tangentially, case is that of Wile E. Coyote. He gets blown up or falls from great heights or has endless anvils dropped on him, but he always comes out relatively unharmed. If his guts fly everywhere or he has brain damage. . .it just isn't that funny. The fact that there is a sort of absence of feeling makes it possible for the humor to flourish.
That is the physical level. But there is another level to look at. That is the emotional level. If we feel for the character in a play/show/movie it is much harder to laugh at their misfortunes. In these cases we, the viewer, identify with the character on some level and when we see them miss a train, we empathize with them. It becomes an 'us against them' situation. When you eliminate the 'them' of this equation, the humor ceases to exist.
Though that was confusing, let me give an example in one of the greatest tv comedies of all time, MASH.
When the show started we had two main protagonists, Hawkeye and Trapper. They were accompanied by a series of sidekicks, but were essentially the main characters to which we attached ourselves. Then there was the ineffective, yet non-threatening, leadership (Henry Blake) and the dual enemies of Frank Burns/Hotlips and the Army itself.
Frank Burns was the ultimate foil. If something bad happened to him, we laughed. He was a caricature, sure, but we, as viewers, had a certain absence of feeling when it came to him. We had no sympathy for him (or for Hotlips, early on) so if he was slipped a Mickey and tied up or pushed into a ditch, it was 'us' pushing 'them' into a ditch. We laughed.
Now, when we remove the Frank Burns character, the ready-made foil disappears. The funny 'them' ceases to exist, in the show, in any other respect other than the Army itself. The replacement of Burns with Charles Winchester was ineffective, because the character was made to be a fully rounded human character. He had a family, feelings and thoughts that, though not meshing with the kooky doctors, was certainly not obviously worthy of open derision (the silly 'posh' upper crust character, in general, is so outdated that it is not only ineffectual, but actually annoying, see the movie Volunteers.)
So what happened in the show was that, over time, the ABSENCE OF FEELING, in the emotional respect, was eliminated. In it's stead the characters all became the same: angry, outspoken pacifists.
The fact that we couldn't really laugh at BIG misfortunes of the characters, due to us identifying with them on a personal level, created a show where they tried to create humor out of the mineute.
The problem then spiraled out of control as they created stupider characters (Zale and Rizzo, for the love of god!) being played by inferior actors trying to make marginal material funny.
By creating feeling for the characters, we cannot laugh as heartily and are left with, at best, muted giggles.
I believe this is one of the reasons why "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" is such a tepid and humorless movie. (There are some who would disagree, but there isn't a joke in the movie that isn't telegraphed well ahead of time, the acting is too broad and the set up to the jokes is just too damn slow.) In that movie John Candy's character would have been PERFECT if he hadn't, at the end, been shown to be a character deserving of our sympathy. If he was just a pathological annoyance then the scorn we wish to heap on him is justified. But since he has a sad story, any abuse we might direct toward that character now becomes mean-spirited.
Bergson was correct. The ABSENCE OF FEELING creates an environment in which the viewer can both identify with the character on a physical and emotional level without taking pleasure in any pain that character might feel.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Quick Hits Again
And here we go. . .
There should be some level of understanding of just how frightening it is for a small child to be separated and lost from their parents in a store.
Ok, hat hits:
Something has to be said, finally, about guys wearing golf hats with their glasses perched on the brim of the hat. For fuck's sake KNOCK IT OFF. No, you don't look cool, no you aren't hip looking. What you look like is a douchebag. See, the thing is, the glasses-on-the-hat thing is exactly like a woman picking out the right earrings. It's a piece of jewelry. I can almost imagine some jackass getting ready to go to the store (not golfing, mind you) and saying, "sure I look awesome with my nike golf hat, but what would make me look even better. . .wait! I know. Let me put my glasses right here on top. Man I'm awesome!" You're a dork, stop it.
Also, if you have a baseball hat, here's a couple of rules for you:
1. bend the brim. If you have a straight brim, you're an ass.
2. wear it straight. if the brim is offset, you're an ass.
3. no wearing yankee hats unless you're from new york. No exceptions. Or. . .you're an ass.
Have all the good chinese take-out places gone over to sushi? I can't find a good place to go. Panda Express has the worst noodles, so it's not an option. These things prey on my mind.
Why is it that the people shouting the loudest about the health care bill being 'unconstitutional' were also the ones trying to force children to pray in school which is almost the definition of unconstitutional?
There needs to be more chess on TV.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Legal or Not, that is THE question
I've been tossing around the relative merits of the Arizona Immigration Law in my head and have come to a few conclusions.
Ultimately, though, I have to say I'm in favor of it.
Now now, there's no need to yell and scream and make posters that say "racist" on them just yet.
Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?
There IS an illegal immigration problem. The KEY word being illegal. Now, I live in southern California and, unlike many of the hardcore 'wrong coast-ers', know and have known many an immigrant, both legal and illegal. I can say that, for the most part, they have been no more or less honest, upfront, hardworking and peaceful than any native citizen I've known. So, there's no internal hatred or distrust of those with slightly darker skin than I.
But, unfortunately, this issue of illegal immigration tends to devolve into the two vastly polarized camps of "they're all bad" or "you're all nazis." Once again, we've entered the land of "With me or against me."
Like most other rational people, I think that ILLEGAL should mean something. Perhaps following the rules and doing things the right way is. . .well. . .right. But what to do?
That doesn't mean I think that all immigrants are bad. Not at all. I've come up against the tiny-brained folk who say, emphatically, "they should go back where they came from", never once having the mental requisites to think that their ancestors once came from somewhere else to here. The United States is, and always will be, a work in progress.
But looking at the Arizona law, the language is not as inflammatory as the sign-holders would have you believe. After a much needed clarification addendum to the law, people can only be asked for their 'papers' if they do something wrong. Which, to be honest, is perfectly fine. If I do something wrong, I'm asked for my information, and I'm just fine with that. I won't cry harassment of 'bald men in glasses' because of it.
The clarification of the law states that 'papers' are a drivers' license, ID card, or legal permit to live and work in the US. And when you think about it, how often are you out and about and DON'T have your driver's license? If I don't have it, I get in trouble for driving, as will anyone in Arizona.
The big issue with the law comes down to human nature. That is, the problem of 'profiling.' You can't legislate someone's morality. If an Arizona cop sees someone of color and decides that they look illegal he could make an excuse, or "have sufficient reason," to check them out. This is an issue. But an issue, I think, that is much overblown, and I'll explain why.
Arizona, as with California, because of it's vicinity to Mexico has so many immigrants of the legal variety, that if you were to just start checking people because they looked mexican, then you'd never get anything else done. It's just not feasible to be as fascist as opponents of the law would have you believe. There's not enough time to do it nor is there the manpower to try to do something as silly as that. Logistically, it could not be done. Meaning, that the police, the vast majority ARE trying to do good, would have to actually do their job as specified by the law. Will there be abuse? Sure. But there's abuse everywhere and all through history. Failure to recognize that is asinine.
The LAW isn't the problem, what could be the problem is how it is enforced and implemented.
I'm fine with LEGAL immigration. Come on in, have a cookie. ILLEGAL immigration. . .not such a big fan.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)