335 posts tagged “politics” (page 2)

All he had to do was ask...

Long time readers know that I don't care whom I offend, and that I wrote solely for my own enjoyment. One of the biggest problems I've had in life is that I often see things too clearly. I would prefer not to. It's not fun. But you don't have a choice. And it gets me into trouble with just about everyone sooner or later.

The one area I feel an extra responsibility to restrain myself is when it comes to religion. That's because no one knows whether God exists even though both sides claim to have good evidence, and I admire those who find comfort in their religious beliefs because my beliefs bring me none, and short of some supernatural being appearing to me personally, that won't change.

Furthermore, if people use their religion to do good, who am I to say, "Yeah but...?" Everyone is just trying to get through as best they can, and I do believe that religious people are more serene on average. it would be wrong for me to do or say somthing that disturbs that.

But of course, a lot of bad things have been done by people in the name of religion, and they probably had the best of intentions at the time, even though people are still dead as a result. Not to mention tortured and otherwise ruined.

Which brings me to our own Timothy...

He wears his religion on his sleeve and that's OK. I'm neither threatened nor am I annoyed. Good for him. He believes in his faith and what it espouses...

Or does he?

Before I get back to that question, I need to explain the mixed feelings I have about participating on Vox. I appreciate the thoughtful comments I get here, and I especially appreciate hearing that I made you laugh. I think that's one of the best things you can do for people, so when I succeed, it's personally fulfilling. But I would prefer to just write aand leave the commenting to you if you feel inclined.

I explained to someone recently that I set out years ago to become a standup comic. I even moved to LA and performed a few times before I gave it up for two reasons: I couldn't stand to live the way starting comics had to, and I couldn't detach myself from my personal feelings about various events and people which just made me angry. And it became very clear to me that I could not overcome the latter then I saw a fellow named Mike Binder onstage at the Comedy Store.

Mike was one angry guy, and because of that, if you laughed at all at what he was saying, it was a nervous laugh. I wasn't near as bad as he was, but I realized that I couldn't find the humor in a lot of things that other people could, and that persists to this day. By the way, Mike went on to become a director.

And the least funny thing is what's happening to this country and which is caused mostly by liberals. Occasionally I can rise above, but usually, I just hate them, their hypocrisy and their stupidity, and I feel they are America's biggest threat.

So it is from that perspective, that I read others' blogs here, and the reason that I read these blogs is out of a feeling of appreciation in accordance with what I've said above as well as obligation - to support those who support me. But when it comes to politics and current events, it's rare that someone says something that some columnist hasn't said better elsewhere, and it's even rarer that someone posts something of which I was not already aware.

Thus I prefer entries involving matters of human interest, but even then, if I comment and I'm joking, I wonder if people appreciate it or they don't get it, or worse, they're offended when I had no desire to offend.

I mean, when I want to be offensive, believe me, it's unmistakable.

And although it might not be apparent, I try to be respectful of the fact that your blog is not my blog, so I usually don't post more than twice on the same thread, most especially ones containing liberal comments, because the longer it goes, the greater the likelihood that I won't be able to suppress my inclination to shred them. It's just too easy and they are just too deserving...

Even if you don't see it.

But now here's the thing: if you don't want me there, you shouldn't have the slightest hesitation to tell me and save us both future nuisance. Believe me, I won't be offended if you post here and I don't have to reciprocate.

The other side of that coin is, however, if you don't want me there, and you don't tell me. if instead, you act like a coward instead of a Christian and I go to perform my "duty" and find myself blocked, well, I might think less of you.

And if you happen to be one of the overtly religious, while I would certainly forgive, I won't forget you, and your "preachings" will take a hit forever... because if you're a hypocrite, unless you're St. Peter, I know there's a great probability that you'll still be a hypocrite the next time you're in what you consider to be a difficult situation.

Which brings me back to Timothy who, just the other day, said he liked me just the way I am. I admit that surprised me because I don't. but then I'm not Christian, so I figured he might have seen something I didn't?

And Timothy also takes the John McCain approach to bipartisanship - he thinks liberals not only have something to say, but that they have redeeming value. So yesterday, Timothy's talking about how terrible it is that liberals are trying to stifle free speech with the Fairness Doctrine, and he's "communicating" with a very average liberal idiot who shall remain nameless simply because she is so average, and Corey tells Timothy that she's heard rumors on National Public Radio that conservatives say that liberals who criticize Bush are un-American, "so both sides do it."

That's where I came in and I was very gracious to Corey - I only called her a couple of names. Then I asked her to provide us with an example of when Republicans/conservatives attempted to silence liberals by legal means...?

Corey responded the way all liberals do - by ignoring difficult questions, changing the subject and employing talking points... in this case, they were that I was just bitter and that we should all get along because we have a brand new President who deserves all our support.

All well and good, but I must have missed her apology for not according the same sentiment to George Bush - for eight years. And about what I'd specifically asked, in the words of John McEnroe, "The QUESTION, answer the QUESTION, JERK!"

Except that when I returned this AM to Timothy's blog, I found my post gone, my name removed from Timothy's neighborhood, me blocked - and Corey still there. Curious, but you don't have to hit me between the eyes with a 2x4 twice. I need Timothy, much less Corey, like I need a generic Timothy and Corey.

Timothy can still post here. In fact, I wish he would. Boy, do I. It's just that in my opinion as an ex-Christian, Jesus would have taken a different course than Timothy did. But take heart, Timothy, I like you just the way you are too - now that I know who you are, because it saves me a lot of future nuisance and misplaced trust.

But had you just asked... it would have saved me the trouble of writing this.

Flipping through channels, I happened upon the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan already in progress. We'd never seen the movie, and we didn't yet know the title of what was onscreen. All we saw were older people walking at a halting pace through a park-like setting with one old guy a bit out in front of the rest when...

Wife: Zombies?

Me:

- Title appears -

Wife:

Me:

If you weren't following the riveting discussion in which I was recently and elsewhere involved, join the club because I wasn't either. However, that didn't stop me from participating, and I hope this will be a lesson for you.

As you know, I do this sort of thing so you won't have to, but don't think it doesn't take its toll. In addition to having to interact with some unsavory characters, I have to try to think like they do for actual moments on end, and experts warn that there is no known level of safe exposure for such an activity

This latest chapter in my worldwide war against the group, High IQ Idiots, or HI-QI for short, began with a seemingly simple rant by Dox about his misperception that a radio host had embraced one of the more preposterous religious superstitions involving the number 666. On his show last week, Mike Gallagher noted that on the day after Obama was elected, the Illinois lottery's three number game picked the "wildly improbable"* aforementioned 666.

The Dox interpretation of Gallagher's comment had the talker embracing the idea that God was using 7/11s to communicate to the faithful that Obama was the Devil himself. I know Gallagher didn't because I happened to be listening too.

Notwithstanding that one doesn't need a Big Gulp to realize that Obama is the Devil, the bigger problem involves what happens when you tell someone a story and ask him to pass it on - by the time the story gets back to you, it's not only unrecognizable, but several people have been murdered along the way to keep the secret from getting out.

What secret, you ask? Well, in this case, it's that Gallagher merely mentioned the coincidence that the lottery number was 666 on Day One, AO (After Obama), and that he made no reference to additional religious implications, much less endorse the lunacy of such contrivances. But you might not ever know that from the account given by Dox.

Which is basically what I told him, but he apparently wasn't buying it. Nevertheless, it would have ended there had not a member of the Religion of Science's own fringe decided to take issue with the insignificant, and in the process demonstrate that plate movement may cause mountains to form, but it's actually men of science who have formed the world's tallest peaks - from molehills.

See, in providing Dox with my take on the matter, I said that from a purely human interest standpoint, I found it astounding that those numbers would come up on Wednesday - the day Obama would actually be descending. And I further stated that it was far more astounding that he and I would have both caught Gallagher's comment because he'd said he was just cycling through stations, and I remarked that I never listen to this fellow but that I had happened to turn him on at that very moment and turned him off almost immediately thereafter.

Without your running the numbers, I'm still willing to bet that the average person would find that amount of coincidence amazing. But then you're not a "scientist," and I was about to learn why normal people aren't... or at least why they don't call themselves one.

It turns out that while I thought I was done with the subject, a woman who plays a scientist somewhere, probably on her job, decided that the record needed to be set straight. What record, you ask? Well, it involves the correlation of odds to adjectives.

See, I didn't know it (so you sure didn't) but it turns out that the odds of 666 being picked that day didn't officially qualify as "astounding." And before you get too far ahead of me, I must disclose upfront that as a layman, I didn't ask to see the chart, so I pretty much have to take her word for it... if I were inclined to be a word-taker.

Now, if you're not me, you probably would have let this all pass and chalk it up to the fun little games science fanciers play among themselves, but that's exactly why I'm where I am, and you're not. Now I warn you, this gets murky (ier) from here, and that's primarily because I couldn't have cared less about facts and accuracy from that point on except insofar as they might:

A) Drag out the subject to see if we could establish, for the sake of science and humanity, the absolute limit of man's ability to tolerate tedium, and...

B) Drag is the King of Trite, John, who stands ever vigilant and anxious to provide the exact amount of tangential nothingness that both prolongs a discussion that has trailed off into insignificance and confuses people just enough to keep them wondering if John knows something they don't.

The answer to that last part is, yes, John does know things you don't - like the fact that the divorce rate was higher in 1930 than it is today, that plagiarism can simply be 'channeling," and that one's mind can be such an enormous storehouse of facts, they can actually block the brain's ability to determine how to use them.

And it's a fact that John's own brain is so filled with sniglets which literally cause so much pressure that he often can't control where extraneous facts drop. So if you ever read something John posts and it's so irrelevant that it qualifies as 'astounding" on your own unofficial scale, please understand that he can't help it - that's just the way real geniuses are.

Now, what bearing all this has on Dox and 666 is tricky, which makes me the perfect person to explain it - I'm detached and disinterested, I have contempt for the unnecessarily complicated and no sympathy for idiots, most especially, highly educated ones.

OK, this woman,who shall remain nameless owing to the fact that grade schoolers can multiply better than she can, but whose formal title is Queen of Trite had informed me that what I had found to be astounding was merely unusual, and as I said, I didn't ask her to provide cutoff points. I did, however, do my best to continue the discussion because John hadn't arrived yet, which in itself was astounding considering his penchant for maintaining a feverish level of tedium.

Think in terms of forensics... after John leaves the scene of his crime, you can vacuum the tedium, you can scrub it furiously, but the microscopic particles are still everywhere. When the forensics experts get in there and shine their special lights around, you've got tedium on the walls, the floors, the ceiling... and people like Dox may not know it, but you have to disclose all this when you try to sell the place.

Now I haven't revisited the scene since my last comment, but when I left, John had just tried to make a joke (I think), because if he wasn't, he needs to move to Oregon or, now, Washington if you get my drift. Anyway, John said that we should all be deep-sixed because the odds of 666 showing up on 11/5 were 1:1. What he meant relative to 666 was, it's here, it's queer, get used to it - as in, once it has been drawn, the odds of it existing are pretty good.

Similar, in fact, to the odds that this is killing you by now - as it nearly did me much sooner - which is why I had to get out while I could...

But not before I helped Queenie with her math. I'm sure if you go there, she'll have a perfectly good explanation for her apparent error. And if you do go there, you're a better man than I. I'd love for you to come back here and tell me that you can explain it all in even more simple terms... and then proceed to not do it.

And if you don't like what you just read, please note that I own this blog, and I too am often astounded by its content.

*Not officially corroborated

The novel concept that marriage should be between a man and a woman has been embraced even in La-La Land today.

A few short months ago, The California Supreme court ruled that any consenting adult could marry any other consenting adult, and gays and lesbians immediately wrote new lyrics for that famous song and sang, "I wish they all could be California gays..." Since then, eighteen thousand same-sex people have engaged in holy matrimony.

Which, coincidentally, left right-thinking people saying, "Holy matrimony!"

Among other things...

Now the people have voted, and it's back to "Bye-bye Miss American Pie..." In fact, the honeymoon period was so short that there wasn't even time for country singers to write any gay-friendly misery tunes.

But we know from experience that there's nothing worse than a bunch of homosexuals scorned, so the mind boggles at what happens next. I mean, we were warned that there might be rioting if Obama lost, but no one warned anyone about what could occur if eighteen thousand gay marriages were suddenly annulled.

All I can say is, unlike in the past, the next Gay Pride Parade could get really ugly.

Now let's be clear. no one should be deprived of the right to tax deductions and the thrill of being married for their money... and then murdered for it shortly after, so there ought to be some mechanism for men of good cheer to be... well... cheerier. it just shouldn't be called marriage.

And I have every confidence that gay marriage will be approved in California long before they approve offshore drilling. I've even got the slogan... let's just say it involves drilling in other areas close to the California coast, but that's as far as propriety and this publication will allow me to go.

But it might be perfect for a Gay Pride Parade!?

Now what?

Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans alike are probably asking that question today.

Jonah Goldberg puts it this way:

 "If Democrats govern from the center, good for the country. If they govern from their instincts, good for the Republicans."

I have complete faith the Dems will do the latter which could make 2012 look like Palm Sunday in America for Republicans.

Which is why I refuse to share the gloom and doom being expressed by some conservative bloggers today. In fact, my main worry is that Democrats will be so bad that Republicans won't be forced to reflect on their failures and to reform themselves.

In other words, we'll have a mirror image of what we've jsut been through for the last few years.

You see, Republicans and conservatives need to learn a lot of important lessons.

First and formost is the fact that people tend not to like them. It doesn't matter why. What matters is that they start to say and do things that cause people to take notice - I mean in a positive way. Because believe me, they've noticed what our side has done that isn't so positive - the spending, the weakness... I'd call it Democrat-lite, but Democrats are anything but weak.

Another lesson our side need to understand is that people only care about verbal lapses when they're made by people on the right. it seems that every day in recent weeks brought us a new supposedly daming remark by some liberal or other, and we seized on each one as if those would be the exact words that woudl deliver us from evil.

It didn't happen.

One of the greatest motivational speakers of all-time, Jim Rohn, said long ago, "In order for things to change... you've got to change. Conservatives can't keep doing the same things and expect that Democrat failures will return them to power.

George Bush ruined the Republican party. Yet conservative held John McCain responsible. And now that McCain has lost, people will hold him even more responsible. But there are no candidates, sarah palin included at this point, who can articulate conseervative values and put forth a conservative track record that will offer people a clear, positive choice.

It's an amazing realization that John McCain was the best candidate Republicans could put up against Barack Obama, and it's even more amazing that there is absolutely no one in the wings who can lead the charge in four years. When Gerald Ford lost in '76, there was Ronald Reagan to turn to. Luckily, four years is a long time, and I hope sarah Palin displays the same determination she's shown heretofore - that she learns from this experience and her mistakes, and that she uses this time to become the best prepared candidate in the Republican Party.

As a conservative, you may not realize right now that we've been handed a golden opportunity. The challenge will be to focus on our principles and to find people who can carry the banner. Don't blame the Democrats, not only is that the easy way out, but it will get us nowhere. Understand that people to the left of you are not as outraged - they don't attach the same weight liberal transgressions that you do. They're wrong, but they hate it more when you tell them that.

So if you're willing to be brutally honest, if you're willing to hold people on the right accountable, there's great hope. If you aren't willing, as Jim Rohn also famously says, "Then weep over your own bank account."

I've decided to focus my best efforts on the lighter side of politcs from now on, and unfortunately, you may not read it here first.

That's because I've been submitting my various essays to other organizations for publication including the three entries below this one, and today...

To paraphrase John Kerry, I was accepted before I was rejected.

That is to say, I was notified that they liked what I sent them and were all set to publish it but...

They wanted assurance that I hadn't submitted the material elsewhere. I assured them that I hadn't, but I felt I had the ethical obligation to mention that I'd posted the items here earlier today.

And so here they'll stay.

But I was invited to send them future efforts, and so I will. Unfortunately, that could mean that you won't be seeing my best work here.

On the bright side, what I do end up posting will be plenty good enough.

Wow, did I say that? It's interesting how your attitude changes when you're on the verge of stardom!?

As everyone knows, American Idol, is America's most popular reality show, and it specializes in taking young unknowns with little or no experience and propelling them to instant stardom. It's all good fun, even if none of them has emerged as a superstar yet. There's no harm done.

But when it comes to picking presidents, if you asked just about anyone if he or she wanted an unknown, untested, pretty person with a good set of pipes running the country, the answer would be a resounding "no." That is, until the person has a name and a face, and the electorate becomes an audience of fawning teenagers.

How about, instead of debates, we have Simon and Company critique their speeches and programs? or if you prefer, James Carville, Ann Coulter, and an independent to be named later - because I can't think of a prominent one, can you?

All this is scary enough, I know, but America seems ripe for change. So then consider that Idol employs an interesting mechanism for picking it's winner, and one has to wonder what it would mean if applied to politics. I'm talking about the way American Idol conducts it's voting - early and often, and in a very narrow time period. You're not only allowed to vote as much as you want, you're encouraged to do so.

I think the theory is that by allowing people to vote as much their hearts desire and their fingers can sustain, it all equals out, and the most popular singer does, in fact emerge as the winner. I mean, if candidate A has a hundred supporters, and candidate B has fifty, it's possible that B could win under the Idol system, but it's not likely.

How different would that be in politics? Granted, some groups would be able to vote more often than others, but would the results be worse than under the current system where only the industriously fraudulent vote in quantity? Is voting fraud more or less likely to skew the vote than letting everyone in the country vote by phone for three hours on Election Tuesday?

Although having Ryan Seacrest or Jerry Springer reading the results could be a deal breaker, I admit. 

Also, wouldn't phone voting result in less people being disenfranchised? And wouldn't it virtually eliminate voter intimidation that, you know, only Republicans practice?

Although I'm sure if a Republican won, liberals would charge that the rich can afford better dialing equipment, so maybe the government would have to send everyone $40. coupons to update their equipment?

And if you still think this is a bad idea, don't you at least have to admit that the results couldn't be any worse than the one we just got?

Interestingly, there are two very different meanings for the word "creep." I'm, of course, referring to that one, not the other one.

Joe Biden said that Barack Obama would be tested within six months of taking office. I submit that he's being tested right now. How will he act? What will he do? Who will he appoint? What will he propose?

Over the next four years, will the creep become the giant leap, as he's promised? There it is: leaper or leper? Striding, not strident?

Or will life be a Cabaret, old chum?

I'd love to offer my assistance, but I have prior commitments for the next four years that can't be broken*.

*Unless a little wealth gets spread in my direction, of course, I mean, I'm a conservative, but I'm not a fanatic!

McCain and Obama walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "I'm not serving him." So McCain, the bipartisan maverick says with great indignation, " My friend, there are laws against that, but even if there weren't, I'd punch you in the nose if I could raise my arms... Senator Obama has more right to be here than I do now.

The bartender replies, "I was talking to Senator Obama, and there ain't no law against refusing you service."

John McCain, America's greatest living political hermaphrodite, has just committed the most unpardonable sin of his career - he lost. Make that two sins: he took Sarah Palin down with him. She can recover - he can't.

He's now a dead man walking, and most amazingly, I'm saying that not from an emotional level, but from a strictly rational one. Had he won, his campaign finance "reform," his incompetence during the campaign, even his "my friends" mantra would have been forgiven, but since the vote count is exactly proportional to the way he ran his campaign, he's as high and dry as Tucson, and without the scenery.

Johnny won't be marching home again, he'll have to slink in under the cover of darkness, doing spirals all the way. Lucky for him, he's well-trained in that maneuver.

I thought I'd like to keep it light today rather than dwell on the unimaginably horrible consequences of an Obama victory. There will be plenty of time for that beginning tomorrow it if happens, and this might be the last time anyone can joke about it.

But after staring at a blank page for twenty minutes I drew a complete blank. And when you put that on a blank page, it's remarkably transparent. Or maybe it's blank squared, I'll leave that for you to decide. 

I realized that I'd been blaming all the comedians' failures on liberal bias, but that I, myself, had never before sat and strained to come up with something humorous about Obama. Now I may have to embark on my next quest:  for the elusive Obama punchline...

OK, it's not exactly true that I came up with nothing at all. First I blamed women for demanding the right to vote, and then I tried to imagine another minority with Obama's experience being where he is, but I couldn't picture an Indian community organizer on the reservation who served as Chief for a hundred and forty days being hailed as a Savior, so I tried to widen the scope, look at other angles, characteristics, and stereotypes... and it all bombed.

In the end, the only person I could blame and be sure of being right was Eve, and what's funny about her?. But that got me to wondering why people didn't consider Eve before they started handing out ballots to women? It's a vicious circle!

And why was there no Ross Perot back then? He would have tested the concept in a couple of States to see how it went before going national. Or why didn't Congress do what they did with Bush's tax reduction - give women the right to vote but have it expire in five or ten years?

I know, Senators and Representatives probably didn't want to be nagged by their wives for the next decade, but that's exactly why we are where we are today - nobody wants to take any heat anymore. Could you picture women brow-beating the Founding Fathers into letting them vote?

And that led me to ponder the question: could you picture anti-war protesters outside the Alamo? OK, that has nothing to do with Obama, but it might actually have stopped a war - because then both sides would be shooting at them! 

See the problem? In fact, all our problems would be put in proper perspective if Congress and the President would just ask, what would Washington or Jefferson or Madison would do. Then, even if Obama were to be victorious, according to the Constitution, he'd only be three-fifths of a President..

Come to think of it, isn't that exactly what we'll be getting if he wins?