I've made a great deal, recently, about a mythical third party candidate rising to power. For clarity, let me sum up why I've never once imagined that person being me.
Because I could never be elected president.
My agenda would not be the noble Constitution-based platform of the New Federalist Party. I have too many other concerns that would reduce my target demographic to men, my age, who are me. For instance:
My first legislative act would be an executive order forbidding the use of the word "baby" in all music for at least ten years. Punishable by a punch to the throat. A rider to the order would expand the executive war powers, and the United States of America would instantly declare war on any artist that rhymed "girl" with "world" for the next ten years. I would call it the "historic musical palette cleanser act."
Next order of business would be a campaign to make all televisions run with pedal power alone. Yes, I would force all Americans to pedal a stationary bicycle for any and all TV or DVD watching. Old, fat, or exceptionally lazy people would have to take up reading or hire a fit person to pedal whilst they watched. And if anyone complained, the official response from the White House would be: "Shut up, Fatty. Nobody cares."
Secret Service snipers would be despatched to put a bullet in the buttocks of anyone caught sagging their pants in public. Seriously.
I would push my Father through the nomination process to the Supreme Court, and affectionately refer to him as "the National Curmudgeon."
I would make Sushi the official national dish. One day a month would be called Sushi Day, whereupon extended lunch breaks were granted, as long as they were spent consuming sushi, hereafter referred to as "our nation's most important culinary treasure."
Dark Chocolate would be officially recognized as superior to milk chocolate, which would be illegal to consume except for those willing to be labeled "barbarian heathens." So-called "white chocolate" would be absolutely forbidden.
I would enact legislation making it essentially legal to punch Bill Maher and Keith Olberman in the face. My administration would never advocate violence, but as a symbolic gesture, we would officially pardon, in advance, anyone who performed such on those two individuals. Navy Seals would toilet paper Michael Moore's house every night. All right wing talk hosts would be forced to give every caller 20 seconds minimum before cutting them off or talking over them--a violation would result in an electric shock roughly equivalent to a taser, the delicious sound of which would be illegal to edit. One press conference a month would be dedicated to an audio montage of Sean Hannity and all his ilk being shocked on air. Sean Penn would be abducted by the C.I.A. and a chip would be implanted in his brain. Every time he made a mockery of every legitimate argument the Left ever made by suggesting that his opposition should die a slow painful death, or that his intellectual opponents should be rounded up and shot, or anything of that stripe, the chip would cause him drop his pants, sit on his thumb and repeat "I am not smart enough to participate in the exchange of ideas" for thirty minutes.
October would be Emily Dickinson Month. The president would be given a month's paid vacation to make pilgrimages to her home in Amherst, sit at her tombstone for ponderous hours, and re-read her poetry and letters. Any press conference during this month would be restricted to questions about Emily, and would be answered with quotes from her best biographers.
ETC.
After all that, I might just get around to abolishing the nazi IRS. I might make an effort to return power to the States. I might audit the FED. I would eventually cancel all foreign aid and bring all troops home until the national debt was paid, and all that blah blah blah. But as you can see, my own insane interests would compromise the office of president, if not the very Constitution itself. So I am hereby taking my hat out of the ring forever.
Just in case the nation ever goes crazy.
dimanche, avril 25, 2010
jeudi, avril 22, 2010
Let me get this straight
The Seattle Times reports that the Gay Softball World Championship has stripped the winning team of its victory and suspended two players. The reason? Two of the players on the team were reportedly bi-sexual. "This is not the bi-sexual softball championship," someone says.
Forget about how any panel of judges or gay softball "officials" might determine if a player is gay or not (It was not, presumably, by giving in to the inevitable urge to make tasteless "pitching vs. catching" jokes). In fact, forget about the idea that such a panel exists--lest we be distracted from the salient questions. How could a demographic that has been, by their own account, stereotyped, marginalized, and excluded from the culture, take the sword from the hand of Lady Justice and castrate the Champions of Gay Softball, simply because two too many players were not sufficiently gay? Are we not told that injustice toward some is injustice to all?
As usual, the lawyers have the answers. (Yes the not-gay-enough team is suing . . . if only to show how mainstream America they are). "This is a private organization," say the attorneys for the defense, "and they are allowed to make their own rules as to who is allowed." An argument which makes sense.
Unless you are the Boy Scouts of America, who, having made the same argument, have been castigated and abused for their stance against gay scoutmasters.
It shouldn't take the mistreatment of bisexual softballers to illustrate how important it is that the door swing both ways.
Forget about how any panel of judges or gay softball "officials" might determine if a player is gay or not (It was not, presumably, by giving in to the inevitable urge to make tasteless "pitching vs. catching" jokes). In fact, forget about the idea that such a panel exists--lest we be distracted from the salient questions. How could a demographic that has been, by their own account, stereotyped, marginalized, and excluded from the culture, take the sword from the hand of Lady Justice and castrate the Champions of Gay Softball, simply because two too many players were not sufficiently gay? Are we not told that injustice toward some is injustice to all?
As usual, the lawyers have the answers. (Yes the not-gay-enough team is suing . . . if only to show how mainstream America they are). "This is a private organization," say the attorneys for the defense, "and they are allowed to make their own rules as to who is allowed." An argument which makes sense.
Unless you are the Boy Scouts of America, who, having made the same argument, have been castigated and abused for their stance against gay scoutmasters.
It shouldn't take the mistreatment of bisexual softballers to illustrate how important it is that the door swing both ways.
vendredi, avril 02, 2010
The End Is Far Away
The day may yet come. Certainly we are headed in that direction. Let us first be very clear that this is not about rose colored glasses: let us not attempt to pretend that a world where Brittany Spears and Kevin Federline can make millions of dollars unleashing their demon spawn, even as the grunting hedonist electorate clamors for more, can be headed for any eventuality but DOOM. Let us not pretend that a country that proposes to solve unsolvable problems by picking pockets and mortgaging the future can be long for this earth. Yes, the end is out there. But the end is not near.
If it's going to happen, one cannot believe that Armageddon can occur until there are more stupid, cruel, evil people than good, caring, sensible people. And that day has not yet come. My evidence is incontrovertible.
By day I teach Guitar, Philosophy, French, and Drama in various charter schools. The pay is nice. But the kids are nicer. They represent a broad cross section of socio-economic and religious backgrounds: from home schooled conservative religionists to barefoot counterculture hippy laissez-faire zealots. From privileged trust-fundians to middle/lower class smoke-with-your-kids-in-the-car trash. They are almost unanimously the nicest, most involved parents you can imagine. And any way you slice it, they have all made the similar decision to opt out of public binge and purge education, and they represent a demographic that increases almost geometrically every year. But we were talking about Armageddon.
Picture a world where an adorable, freckled, red head named Walter takes a guitar class, decides he likes it so much he wants private lessons, which the American school system is designed to pay for. He makes great progress. His parents thank the teacher and mom knits him a scarf with musical notes on it to thank him, as if the generous pay did not suffice. Halfway through the semester, the teacher says to Walter, "I'm really pleased with your progress." Walter replies, "well, I couldn't make progress without a great teacher!" Teacher fights back a tear and thinks: Walter has 5 siblings who are as polite, positive, and dedicated to goodness as he is. The world is in good hands.
Picture a world where another student sees his teacher doing some paper work. Without any kind of prompting from any adult, he crosses a crowded room and hands the teacher a small bag of Honey Nut Cheerios. "What's this for, Lucas?" asks the teacher. Comes the reply, "You're always bringing us treats. Someone should bring you a treat for once." Teacher gets a little choked up thinking of a future where little Lucas is teaching his own kids, by precept and by example, that one must go out of one's way to be gracious--even if it means giving up a delicious snack. The world has a smile on its weary face.
Imagine a world wherein a former Drama student found me on Facebook and asked if I could tutor him in French, which he was failing at a major University. He insisted on paying me what the school pays, notwithstanding his state of financial distress. Never mind that he was at least 3 years removed from my classroom. It wasn't there he learned that failure was not an option wherever effort and honorably attained help could be applied. He learned that at home. He's neither a Drama nor French nor Music major. He's studying economics, but he is artfully applying everything he learned from every class, with a clear understanding of the intricacies of life that make the numbers meaningful. And beautiful. He's a person. A great person who has opened up wide access channels to his store of infinite potential. And he's going to have kids who will follow in his footsteps. The world is striding towards glory.
Multiply these experiences by factors of tens and hundreds, and you'll understand the world of a charter school teacher. I am inundated every semester with bright-eyed kids who exhibit equal parts intelligence and grace. My cup overflows with the kindness of involved parents and the wonderful children they are raising. I am not Polly Anna. I know there are bad parents out there raising violent, ignorant children. I know there are drug addicts with 4 kids from 3 different fathers whose children are raised into a state of dependence by the State. I know this because by night I work at the Children's Emergency Shelter. I answer the crisis line. I take the reports of domestic violence and physical/sexual/emotional abuse. I deal with the ungrateful, ignorant behavior of poorly raised, disadvantaged children. For obviously opposite reasons, I get choked up about these kids as well. Especially when I think of the almost mathematical certainty that they will grow up and copulate, and raise up the next generation of system-dependent degenerates.
But when I weigh the two against each other, when I put my head to my pillow and try to make sense of this crazy world--most of all, when I look into the eyes of both groups of kids and see the same yearning for love and infinite potential for good--guess which side wins.
And until it stops winning, the hand written sign my inner hobo holds as he begs the Universe for spare change will read: THE END IS FAR AWAY.
If it's going to happen, one cannot believe that Armageddon can occur until there are more stupid, cruel, evil people than good, caring, sensible people. And that day has not yet come. My evidence is incontrovertible.
By day I teach Guitar, Philosophy, French, and Drama in various charter schools. The pay is nice. But the kids are nicer. They represent a broad cross section of socio-economic and religious backgrounds: from home schooled conservative religionists to barefoot counterculture hippy laissez-faire zealots. From privileged trust-fundians to middle/lower class smoke-with-your-kids-in-the-car trash. They are almost unanimously the nicest, most involved parents you can imagine. And any way you slice it, they have all made the similar decision to opt out of public binge and purge education, and they represent a demographic that increases almost geometrically every year. But we were talking about Armageddon.
Picture a world where an adorable, freckled, red head named Walter takes a guitar class, decides he likes it so much he wants private lessons, which the American school system is designed to pay for. He makes great progress. His parents thank the teacher and mom knits him a scarf with musical notes on it to thank him, as if the generous pay did not suffice. Halfway through the semester, the teacher says to Walter, "I'm really pleased with your progress." Walter replies, "well, I couldn't make progress without a great teacher!" Teacher fights back a tear and thinks: Walter has 5 siblings who are as polite, positive, and dedicated to goodness as he is. The world is in good hands.
Picture a world where another student sees his teacher doing some paper work. Without any kind of prompting from any adult, he crosses a crowded room and hands the teacher a small bag of Honey Nut Cheerios. "What's this for, Lucas?" asks the teacher. Comes the reply, "You're always bringing us treats. Someone should bring you a treat for once." Teacher gets a little choked up thinking of a future where little Lucas is teaching his own kids, by precept and by example, that one must go out of one's way to be gracious--even if it means giving up a delicious snack. The world has a smile on its weary face.
Imagine a world wherein a former Drama student found me on Facebook and asked if I could tutor him in French, which he was failing at a major University. He insisted on paying me what the school pays, notwithstanding his state of financial distress. Never mind that he was at least 3 years removed from my classroom. It wasn't there he learned that failure was not an option wherever effort and honorably attained help could be applied. He learned that at home. He's neither a Drama nor French nor Music major. He's studying economics, but he is artfully applying everything he learned from every class, with a clear understanding of the intricacies of life that make the numbers meaningful. And beautiful. He's a person. A great person who has opened up wide access channels to his store of infinite potential. And he's going to have kids who will follow in his footsteps. The world is striding towards glory.
Multiply these experiences by factors of tens and hundreds, and you'll understand the world of a charter school teacher. I am inundated every semester with bright-eyed kids who exhibit equal parts intelligence and grace. My cup overflows with the kindness of involved parents and the wonderful children they are raising. I am not Polly Anna. I know there are bad parents out there raising violent, ignorant children. I know there are drug addicts with 4 kids from 3 different fathers whose children are raised into a state of dependence by the State. I know this because by night I work at the Children's Emergency Shelter. I answer the crisis line. I take the reports of domestic violence and physical/sexual/emotional abuse. I deal with the ungrateful, ignorant behavior of poorly raised, disadvantaged children. For obviously opposite reasons, I get choked up about these kids as well. Especially when I think of the almost mathematical certainty that they will grow up and copulate, and raise up the next generation of system-dependent degenerates.
But when I weigh the two against each other, when I put my head to my pillow and try to make sense of this crazy world--most of all, when I look into the eyes of both groups of kids and see the same yearning for love and infinite potential for good--guess which side wins.
And until it stops winning, the hand written sign my inner hobo holds as he begs the Universe for spare change will read: THE END IS FAR AWAY.
vendredi, mars 05, 2010
A Little Dream I Had: Finale
[editor's note: it is supposed on the part of the writer that everyone is well and truly tired of his little "New Federalist Party" pipe dream sequence. The reader who perseveres and reads on to the end is promised that he or she will emerge a better person: the testing of one's patience can only make one stronger.]
Sitting, for the first time as an official member of the press corps [hereafter pronounced "Press Corpse"--ed.] for a State of the Union address, I was naturally a little anxious. At the inauguration, the president in question had simply read Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address. Most Americans, of course, had no idea. But this was different. With the State of the Union, one always has to wonder if the SNL version will trump it. And naturally, I wondered how my fellow journalists would react when I vomited at the 100th mandatory applause. These events had become a shameless clap-fest for party shills, and I was honestly nauseated at the thought of it. The sushi consumed at lunch had been expensive, and I didn't want to lose it. Luckily for everyone involved, the nation's first New Federalist President allayed my fear with her/his first sentence . . .
My Fellow Americans, the remainder of my speech tonight will be addressed almost entirely to you, but first let me address the assembled senators and congresspeople for just a second: I wonder if you'll all do me the favor of refraining from applause until the end, if not entirely. I don't believe the purpose of this forum is for the President to bolster the approval rating. And I'm secure enough with my self esteem to get by without the faux adulation of a bunch of glad handing bureaucrats who think their job consists of running for re-election. Most of you are not of my party anyway, and it would most likely be a little awkward for you, wondering when, or if, to applaud, and how long, or how loud. So let's forget about whatever directives your party bosses sent out in whatever memo and just turn off the applause sign for tonight. Let's get the people back to their regularly scheduled program, OK? Thanks.
Rhetorically speaking, I'm going to make a bit of a sandwich for you and slip the bad news between a couple thin slices of delicious, low-carb good news. And yes, there is good news. We all still live in the beautiful country that invented Freedom. It may be hanging by a thread, but we still have our Constitution--the most efficiently noble, and nobly efficient legal document ever conceived. Look around and you will see a wide variety of great, free people with infinite potential. We live in the most prosperous, and the most generous, country that was ever conceived. I'm not just spewing platitudes here. I think we need to be reminded from time to time that this nation is not a jumble of problems for some politician to solve. The biggest problems were solved in advance by our Founders. And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing. Of course, there is other good news that is more proximate. By bringing nearly all military personnel home to protect our own shores, we have made friends and taken billions of dollars out of the next budget before we even make it. By eliminating all foreign aid, we have made a few old friends angry, but with the same wonderful fiscal result. I hope I don't need to point out that as soon as we are out of debt, we look forward to being able to help struggling nations again. Anybody who only loved us for our money wasn't much of a friend at any rate, so to hell with them. While I'm on the subject of saving money, I hope you don't mind if I brag just a little bit. I have to say: cancelling the lavish inauguration festivities and giving the money to the National Endowment for the Arts and a host of reputable charities was pretty cool. I'm sorry if it made EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT BEFORE ME EXCEPT JEFFERSON look like a complete ass. I'm kidding. Sort of. Anyway, let's hope this sets a precedent that others will follow. The idea of throwing million dollar parties for an employee who hasn't even had one real day on the job is simply ridiculous.
Now the bad news. I'm not going to varnish this. I am getting a ton of pressure, from angles I could not have conceived of, to act in ways that are contrary to the aforementioned Constitution. I got death threats when I tried audit the Fed. I get a real cold shoulder from democrats and republicans who think I'm screwing with their power base by turning things like welfare and abortion and gun control and education entirely over to the states, and by refusing to sign anything with an earmark in it. Sorry, but I just didn't want to be one of those presidents who promises to end earmarks and then signs record numbers of them into law. And you'd be surprised how angry people get when you start actually eliminating bureaucratic waste instead of just talking about it. In short, this job is a good deal more difficult than I imagined; and the timeline we posted is turning out to be fairly unrealistic. Gridlock, it turns out, is not so much a function of feuding political parties as it is the lovechild of a bureaucracy trying desperately to justify and perpetuate itself. I'm not giving up. No way. But you might have to wait a year or two before we can actually eliminate the IRS, or pass real Tort reform, or reduce the size of government until the national debt actually begins to shrink. For the moment we are still flushing millions of dollars of down the toilet of cronyism and sloth. I'm sorry about that. I can see now, at least partially, why nearly every president from Nixon to Obama promised responsibility and was, at least partially, unable to deliver. That said, we must not let my predecessors off the hook; and I hope you will hold me to my promises.
The other bad news is that there are bad people in this country. They are few, but they are powerful. They live by violence and theft. They have always been there and no one can eliminate them. I thought we could stop their political non identical twins, but I wonder now if I was wrong. I speak of the growing segment of the population who remain convinced that the world owes them a living. They think Freedom means they can sit around and get fat on someone else's dime. Though they might claim to despise their more violent kin, they continue to think that government of the people and by the people and for the people should be able to do things to some of the people that we would never let people do to each other. They think they can harm the person or property of others, as long as they do so indirectly, and they have found loopholes in our law that protect them. I don't know what to do about these idiots as long as there are politicians who rely on their support. I am stymied by individuals who think themselves compassionate because they perpetuate helplessness with other people's money, who have convinced themselves that there is nobility in forcing others to help. I don't know what to do about people who get angry because I propound undeniably true statements like "Stupid should hurt."
So, to sum up: We are in debt up to our earlobes. In fact the whole budget and the process by which it is made is corrupt. The noble and great in our society are being undermined by an ever growing contingent of the lazy and the stupid and the vulgar. There remain among us the violent, the ugly and the foolish, who live to undermine not only the prosperous, but also the merely unfortunate who might actually benefit from a little help. Politicians have grown fat and sassy pretending that a government program could eliminate either of these demographics. Furthermore, our government is diametrically opposed to change, and may even be incapable of real efficiency. I used to take hope in the idea that an inefficient government can't really oppress the people. But I've come to know that inefficiency is its own special kind of oppression. What can I say? You didn't hire me to blow sunshine up your skirt.
I know this sounds depressing. But let me end on a positive note. I may not know exactly what to say or do about the sad people I have mentioned. But I do know I will never apologize for offending them, even if it means I will never be elected to public office again. And I will try not to let their insidious philosophy get in the way of my belief that every human soul inherits nobility, and the capacity to achieve greatness. I will hold tenaciously to my understanding that an individual cannot truly grasp freedom to achieve without also taking a firm grip of the responsibility for failure. Every person within the sound of my voice can trust this: my administration will leave this government, more efficient, less invasive, and more bound to the constitution than we found it. To what degree we succeed may be in question. But giving up is not an option.
So the State of the Union is as follows: We are saving money and streamlining all we can at the federal level. We are trying our damnedest to turn power over to the various States of the Union. In an environment drunk with its own power, we are dedicated to a process which, though it may have more than twelve steps, will result in a people, and, by extension, a government, that has the serenity to accept the things it cannot change, the courage to change the things it can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I look forward to working with the legislators around me towards concrete goals that embody this philosophical premise. The modest success we have had so far indicates, in my very humble opinion, a very positive state of the union.
Thanks for listening. Let's get to work.
Maybe they were glad it was over. Maybe they were surprised at the brevity. But the applause of the assembled legislators was instantaneous and loud. It went on until it blended with the sound of the de-tuned radio static blaring in the car. The light turned green and I drove on.
Sitting, for the first time as an official member of the press corps [hereafter pronounced "Press Corpse"--ed.] for a State of the Union address, I was naturally a little anxious. At the inauguration, the president in question had simply read Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address. Most Americans, of course, had no idea. But this was different. With the State of the Union, one always has to wonder if the SNL version will trump it. And naturally, I wondered how my fellow journalists would react when I vomited at the 100th mandatory applause. These events had become a shameless clap-fest for party shills, and I was honestly nauseated at the thought of it. The sushi consumed at lunch had been expensive, and I didn't want to lose it. Luckily for everyone involved, the nation's first New Federalist President allayed my fear with her/his first sentence . . .
My Fellow Americans, the remainder of my speech tonight will be addressed almost entirely to you, but first let me address the assembled senators and congresspeople for just a second: I wonder if you'll all do me the favor of refraining from applause until the end, if not entirely. I don't believe the purpose of this forum is for the President to bolster the approval rating. And I'm secure enough with my self esteem to get by without the faux adulation of a bunch of glad handing bureaucrats who think their job consists of running for re-election. Most of you are not of my party anyway, and it would most likely be a little awkward for you, wondering when, or if, to applaud, and how long, or how loud. So let's forget about whatever directives your party bosses sent out in whatever memo and just turn off the applause sign for tonight. Let's get the people back to their regularly scheduled program, OK? Thanks.
Rhetorically speaking, I'm going to make a bit of a sandwich for you and slip the bad news between a couple thin slices of delicious, low-carb good news. And yes, there is good news. We all still live in the beautiful country that invented Freedom. It may be hanging by a thread, but we still have our Constitution--the most efficiently noble, and nobly efficient legal document ever conceived. Look around and you will see a wide variety of great, free people with infinite potential. We live in the most prosperous, and the most generous, country that was ever conceived. I'm not just spewing platitudes here. I think we need to be reminded from time to time that this nation is not a jumble of problems for some politician to solve. The biggest problems were solved in advance by our Founders. And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing. Of course, there is other good news that is more proximate. By bringing nearly all military personnel home to protect our own shores, we have made friends and taken billions of dollars out of the next budget before we even make it. By eliminating all foreign aid, we have made a few old friends angry, but with the same wonderful fiscal result. I hope I don't need to point out that as soon as we are out of debt, we look forward to being able to help struggling nations again. Anybody who only loved us for our money wasn't much of a friend at any rate, so to hell with them. While I'm on the subject of saving money, I hope you don't mind if I brag just a little bit. I have to say: cancelling the lavish inauguration festivities and giving the money to the National Endowment for the Arts and a host of reputable charities was pretty cool. I'm sorry if it made EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT BEFORE ME EXCEPT JEFFERSON look like a complete ass. I'm kidding. Sort of. Anyway, let's hope this sets a precedent that others will follow. The idea of throwing million dollar parties for an employee who hasn't even had one real day on the job is simply ridiculous.
Now the bad news. I'm not going to varnish this. I am getting a ton of pressure, from angles I could not have conceived of, to act in ways that are contrary to the aforementioned Constitution. I got death threats when I tried audit the Fed. I get a real cold shoulder from democrats and republicans who think I'm screwing with their power base by turning things like welfare and abortion and gun control and education entirely over to the states, and by refusing to sign anything with an earmark in it. Sorry, but I just didn't want to be one of those presidents who promises to end earmarks and then signs record numbers of them into law. And you'd be surprised how angry people get when you start actually eliminating bureaucratic waste instead of just talking about it. In short, this job is a good deal more difficult than I imagined; and the timeline we posted is turning out to be fairly unrealistic. Gridlock, it turns out, is not so much a function of feuding political parties as it is the lovechild of a bureaucracy trying desperately to justify and perpetuate itself. I'm not giving up. No way. But you might have to wait a year or two before we can actually eliminate the IRS, or pass real Tort reform, or reduce the size of government until the national debt actually begins to shrink. For the moment we are still flushing millions of dollars of down the toilet of cronyism and sloth. I'm sorry about that. I can see now, at least partially, why nearly every president from Nixon to Obama promised responsibility and was, at least partially, unable to deliver. That said, we must not let my predecessors off the hook; and I hope you will hold me to my promises.
The other bad news is that there are bad people in this country. They are few, but they are powerful. They live by violence and theft. They have always been there and no one can eliminate them. I thought we could stop their political non identical twins, but I wonder now if I was wrong. I speak of the growing segment of the population who remain convinced that the world owes them a living. They think Freedom means they can sit around and get fat on someone else's dime. Though they might claim to despise their more violent kin, they continue to think that government of the people and by the people and for the people should be able to do things to some of the people that we would never let people do to each other. They think they can harm the person or property of others, as long as they do so indirectly, and they have found loopholes in our law that protect them. I don't know what to do about these idiots as long as there are politicians who rely on their support. I am stymied by individuals who think themselves compassionate because they perpetuate helplessness with other people's money, who have convinced themselves that there is nobility in forcing others to help. I don't know what to do about people who get angry because I propound undeniably true statements like "Stupid should hurt."
So, to sum up: We are in debt up to our earlobes. In fact the whole budget and the process by which it is made is corrupt. The noble and great in our society are being undermined by an ever growing contingent of the lazy and the stupid and the vulgar. There remain among us the violent, the ugly and the foolish, who live to undermine not only the prosperous, but also the merely unfortunate who might actually benefit from a little help. Politicians have grown fat and sassy pretending that a government program could eliminate either of these demographics. Furthermore, our government is diametrically opposed to change, and may even be incapable of real efficiency. I used to take hope in the idea that an inefficient government can't really oppress the people. But I've come to know that inefficiency is its own special kind of oppression. What can I say? You didn't hire me to blow sunshine up your skirt.
I know this sounds depressing. But let me end on a positive note. I may not know exactly what to say or do about the sad people I have mentioned. But I do know I will never apologize for offending them, even if it means I will never be elected to public office again. And I will try not to let their insidious philosophy get in the way of my belief that every human soul inherits nobility, and the capacity to achieve greatness. I will hold tenaciously to my understanding that an individual cannot truly grasp freedom to achieve without also taking a firm grip of the responsibility for failure. Every person within the sound of my voice can trust this: my administration will leave this government, more efficient, less invasive, and more bound to the constitution than we found it. To what degree we succeed may be in question. But giving up is not an option.
So the State of the Union is as follows: We are saving money and streamlining all we can at the federal level. We are trying our damnedest to turn power over to the various States of the Union. In an environment drunk with its own power, we are dedicated to a process which, though it may have more than twelve steps, will result in a people, and, by extension, a government, that has the serenity to accept the things it cannot change, the courage to change the things it can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I look forward to working with the legislators around me towards concrete goals that embody this philosophical premise. The modest success we have had so far indicates, in my very humble opinion, a very positive state of the union.
Thanks for listening. Let's get to work.
Maybe they were glad it was over. Maybe they were surprised at the brevity. But the applause of the assembled legislators was instantaneous and loud. It went on until it blended with the sound of the de-tuned radio static blaring in the car. The light turned green and I drove on.
dimanche, février 21, 2010
In all fairness to [H]ope
I wish I could talk about the magical moment when I caught Olympic Fever. But I'm depressed and I need your help.
See, I wasn't comfortable with the Bush warrantless wire tapping. Very few people were; but fans of the president said he was protecting our freedom. They routinely dismissed the egregious policy with the line: "I don't have anything to hide--they can track me all they want." As long as they catch terrorists. Right? Meanwhile, the political enemies of the previous administration called him Hitler.
Now, as Obama increases the range of the above mentioned activity, and further interprets the law to exclude the federal government from prosecution if they happen to spy on some uppity citizen who believes in the Constitution, I wait in vain to for the piercing sound of outrage. I don't expect it from dullard kool-aid drinkers like Olberman, Garofalo and Matthews, but my actual friends, whose opinion I might actually respect, should have something respectable to say, right? So I bring it up with one Obama Mama, who immediately, almost nonchalantly repeats, VERBATIM the above mentioned rationalization that righties made for Bush. I was depressed, and decided not to mention it to another woman I know and love, remembering that the last time someone dared question Obama's papal infallibility, she nearly cried. (Seriously!) Almost hopeless, I bemoaned my plight to a friend who may or may not have voted for Barrack. He temporarily saved the day: "No man, I decided early on that everything I hated about Bush, I was going to hate about Obama." Then a former co-worker, from whom I expected much less (given that he had actually attempted to influence mental health clients to vote for his man) wrote to me about his anger over the idea that a man who sends 30 thousand extra troops to kill and die in a foreign land could ever receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I began to feel a little better. Until the fiance of an Obama Mama showed himself to be completely unable to carry on an intelligent discussion about the economy, believing in all frankness that Obama has "saved it." Yes, savED, past tense, as in "mission accomplished." [ed. This belief, no matter how much we hope he succeeds, requires more than the usual amount of kool-aid.] For those of you keeping score: Dangerous ignorance: 3.5 . . . informed rationality: 1.5
I need your help here. I need you to ask around. Find people who hated Bush (it won't be difficult). Bring up the following points of FACT:
1) The current president's war policies are identical to, if not more bellicose than, his predecessor.
2) The current president's verbal gaffes, if ever publicized, are at LEAST as depressing, and almost as numerous, as his predecessor. (One small example: when recently reading from his teleprompter, he really did pronounce the word "corpsman" as "CORPSE man." If I need to tell you that it's pronounced "core," as in the Marine Corps, then perhaps you thought Bush was a little verbose.)
3) The current president inherited a difficult situation, not unlike his predecessor, and both responded by crawling into bed with fat cats, devaluing the dollar, and mindlessly increasing the national debt.
4) Both presidents enjoyed party majorities in the legislature. Both used them to enact wildly unpopular legislation, thereby sending the congressional approval rating into a dark abyss.
Should you honestly conduct this survey, I believe you will be at least partially shocked and/or disappointed with the reactions and results. And one could go on with 25 (give or take) similar points. (These facts, and many others, are all available with a modicum of research.) But rather than blather, let us ask ourselves what this multitude of queasy similarities means. Is the very office of president corrupted to such a degree that it no longer matters who occupies it? What kind of future lies in store for a Republic wherein the electorate is so ignorant as to excuse reprehensible behavior because of party affiliation, or for any other reason? What happens to freedom when people are willing to accept tyranny from someone who makes them feel good? What are the further implications of the broad philosophical differences that seem to divide the country squarely down the middle?
Do you know the answers to these questions before even conducting the survey? Do said answeres leave room for optimism?
My hope--my sincere hope--is that the results will surprise me. That we will discover a fair minded, informed center--a core group of registered voters who are able to evaluate a political entity based on something other than "focus groups, cool graphics, brainless endorsements from Hollywood elites and Internet pan flashes, nebulous catch phrases and an A+ in teleprompter reading."
Alas, as dear Emily observed: "hope is the thing with feathers." It can, and maybe should, "pearch upon [our] soul, and sing the tune without the words--and never stop at all." But only a fool follows that bird into places like the blogosphere . . . or the future . . . or the voting booth.
See, I wasn't comfortable with the Bush warrantless wire tapping. Very few people were; but fans of the president said he was protecting our freedom. They routinely dismissed the egregious policy with the line: "I don't have anything to hide--they can track me all they want." As long as they catch terrorists. Right? Meanwhile, the political enemies of the previous administration called him Hitler.
Now, as Obama increases the range of the above mentioned activity, and further interprets the law to exclude the federal government from prosecution if they happen to spy on some uppity citizen who believes in the Constitution, I wait in vain to for the piercing sound of outrage. I don't expect it from dullard kool-aid drinkers like Olberman, Garofalo and Matthews, but my actual friends, whose opinion I might actually respect, should have something respectable to say, right? So I bring it up with one Obama Mama, who immediately, almost nonchalantly repeats, VERBATIM the above mentioned rationalization that righties made for Bush. I was depressed, and decided not to mention it to another woman I know and love, remembering that the last time someone dared question Obama's papal infallibility, she nearly cried. (Seriously!) Almost hopeless, I bemoaned my plight to a friend who may or may not have voted for Barrack. He temporarily saved the day: "No man, I decided early on that everything I hated about Bush, I was going to hate about Obama." Then a former co-worker, from whom I expected much less (given that he had actually attempted to influence mental health clients to vote for his man) wrote to me about his anger over the idea that a man who sends 30 thousand extra troops to kill and die in a foreign land could ever receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I began to feel a little better. Until the fiance of an Obama Mama showed himself to be completely unable to carry on an intelligent discussion about the economy, believing in all frankness that Obama has "saved it." Yes, savED, past tense, as in "mission accomplished." [ed. This belief, no matter how much we hope he succeeds, requires more than the usual amount of kool-aid.] For those of you keeping score: Dangerous ignorance: 3.5 . . . informed rationality: 1.5
I need your help here. I need you to ask around. Find people who hated Bush (it won't be difficult). Bring up the following points of FACT:
1) The current president's war policies are identical to, if not more bellicose than, his predecessor.
2) The current president's verbal gaffes, if ever publicized, are at LEAST as depressing, and almost as numerous, as his predecessor. (One small example: when recently reading from his teleprompter, he really did pronounce the word "corpsman" as "CORPSE man." If I need to tell you that it's pronounced "core," as in the Marine Corps, then perhaps you thought Bush was a little verbose.)
3) The current president inherited a difficult situation, not unlike his predecessor, and both responded by crawling into bed with fat cats, devaluing the dollar, and mindlessly increasing the national debt.
4) Both presidents enjoyed party majorities in the legislature. Both used them to enact wildly unpopular legislation, thereby sending the congressional approval rating into a dark abyss.
Should you honestly conduct this survey, I believe you will be at least partially shocked and/or disappointed with the reactions and results. And one could go on with 25 (give or take) similar points. (These facts, and many others, are all available with a modicum of research.) But rather than blather, let us ask ourselves what this multitude of queasy similarities means. Is the very office of president corrupted to such a degree that it no longer matters who occupies it? What kind of future lies in store for a Republic wherein the electorate is so ignorant as to excuse reprehensible behavior because of party affiliation, or for any other reason? What happens to freedom when people are willing to accept tyranny from someone who makes them feel good? What are the further implications of the broad philosophical differences that seem to divide the country squarely down the middle?
Do you know the answers to these questions before even conducting the survey? Do said answeres leave room for optimism?
My hope--my sincere hope--is that the results will surprise me. That we will discover a fair minded, informed center--a core group of registered voters who are able to evaluate a political entity based on something other than "focus groups, cool graphics, brainless endorsements from Hollywood elites and Internet pan flashes, nebulous catch phrases and an A+ in teleprompter reading."
Alas, as dear Emily observed: "hope is the thing with feathers." It can, and maybe should, "pearch upon [our] soul, and sing the tune without the words--and never stop at all." But only a fool follows that bird into places like the blogosphere . . . or the future . . . or the voting booth.
vendredi, février 05, 2010
A Little Dream I Had . . . Part III
Having been granted the privilege of interviewing a presidential candidate for the first time, I was initially a bit nervous. Then, in an interview on the BBC, the candidate in question said: "No; I haven't noticed any difference in the way people react to me since I started running. Why should people react at all? I'm the same citizen. I'm on the same level they are. And if anyone tries any of that hero worship bullsh*t with me I'll simply tell them to pull their head out . . . of the clouds . . . and try to understand what America is supposed to be about. Even as the damn president, which I hope to be, if anyone says I give them a chill running down their leg I swear I'll start throwing hay makers. Because I don't really think democracy can long survive that level of ignorance. School children are absolutely NOT supposed to be singing songs about ANY president in office. In our country, the President works for the people. I am applying to be THEIR employee! Respect the office, fine. Now let's work together as equals for the betterment of the country. And if you get all weepy over who is president, either from hatred or admiration, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE."
That put the butterflies on sabbatical and I was able to get down to the business of having a conversation with the New Federalist Party candidate for the presidency.
You have steadfastly refused to discuss race and gender, and have even asked that people who cover you not bring it up. That is so refreshing. But what do you say to critics who want to make that an issue?
They are wrong. The president's gender and race are irrelevant. Anyone who thinks differently is as ignorant as they are condescending and I don't care what they think. If I were to become the first female president, I would find it demeaning if that was what people celebrated. If I were to become the first Chinese American president, I wouldn't want people throwing focus on something over which I had no control. This is a country of Laws and Ideas. If they can't commemorate my ideas, and commemorate them FIRST, then to hell with them.
You aren't the first candidate to openly call for the abolishing of the I.R.S. but you are the first whose party has made the end of Income tax a plank in your platform. This seems to put you out on the fringes. Ever feel like you're tilting at windmills?
If something is right, you have to believe in it no matter how far "out there" it puts you. And if something is wrong, you have to oppose it no matter how much of a behemoth it is. Yes, in a sense, I feel like I'm holding up the head of Medusa against the Kraken. But there is NO WAY that anyone can make a case for taking people's income. It is fiscally unnecessary and morally repugnant. And as long as the government can put a gun in your face and force you to pay, this country is not free. Tax property for the schools. Tax gas for the highways. Collect fees for garbage pick up and sewer maintenance. Tax sales of goods and services. That's part of living in a civilized society. But the great people who drew up the constitution would have marched against you with guns if you proposed to put your grubby hands into their wallets and bank accounts. I guess I'm just not into class warfare. That crap is for suckers and a truly enlightened person knows it. If the only way you can feel good about the world is to soak the rich, then pass a luxury tax on the items you think they buy so they can look down their nose at you.
Like yachts and such?
I was thinking of designer jeans and plastic surgery, but yeah.
So would you call yourself an advocate for the rich?
No. The rich don't need any one advocating for them. But on the other hand, how dare anyone hold a grudge against another and judge them for how much money they make? It's as petty and small minded as judging someone for how little they make. As president, my province is the law, before which we are all equal. We are all born with, and we all retain to our dying day, a perfectly infinite potential. Ours was supposed to be the government that stays out of people's way when they access that potential, and lets them deal with the consequences when they don't. What else could equality mean?
Should we help the poor?
What kind of loaded question is that? Damn right we should help the poor. Every private citizen with means should reach out, notice I didn't say reach down, and help people in need. I was raised lower middle class, but the vast majority of rich people I've met spend huge amounts of time and funds helping others. Most of the people I know from all walks of life have spent a chunk of their days looking out for the less fortunate. If you don't you're simply evil. But you're asking, "should the government help the poor." That's a separate question, and the answer is dicey. According to the Constitution, NO. I can promise you with absolute confidence that if the people of this country didn't have the government doing it by force, their hearts are big enough that they would be doing it privately, and voluntarily. There is an abundance of historical evidence to back that up. Anyone who proposes to take one person's money to purchase a vote from another is automatically dubious. That said, we have programs in place. They're wasteful, poorly managed, and end up subsidizing sloth and promiscuity. But there they are. And you can argue reasonably that there are people who have been helped by them. My party has NEVER proposed to end welfare or food stamps or medicare anything like that. We simply propose to turn it over to the states, where it can be managed more effectively. Similar to our position on education. Americans are not stupid enough to believe that a cloistered, glad handing politician in D.C. can better manage a situation thousands of miles away in Medford, Oregon. So, to encapsulate our position on the government forcing citizens to help others, there is an honest case to be made against it, and a heartfelt case for it. At this point, it might be too late for us as a country to be what the founders intended. But at least we can keep the money close to the situation it is supposed to remedy.
Last question--because this is for the Internet, and you know the American attention span: Are you worried about anything in your past that the press is going to dig up as we approach the election?
Not really. I think Americans are sick of media frenzy on any topic, and they are REALLY sick of personal foibles making headlines. If that turns out not to be the case, and the people are hungry for juicy details about my personal life, then maybe I'm in trouble. I might be too boring to be elected. But my party is about ideas. There was no metaphorical colonoscopy into my past and no focus grouping about my likability. You know what? I have predicted the winner in the last 7 presidential elections based solely on HAIR. That's really true. We want a good looking president, and we have, since Carter, always elected the candidate with better hair. That's the field a candidate is playing on. We're trying to change the game. Our cards are not focus groups, cool graphics, brainless endorsements from Hollywood elites and Internet pan flashes, nebulous catch phrases and an A+ in teleprompter reading. We have a different deck. It only contains ideas, principles, and historical precedent. And the Constitution. That's it. We think if the People want to play our game, the other parties cannot win. They can't. They can't and they know it. So I'm sure I can expect a media blitz because the press are motivated and controlled by their obvious political allegiances and their need for profit. Let them come.
Then the candidate inexplicably opened his/her mouth as wide as it would go, blaring out a loud beeping noise that filled the room, echoing out into the void of space. It took a moment to understand what was going on. Everything went blurry. I opened my sand man eyes, reached over, and turned off my alarm clock.
That put the butterflies on sabbatical and I was able to get down to the business of having a conversation with the New Federalist Party candidate for the presidency.
You have steadfastly refused to discuss race and gender, and have even asked that people who cover you not bring it up. That is so refreshing. But what do you say to critics who want to make that an issue?
They are wrong. The president's gender and race are irrelevant. Anyone who thinks differently is as ignorant as they are condescending and I don't care what they think. If I were to become the first female president, I would find it demeaning if that was what people celebrated. If I were to become the first Chinese American president, I wouldn't want people throwing focus on something over which I had no control. This is a country of Laws and Ideas. If they can't commemorate my ideas, and commemorate them FIRST, then to hell with them.
You aren't the first candidate to openly call for the abolishing of the I.R.S. but you are the first whose party has made the end of Income tax a plank in your platform. This seems to put you out on the fringes. Ever feel like you're tilting at windmills?
If something is right, you have to believe in it no matter how far "out there" it puts you. And if something is wrong, you have to oppose it no matter how much of a behemoth it is. Yes, in a sense, I feel like I'm holding up the head of Medusa against the Kraken. But there is NO WAY that anyone can make a case for taking people's income. It is fiscally unnecessary and morally repugnant. And as long as the government can put a gun in your face and force you to pay, this country is not free. Tax property for the schools. Tax gas for the highways. Collect fees for garbage pick up and sewer maintenance. Tax sales of goods and services. That's part of living in a civilized society. But the great people who drew up the constitution would have marched against you with guns if you proposed to put your grubby hands into their wallets and bank accounts. I guess I'm just not into class warfare. That crap is for suckers and a truly enlightened person knows it. If the only way you can feel good about the world is to soak the rich, then pass a luxury tax on the items you think they buy so they can look down their nose at you.
Like yachts and such?
I was thinking of designer jeans and plastic surgery, but yeah.
So would you call yourself an advocate for the rich?
No. The rich don't need any one advocating for them. But on the other hand, how dare anyone hold a grudge against another and judge them for how much money they make? It's as petty and small minded as judging someone for how little they make. As president, my province is the law, before which we are all equal. We are all born with, and we all retain to our dying day, a perfectly infinite potential. Ours was supposed to be the government that stays out of people's way when they access that potential, and lets them deal with the consequences when they don't. What else could equality mean?
Should we help the poor?
What kind of loaded question is that? Damn right we should help the poor. Every private citizen with means should reach out, notice I didn't say reach down, and help people in need. I was raised lower middle class, but the vast majority of rich people I've met spend huge amounts of time and funds helping others. Most of the people I know from all walks of life have spent a chunk of their days looking out for the less fortunate. If you don't you're simply evil. But you're asking, "should the government help the poor." That's a separate question, and the answer is dicey. According to the Constitution, NO. I can promise you with absolute confidence that if the people of this country didn't have the government doing it by force, their hearts are big enough that they would be doing it privately, and voluntarily. There is an abundance of historical evidence to back that up. Anyone who proposes to take one person's money to purchase a vote from another is automatically dubious. That said, we have programs in place. They're wasteful, poorly managed, and end up subsidizing sloth and promiscuity. But there they are. And you can argue reasonably that there are people who have been helped by them. My party has NEVER proposed to end welfare or food stamps or medicare anything like that. We simply propose to turn it over to the states, where it can be managed more effectively. Similar to our position on education. Americans are not stupid enough to believe that a cloistered, glad handing politician in D.C. can better manage a situation thousands of miles away in Medford, Oregon. So, to encapsulate our position on the government forcing citizens to help others, there is an honest case to be made against it, and a heartfelt case for it. At this point, it might be too late for us as a country to be what the founders intended. But at least we can keep the money close to the situation it is supposed to remedy.
Last question--because this is for the Internet, and you know the American attention span: Are you worried about anything in your past that the press is going to dig up as we approach the election?
Not really. I think Americans are sick of media frenzy on any topic, and they are REALLY sick of personal foibles making headlines. If that turns out not to be the case, and the people are hungry for juicy details about my personal life, then maybe I'm in trouble. I might be too boring to be elected. But my party is about ideas. There was no metaphorical colonoscopy into my past and no focus grouping about my likability. You know what? I have predicted the winner in the last 7 presidential elections based solely on HAIR. That's really true. We want a good looking president, and we have, since Carter, always elected the candidate with better hair. That's the field a candidate is playing on. We're trying to change the game. Our cards are not focus groups, cool graphics, brainless endorsements from Hollywood elites and Internet pan flashes, nebulous catch phrases and an A+ in teleprompter reading. We have a different deck. It only contains ideas, principles, and historical precedent. And the Constitution. That's it. We think if the People want to play our game, the other parties cannot win. They can't. They can't and they know it. So I'm sure I can expect a media blitz because the press are motivated and controlled by their obvious political allegiances and their need for profit. Let them come.
Then the candidate inexplicably opened his/her mouth as wide as it would go, blaring out a loud beeping noise that filled the room, echoing out into the void of space. It took a moment to understand what was going on. Everything went blurry. I opened my sand man eyes, reached over, and turned off my alarm clock.
S'abonner à :
Messages (Atom)
