Keep Hope Alive!

At this point in our history, an honest politician with legitimate ideas is a national treasure. Mostly because there is only one such person. Sadly, we have reached a point where voting for Ron National Treasure Paul may not be the best idea.


Because a national treasure, by its very nature, is something to preserve. And if by some miracle he gets elected, he will be dead in less than a year.


Not because he is old, or because he couldn't handle the stress of the job. He wouldn't die of natural causes (though, come to think of it, there might be an attempt to make it appear so), and he wouldn't die in an accident (despite how it might certainly look to the public). No, because he brooks no compromise, and holds fast to certain core principles, he would die at the hands of an assassin, and it wouldn't be Jodi Foster putting out the hit.


Think about it.


Based on the bizarre idea that our constitution does not designate us as the world's policeman (and based on the expense to a nation deep, DEEP in the throes of debt), Mr. Paul would immediately withdraw all troops from all foreign shores. Do you really think that extant powers within the military industrial complex would allow that? And might not the ensuing chaos in the policed nations allow the fomenting of some kind of retaliation? We're just getting started.


Based on the extreme idea that a nation deep, DEEP in the throws of debt cannot in good conscience throw money it doesn't have into swirling toilet bowls around the world, Mr. Paul would immediately phase out nearly all foreign aid. Based on the violent reaction of dependent parties in Greece and England (who went from being shiftless to riotous in seconds when their freebies were threatened), do you really think that the multitude of nations who sit with their hands out for billions in US funds would really stand up and say, "That's alright, we understand you're deep, DEEP in the throes of debt. We'll take it from here" ?


Based on the absurd idea (or the facts of the case, for those of you who are picky about these things) that the war on drugs has been a gigantic waste of federal dollars, Mr. Paul would put an end to federal drug enforcement. Should this empower the drug cartels that run Mexico with easier distribution to an expanded idiot client base, there's nothing to worry about. But if this leads to locally produced products available cheaply to a static idiot client base, thereby taking billions out of the pockets of the cartels that run Mexico, how long do you think these entities, already well versed in the art of mass and individual murder of high level officials, would leave an uncompromising president alive?


Based on the insane notion that the bailout sent billions of dollars through the anus of the FED into a mysterious corporate black hole, Mr. Paul will audit the FED, attempting to account for past expenditures, and ensure that future funds were handled in a responsible, transparent way. Do you really think that the multi-billionaires who so obviously and regularly benefit from the currently shady practices and policies would allow their golden goose to be cooked?


He would also push to make abortion a States issue, effectively removing it from the purview of the federal government. This, in the eyes of some, would be interpreted as the legalization of abortion, making President Paul a baby murderer to some very stridently active people. Do you really think that someone willing to blow up a single abortion doctor or clinic wouldn't also feel justified in forcibly removing the man who made it all legal? (on the other hand, many states would quickly make it illegal, causing a very similar problem. . .)


We're just scratching the surface here. If Ron Paul were to make good on his principles and promises, it would jeopardize the position of some very powerful, very shady individuals and entities. He would be a further threat to entities who have long been dependent on the government, from shifty corporations to shiftless individuals, all of whom would be introduced to the absurd idea that Human beings are created equal, and have equally infinite potential, and have a right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under our limited government and everything else they are capable of (and responsible for) handling for themselves. Who's to say what might happen in the ensuing unrest? He might actually limit the expansion of government and balance the budget! Can you imagine the displeasure of the really powerful people who benefit financially from the interest on our debt, and politically from the blatant purchasing of votes with promises made with the money of others? You don't want to think about it. You don't want to believe that the flagstones of your leftist or rightist ideology are capable of evil. Or maybe you want to believe that the nation and the world would be brought to see the justice and efficiency in the principles of President Paul. The first group is in denial and the second is just plain Utopian (which is to say, stupidly believing in a world that has never and can never exist). Neither belief system will save his life.

Or perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that a principled person with actual ideas could never get elected in this country, or in the fact that a president, once in power, is beholden to so many shadowy forces that he or she is effectively hog-tied (and therefore bound, for instance to keep Gitmo open and send 30,000 extra troops into a doomed foreign war despite promising the exact opposite.) But I say that in this case we must err on the side of caution. We cannot in good conscience sign the death warrant of a national treasure, though it leaves us in political limbo.

There is absolutely NO ONE else to vote for. But don't vote for Ron Paul. Like Hope itself, it may have been the will of the Gods that he remain locked in Pandora's Box.

The Keith Lowell Jensen Comedy Prosperity Joke Redistribution Plan

No one on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with the notion that, in these tough economic times, a nation has to pull together. To what extent, and whether that solidarity should foment publicly, or privately, is of course a matter of contention.
Keep in mind that homeowners and union labor aren't the only ones hit hard by the recent downturn. In fact, according to a preponderance of experts, the comedy bubble burst even before the housing and .com markets crumbled. In the wake of the crash, comedians bonded together, joining arms and standing tall for each other.
Which all added up to very little.
This is due, say a growing number of activists, to the fact that no amount of solidarity can come to any sort of fruition without a framework of policy set up by a proactive government.
With new legislation recently passed by congress and signed by the president, comedians and citizens everywhere can look forward to a new dawn of egalitarian prosperity.
The historic Keith Lowell Jensen Prosperity Joke Redistribution Plan (KeLJePJoRP) revamps the comedy industry and levels a playing field that has marginalized countless millions of unfunny individuals.
Named in honor of journeyman stand-up impresario Keith Lowell Jensen, a very funny man who generously shared his solidly hilarious laugh lines with those in need (even when it mean cutting his own set short), KeLJePJoRP sanctions the newly created Bureau of Comedic Affairs, authorizing them to confiscate jokes from prolific and funny comedians, and redistribute them to those with inferior comedic talents. The bracketed system allows the most successful comedians to keep 60% of their jokes. Above average comics will have the privilege of involuntarily sharing 20% of their humor. Marginally talented and less prolific comics will only have to give up 10%. The appropriated jokes will subsidize the careers and (more likely) the social interactions of people who dream of comedy, but who lack the insight or timing to be truly funny. It further extends a hand to those who may well be very funny, but who are unable to put in the hard work required to create solid material.
"This is great," says an early beneficiary of the program, "I was ready to throw in the towel. Writing jokes is so hard, and since my cannabis prescription ran out I've had trouble focusing. When I got the first batch of jokes, and people laughed at them, I thought, 'thank God people care enough to vote for people who will create an agency to give me someone elses jokes!' No matter how unfunny I am, I have hope for the future now." The above mentioned unfunny person (who requested anonymity) is currently doing 1 to 2 shows a week, and getting good laughs, almost completely with material from other comics. "I put in one of my own into my set the other day, and it didn't get much of a laugh. I think I'll stick with stuff from the program for the time being. I'm flat out killing. Being funny is awesome."

Some comedians have referred to recipients of the program as "welfare comics," a turn of phrase that participant Jake Rubenstein calls "hurtful, and dismissive." He explains further, "Most of those so-called 'funny' people inherited their sense of humor anyway. It's not like they earned it. Just because you have funny parents doesn't mean you are better than me, or anyone else." He mostly uses the laugh lines he receives to "break the ice" with women. "Before I was funny, I used to bomb with the ladies. Since I got in the program, and with the extra delivery coaching from the comedy counseling unit, I'm scoring twice the chicks."

Opponents of the program maintain that the Constitution makes no provision for the confiscation of intellectual property (i.e. jokes). But they have also pointed out that it contains no language authorizing the confiscation of income at gunpoint--a practice that has been carried out at the federal level since Lincoln. They attempt to bolster their point claiming that large amounts of really great comedy are eaten up in bureaucratic waste. Phillip Smooot, founder of government watch dog group Citizens for Responsible Administrative Policy, recently stated (on NPR's Fresh Air) that "for every 20 jokes sent to Washington, only 5 reach the intended recipients. The rest are petered away in the endlessly churning bureaucratic Rube Goldberg machine that is the Federal Government. These are the same people who are currently feeding soldiers into a sausage grinder in the Middle East. Do you really want them in charge of our nation's comedic reserves?" Other opponents wonder if a country with trillions of dollars of crippling debt has the means to maintain yet another expensive agency.

"Absolutely," responds Amy Douglas, spokesperson for the Keith Lowell Jensen Foundation (the advocacy group that lobbied for the legislation). "Reaching out to the comically challenged is the responsibility of everyone blessed with a sense of humor. It breaks my heart to think of people telling bad jokes, and passing them on for generations. We can break that chain. Everyone should have a chance to be humorous. Telling funny jokes is a right. We cannot deny it to people and still call ourselves a compassionate society." Other advocates maintain the position (as did a recent blogger on the Huffington Post) that comedy is a precious national resource that "merits management." If for no other reason than to prevent downturns in comedic institutions like Saturday Night Live. "When that show hits a bad stretch," said the blogger, "it takes the whole country to a very dark place." They point out that if we can get a greater percentage of the populace to be funny, we will no longer need to import such large quantities of humor from countries where socialized comedy has been prospering for years.

Most polls indicate that the American people in general, eager for a laugh, have adopted a "wait and see" approach. The next few years will set a critical precedent, and we may see an already polarized electorate take sides in disturbing numbers. Or perhaps, as some predict, expanded possibilities for laughter will bring people together. This much is clear: With the law set to expire halfway into the next president's term, the debate is far from over. Insert punchline here. I couldn't think of one, and I didn't qualify for the program.