Atlas Shrugged 2: Static Electric Boogaloo

I finally got around to watching the 2nd Installment of what appears to be the Atlas Shrugged trilogy on Netflix, last night.  Who would have thought Rand's signature novel would receive a similar treatment to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Twilight Breaking Dawn. 

Honestly, it makes sense, though.  The book is extremely long and, at times, a tedious read, but from a theatrical standpoint, does logically break into three separate acts with separate underlying stories/struggles. 

At the risk of sounding like a complete geek, I can compare this trilogy to the most famous trilogy in cinema history.

Much like in the Star Wars (Episode IV, for your purists) you're introduced to your dual protagonists, as well as to the power of their enemy.  You witness their combined struggle to defeat this enemy, and their perceived triumph over this enemy in what appears to be a crucial battle that will turn the tides of their "rebellion," while still having questions about other parts of the narrative. 

Early on, in the second installment, we're reminded that the protagonists merely won a battle, not the whole war.  We're also reminded that our protagonists are truly the underdogs in the story.  There is a tangent about irony in the case Atlas Shrugged II, given that both our "underdogs" are insanely rich during a rough economic time, riding around in Limos, or driving their own Lotus when gas is $40 a gallon, but I digress.  We're then hit with the "Luke, I am your father" moment when Dagney not only realizes John Galt is real, but actually MEETS him...fade to black.

In the third installment, I can only assume that the "creators of value" have moved to the planet of Endor and have enlisted the native Ewoks to assist them in their fight against Socialism.  Okay, I actually know that doesn't happen, but I wanted to incorporate some cross marketing opportunities for the franchise.  I find it only right that a book espousing the virtue of selfishness should make as much money as possible. 

Another parallel between the two trilogies is the willies the sexual between the protagonists should induce. 

You spend two and half Star Wars movies rooting for twin siblings to hook up.  Even if you were a hardcore Han Solo fan, you kinda figured Leia would choose Luke, then, almost inexplicably to my young mind, you find out that Luke's been polishing his knob with his twin sister in mind. 

In Atlas shrugged you find yourself, at least subconsciously rooting for two middle aged people to hook up, in spite of the fact that Hank Reardon is married, which at the time this book was penned was probably little controversial.

Regardless of your age, or how relatively attractive the actors are for their age, middle aged adultery is a little gross.  Fortunately, they don't actually get freaky on screen in part II, which I'm assuming is because it's really tough to incorporate Hank popping a blue pill and waiting for it to kick in, and Dagny's need for a tube of KY on the night stand into a "heat-of-the-moment" simulated sex scene.

In the second movie, Dagny is played by Samantha Mathis, who, in the 1990's was a hot, young love interest for Christian Slater in both Pump Up the Volume and Broken Arrow.  She's not unattractive today, but she's far from the girl that gave me a pubescent boner when she whipped off her sweater on Happy Harry Hard-on's Arizona patio in Pump Up the Volume, either.

They're clearly not targeting that 17-34 male demographic based on sex appeal in this series of movies.

I found two things even more interesting: 

1.  They completely re-cast the 2nd installment, which is nearly unheard of in trilogies. Imagine Tom Sellick as Han Solo, Christy Brinkley as Leia, and Scott Baio as Luke in the Empire Strikes Back.

In a trilogy you can't treat your actors like the drummer from Spinal Tap.  You need familiarity with the faces and portrayals of the characters to create buy-in from the audience.  I realize, Atlas Shrugged has undergone a sort of popularity renaissance between the films, and the second production likely received better industry support, but I spent the first 10 minutes asking myself "was Samantha Mathis Dagny in the first film?"

2.  Nexflix categorizes the movie as SciFi/Fantasy.  Not that there aren't some elements of Science Fiction to the novel, but I, along with numerous others have always viewed this book as more a social commentary.

There's another tangent here about some of the false assumptions Rand makes in the novel, or the false assumptions so many people make related to this novel, which make it fantasy.  I originally didn't intend to include that tangent, but, fuck it.  It's my blog, and I'll do what I want.

Far too many people assume that characters such as railroad tycoons and steel barons aren't confined to a specific era, but they are.  It's one thing that makes this movie tough to take seriously, since it's set "in the near future," but the novel inspiring was written as the 1950's were becoming the 1960's.  The political climate was far different than the one we see today.  Most obviously, we, as a nation had a legitimate enemy in the Soviets as the Cold War was entering its second decade.  One thing that rings true through out American history is that this nation is never more united than when there's a tangible external threat.  Political parties and ideologies mean less in the face the external menace.

Additionally, the economy of the United States was completely different, and based on manufacturing in 1957.  The need for coal, transported via railroads, to manufacture steel (a central theme in the "everyone benefits" from free markets prevalent throughout the book) was far more prevalent.  The economy was manufacturing based, which drove competition and innovation within manufacturing.  Further, our best minds went into those fields of endeavor as engineers trying to engineer a more productive coal extraction process, a lighter yet stronger alloy, better and more efficient transportation, be it via automobiles, trains, air planes, etc.

Contrast that with today, the economy has shifted almost entirely to being service and consumption based.  Our best minds still engineer and innovate, but what they engineer and innovate are derivatives to find better ways to make money off of money changing hands.  The innovative and competitive spirit that Rand championed has all but disappeared.  Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon may existed in Rand's time, but they were likely an exception to the rule.  Rand draws a stark distinction between virtuous selfishness and greed.  Dagny and Hank are selfish, or they wouldn't be bumping uglies in an adulterous fashion, but they're not greedy.

Rand makes the assumption that great minds will be satiated with just compensation or value in return.  You can logically defend that premise, just like Marx logically defended his idea of Communism.  The only problem is that humans aren't logical beings.  Logical, at least in the sense with which I use it as a Computer Systems Engineer is either ones or zeros.  Any either/or situation is a yes or no, on or off, right or wrong analysis.  With humans there simply aren't absolute right or wrong questions.  There are plenty of "yes, but" answers, which means there are exceptions.  The easiest example is murder.  Is it wrong to kill another human being?  Yes, but only if they weren't trying to kill me first. 

Wanting equal return on the value your abilities put into the marketplace is tricky four a couple of reason.  First, and especially in modern society, we think our abilities are pretty amazing, even when they suck.  This means we all overvalue our abilities.  We've all been raised being told that we can be anything we want to be, which is complete bullshit.  We still believe it, so we view certain jobs, even jobs we're good at as beneath us.  We view jobs like being a janitor or mowing grass or making other people's food as beneath us.  We waste money or go into debt to attain an education on subjects we're either not good at or don't need in an effort to find a better job for which we might not actually have an aptitude.

Basically, we all THINK we're Dagny or Hank because they're smart and the difference they make is romanticized.  Not to mention that they're both fabulously wealthy.  The only problem with that, is none of us are Dagny or Hank, and none of us ever will be.  While flawed, Dagny and Hank, along with all the other "creators" are idealized in the sense of the value they create and what they feel entitled to in return.  But what rate of return is acceptable?  Do businesses within a community have a responsibility to the community in the fashion a citizen does? 

Let's use Reardon's steel mill as an example.  Generating the heat to melt mettle requires a lot of heat.  It's stated that coal is used to heat the various metals used to create the alloy known as "Reardon Metal."  Then, once the alloy is complete, it must be cooled back to a solid.  Anytime elements change state, there are by products.  To heat the elements to a liquid, the fire will generate smoke, to cool it, there will be water vapor and water run off.  What effect does the smoke from the coal fire, or the water run off into a water way have on the community?  Does it pollute the water way?  Does the smoke cause health problems in the people living in the community?  Should that matter, either morally or legally, and should it affect in any way the pursuit of profits?

Of course it should, but we never fully understand the regulations that are okay and the regulations that aren't.  We're never reminded that without governance and the rule of law related to patents, etc. none of the companies or the market itself exists, or can function. 

At what point do cries for limited government become cries for no government and rule of the mob?

I find a common thread in works of fiction that people try to elevate to works of political or moral philosophy.  With one glaring exception, they falsely assume an intrinsic good in all humans that isn't there.  We're not noble and moral creatures, and only Machiavelli got that part right.

.

Oh, me, oh, you, and oh all of us.

Before we even get started, I can hear you "music puritans" getting ready to tell me the origins of this song, as if I didn't already know and wasn't tipped off by the two Cousin Its playing guitar and bass on this track.  Yes, I know it's a Meat Puppets song.  Yes, I know that the "voice of a generation," Kurt Cobain didn't write some the best the lyrics of the past 30 years, at least as it relates to this particular song.  None of these things, however, removes the power of the song, or this performance of it, in any way shape or form.

All you haters, at least give Mr. Cobain credit for recognizing truly great music.  The "Unplugged in New York" session for MTV was his swan song, and he actually had the foresight to recognize it.  With this in mind, he chose to minimize his own music, and showcase songs by the Vaselines, David Bowie, the Meat Puppets, and Leadbelly.  The performances of these songs are still very haunting, especially Bowie's "The Man who Sold the World," and Leadbelly's "Where Did You Sleep Last Night."  Still, neither of those performances compares to "Oh, Me," in my mind.

Bowie's song is grandiose and sweeping, envisioning a reality where worlds are bought and sold in some galactic market.  Leadbelly's song is extremely personal, dealing only with what can be assumed to be a man and a woman confronting potential infidelity.

"Oh, Me," at least within the context of the time it was performed, and even today, carries a far more universal theme.  It carries the theme of unrealized potential, which I'm nearly positive Cobain felt, and this idea has resonated with me for nearly two decades.  Common routines within our society divert focus from our true aptitudes.  

How many failed singers, writers, painters, and actors are out there serving coffee, food, cocktails, lap dances, or soft, wet hum jobs?  Were they simply chasing rarely attained dreams, or were those dreams rendered unrealistic by responsibility to "pay the bills?"

"I don't have to think,

I only have to do it.

The results are always perfect,

but that's old news."

Some the best and most creative people I'll ever know have never made a penny off their art, and they while away their talent delivering mail, building servers, or sweeping your fucking floors.  

If there is a reason to justify the fact that the majority of human beings only utilize 10% of their, overall, cognitive abilities, this is it.  

Society, at least to the people running the show, benefits from keeping us dumb and otherwise occupied.  If the majority of human beings, even the "educated" ones, actually woke up and realized the extent to which they've been had, we might actually see some progress for this species.  Yet, we work ourselves to death for the next new, shiny, and worthless status symbol, rather than simply saying, "fuck you, I'll grow my own vegetables, hunt and kill my meat, and live as I choose in relation to my fellow man."

"I can't see the end of me,

My own expanse, 

I cannot see.

Formulate infinity,

Stored deep inside me."

As a parent, I get the pull to "give your child everything you never had," but you never really had anything, anyway.  Ownership and control are illusory.  What you really had were varying stages of the pacifier you shove down your kid's gullet to get him to shut the fuck up so you can focus on "Impractical Jokers."

We have replaced the need to survive with the desire to achieve a fake success in a society founded on complete bullshit.  We have ignored our individual and specific talents in the name "making ends meet," and we still think we're accomplishing something when we build more widgets, file more paper work, or fix more computers than we did the day before.  We never realize we place ourselves on the same exercise wheels we employ to keep our Guinea pig from becoming a basketball.  We don't "formulate" our "infinity" because we're too consumed with improving our manufactured and marketed reality.

Civilization only scratches the surface of our next evolutionary jump, and it does for the sake of comfort.  Comfort is for bleeding pussies and asshole growths triggered by too much Taco Bell.  Sack the fuck up and take some risks.  Find your infinity and use it, if for no other reason, because it makes you happy.  If any of these power tie wearing pricks tries to remind you of your "responsibilities," pistol whip that cunt, then get back to your joy.  These assholes have actually sold us on pursuing our joy as a part-time excursion to be done in our "spare time" from doing "what they tell us is important."

If you like to fish, go fish.  If you like to sing, sing your balls off, and sing off-key (it really pisses them off when you're not "good" by their standards.)

I believe, in fact, that if you're not pissing people off, then you're not doing it right.  Piss people off, then tell them their opinion combined with $50 leaves you with $35.  When they ask you how that happens, tell them their opinion is beyond worthless, it actually implies a negative value, monetarily, then pistol whip them for missing the obvious implication.

Happiness should not come in small doses.  It's not chemo-fucking-therapy.  It's an intrinsic human pursuit, and one that Tom Jefferson seemed to believe was a fundamental human right.  

Pursue your happiness, catch it, then stick your wiener in its dirt chute.

Proud to be a Merkin

"I, Jake Daniel Chapman, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I willingly took that Oath of Enlistment on September 12, 2001, as I began my journey as an Airman in the United States Air Force.  The timing could not have been more poignant, and my resolve could not have been stronger than it was on that day.  Now that I've been off active duty for over six years, I find some things exceptionally interesting regarding the Armed Services and how they fit into the current political dialogue and philosophy bandied about, especially during the recent Republican National Convention and the current Democrat National Convention.

We heard from the Republicans that the key to balancing the budget is to cut spending.  This is a logical progression, and one that we can apply to our own household budgets.  However, they also advocate an automatic INCREASE in defense spending be included in any budgetary legislation.  This has had Democrats and people with brains scratching their heads for a couple weeks, now, and it brings to light something I have always found confusion in the modern conservative ethos.

 The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. 

-Ronald Reagan

Famous words from a very famous and effective President, and, regarding domestic policy, he stuck to this philosophy.  However, the one huge departure from this philosophy he employed during his 8 years in office was regarding the Department of Defense.  His reasoning for increasing funding and expanding military capabilities was sound.  We were still firmly entrenched in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and he bet on the American people, along with military contractors to out produce their Soviet counterparts and bankrupt the Soviet Union.  He won the Cold War, in this fashion, and we all saw the fruits of this policy in the early 90's as the majority of Communist countries around the globe succumbed to the will of their people over the power of the state.  The fact that the Department of Defense, which equates to enforcement arm of the Federal Government, seems to get lost in the shuffle, though.

I won't attempt to argue that defense spending is bad for the economy or even bad for innovation.  The list of innovations that came from the Military/Industrial complex that have been commercialized is long and distinguished, and has lead to employment and opportunity for millions of Americans.  However, this seems to run counter to the idea that Government spending doesn't create jobs.  The internet alone, which began as a Military project called ARPNET, has completely rewritten the manner in which we interact and conduct business.  While Al Gore didn't "invent" it, he and the other Congressmen that agreed to fund the project helped create one of the most significant advances in communications in the history of man kind.

Where having "less government interference or less centralized authority" is compromised is that the Department of Defense is essentially the muscle that backs up the power of the federal government.  Please refer to the Oath of Enlistment, where I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution isn't the people or citizens.  The Constitution is document that defines the structure and roles within the federal government.  The military insures the authority of federal government.  Do you see what I'm getting at?

The fact that supposed "Fiscal Hawks" view the defense budget as untouchable should give you a decent idea that their "Limited Government" premise is only selectively applied, and maybe scare you just a little bit. The additional fact that the US Patriot Act expanded Federal Government authority as it relates to surveillance, detention, and adjudication of suspected "enemy combatants" and was rammed through a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President should make you question this rhetoric almost completely.  The idea that a Federal Government would employ its military against its own citizens seems deplorable and wholly un-American, yet the deployment of the National Guard at Kent State in 1970 and to South Central Los Angeles in 1992 did happen, both with Republicans in the White House.  (I realize these actions were taken by State and Local Governments to quell riots and disturbances.  This does not, however, remove the fact that these National Guard units were trained alongside active duty and reserve units, or that these units aren't military in nature and receive funding from the Federal Government.  The number of National Guardsmen and Reservist I personally know who have deployed to an active combat zone during the War on Terror only ratifies this position even more.)

While I will try to avoid any additional fear mongering, or what can be construed as partisan attacks, I will make one final attempt to tie this all together.

You can't claim to be for "less government interference or less centralized authority" when your policies support expansion of those very things.  A strong defense is something I believe most Americans agree upon, however, it is diametrically opposed to decreasing governmental influence or authority.  You can't have it both ways.  It should come as no surprise that the very foundation of a political platform is complete and utter bullshit.  The fact that so many people swallow it, hook, line, and sinker should be troubling, because it shows a complete lack of critical thinking on behalf of the masses.

I don't pretend that I am somehow exposing hypocrisy.  I am actually trying point out yet another instance of people regurgitating shit that they didn't seem to realize was shit when they swallowed it whole the first time.  True Constitutional Conservatives like Ron Paul try to point out this fallacy and are minimized within their own party and by the national media.  It's not because he's crazy.  It's because he's absolutely correct.

At least the Democrats are relatively honest in their collectivist platform, while the GOP will sell you a copy of Atlas Shrugged, pretending to champion the Hank Reardons of the world, but only distributing copies printed by Orren Boyle from his factories in Malaysia.  "We're for small government when it comes to our cronies being taxed and regulated, but for big government contracts for those same cronies."

It's because of this that I propose the creation of new political party in the United States of America:  The Merkin Party.  The choice of the word "Merkin" is for two reasons:

1.  It's a vain and stupid attempt to poke fun at ignorance that always seems to manifest itself in a truncated enunciation of the word "American" or "America."

2.  Dictionary. com defines the noun "merkin."

false hair for the female pudenda.

This essentially qualifies a merkin as a "pubic wig for females."  While that may not strike many as an ideal name for a political party, let's examine it a little more.  First, the term "Whig" is very historic in the American linear history.  It was synonymous with the revolutionaries that fought rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, and later became an opposition party to Andrew Jackson's Democrats in the early half of the 19th Century.  Secondly, since a merkin is essentially devised to artificially cover and shield a pussy from the elements, our party would metaphorically do the same for the pussies we are collectively becoming.

America needs two things, an enema and a merkin.  I'll assist with the enema and be proud to provide the merkin.

Join me as we create a political party the right way!

Our Nation's Greatness?

From Mike Huckabee's Facebook page this afternoon:

"Today is Mike’s birthday and he is donating his age, 57, in dollars, to Huck PAC’s Conservative Senate Majority Fund. If you can afford to match him, I hope you will consider doing so by going to Huck PAC’s website using the link below. If you can’t donate $57 but can make a donation for a smaller amount, I hope you will. 

Mike is fully focused on electing a conservative Senate Majority to work with our next President, Mitt Romney. We both believe the last 6 years of Democrat control in the Senate, especially the last four with President Obama in the White House, have resulted in the systematic dismantling of our nation’s greatness. The America our children and grandchildren live in will be dramatically different than the one we grew up in, if we do not stop President Obama and the Senate Democrats now. 
So please join Mike and me in donating today to Huck PAC’s Conservative Senate Majority Fund. 

Thank you for your long-standing support of Mike, Huck PAC and the America we both hold dear 

-Janet Huckabee"

First, let me say, I think it's incredibly generous of Reverend Huckabee to dig so deeply in support of the Political Action Committee that carries his name.  It's that type of selfless leadership and self sacrifice this country truly needs in such uncertain times.  It's so refreshing to see an influential, well-to-do, man of God donate to his own political interests over truly decent things like feeding the hungry or healing the sick.

I don't fully mean to castigate Mike Huckabee on his birthday.  He earned his money, and he can do whatever he chooses to do with it.  However, for a Southern Baptist minister, with his own syndicated radio show and weekly Fox News television show to only be politically active is just a little off-putting.  He was the main voice behind the whole "Chik-fil-a Appreciation Day" earlier this month, of which he was very proud of the turn out "in support of Free Speech."  Imagine, though, if he were able to use his lofty status as a public figure to mobilize his audience to actually do something good for the community rather than eating a chicken sandwich as some distorted form of protest.  To think, I actually one time respected him and his views as a man of faith in an increasingly corrupt and disgusting political landscape.  I don't dislike the guy, personally, I just feel he has been seduced by the power his celebrity affords, and, like so many other decent human beings, has become a one-trick political being.

Pointing this out, though, is like saying it's cold on the dark side of the moon.  Huck's pulling a "full McCain" isn't a new development.  What perked up my antenna was the phrase:

 "last 6 years of Democrat control in the Senate, especially the last four with President Obama in the White House, have resulted in the systematic dismantling of our nation’s greatness. "

This phrase is so fraught with idiocy that I would honestly feel bad for what I'm to do to id, if I actually believed they were the words and thoughts of Mike Huckabee's wife, Janet.  I don't buy it for a second that she actually typed this status, because this idea that somehow America has lost her "Greatness" permeates to the very bedrock of the GOP rhetoric in this election cycle.  There are multiple fallacies in this rhetoric, but that's really nothing new when it comes to rhetoric.

In order for an entity's "greatness" to be "systematically dismantled," it had to have been great when the change identified as the culprit (The Democrats taking a majority of the Senate) took place.  To assume that, is to completely ignore the circumstances surrounding the 2006 Congressional Elections.  In 2006 the Democrats made huge gains in both houses of Congress because the voters had "had enough" of the GOP (this should sound familiar, because you heard similar rhetoric on Obama's platform for "Change" in 2008, and again on the GOPs platform in 2010.  Everything old is still old, but the put a fresh coat of paint and new fake outrage on it, making it seem "new.")

In 2006 there was no "Greatness" for the Democrats to dismantle, it was the same order of Turd McNuggets we face 6 years later.  If things were better in 2006, they could only have been marginally better, since the American public chose to elect Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years.  In the past 6 years, there hasn't been a sea change in policy initiatives, either.  There has been minimal policy change combined with minimal economic growth.

Maybe I'm alone in not wanting to recapture the "greatness" of 6, 12, 24 or 30 years ago.  This sort of campaign is the same sort of "recapture your youth that you can't remember" bullshit thinking that originally gave us hair dye, girdles, Hair Club for Men, and Viagra.  It's an attempt to idealize the 80's under Reagan the way Reagan idealized the 50's under Ike.  You can't recapture the past in the present, yet they manage to hoodwink people into believing that voting for their phony over the other phony will somehow give you back that '74 Camaro, full head of hair, dick that could get hard on it's own, and hot, young women wanting to see your hard dick and sit on it.  Those days seem awesome in retrospect because you were more awesome back then.  Now, you're a broken down, angry, old fuck who wishes he wasn't so broken down, angry, and could still fuck.

Politicians aren't magicians, and this crop we have in 2012 are bare even homo sapiens.  The one portion of the dream of America's past greatness I would happily buy from those by gone eras, would be the leadership.  I'd even take Joe McCarthy and Dick Nixon if it meant I'd get true leaders like Ike, JFK, Barry Goldwater, Reagan, and Tip O'Neill.  These guys never agreed, and in some cases, literally hated each other's guts, but they weren't self absorbed and stupid enough to think it was about them.  They were Americans first, and they had a job to do.

Alas, those guys are as long dead as their convictions about a great America for today and for tomorrow.  America was great, once, but it wasn't six years ago.  The dismantling started when WWII heroes like Ike and JFK and Bob Dole started dying and began being replaced by younger, and more spoiled men and women.  It started when the spoiled rotten children of heroes started trying to grow up, while still thinking they knew more than their parents.  They took pride in ending a war they refused to fight, acid and rock turned into cocaine and disco, followed almost immediately by deadly sexually transmitted diseases.  Rather than reinventing the machine the used to rage against, they just repainted it and slapped a peace symbol on it, replaced wit with condescension, cooperation with blame, and a dogged work ethic with smug entitlement.

I also see Romney's camp referring to his campaign as "America's Comeback Team."  This is another slogan or moniker that was obviously dreamed up by someone trying to appeal to 7-year-olds.  Did America suffer a concussion?  A pulled hammy?  What exactly is America "coming back" from?  It sure as hell ain't vacation.  Treating politics like sports ignores the simple premise that these assholes clearly aren't the best minds and leaders this country has to offer.  The best minds are on Wall Street inventing new ways to fuck us out of our money.  The best leaders?  They are an endangered species because we stopped teaching our children that with great talent and potential comes a great responsibility.  Civic duty and civil service used to be ingrained in the consciousness of this nation.  It wasn't an obligation or punishment.  At one point in our history, Americans actually got off on helping each other.

If they're going to insist on treating this like sports, and we're all on the same team, then we need to clean house when this season's over.  I don't mean just firing the coach and his staff, either.  The General Manager, and all the executives need to be sent packing, too.  We should also demand an ownership change, since our current ownership seems only committed to turning a profit on giving us an inferior product on the field.  Let's find an owner committed to WINNING.  In fact, how about we change things up and issue stock in our franchise, to return her to the people she to whom she really belongs, the fans.  If the fans actually own the team, they will hold the ownership accountable for the team's performance, and maybe pay better attention to the manner in which their franchise is run.

I know, I know, I hate to give an entire season away, but the losses we take here, will begin to pay off once we upgrade our talent through the draft.  It's a long season, and you can't win 'em all, no matter how hard you try.  This year's team sucks, anyway.

Let's talk about RAPE, baby...

The last time anyone associated with Missouri got this much press for talking out his ass, it was this...

I was initially going to post George Carlin's classic bit on rape, but I thought better of it.  I did however find some footage of a legitimate rape where there was no chance of pregnancy...

Alright, enough bullshit.  I actually spent some time writing this.  While it may come as a shock, I'm not really all that critical of Todd Akin.

To refresh your memory, in case you have somehow forgotten:

I bring up Todd Akin’s controversial statement, but I don’t do so to pile on regarding remarks that even Mitt Romney has labeled as “indefensible.”  There are, however some simple facts that lead to this statement being made.  Statements like this become prevalent when a person’s stance on a moral issue is determined by faith rather than fact.  To hear that the son of a minister, with his own Masters of Divinity degree from the Covenant Theological Seminary opposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest isn’t shocking, and it’s also not a position he is somehow forbidden to hold on this issue.  Defending that position as a matter of policy or future policy is where things get tricky, which calls into question Akin’s ability to effectively represent his constituents in Congress, as he has for nearly twelve years, and it certainly should call into question his candidacy for the United States Senate.

This isn’t the first time Akin and “rape” have been linked publicly, either.  In the early months of this Congress, he was one of 216 Republicans to capitalize on the momentum created by the 2010 midterm elections, where the economy and the deficit were the prime issues, and go after abortion.  He was co-sponsor of H.R. 3 The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  They were nice enough to put an exception for the case of “forcible rape” which they later had to remove to secure the votes needed to pass the resolution.  It has yet to reach the floor of the Senate for vote, and a second term for Obama almost assuredly guarantees a veto, should the law pass both houses.  I’m sure the debates on the floor of the House regarding this provision had to have been the most atrocious since the 3/5 Compromise was reached during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  The fact that 216 Republicans and 10 Democrats believed this legislation would be viewed as a priority by their constituents saddens me.

For the record, I am Pro-Choice, though I have no idea how gut wrenching that choice would be.  I have never been an advocate of dictating moral decisions to others within my community whose moral convictions likely differ from mine.  I don’t pretend to have any answers to moral dilemmas that would be suitable for others to follow, and I view those people who are convinced of their moral superiority with both wonder and skepticism.  I don’t begrudge them their faith or belief system, but I neither trust their certainty in areas of right and wrong nor do I respect their condemnation of those who see things differently.

Faith can be a powerful force in our society, depending upon the nature of that faith.  When faith in one’s abilities is combined with understanding of one’s limitations and knowledge in a specific area of study or expertise, you have a very competent and confident human being.  My upbringing, and especially my parents taught me to have an firm faith in my abilities that some would say borders on arrogance.  Knowledge came easier to me than many of my peers, and my ability to apply new skills rapidly has been a talent I have continually exploited both in my personal and professional life.  Where I have continually struggled is identifying and understanding my limitations which shouldn’t be all that surprising, given my almost unshakable belief in my abilities.  Confronting these limitations and my own mortality will continue to define my growth as a person and my maturation as a son, husband, and father.

The more interesting aspect of faith is how it completely defies logic or reason, and faith becomes dangerous when it replaces logic and reason.  This is where having elected representation like Todd Akin becomes troubling.  His views and his faith are not the problem, entirely.  They represent a symptom of a larger issue within our society.  This issue, or more accurately, this collection of issues could be the beginning of the end of this country.

I want to be very clear that I don’t hate religion, and I certainly don’t hate the messages Jesus Christ set forth in his parables and acts that have been chronicled in the New Testament.  He gives us all a great set of directions on how to be better people, both internally and externally.  To quote Pedro Cerrano in the movie Major League, “I like him very much, but he no help with curveball.”

Where I continue to draw the line with what passes for religious institutions in this country, is how actively political they have become, and further how partisan their politics tend to be.  I have no problem with guys like Akin or Mike Huckabee going to seminary for post-graduate studies.  They are, no doubt, entitled to choose their educational path, however I don’t see the logical progression from religious studies to pursuing legislative or executive office within their state and Federal Government.  It used to be people went to Seminary to become ministers, now I guess it’s a spring board to Congressman and Governor.

I’m not saying either man isn’t intelligent, but there are some fundamental issues between being a devout Christian and the pragmatism needed to effectively govern.  The level of certainty in the Bible one must have to pursue degrees from Seminary seems to fly directly in the face of potential challenges to the Word they hold so dear as they attempt to govern an electorate that put them in office, while still respecting the individual liberties of those that didn’t vote for them

Through no fault of his own, Charles Darwin, and his theory presented in the Origin of Species is viewed as an outright attack on the divinity from which Genesis tells us we’re descended.  In spite of the evidence supporting Darwin’s theory, numerous politicians dismiss it as “just a theory.”  An example: 

“The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up.  My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.”

-Kentucky State Representative Ben Waide (R)

Accepting Darwin’s theory doesn’t completely invalidate the Creation stories from Genesis, but it is a much less flattering idea than having been created in the divine image of God.  It also deprives us the implied dominion on this planet we receive as being the only life form capable of talking to our God.  The idea that our species has evolved from species deemed inferior in our minds is a tough pill to swallow, when the Biblical view or our origins is much more flattering.  A growing number of Americans are dismissing Darwin’s theory with every passing year, to the point that a clear majority of Republicans questioned in a recent Gallup Poll completely dismiss the theory altogether.

There are societal impacts of completely dismissing one of the most widely accepted scientific theories in history, and what is essentially the bedrock theory behind most modern life sciences, though.  Once you move past Darwin, it becomes increasingly easy to dismiss other scientific theories such as Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they’re calling it these days, and, at that point, you’re just getting warmed up.

History is next, and the United States of America becomes a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles.  Religious separatists such as the Puritans (Pilgrims) become heroes of religious freedom, even though they seemed to lack tolerance for anyone who saw things even slightly differently than they did.  Colonies that predate Plymouth like Jamestown in Virginia are glossed over, because those colonists weren’t here for religious freedom, they were here speculating on agricultural ventures, specifically, tobacco.  That doesn’t sound as good, so we either minimize.  Then there’s that whole issue of slavery, the systematic destruction and relocation of the native residents of this land, and a bloody Civil War, and that was just the first century.  For some reason, that just doesn’t scream divine inspiration.  Yet we still seem to struggle with concepts like the Separation of Church and State.  I get it, Madison did not specifically write those words into the either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  He also didn’t specifically enumerate the concept of Judicial Review or that our legal and civil courts would respect common law or legal precedents in their decisions and processes.  Yet we see those concepts in action repeatedly.

Selectively recognizing accepted explanations to complex questions creates a standard of selectively recognizing commonly accepted standards of civility, behavior, communication, and achievement.  Hey, our elected leaders do it, why can’t we?  Turn on your TV, folks, at some point you’re going to see the glorification of complete stupidity and/or self absorption.  From the extremely buff, tan, and stupid crew on Jersey Shore, to the poor little rich girl Kardashians, to the crazy Cajuns on Swamp People, to even the increasingly shrill pundits on the primetime News Channels, our entertainment packages boorish, loud, drunk, ignorant, and self centered people as “normal.” 

Even revolutionary artistic mediums such as hip hop have been reduced to three minute advertisements for Jordans, Bentley, Jewelry, California Weed, and big booty bitches.  Socially relevant hip hop like what Chuck D, KRS-One, 2Pac, and Ice Cube made has been replaced in the national consciousness, with very few exceptions in the mainstream. 

Having grown up in a rural environment, in small-town Kansas, but having moved onto to my current suburban existence, I have mixed feelings about Country music, or anything related to being “country.”  I know real cowboys and real farmers who wear their wide brimmed cowboy hats to keep the sun off their neck, and drive a lifted four wheel drive because they have to drive it off-road to tend to their ranch or farm.  I also know wannabe cowboys who live in the suburbs, and drive their lifted four wheel drives only on pavement to their jobs as software engineers, all while bitching about gas prices.  The wannabes will shout me down and try to fight me over a simple disagreement at the bar, while the real cowboys aren’t at the bar because they just worked 13 hours, and have to get up at dawn the following morning. 

I’m proud of my roots in rural Kansas, but I’m equally as proud of my accomplishments after leaving, there too.  Small towns are double edged swords at times.  On one hand, they’re close knit and comfortable because you know everyone, on the other comfort breeds complacency and you stop questioning what you’re told, which means you stop growing intellectually.  It doesn’t happen to everyone in a small town, and some people would never trade their small town life for anything.  To others that small town amputates your dreams, and plugs in repetition as the prosthesis.  Either through resentment or apathy, you begin to revel in your lack of refinement and education, viewing well spoken and educated people with distrust or outright contempt.

As a child, growing up in this country, I was constantly reminded that in areas of mathematics and sciences, U.S. children were falling behind children from multiple nations around the globe.  In the nearly 20 years since I graduated from my public High School, that gap has not closed, and has in fact widened.  Rather than focusing on providing the best possible educational opportunities for our children, parents and law makers haggle over the curriculum, so as not to offend someone’s religious background.  Rather than making a career in education desirable and monetarily rewarding, state governments attempt to neuter their ability to collectively bargain.  Then, to take the situation from silly to “dumbest thing ever” territory, we remove any remnants of competition from our classrooms and playgrounds.  Kids can’t play tag because of the stigma attached to being “it?”  Everyone gets a trophy just for showing up?  Is it any wonder we had the Occupy movement, which basically boiled down to spoiled, self entitled children who went to college and earned a degree in an unmarketable skill, or a skill that required additional post graduate studies bitching that they couldn’t find a job, and blaming Wall Street and the upper 1%.  While I have myriad issues with Investment Banks and the deregulation of the financial markets, I can’t fully blame them for the unemployment issues in this country.  These kids should be pissed off, but their anger should be directed at their college counselors for telling them that a Bachelor’s of Political Science or Art History would improve their job prospects and their parents for spoiling them by trying to shield them from failure and consequences.

When you couple glorified ignorance with the sense of entitlement that has trickled down from the Baby Boomers, through Generations X and Y, on to the Millenials, you get a lot of foolish pride.  The Americans that came before us had a pronounced history of questioning the conventional wisdom of the day and innovating products and processes.  When Henry Ford wanted to increase production of his automobiles, he didn’t stick with the conventional manufacturing processes of the day, he created a new one that is still largely used in auto manufacturing to this day.

Our country, through its arts, technology, scientific inquisitiveness, and spirit of individual opportunity, has enjoyed an economic and cultural expansion worthy of praise and study.  As time has passed, previous Americans righted most of their systemic and historic social wrongs.  From ending slavery to guaranteeing equal protection under the law to every gender, race, creed, and religion (and we’re making progress on sexual preference, too.)  We have consistently looked backwards only to see what we need to correct, made the needed corrections and moved forward.  Now, it seems, we’re looking backwards, glossing over the mistakes of the past, and trying to return to a time that was either 30 or 60 years ago, as if the 1950’s or 1980’s were somehow idealistic and without flaw.  We’re debating the same basic issue in statehouses and publicly that Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan debated in 1925.  We’re also publicly discussing voter discrimination related to race more vehemently than at any time since Mississippi was burning.  We’re still discussing a Supreme Court case decided nearly 40 years ago. 

There is palpable irony in our current political climate, as well.  Having the majority of citizens in a country that has evolved through time from a collection of oppressed colonies who were in turn oppressing everyone but white, landowning men into a global Super Power that provides equal protection under the law and equal opportunity at success to ALL people reject the notion that through time and environmental stimuli, species of plants and animals evolve and adapt to their surrounds would be hysterical were it not so sad.  A nation comprised almost entirely of the offspring of immigrants fearing the impact that future immigration may have on its culture is another sad reality.  The country of invention, from the cotton gin, to the steam engine, to the automobile, to the personal computer and the internet choosing to stand pat or return to an over glorified past rather than fix what’s broken regardless of profit and create a better tomorrow for our children.  This was not the vision for this country my Grandparents had, nor is it the vision I have for my Grandchildren.

When you couple our collective foolish pride with two leviathan Political Parties set up like the corporations that fund them, complete with marketing, advertising, and acquisitions arms, you get our current situation.  A happily ignorant, self absorbed, self entitled, and selfish populace choosing between two candidates propped by and packaged by political strategists employing combat techniques against each other.  It’s reached a point that both parties view each other as the enemy, rather than fellow citizens with philosophical differences.  Then you add in the short attention span media coverage, which is always looking for the “gotcha” sound bite to fuel their barely concealed agenda behind one of the two parties, and you get polarizing candidates at the national level like Todd Akin or Nancy Pelosi.  Being moderate or compromising is a sign of weakness to the voters that view their political affiliation like they view their favorite sports team.  We no longer want common sense policies that provide the best answer for the common good, we want to demonize then dominate the opposition party.  We want to replace a civil political dialogue with a shouted monologue, but, most of all we want to return to our country’s glory years rather than work to create our own.

The remedies to these serious societal ills are only clearly defined in their difficulty.  Much like how an addict or alcoholic has to hit bottom before being receptive to therapy, I believe we will, collectively, have to wake up in drowning in our own piss and vomit before we’re truly prepared to start rebuilding what it took us such a short time to destroy.  Even then, we will probably back slide a few times and wake up next to that nasty whore from last call.

Pride and ignorance should never be virtues worthy of celebration or pursuit.  Instead of foaming at the mouth over condemning or defending an ill-informed opinion spoken by a man from whom such an opinion shouldn’t be a surprise, why don’t we analyze the circumstances and our culpability in those circumstances that have allowed this man to, not only serve for over a decade in the House of Representatives and become a ranking member of that legislative body, but be a few short months from possibly being voted into the senior house of our Legislature for six years?

For What It's Worth

In 1966, Buffalo Springfield, a band consisting of the "Stills and Young" of what would become Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young recorded and released a song entitled, "For What It's Worth."  Here's a video to remind you of the song, if it's not somehow carved on your cerebral cortex:

It's amazing to me that I can take lyrics written in 1966 and apply them to the present day.  

Now, before any of you jump to any conclusions about what I'm trying to say, let me give you some historical context for the song and its creation.

Contrary to a popular belief, fed by movie licensing of the song for soundtracks to movies from Born on the 4th of July to Forrest Gump, this song wasn't written about the escalating tensions over Vietnam, the draft, or really anything to which is commonly associated in our present collective consciousness.  It IS a work of protest about a high profile, for that time, public protest of over 1,000 people (a protest that even lead to the arrest of Peter Fonda.) but the protest wasn't about Vietnam, or even war.

Los Angeles and San Fransisco, in the mid to late 60's, and to a lesser extent today, were hotbeds of a so-called counter culture movement, which was really just an evolution of the Beat movement within literature and art, that attracted artists and pretenders alike to the Pacific Coast.  Unlike the earlier migrations to California, for gold in the 1850's to the promise of shipping, manufacturing, or entertainment industry jobs in the early 20th Century, these people descended en masse for the beautiful weather, the surf culture that had been exported to the rest of the country through groups like the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean, and art education at places like the famed Film School at the University of Southern California.  They were young, idealistic, and rebellious toward the buttoned down, suburban upbringing so many of them had experienced.

During this movement, myriad landmark bands of the time, and of modern musical history were formed.  Bands like the Grateful Dead and Big Brother and the Holding Company in San Franscisco and The Doors in L.A. among many others would rise from this movement.  One such band, Buffalo Springfield, would form in 1966 comprised of established, touring musicians from both the U.S. and Canada, and quickly become the house band at the famous Whiskey A Go Go on Hollywood's legendary Sunset Strip.

With any semi-drastic change in culture, resistance from the established culture is nearly guaranteed.  The clubs and bars on the Sunset Strip were now featuring a less palatable music, at least for that time.  The clientele of those establishments were experimenting with recreation drugs beyond the typical Jazz musician affiliation with marijuana, and onto more severe hallucinogens such as LSD and psilocybin and partied, influenced by those and other substances into the wee hours of the morning.  This was the beginning of the Sunset Strip earning it's reputation as a 24/7 party.  Local residents and business owners, began to lobby the LA City Council to impose a strict curfew of 10:00 pm, which was eventually ratified.  This, of course, did not sit well with the artist scene.

On November 12, 1966 a protest of the curfew and loitering laws was organized and executed by over 1000 patrons of the local bar and music scene, which obviously lead to a standoff with the LAPD.  These protests have since been deemed the "hippie riots" which might be the most ironic name ever, and similar clashes continued on into the 70's.

These protests against curfew and loitering ordinances are what inspired to Stephen Stills to write this song, not Vietnam, or the US Government's increasing commitment of resources to it.  Also, to the best of my reading comprehension, I can't see that the lyrics support one side or the other.  I will grant the Buffalo Springfield probably had a vested interest in the situation, given their status on the strip, but, the lyrics seem to be more descriptive of what Stills witnessed in those protests than which side was correct.  In fact, they lyrics pretty much spell this out with "Nobody's right, when everybody's wrong."

Personally, I think this song was a commentary on human interaction, and especially disagreement.  Stills seems to specifically point out that defeating your opposition, at some point in any conflict, becomes more important than the issue itself.

These lyrics, in particular, are, the most poignant:

"What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say, hooray for our side"

The usual focus of the song's lyrics, at least when it has become the back drop to a popular movie, are the lines, "There's a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware."  It makes perfect sense, when those lines are taken out of the context of the song and projected onto a specific and manipulative agenda.  It's really no different that people focusing on the chorus of Springsteen's "Born in the USA" and thinking it's a patriotic anthem.

I said earlier I was amazed at just how easily this song can be applied to our current political climate, specifically the discourse within that climate.  Amazed probably wasn't a descriptive enough word.  This song is a nearly unquestioned generational anthem, and it's almost sad that the majority of that generation completely misunderstands or purposely ignores the meaning of the song.  

By and large, this is the generation still leading this country, at least in name.  Not a single one them really leads anything but cash into their pockets in exchange for their vote or name as a sponsor on a piece of legislation that will continue to destroy the nation their parents left them. 

 In spite of this, the media magnates from that generation are very quick to jump in and pat them on the back for all the great things they did, like the Summer of Love, which basically was just a bunch of people stoned off their ass and tripping their balls off having unprotected sex and creating new birth defects on children they'll either ignore or abandon.  I don't usually make it a habit to agree with Ted Nugent on social issues, but the Nuge basically nails that one.

In the course of a single generation, we went from a country united through the struggle of the Great Depression and the winning of the Great War, who viewed themselves as individual members of a society that could potentially be great, and were willing to work and sacrifice to achieve that collective potential to a group of spoiled adult-children who expected the world to be handed to them.  They didn't want to fight external enemies, because they rejected the idea of Communist Bloc nations as true enemies.  They instead, collectively chose to fight the established policies of the prior generation, or only adopt the policies that better protected their own personal interests.  

They deify Reagan for his tax cuts, and for defeating the Soviets without every sending a soldier to die.  They ignore some simple facts of Reagan's time as President.  Reagan cut taxes to help stimulate the economy from how stagnant it was in 81 and 82.  He also grossly increased spending, specifically Defense spending, creating a larger budget deficit than all the Presidents before him COMBINED (does that sound familiar to you Tea Party folks?)  The only thing is, Reagan had legitimate reasons for these actions, and he also had to gain bi-partisan Congressional support for these initiatives, because both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats.  

He found a way to cater his policy initiatives to appeal to both sides of the aisle, and the other side of the aisle, in spite of their status as being in the "opposing party" actually worked with him.  You see, back in those days, you only opposed a person based on party during the election cycle.  Once you got to Washington, you acted in the best interests of your constituents and your country.  Publicly admitting that your ultimate goal as Speaker of the House was to insure the sitting President was only a single term President was a level that even Newt Gingrich wouldn't sink.

Throughout our society, we can still see a similar mentality to the protesters from that Saturday in November, 1966.  They want an all-or-nothing situation.  Even they were supposedly pacifists in the 60's, that generation now views compromise as weakness.

Even though voting to completely repeal the bill now commonly known as Obamacare is essentially impossible to get through the Senate, let alone avoid a Presidential Veto, House Republicans have proposed, debated, and voted upon that very issue 33 times.  It's symbolism over substance.  If they truly want to correct the issues with the ACA as it stands, propose amendments that actually improve the bill rather than attempting, when you know it's in vain, to repeal it.

They then begat my generation, and completely fucked us up by raising us to think our only obligation was to ourselves, that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, there is no need for discussion, because changing your position or opinion at any point is betraying yourself.  It's a sign of weakness, and the best way to resolve a potential disagreement is to talk over the person on the opposite, yell at them, or question their love for this country.  The typical invite to move somewhere else is always in your back pocket, should your opponent be too stubborn.  

Stephen Stills was warning his own generation of this in 1966, yet the didn't listen then, they're not listening now, and what's worse, their children are, by and large, a collection of Eric Cartmans, without the performing ability.

I know my parents are a part of that generation, but, when I speak generally, I do so knowing that there will be myriad exceptions to that statement.  When I speak of generations, I speak of the majority, or at the least the controlling interest in that generation.  I will examine my generation from a cultural/sociological perspective in the very near future, but I saw this analysis as the priority, to at least give a point of reference to the analysis on the Gen X, Y, Millenials, etc.  If you want to know more about the Greatest Generation that begat our currently ruling generation, I believe Tom Brokaw did a comprehensive analysis.  That is, of course, if you're willing to believe the writings of an obvious member of the "liberal media" as it relates to the true American heroes of the 20th Century...

Political Rant in C-Awesome

*DISCLAIMER*  What you're about to read will be, at times, vulgar, employ coarse language, and will hopefully make you question many of your views about American politics in general.  I will be didactic, arrogant, and outright insulting to people identifying themselves under the current buzzword of our political lexicon.  I make this disclaimer not as a preemptive apology for what follows, but for informational purposes.  If you hold any ideology personal, you should probably leave this page NOW.  Further, if what I'm about to write offends you, I don't care.  In fact, I hope I offend you, but I also hope my words make you begin to question at least some portion of what you believe this country and this election to be about.

First things, first, the United States of America is not now, now has it ever been a Christian nation, and if it was, Jesus, himself would have descended from heaven and personally smacked the fuck out of every slave owner in the south and would have personally delivered floods and pestilence for the manner in which us white folks forcibly removed myriad natives from the lands they had occupied for centuries.  To think that the vicious manner in which our forefathers treated anyone that wasn't white and didn't have a penis as the founding of a Christian nation, even in spite of the words of three of our first four Presidents (Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) is to be so completely blind or stupid that you should be sterilized and probably flogged with barbed wire.  This sentiment is a complete lie and runs against not only our documented history of being complete dickwads, but against the words of the two men who authored our National Manifesto, in Jefferson, and the very plan of Government we still employ in Madison.  I know it sounds nice to think that without the Bible and commandments like "Thou shalt not kill." we wouldn't have ever outlawed murder, but our founders found a different interpretation of that commandment to mean "Thou shalt not kill other white men, unless they're loyal to Great Britain, black and red and brown people are okay."

The next person that tries to sell that rotten bag of goods to me gets beaten with the pointy end of a claw hammer.

I don't begrudge people their faith, but please stop trying to revise American history to include your faith.  Yes, I know there were men of faith that founded certain colonies, but those guys were here because they were too uptight for 17th Century Great Britain.  They came here for "religious freedom" but only their own.  If you ran afoul of the Puritans, you got burned at the stake, or banished.  It's not like the Pilgrims hit Massachusetts Bay, and, suddenly, there were Buddhists and Hindus and Jews just walking the earth in this country.  Also, while Plymouth was founded by good Christian folk, the original colonies in Virginia and beyond were created for the most American of reasons:  to make dat cheese, fool.  These were also the FIRST colonies of British people on this continent, but we don't usually hear that in the lead-up to Thanksgiving.

Finally, this country nearly imploded, and waged the deadliest war in its history over the rights of white people to keep black people as slaves.  I know it's been argued that it was an issue of states rights versus federal tyranny, but the issue the Southern (Confederate States of America)States wanted to determine for themselves was whether they could continue to enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color.  I'm sure somewhere, the Almighty was smiling down upon the battlefields at Gettysburg and thinking to himself, "these motherfuckers are totally doing my will, and I will continue to bless this country and its people from one ocean white with foam to the other.  Only after they whack that goofy bearded bastard in the funny hat, though."

If you're not rolling your eyes at that last statement, leave now, because it's going to get worse.

Next, our government was not meant to only feature TWO parties.  I know it started that way with Adams' Federalists against Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, but just because it starts that way doesn't mean it's the way it's supposed to be done.  To borrow from Chris Rock, "you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, it doesn't mean it's to be done."

We're witnessing the folly in only employing two extremely powerful political parties as I type this.  When there's only two, it becomes "us against them" and you begin to view your own fellow citizens as enemies.  We saw the same thing in the 1840's and 50's, yet didn't learn a fucking thing.  Why?  Because, generally, we're lazy, stupid and self entitled.  I literally spent this afternoon attempting to explain to a Romney WHY he couldn't, by himself, repeal "Obamacare' and replace it with his own plan just because he promised he would in some stump speech in Jack's Asscrack, Oklahoma.

Since the ACA passed, so-called "conservatives" have been screeching loud and at frequencies only dogs can hear to have it repealed.  They tried doing so through the courts, yet their own, hand-picked Chief Justice actually sided with the Constitution rather than their screeching.  It was almost like seeing Lex Luthor have Kryptonite used on him.  Then they really got pissed, and have started working to repeal it within Congress.  The only problem I can see there is that they only control the House, and, last I checked, Obama can still veto anything they put in front of him.  I'm reminded of a phrase my old football coach used to use about "pissing up a rope."

I will try to put this in its simplest terms.  Unless the GOP gains what amounts to the same level of "fillibuster-proof" majority the Democrats had from 2009-2011, Obamacare is here to stay for a while.  Fighting it is like fighting the Borg or me buying a girdle and wig.  Underneath it all, I'm still a fat, bald fuck, I'm just "fighting it."  It's like seeing your pet hamster on a his exercise wheel.  He can run until his heart explodes, but he never got anywhere.  I have more metaphors, but I don't want to shoot my wad in one paragraph.

The one thing about this whole health care debate that really chafes my sack is this.  When we're talking about health care, we're not talking about buying a cheeseburger or a car, we're talking about people literally living and dying.  It's not a fucking luxury, it's a necessary service like having water or education.

Let me make sure I completely understand some legal issues related to my responsibilities as a parent.  I'm legally required to educate my child, either through public or private facilities, but I'm not legally required to ensure he has access to health care.  My son being stupid, at least by itself, won't kill him.  His not seeing a doctor for strep throat will.  At what point did seeing a teacher, nine months out of the year become a legal right and responsibility, but seeing a doctor that could save your life became a luxury?

Access to quality health care, in a developed economy, has become a basic human right.  My education has taught me that my government exists to preserve and provide for my basic human rights.  Should I decide, and have the means to pursue higher quality care, that is my option, just like it's my option to send my son to private school over public school, or to buy a Honda or Ferrari with which to transport him there.

Here's the part where I'm sure the word "socialism" will enter your brain, and that's okay.  For some reason, we Americans have been taught to fear 'socialism" as an infringement on our personal liberty.  That's okay, too.  The thing is, our current, completely privatized system has been fucking people out of their hard earned money for decades, and killing a lot of people we love and care about, needlessly, all while charging the average citizen about $5000 more for the privilege of getting care that is well below the standards of care enjoyed at a huge discount by our buddies in Canada, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.  I'm all for perpetuating the status quo, when it's working, but our status quo hasn't been working since the Nixon administration.

Trying to remedy the situation in and of itself isn't socialism, but the examples we have of health care working in developed nations has shown us that, at least in this case, socialism is an improvement over what we currently have.

If you believe our current President to be socialist, well, you have problems I can't fully address or correct in this blog.  Fortunately his health care reform package goes into effect in January, and maybe you'll be able to afford the treatment you need, then.

While I don't fully agree with everything from the ACA, I can't envision it being any worse that the current system.  If it turns out to be, then so be it.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I believe our current political system is completely lacking in both integrity and accountability.  I trust neither the plastic smiles of those pursuing office, nor the machine that places them in front of me for my vote.  Our elected officials ceased being "civil servants" the minute it became a career option.  Not a single one of them acts in the interests of the common citizen, they act only to maintain the office to which they've ascended.  As a society, we fail to hold them accountable for this because we, by and large, we no longer interest ourselves with the civic duties inherent to being citizens in this republic.  We've reduced ourselves to pathetic fanboys of our particular side while ignoring the tangible impact these dickwads have on our daily lives.  We're consumed by out of context sound bites, finger pointing, and an "you're either with us or against us" ethos that is killing the nation many of our ancestors built for us.

I love my country, and I proudly served it in its armed forces, but as I read and listen to what passes for political discourse I become more and more disillusioned with the people that comprise it.  That disillusionment is turning into disgust, and my sympathy is at an all time low.  You get the government you deserve, and unfortunately, most of you deserve this farce.

You stopped educating yourselves, and chose a side where you're fed distorted information which you swallow like mother's milk.  You are not my enemy, but my fellow citizen.  Yet you choose to dismiss anything I say, whether it's based on fact or logic, as the ramblings of the "other side."

Unlike you, I never chose one side or the other, and even if I had, it wouldn't blind me from the simple fact that the two sides are no longer about ideals, but your financial standing.  Both "sides" play for the same team, and it isn't yours or mine.

I suppose I could have just posted this video, and save myself carpal tunnel and some time, but my buddy George puts a nice bow on this whole thing.  I actually have two of his videos to share, because they're very poignant and very true.  Enjoy, then go fuck yourselves.