I've never read the healthcare bill, or the stimulus bill, or any piece of legislation for that matter. And guess what, neither have you! So, when blogging about the State of the Union Address from last night, I won't blog about what was accurate or inaccurate, what's good policy or bad policy. There ARE, however, things about last night's speech that I feel I CAN comment on because they are based on what I SAW and HEARD. And they are a part of why I voted for Barack Obama in the first place. Not because I'm a Democrat or a Liberal (I'm not), but because he's running a different kind of approach to politics that I am in favor of.
I loved hearing the President, in the State of the Union, pretty much tell congress to cut the shit. Whether directed at the Fox News Propaganda Machine, or Republicans trying to filibuster or otherwise block real legislation, or Democrats acting smug, I heard mostly, "Let's cut out the politics, the art of getting away with not doing our job, and instead, how about we DO our job!"
I loved that I actually laughed during the State of the Union, and not because the president is a blithering buffoon who can't pronounce "nuclear," but because he was genuinely funny. Bush was supposed to have been the president you can sit down and have a beer with. Turns out, Obama really IS that guy.
I loved how Obama, standing 2 feet away from the Supreme Court, had the balls to call them out on their decision to allow corporations to contribute to election campaigns. I loved the "wait, what now?" look on Ruth Bader Ginsberg's face when he said it, too.
I loved how it started off very somber, acknowledging that things in America are not good right now. And suggested ways to improve things. I loved how the gratuitous standing ovations didn't start until 30 minutes in.
I loved the notion of, "even if you don't believe in the Global Warming Theory, acknowledge the fact that this is where the jobs are going to be, so let's get on board and lead this movement." I, personally, don't believe in the fabricated worldwide disaster that's supposedly going to happen if I don't start driving a hybrid, but I will agree that hybrid cars are useful, helpful, and overall, a good idea.
I loved that there were a few times that were REALLY uncomfortable. Like when he acknowledged that the Democrats are STILL in the majority. Like every time he reminded everyone that it was BUSH who screwed everything up, not him. And like every time he called out the Republitards on their personal attacks. I loved the silence which signaled that we won't applaud that, but we also can't deny it.
To me, that indicated that there were real problems being faced realistically. The State of the Union this year was not a political circle jerk meant to hype everyone up with empty patriotism. Last night it was our leader outlining his plan to move forward, inviting others to work with him, and explaining just how much bullshit he would tolerate.
I also, for the first time in recent memory, was able to sit through the whole thing. I found that I wasn't frustrated by meaningless applause, but rather welcoming of genuine applause. Not angry at imbecilic ranting, but interested in these ideas, even when I didn't agree with or understand them. And most importantly, not mentally numbed by an idiotic illiterate bimbo, but fully engaged by an intelligent, thoughtful speaker.
I liked it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Filibuster away!
So, I'm in sixth grade, and I'm a finalist in the school spelling bee. And the moderator hits me with my final word. "Filibuster." I had never heard that word before, and had no idea what it meant, but there was something ominous about it. Something eerie. Something Evil. I couldn't spell it, and it led to a series of Spelling bee losses throughout my school career. (Ask me sometime about the time I "misspelled" Musicians.)
I still only gather the meaning of the word. According to Wikipedia, "A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal."
I hate filibusters. And I'll tell you why. It goes beyond spelling bees. See, I'm an idealist and a rejector of political tactics. The way I see it, congresspeople should debate and discuss the merits of a particular piece of legislation, with the goal being the actual goal of a debate... to show both sides of an issue, and seek a compromise.
If the legislature is good, then debate with me to your hearts content. The merit of the bill will shine through and I can counter any argument you throw at it. If there IS a legitimate concern regarding the bill, bring it up, and we can amend it. That's how government SHOULD work. And as William Penn said, "If men be good, government cannot be bad."
A filibuster, to me, is a cop out. It shows me that you don't have a legitimate complaint against a bill, and your debate tactics aren't convincing anyone, so you'll read the entire Harry Potter series until time runs out and the bill dies. It's a really Dick-ish thing to do, and I tend to oppose any congressperson who does it.
Now, I can celebrate the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate, because the better candidate won. No, not because he's a Republican, and no, not because he opposes the Obama Heath care Plan, but because he ran the better campaign and showed a better sense of commitment and competence than Martha Coakley did. Coakley probably figured she was a shoe in, and did very little real campaigning. Brown, on the other hand was a pit bull who went out and pleaded his case to the public, and the public responded.
There are some out there, however, who are celebrating it because it's a Republican victory, and after Democrats kicked their hineys in the past few elections, it signals a swing back for them. But mostly, it's because losing this seat eliminates the Democrats' "Filibuster-proof majority." There's some rule, that if 60% of the Senate says "Sit Down, John," then a Filibuster can't happen. But now, it's not 60, it's 59. BWAH-HA-HA. So now the dicks, I mean Republicans, can read their grandmother's recipes for every style of pie, and stop the Health care Plan from passing.
Since the "valid" "arguments" and "concerns" of the opposition didn't sway most of the congress or the people, this is now the only way the will of a majority of the people can be disregarded and defeated.
They imply that Obama is "forcing" his plan upon us. And yet, their plan is to filibuster the bill, forcing the majority of congress, representing the majority of Americans, to accomplish their goal. It is those who feel that this is a good thing who favor forcing their will upon the unwilling.
The Democrats have conceded and compromised the heck out of this bill. They dumped the public option, which most Americans support. They changed the bill to allow for a lot of what the bill's opposition claimed was their problem with it. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO! They have a majority of Congress and the Presidency. If it comes to a vote, they win. It might be my naivete talking, but I believe the bill's supporters have been interested in genuine debate and compromise, and those having a "59-41" party just want to impose THEIR will when, in fact, they are out voted.
I still only gather the meaning of the word. According to Wikipedia, "A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal."
I hate filibusters. And I'll tell you why. It goes beyond spelling bees. See, I'm an idealist and a rejector of political tactics. The way I see it, congresspeople should debate and discuss the merits of a particular piece of legislation, with the goal being the actual goal of a debate... to show both sides of an issue, and seek a compromise.
If the legislature is good, then debate with me to your hearts content. The merit of the bill will shine through and I can counter any argument you throw at it. If there IS a legitimate concern regarding the bill, bring it up, and we can amend it. That's how government SHOULD work. And as William Penn said, "If men be good, government cannot be bad."
A filibuster, to me, is a cop out. It shows me that you don't have a legitimate complaint against a bill, and your debate tactics aren't convincing anyone, so you'll read the entire Harry Potter series until time runs out and the bill dies. It's a really Dick-ish thing to do, and I tend to oppose any congressperson who does it.
Now, I can celebrate the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate, because the better candidate won. No, not because he's a Republican, and no, not because he opposes the Obama Heath care Plan, but because he ran the better campaign and showed a better sense of commitment and competence than Martha Coakley did. Coakley probably figured she was a shoe in, and did very little real campaigning. Brown, on the other hand was a pit bull who went out and pleaded his case to the public, and the public responded.
There are some out there, however, who are celebrating it because it's a Republican victory, and after Democrats kicked their hineys in the past few elections, it signals a swing back for them. But mostly, it's because losing this seat eliminates the Democrats' "Filibuster-proof majority." There's some rule, that if 60% of the Senate says "Sit Down, John," then a Filibuster can't happen. But now, it's not 60, it's 59. BWAH-HA-HA. So now the dicks, I mean Republicans, can read their grandmother's recipes for every style of pie, and stop the Health care Plan from passing.
Since the "valid" "arguments" and "concerns" of the opposition didn't sway most of the congress or the people, this is now the only way the will of a majority of the people can be disregarded and defeated.
They imply that Obama is "forcing" his plan upon us. And yet, their plan is to filibuster the bill, forcing the majority of congress, representing the majority of Americans, to accomplish their goal. It is those who feel that this is a good thing who favor forcing their will upon the unwilling.
The Democrats have conceded and compromised the heck out of this bill. They dumped the public option, which most Americans support. They changed the bill to allow for a lot of what the bill's opposition claimed was their problem with it. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO! They have a majority of Congress and the Presidency. If it comes to a vote, they win. It might be my naivete talking, but I believe the bill's supporters have been interested in genuine debate and compromise, and those having a "59-41" party just want to impose THEIR will when, in fact, they are out voted.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Earthquakes, and Television
I'm going to try to blog more in 2010. To me, the purpose of a blog is to A) express my opinions creatively and thoughtfully; 2) To Chronicle the events of this year, so that I can look back and remember the events of the past year; and d) to bring a perspective to the table that is different from the usual 2 sided arguement, I often find that my opinion differs form both left AND right.
This week, I see three major issues that would contribute to a blog entry: The Leno/Conan Drama... Which is now over. Conan's out, Leno's in, NBC sucks; The Food Network/Cablevision Drama... We want FN and HGTV back, Cablevision sucks; or the real drama, the Earthquake in Haiti.
My problem is that the Earthquake is a no-brainer. The right way to feel at this moment is sympathy for those lost, or who have lost, and to do what you can to help. Me? Sadly, the best that I can do is donate money to the relief effort, which I have done.
But there's no debate to sort through. There's no Anti-Earthquake/Pro-Earthquake arguement. Who could possibly be Pro-Earthquake? I mean, what kind of a loser idiot would try to imply that the Haitians deserved such a disaster? (Robertson) What kind of heartless bastard would try to politicize it by condemning the president for doing the right thing? (Limbaugh)
So this blog entry is simply to mark the moment, address the issue, and then move on. We will continue to help the relief effort, and try to support people here who have people down there. We will pray, and donate time, and/or money. Just as we should.
This week, I see three major issues that would contribute to a blog entry: The Leno/Conan Drama... Which is now over. Conan's out, Leno's in, NBC sucks; The Food Network/Cablevision Drama... We want FN and HGTV back, Cablevision sucks; or the real drama, the Earthquake in Haiti.
My problem is that the Earthquake is a no-brainer. The right way to feel at this moment is sympathy for those lost, or who have lost, and to do what you can to help. Me? Sadly, the best that I can do is donate money to the relief effort, which I have done.
But there's no debate to sort through. There's no Anti-Earthquake/Pro-Earthquake arguement. Who could possibly be Pro-Earthquake? I mean, what kind of a loser idiot would try to imply that the Haitians deserved such a disaster? (Robertson) What kind of heartless bastard would try to politicize it by condemning the president for doing the right thing? (Limbaugh)
So this blog entry is simply to mark the moment, address the issue, and then move on. We will continue to help the relief effort, and try to support people here who have people down there. We will pray, and donate time, and/or money. Just as we should.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Leno Sucks
I must keep myself based in reality, by saying that it's only TV, and nothing to get worked up about. But I hate NBC and Jay Leno right now.
I've never found Jay Leno to be funny on the Tonight Show. I like only one of his bits, Headlines, which he borrowed from Steve Allen, and isn't a testament to HIS comic genius, but rather the humor in the misprints he shows us. I'm a HUGE Conan O'Brien fan, as well as a fan of Jimmy Fallon.
Last year, Jay Leno gave up the Tonight Show. I've heard many theories as to why he did that: Conan's contract was up, and he had to clear the way for Conan to take over the Tonight Show in order to keep him at NBC; or my personal theory, Jay orchestrated this early retirement in order to push NBC into boosting his contract somehow in order to keep him there.
But here's the thing... Whatever the motivation, Jay Leno left the coveted 11:30 slot! He gave up the Tonight Show, he doesn't get to have it back. Johnny Carson didn't come back, neither did Jack Paar or Steve Allen, they either REALLY retired, or did some other show.
If you recall the circumstances whereby Jay got the Tonight Show (instead of David Letterman) there was some political manipulation which eventually won him his contract, famously depicted in the HBO movie "The Late Shift." Jay was quite popular, but let's face it, it was THE TONIGHT SHOW with jay leno.... not JAY LENO'S the tonight show.
Now, I've seen the 10pm show. It's everything that the Tonight Show was with Jay at the helm. Fewer guests, but the same brand of comedy, in fact even MORE comedy for the 10pm format. The show isn't doing well. And the poor ratings of the show were hurting the local news ratings. That right there... shows you that he just doesn't have the pull without the Tonight Show brand backing him up.
A Talk show is a talk show is a talk show, what sells it is the personality of the host, which comes through in the comedy. I have a theory that Jimmy Kimmel starts at 12 because that's when the comedy portion of Tonight and Letterman ends, and the guests begin. That way, Kimmel doesn't have to compete against these two powerhouses of comedy.
I'll tell you... if Conan O'Brien were to get a nightly show at 10 PM, I'd be tuning in every day because I find him just THAT funny. I DVRd Conan's show at 12:30, and I DVR it now at 11:30. The audience will follow the talent. If Jay Leno's audience won't do the same, then that says something about the guy you have there.
So they cancelled the 10pm Jay Leno Show, and now they, for some reason, need to find a place for him. WHY? He sucks! People aren't watching him! CUT HIM LOOSE! Instead, NBC plans to put him BACK at 11:30. Moving Conan and Jimmy Fallon up to 12 and 1am, and Cancelling the Carson Daly show. A complete disruption of the late night schedule.
As I said, wherever Conan and Jimmy are, I'll follow. That's not what's bugging me. What's bugging me is that NBC is disrupting their entire schedule and moving everyone to very inconvenient times for what... an unfunny insufferable douchebag who has just proven in this move to 10pm that he shouldn't have his own talk show! Mediocrity should not be rewarded like this. It lessens the quality of entertainment all around. Plus, Conan worked for 14 years at the Lat Night show. He EARNED his turn at the helm of the Tonight Show.
If NBC feels the need to keep Jay Leno in their employ, how about putting him on after Carson. Yeah, a 2am show. Really Freakin' Late Night with Jay Leno.
As Johnny Carson reportedly said to Letterman when Dave got screwed by NBC in favor of Leno, "If it were me, I'd walk."
I've never found Jay Leno to be funny on the Tonight Show. I like only one of his bits, Headlines, which he borrowed from Steve Allen, and isn't a testament to HIS comic genius, but rather the humor in the misprints he shows us. I'm a HUGE Conan O'Brien fan, as well as a fan of Jimmy Fallon.
Last year, Jay Leno gave up the Tonight Show. I've heard many theories as to why he did that: Conan's contract was up, and he had to clear the way for Conan to take over the Tonight Show in order to keep him at NBC; or my personal theory, Jay orchestrated this early retirement in order to push NBC into boosting his contract somehow in order to keep him there.
But here's the thing... Whatever the motivation, Jay Leno left the coveted 11:30 slot! He gave up the Tonight Show, he doesn't get to have it back. Johnny Carson didn't come back, neither did Jack Paar or Steve Allen, they either REALLY retired, or did some other show.
If you recall the circumstances whereby Jay got the Tonight Show (instead of David Letterman) there was some political manipulation which eventually won him his contract, famously depicted in the HBO movie "The Late Shift." Jay was quite popular, but let's face it, it was THE TONIGHT SHOW with jay leno.... not JAY LENO'S the tonight show.
Now, I've seen the 10pm show. It's everything that the Tonight Show was with Jay at the helm. Fewer guests, but the same brand of comedy, in fact even MORE comedy for the 10pm format. The show isn't doing well. And the poor ratings of the show were hurting the local news ratings. That right there... shows you that he just doesn't have the pull without the Tonight Show brand backing him up.
A Talk show is a talk show is a talk show, what sells it is the personality of the host, which comes through in the comedy. I have a theory that Jimmy Kimmel starts at 12 because that's when the comedy portion of Tonight and Letterman ends, and the guests begin. That way, Kimmel doesn't have to compete against these two powerhouses of comedy.
I'll tell you... if Conan O'Brien were to get a nightly show at 10 PM, I'd be tuning in every day because I find him just THAT funny. I DVRd Conan's show at 12:30, and I DVR it now at 11:30. The audience will follow the talent. If Jay Leno's audience won't do the same, then that says something about the guy you have there.
So they cancelled the 10pm Jay Leno Show, and now they, for some reason, need to find a place for him. WHY? He sucks! People aren't watching him! CUT HIM LOOSE! Instead, NBC plans to put him BACK at 11:30. Moving Conan and Jimmy Fallon up to 12 and 1am, and Cancelling the Carson Daly show. A complete disruption of the late night schedule.
As I said, wherever Conan and Jimmy are, I'll follow. That's not what's bugging me. What's bugging me is that NBC is disrupting their entire schedule and moving everyone to very inconvenient times for what... an unfunny insufferable douchebag who has just proven in this move to 10pm that he shouldn't have his own talk show! Mediocrity should not be rewarded like this. It lessens the quality of entertainment all around. Plus, Conan worked for 14 years at the Lat Night show. He EARNED his turn at the helm of the Tonight Show.
If NBC feels the need to keep Jay Leno in their employ, how about putting him on after Carson. Yeah, a 2am show. Really Freakin' Late Night with Jay Leno.
As Johnny Carson reportedly said to Letterman when Dave got screwed by NBC in favor of Leno, "If it were me, I'd walk."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)