Looking ahead... and back: SNL & Selective Memory

One of the best examples of people's selective memory is Saturday Night Live. Ask folks who were around long enough about the early years and they all talk about how great it was. Their memory must have been refreshed by "Best of" recordings because while plenty of former cast members were truly special, the show hasn't really changed in quality all that much. Like all things, it's had its highs and lows, but it's still pretty good for what it does. Those who selectively remember only the high points through some very rough early years tend to forget how horrible all live bands used to sound or how many dud sketches even the greats sluffed through. What brings me to finally posting this worthless rambling is recent episode with host, comedian Dane Cook. It was one of the best I've seen in all of my memory with the exception maybe of lost episodes like the "dick" episode that will never be seen again. Anyway, this Cook guy's a nut. Not just a funny stand up performer, but a truly unique character with an observant, dead-on, twisted perspective and, as it turns out, a decent sketch performer as well. His weird energy filled in every minute of the show from his intro monologue (a rare, real writer-performer one) to the last skit. I can't remember the last time I actually stayed awake through an entire episode, but that's only because I'm getting old. This one kept me watching and when the music played and the cast gathered for the final call, I couldn't believe I'd been watching for the entire hour. You know life's good when you notice something simple and utterly unimportant like that.

You know what else is cool? High school sports. The night of that SNL episode also kicked off the basketball and wrapped up the football season. Champs were decided on gridirons in some parts of the state while contenders showed their game faces and announced their presence in gyms. The Russia-New Bremen game was as exciting as the SNL spectacle. (To a Russia fan) Two county champ candidates brushed off the off-season rust and ran at each other full speed in a game that could have gone either way until about 25 seconds were left. How cool is that?

And then, in one of the first worst winter blasts of the year, I drove all the way homeover and through freezing rain covered with a dusting of snow without seeing even one car in the ditch. It's almost as if the world (my little piece of it anyway) has suddenly wised up and seen the light... and that light is shining on me. It's a welcome change... or is it? Maybe I just ignored the signs of it earlier.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Luth

Why no comments on the Kinsley piece?

I was in Iraq when I ran across the Michael Kinsley piece about how Democrats, since the Reagan years, have out-economized the Republicans consistently. The old tax and spenders have proven not only more fiscally responsible, but more fiscally conservative than the Repubs since, as Kinsley put it, "time began" during the Reagan years. I know Kinsley's pretty far left and not many people like him, but he cites White House budget reports and they support everything he claims.

What led me to this particular article though was that the O'reilly Factor picked on just about every column Kinsley wrote EXCEPT this one during the time period. Billy O criticized darn near every opinion Kinsley had except the one that happened to really matter... money talks, right? Or does it? Why is it that the two parties lob opinion pieces back and forth at each other endlessly, but when the facts come up, everyone shuts up. More importantly, how long do the Repubs get to be called the smaller government party even though their governments have cost us more since the 80s. How long do they get to claim that cutting taxes will increase revenues even though it hasn't happened since Reagan's golden era? Why is tax and spend such a bad thing but cut and spend (even more) is ok? It simply hasn't worked.

For that matter, how long do the Repubs get to be called the pro-life party when abortions have consistently gone up under their watch, but gone down under Dems. (Check the abortion stats... the numbers, like Kinsley points out, favor the Dems... in fact, Clinton is the only President since Roe v. Wade to actually see the number of abortions performed during his terms go down in 7 out of those 8 years. If you assume that his first year was still the result of the previous pres, HW Bush, then the case is sealed - Wild Willy is the last pro-life pres we've had according to the numbers) I don't know who gets to decide which party represents what, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise lately. How come nobody talks about that anymore?

At this point I feel the need, again, to point out that I don't belong to either party. I'll admit, there was a time when, if undecided or uninformed about a candidate, I would vote Dem by default, but those days are no more. Again, I only voted for one dem in the last two elections we've had. Voting by party is simply too dangerous... and as the Kinsley piece and the abortion numbers suggest, too misleading these days. If you don't know the candidate you want, you're better off not voting. Never thought I'd say that out loud.

So anyway, how come nobody ever comments about those numbers and the conclusions they support? Why isn't our "liberal" media all over that?! And if the economy is the key, how come there are so many people out there still supporting this spend and spend president?

Sign me "just curious"
Luth
Out

The Sanctity of Marriage?!

I got a call tonight requesting my support of the God-ordained institution of marriage. If I support it, I was to press 1. If I felt the sanctity of man-woman marriage was worth saving, I should press 1. Right off the bat, it reminded me of those NRA surveys where only an idiot could possibly answer "no" to any of the questions and then at the end it says, "if you answered 'yes' to any of the above questions, you should give us your money now to protect your freedoms."

This "phone survey" however was even more presumptuous... there was never any other option than agreeing and pressing 1. Because I try to keep an open mind, I listened to the entire phone call and at the end I was invited to join this grass roots movement to save America and the American, God-ordained institution of man-woman marriage. Again, only one option. I couldn't press a number to indicate that I thought whoever was behind this was as radical as other fundamentalists in the news today. I couldn't ask any questions. I couldn't press a button or dial a number to indicate that I didn't want to be called by these people again. At least the NRA survey gave me the opportunity to check the "no" box even if its questions were loaded to the point where no one ever would.

I thought the national do-not-call register protected me from unsolicited calls like this, but, as it turns out, it falls into one of those categories that doesn't count. Technically, it was a sales call and it was definitely unsolicited, but there's no way I can remove my name from their list. I couldn't respond since it was recorded, and my only option was to call an 800 number if I wanted to join the movement. This call, the recorded voice explained, would get me on the mailing list to receive the actual petition.

What kind of legitimate organization with a legitimate cause conducts business like this? It's almost like toilet-papering someone's house, or lighting the flaming bag of poo on the front step. It's hit and run. Come to think of it, it's a little like the insurgents in Iraq. They fire off a few shots then high tail it out of there, or lob a few rockets into a base from miles away and no one ever saw them. They stir up some resentment, ruffle some feathers, maybe even cause some serious harm and then disappear into the periphery.

But that's not even what really bothers me about it. What really gets me is how irritatingly inconsistent their logic is. The sanctity of man-woman marriage?! By that do they mean the more than 50% divorce rate for "man-woman" marriages in this country? Or do they mean the sanctity that hetero marriages uphold when they stay together for the kids, but cheat on their spouses? Or is it the sanctity of marriages in which battered spouses stay because divorce brings too much shame, is not allowed by the church, or is scarier than leaving because our laws already favor it so much? What, exactly, is sanctified about heterosexual marriages?

Aside from these superficial inconsistencies, there are others more deeply rooted in this nation's history. No matter what the radical right fundamentalist caller believes about the Christian intent of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, a key forefather by most accounts, thought there should be a wall between church and state. So any time a person's argument is that God ordains it, then that's all the more reason the law of our nation should stay on the other side of that wall. If God truly ordains it, then we don't really need to worry about it anyway. God doesn't need man's laws to take care of business. There are plenty of countries that think otherwise. We invaded one recently, as if to say, "hey, you can't do that... you can't use your radical religious beliefs to rule your people!" We ignored another country where this is so even though their citizens flew planes into our buildings. Iraq had, and the Saudis have laws taken directly out of their holy book. By some interpretations (radical fundamentalist interpretations), those laws even justify those violent acts. Is that the sanctity of which my caller spoke? There are plenty of places in the world for people who think religion should shape law. America was founded by people who believed it should not.

Then there's the inconsistency of the party that has promoted the momentum of groups like that represented by the caller. Marriage, legally speaking, is defined by the states. How is it that the party of smaller government, the party that promises to reduce the government's intrusion into our lives fosters such intrusive thinking? It seems awfully flip-floppy, to borrow a term from their campaign rhetoric, to promote the usurpation of state powers but claim to support the "sanctity" of those powers. That's a flip-flop involving much more than poor word choice. That's flat out saying one thing but doing another. Most people call that lying.

In this country, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is no more than a legal partnership. Churches in America view marriage differently and the members of those churches are free to believe and practice whatever they want, but the law sees it as a partnership, nothing more. What the group who called me seems to propose is that we make our law look more like their interpretation of the Bible. Two problems with that in this country: 1) The liberty that churches have to define marriage is a direct result of Jefferson's efforts and desire to separate church and state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's as simple as that. If Congress passes a law saying what kind of couples churches can marry, they are prohibiting a church's practices. 2) There is simply is no other justification for a ban on gay marriages than one based on religious beliefs... unless, of course, you consider "some people find it icky," to be a justification for constitutional change. So we either change our purposely non-religious constitution to be more religious, or we pass a law not based on religion, but that prohibits the exercise thereof. Either way, we're twisting what the founders said about Christian beliefs and ignoring what they said about keeping them out of the law. So do we believe in our constitution or not?

Merry Christmas!
Luth,
Out