Marooned in America

Mrs. Shakespeare, you betcha!

2010-07-19T20:49:00.000-07:00

DimTwitter says: 'Refudiate,' 'Misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!"

Click image to enlarge

Got to celebrate it? Really??
Um, no. No we don't.

Nobody cares if you mispoke. It's the fact that you cover up every single mistep as if it were deliberate, prescient and somehow wise that makes you a liar. Next time just say, "Sorry, I mispoke." -- End of story.

Nah... not you.

-JC

Inter-Not Site

2010-03-24T22:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the internet gives us a gift of irony. For everything you ever wanted to know about Sarah Palin, but were afraid to ask... just check out the website bearing her name:

Click Image to Enlarge

-JC

Sean Hannity is a Douchebag, Again

2010-02-17T22:35:00.000-08:00

Here we go again. Sean-boy has a new book. Yippee!! Can't wait to read his sage advice. Of course, keep in mind that this is the same guy who accused Barack Obama of infanticide -- Google it -- it means intentionally killing babies.

He accused Barack Obama of literally being a baby killer. Not that Obama simply voted against poorly written Illinois legislation. Nope. Hannity could not be bothered by the finer details or care to understand the logic involved, but instead just jumped to calling Obama a baby killer.

So I am sure he will be 'sooper dooper' objective in his analysis of the current administration, free of any silly details or pesky facts.

"A successful book is not made of what is in it, but of what is left out of it." -Samuel L. Clemens, 1897

This bodes well for Sean-boy because I am sure he will leave out plenty. Unfortunatley, what he'll leave out are facts and an objective analysis. So on second thought, maybe that's not what ol' Mr. Twain meant?

-JC

Palm Reader

2010-02-08T20:03:00.000-08:00

Interesting actions from someone who criticizes those who read from teleprompters:

(Click image to enlarge)

-JC

Information is Beautiful... Here's Proof.

2009-11-02T18:38:00.000-08:00

On the website Information is Beautiful, David McCandless has a very interesting flow chart graphic of "Blue vs. Red" which he made in collaboration with Stephanie Posavek.

The U.S. version is here: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/leftvright_US.html
It seems in the U.K. the teams wear the opposite coloUrs than they do here.

David’s new book "The Visual Miscellaneum" is coming out very soon. The U.S. release date is scheduled for November 10th. The UK version is shhheduled for early February (yes, it's pronounced “shed-uled” across the pond).

I enjoy his blog and his book looks very interesting. If you like visual illustrations—and you should since we are a nation that loves the McPaper’s daily pictographs—then do check out the blog. And if you like it, perhaps pre-order the book too.

The blog has a ton of cool stuff, a sneak peek of his book, with links to pre-order:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/

-JC

Position of Opposition

2009-10-20T20:01:00.001-07:00

A conservative friend of mine recently admitted that sometimes he thinks the Republicans are better at being the opposition party than the party in power. I think he might be correct, at least in recent years. The problem is, when Republicans are the opposition, look who that leaves in charge.

If one party is good at being the opposition, you'd expect the other party to do a better job at leading. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

-JC

Letterman-Gate, Part Deux

2009-10-05T20:15:00.000-07:00

It seems ol’Dave is in the news again. Looks like he did some not-so-great stuff with some staffers. Is there hypocrisy on his behalf? Yep. Will it be harder for him to make fun of the Spitzers, Sanfords and Clintons of the world? Probably. Will people look at him differently? Maybe, maybe not. Do I care? Not really.

He’s human. He makes mistakes. He’s not some moral compass or preacher of all things good. Yes he pokes fun at others. And yes, he will be made fun of for this for quite some time. And we know the media will keep this in the news cycle as long as they can. It has it all—sex, money, bribes, power—all the makings of a great drama. Which makes me wonder, why does the media need a flare for the dramatics? What ever happened to news and reporting? I will have to think about that in more depth soon. But for now, that is not what intrigues me.

What has me in a twist at the moment is the fact that I keep reading on blogs about the rape joke Dave made about the Palin kids. After all this time, the Blogtards still have not come to grips with the facts.

THERE WAS NO RAPE JOKE!!!

There was a joke. It was a pop culture reference to Bristol Palin’s unplanned teenage pregnancy combined with Sarah Palin’s own recent child birth. It was based on a perception that the Palin women may be somewhat fertile. That, combined with A-Rod’s dating flare, and perceived virility, which made for an easy joke. Was it a good joke? Maybe not. Was it in poor taste? Perhaps. Was it unfair to make a joke about a politician’s child? Maybe, maybe not. After all, Bristol Palin was a national spokesperson for teen abstinence at the time, and thus, a public figure in her own right.

Did Dave know that it was Willow at the baseball game and not Bristol? Nope. And it didn’t matter for the premise of joke to work. It was about the 18 year old adult daughter, Bristol. And the audience got it.

The false outrage began when Sarah Palin did one of two things. She either misunderstood the joke, perhaps due to a lack of self awareness and public perception. Or she understood the joke and went on the offensive. She attacked back with media spin based on a lie. Or, as I believe, a combination of both.

And some applaud her for doing so. And perhaps parents should be applauded for defending their kids. People were glad to see a mother defend her cubs (or guppies, or whatever it is barracudas have). They like the feisty Sarah Barracuda persona. But is that how you want a (*cough*) leader to act?

She had the chance to show poise and class. Instead she accused a man of making statutory rape jokes. She could have used this time to point out the problem of dragging children into things, instead it all became about rape jokes. She could have thought it through a bit. It was not like we had inbound nukes and only seconds to react. In this case, she could have afforded “to blink” and to think. But she shot back with false, misleading accusations.

And the Blogtards latched on. And they will not let go. So again, for the cheap seats: THERE WAS NO RAPE JOKE! And every time someone leads with that lie, they disqualify whatever statements follow. And that's a shame because there are likely some well thought out points-of-view in there somewhere. But we’ll never know about it if they keep leading with an obvious and deliberate lie... a lie that even 'Sarahcuda' has managed to move past.

-JC

Democrats Need a Will

2009-09-01T23:13:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the health care plan (or lack there of), the Blue team needs to have the will to fail. They need to be willing to put their principles on the line. The President should act as the voice of the Democratic party, stand up, and say:

“Enough! There is far too much wavering over the health care issue. There is far too much bickering. The debate has turned into a screaming match. This country is being divided by a few loud voices that are far from being the majority. They are just the loudest. So enough with all the party politics. No more pandering to the special interest groups. Sorry drug companies, no deal. Sorry A.M.A., I tried to make it all work. I wanted this to work from a non-partisan approach. I was hoping for a unified front. But nope, it didn’t happen. Instead, it’s the same old inside the Beltway chess game. The compromised plans, as they stands now, are not what the American public asked for by electing me.
So I say 'enough!' So from this moment on, I am officially asking Congress to rework the entire health care reform. Start from page one and do it all over. We tried to do this the equitable way. But too bad. You want to play hard ball. Here you go… I am calling for 100% universal single payer health care for all U.S. citizens. I am officially asking Congress to enact Medicare for all. Not only am I asking that there be no reduction of benefits for our senior citizens, I am asking Congress to pass this basic human civil service on to all of our citizens.
If someone wants to keep their current private plan, feel free. If employers want to continue offering private health care or supplemental benefits packages, great. Let no American, rich or poor, young or old, ever again go without basic health care services. Enough is enough!”

And then... the Democrats have to be willing to lose. Because eventually, one day in the future, making that kind of stand would pay off.

C’mon Blue team, stand up and hold your ground. Stop being so afraid of taking a loss that you never allow yourself the chance to win. That’s an intangible which the Red team has, but you don’t. When the Red team loses on an issue, they go down in flames, kicking and screaming and throwing punches all the way until the end. It’s not the dog in the fight, it’s the fight in the dog that counts. So get your damn tail out from between your legs and fight back. If you lose this issue this time, it will come back to bite the opposition ten fold in the future. It’s better to directly lose while doing the right thing than to indirectly lose by doing the wrong thing.

-JC

Sean Hannity is a Douchebag

2009-08-19T17:24:00.000-07:00

After a moderate amount of consideration, I have decided, yes, Keith Olbermann can be a tad smug... and yes, Glenn Beck is mostly insane (to the point of stupidity)... but Sean Hannity is a total douchebag.

-JC
Source: Here

Health Care or Wealth Care?

2009-08-04T00:14:00.000-07:00

Should we have government sponsored health care or should we try to improve our current privatized employer-based system? This can be debated in a thousand ways. Allow me put forth some observations.

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. as 37th in overall health care... and we rank anywhere from 25-50th for life expectancy, depending on the various sources. Blah blah blah, right? Ok, yes, I know. Life expectancy stats are unfair because we have cars and highways, so we are more likely to die from that. But when was the last time you knew someone who died from dysentery or malaria or mass genocide. So let’s call that a statistical dead heat.

There is no doubt that we do many things better than any other nation in the world. Need a heart transplant? Well, I'm no doctor, but I think you better buy American. Need your human genome mapped? We wrote the book (literally). America has access to the most advanced medical equipment, run by the most qualified medical professionals in the entire world. Yet, we still only rank 37th. Why? Because we know how to hit the grand slam, but games are usually won with base hits. We do the big things VERY well, but we overlook the small things – like caring for our poor, or providing the proper funding to smaller community and inner city hospitals, or finding a way to stop people from using ERs as their primary care provider. What do all 36 of the countries ahead of us have in common? Government involvement with their health care system for all citizens.

Think this over for a minute. Proponents of the current system think it fine. They like their employer sponsored health care plan. And even those who aren't thrilled by their plan at least think their current plan is good enough. And if they don't like it, they may be motivated to find another job with better benefits. So really, that's a pretty good endorsement.

But the current system has larger implications that individuals do not directly feel. Without going into the economics too much, just know that many experts say the current system is on a path of financial destruction for the U.S. – um, well, another financial destruction I suppose. You can choose to believe the "experts" or not. Its your call. No matter how you look at it, its easy to see that the current system has spun out of control. But hey, let’s not argue economics. I don’t like to argue economics any more than I like to argue astrology--because both have about as much merit. Either way, fixing our system or making a new one is gonna cost a lot.

Instead of economics, let’s talk morals. The health care system should be a universal civil service of the United States of America. The fact is that profit should not factor into certain decisions. Profit is not a consideration when the police stop a crime. Firemen don’t check the value of a home before putting out a fire. People say, “You are going to kill the insurance industry if you take profit out of the equation.” And to that I say, “Good.” Take the profit out. Profit does not belong in certain aspects of society: Police, fire, education, AND health care — all the stuff that appears in the blue pages of the old phone books (anyone remember phone books?).

That is what a wealthy, civilized nation does for its citizens. "A government for the people, by the people." Should we have a federal plan? Maybe. Maybe not. Some argue it should be a state/local issue, as are most other civil services. Perhaps a combination of both? I’m not sure where I stand on this one, but either one would be better than our current system.

So, let's assume you are a gainfully employed, able-bodied, healthy person between the ages of 18 to 65. Under our current system you are probably good to go. You are, of course, exactly the same people on average who do not really need much health care. The very young, the very old and the disabled are the ones who need it, and the ones who often suffer from a lack of coverage. And guess what? You’ll be old one day too. What coverage will you have when you retire? Say bye-bye to that company plan you like so much and say hello Medicare. We decided long ago as a nation to socialize healthcare for the elderly, the ones who use it the most. Awesome. So how about we take the money that is currently feeding the profit-based system, which really only insures the least likely to need it, and put it toward a system we can ALL use. Young and old alike.

Think about this for a minute. Seriously. You pay into a system that earns profits from the one portion of our society who are statistical the least likely to ever need it on average. And when you retire, when you’re old and actually do need major health care assistance, the system you paid into for years isn’t there for you. So how about we stop feeding that monster. I have never heard anyone point out this simply flawed logic of our current system. We are insuring those who don’t need it, and not insuring (or under insuring) those who do. And we allow an entire industry to profit from that? That’s just nuts.

So what’s the deal? What kind of watered-down plan will the congressional goofballs throw our way? Who knows? But something tells me it will be a hard pill to swallow, probably far from what the doctor ordered. But at least we have finally started to diagnose and treat the problem.

-JC

Smoking Should Be Permitted

2009-07-29T19:14:00.000-07:00

I don’t know if this is Red or Blue issue? Conservative or liberal. Something tells me it is non-partisan. But all across the nation we see many cities, counties and states starting to ban cigarette smoking in all public locations. This not only includes the expected places like schools, churches and the local mall. But it also includes bars, night clubs and restaurants. As I write this, South Dakota is in the process of trying to add smoking ban language on their 2010 ballot.

No, I am not a smoker. And I have not used any tobacco products for over 5 years. But back in the day, I was often quoted for saying, “If it weren’t bad for me, I’d put tobacco on my cereal in the morning.” So yes, when I used tobacco, I loved it. And I mean I LOVED it. But it is so unbelievably bad for you that there really is no way to justify using it. Smoking, chewing or old fashioned tobacco snuff -- it’s all bad. But this is not about the evils of tobacco. It is about the right to use tobacco. In this case, specifically, I am talking about the right to smoke in public. I honestly don’t know if smokeless tobacco even falls under the bans. I’d assume not. You rarely hear of second hand spit (I know, that’s a pretty gross thought, huh?).

As smoking bans have increased on a seemingly exponential basis, I can’t help but think about the civil ramifications. Tobacco is still legal, so why is smoking it illegal? Because the people voted for it, often by a landslide, you say. But… if a smoking ban is voted on, and passes, is that really a vote to ban smoking? Or was it the only option presented for non-smokers who don’t want to be subjected to cigarette smoke? I think the latter. Given only two choices--smoke or no smoke-- the vote is cast as a “better than doing nothing” response. It is cast as a universal vote that says “Smoking is bad.” We all agree it’s bad. Even smokers know it’s bad. Ask almost any smoker and they will tell you how badly they want to stop. They will tell you stories of how they quit many times, etc… and they will tell you this all while taking another puff.

So what is another solution? I say smoking should be permitted. And by "permitted," I mean issuing a formal permit or license. Business owners should be able to buy an annual license or permit to allow smoking on their premises.

Yes, there should be some restriction on what kind of establishments can or can’t be licensed, such as the obvious ones mentioned above (like schools, et al.). But this way, if bar owners want to allow smoking, they can. If patrons want to go to a smoking establishment over a non-smoking one, they can. And if someone wants to avoid smelling like an ashtray for the foreseeable future, they can choose a non-smoking establishment.

Make the laws clear that if someone chooses to enter these places, which would be clearly posted as smoking establishments, then the patrons and the workers are personally responsible for the associated risks of exposure to smoke. It’s all about personal choice. Let the market do the talking. If people really don’t want smoking, they will flock to the non-smoking places. But something tells me that the places that serve alcohol will do just fine with a smoking license.

It will drive new revenue streams for the municipalities. It can be used to provide funding for anti-smoking education. And most importantly, it will allow the citizens to have a choice. If we let the “invisible hand of the market” do its thing, I bet we'll see it reach for a beer and cig.

-JC

Stars & Bars Forever? Nope.

2009-07-23T21:39:00.000-07:00

I believe the saying is "Stars and Stripes forever." So it puzzles me that the Stars & Bars of the confederate flag are still flown all across the South. Many people from the South claim it is a historic symbol of Southern pride. They say it's a symbol of their heritage and culture. But its detractors often say it is nothing more than a sign of hatred and a symbol of racism. Many compare it's symbolism to a Nazi swastika. So which is it? It is true that many hate groups have adopted the confederate flag as a symbol of their hate-based beliefs. But that is not the fault of the South. So let's give the South the benefit of doubt and assume it's not racially motivated or hate-based pride.

Let's assume it really is all about Southern pride. But what are they celebrating? What could the flag symbolize that is such a source of pride? That flag represents taking pride in their desire to secede from the United States of America. They are taking pride in the desire to no longer be citizens of The United States of America. They are keeping alive the memory of a failed attempt at a national mutiny. In a word, they are celebrating treason.

If I told you that I knew of a group of Americans who wanted to defect from the U.S.A., you'd likely think of the days during The Cold War and the Soviet Union. But these were in fact a collective of domestic defectors. They were running away from U.S. Pride, U.S. History, The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution--when we committed treason and defected from Britain. Or what some English jokingly call The Colonial Uprising.

Ah, but to the victor goes the spoils. There is a reason why we call our succession from Britain a "Revolution" but we call the Philippine-American War an "Insurrection." Because we won. So we get to write history.

I’ve heard folks in the South refer to The Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression. Survey says: BZZZZ. Nope. The North won, so they call the shots. The South should just pipe down and be happy the Civil War is known by such a neutral name that really seems to assign no blame. Maybe we should stop calling it The Civil War and start calling it something more fitting? Perhaps the War of Treasonous States? The War of Confederate Criminals? Well, maybe something with more of a catchy ring to it, but you get my point.

Dictionary.com defines Confederate as:
–Adjective
1. united in a league, alliance, or conspiracy.
2. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Confederate States of America: the Confederate army.
–Noun
3. a person, group, nation, etc., united with others in a confederacy; an ally.
4. an accomplice, esp. in a mischievous or criminal act.
(*Bold added by me for emphasis)

And they were actually calling their failed new nation The Confederate States of America (CSA)? Might have well just called it The Criminal States of America.

As a REAL American who believes in the Constitution, I support free speech and freedom of expression. So I think people have the right to fly the flag. But when they do, it can mean only two things: Either they are in fact a member of a hate group of some sort... OR... they are celebrating anti-American treasonous acts. They have the right to celebrate either one of those beliefs (or even both). And for those of us real Americans who believe in the symbolism of "Old Glory", the only true flag of the U.S.A. -- well, we have the right to spite them for celebrating either one of those beliefs (or both).

C'mon South. Get with the program. Swap out that old relic symbol of treason (and newly adopted symbol of hate) and replace it with the real flag. Oh, but one small request. Please don't put the real U.S. flag on your truck's mud flaps... keep that space reserved for those silver nekid'ladies and Yosemite Sam shouting "BACK OFF!"

The Stars and Bars should have faded long ago, but the Stars and Stripes are forever.

-JC

Palin Resigned: What Is She Up To Now?

2009-07-03T21:05:00.000-07:00

So Sarah Palin resigned from the office of Governor of Alaska, effective at the end of July ’09. She gave the resignation speech at the start of a three day holiday 4th of July weekend, which seems to be an attempt to reduce press exposure. This is a classic move and there is nothing wrong with doing so. It’s generally accepted as a good move when you want to downplay an event. She was somewhat vague about her decision and why she is leaving. She said she wants to pursue humanitarian issues on a national level without the title of Governor. She said she asked her family and they all voted yes, including one “Hell yes.”

So what is she up to? There are several possibilities. The first one to address is that she may no longer feel that she should stay in office for personal reason, over exposure, too much press coverage, too much public scrutiny of her and her family. I doubt this basic reason is even a realistic possibility. So I say scratch that idea.

Some have speculated that there may be pending scandal that she would not want to face as Governor, so she may be stepping down to prepare for an upcoming onslaught of attacks. Well, like her or not, she’s a fighter. If someone was going to attack here, she would likely take the fight to them. For her to resign in advance, it would have to be something so obviously wrong that she has no choice but to step down. But if she had done something like that, I think the folks on the Blue team would have dug this up a long time ago. Let’s face it, she’s been in the public eye nonstop since last year, so its doubtful she did anything so egregious since she entered the 2008 McCain campaign.

If I had to guess it is one of two things, or a combination of both.

First, she is likely stepping down to pursue personal interest such as speaking engagements, publicity ops and other events that would be considered a conflict of interest or diversion from her duties as Governor. These opportunities probably come with a far greater financial benefit for her family. So in a sense, you can’t blame her. Some will say she took an oath of office and make a pledge to the people of Alaska. They will say she is turning her back on them to pursuer self interests. These type of opportunities will likely come with far greater financial opportunity for her family than the Governor’s salary (which I think is around $125k). Well, if the people of Alaska are ok with her leaving, then maybe so should everyone else.

So this lead to the second possible reason for stepping down which is to help improve her image. I think the goal is to give the perception that she is gaining national and international experience. All of her speaking engagements and public events will add to her prominence on the world stage. It will help to reduce the perception that she is stuck in the obscurity of the Alaskan wilderness and not connected to the real world. Instead of seeing Alaska from her back yard, now she may actually go there. I bet she will travel the country, and likely the world, slowly increasing the perception that she has the kind of global experiences necessary for national office. I think she is, in essence, beefing up her resume for a run at 2012. And if that fails, as with many other cults-of-personality, she will likely turn to her back-up plan of TV. I bet the folks at Fox already have a contract ready and are just waiting for her to say “You Betcha” to their offer.

-JC

Cap and Trade

2009-06-27T20:40:00.000-07:00

I have recently spent some time trying to better familiarize myself with the nuances of Cap and Trade legislation. I went into it with a fairly open mind, but just as I usually do with most issues, I did have a preset morally-liberal-fiscally-conservative slant. I have to say, I am confused over the Blue Team’s support over this issue. And equally puzzled by the Red team.

It seems the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation, proposed by Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey (D., Mass.), has the support of many democrats. And the Red Team seems to object. On the surface it is the same old debate. The Dems want it to help the environment while the GOP thinks it’s a hidden form of taxation that will result in higher prices and lead to the downfall of our nation’s economy. And honestly, both sides seem to make some compelling points. Something should be done to get our nation heading down a path of better emission controls and less dependence on oil and certain coal-based energy. But not at the expense of an economic disaster, especially these days.

But something I don’t hear much about is that the two sides seem to be fighting for issues that would normally be consistent with the other side’s calling card. Democrats seem to be seeking out the creation of a new economic market which will allow free trade and the invisible hand of supply and demand to take control. How republican of them. And the republicans seem to be fighting for a better solution from the government to help the environment, rather than allowing big business to muddle things up. I didn’t realize that trees could be hugged from the Right? It’s funny how they each seem to have switched to other side of the argument. And odd that I have not heard anyone point this out yet. I guess I must be misunderstanding something.

Personally, it seems to me like Cap and Trade is not a good idea. I can see how the hidden tax of prices increases could take effect. But also, it just seems like making a market out of something that is wrong. We have an addiction to sources of energy that has lead us down a path of pollution. Could you imagine making a market out of another addiction, for example, like alcoholism? Everyone in America gets 100 alcoholism credits. You can be drunk 100 times per year. If you don’t use them, you can sell your excess points to someone else who can then get drunk much more often. It just seems like a weird concept. Perhaps would make a good academic paper, but as a real life solution it doesn’t seem logical. How about a better approach of trying to cut back on our addiction?

Cap and Trade could lead to people gaming the system. When has any new legislation or tax or financial market ever led to people NOT trying to find loopholes? Take for example the idea of “Offsets.” The idea is that companies will be able to do something good for the environment to offset emissions from something bad. This type of thing is so hard to measure and to keep track of, it simply opens the system to that greater chance of manipulation. Figuring out a way to cheat that rule would take all of 15 minutes. “Hey, let’s pay some third world nation $100 to plant trees on our behalf to offset that $4 million pile of burning rubber tires.”

Is the creation of a financial market which continues to allow pollution really the best we can do as a nation? It seems like someone is saying, “Well, we can’t do anything about the face, so lets cut off the nose.” -- The lack of a good solution does not automatically make a bad solution better.

-JC

Letterman-Gate

2009-06-23T22:20:00.000-07:00

I can not believe that the "David Letterman v. Sarah Palin" non-issue is still floating around the interblogs. Some blogomaniacs are still proclaiming without a doubt that David Letterman thinks statutory rape is funny. And for this reason, he must be fired -- perhaps they want him jettisoned into outer-space?

Let me spell it out for everyone: There was no rape joke. The conversation should just stop there.

But nope. On and on they ramble. Listen people, the joke was about the public's “perception” of A-Rod’s promiscuity and about Bristol Palin's “perceived predication” toward chance pregnancy. That's it. Period. I know the Letterman-haters WANT the joke to be more than that. They want it to be about statutory rape. And sadly, I think some might actually still believe it was. It would be so convenient and add so much fuel to their fire if that’s what the joke was about.... but it wasn’t. And most of them know this by know (but rarely admit it). But they fight on.

You see, many of them have hated Dave for a long time. They perceive him as a misogynistic, angry liberal who spouts off too often from a bully pulpit. Ok. That’s their take. Many have admitted to not watching Dave for years, even proclaiming they boycott his show. And they hate that Dave was no fan of Gov. Palin. He has made cheap & easy jokes at her expense. And he was not so great about the fact that McCain ditched his show to go to D.C. and fix the financial meltdown, but then stuck around NYC to go on a news channel instead. So let’s just say some folks to the right may not love Mr. Letterman very much. In fact, the same holds true for some on the left--especially those who feel he has had a long standing mean streak toward women in general.

Some are finally willing to admit the joke was not about rape. Well, they don't really openly admit it, they just change the subject by saying, “Well, he should be fired anyway because he should not have brought the Palin kids into the joke.” Or, “He should be fired for his longstanding hatred of women.” Or, “For his ongoing meanness toward Governor Palin.” and on and on and on. Well perhaps that is a dialogue that needs to happen in America, in general. It is long overdue that we stop with all the misogynistic jokes about women or their daughters. But that’s not the topic here. THIS specific attempt to have Dave fired was a witch hunt started around the fact that Governor Palin misunderstood the intent of a joke. Well, guess what? There was no rape joke. It was a non-issue from day one. It was a misunderstanding at best.

Again, it was not a rape joke. It was a SLUT joke. That’s right, I said it. It was a slut joke… of which A-Rod was the subject (C’mon, admit it. At first you thought I meant Bristol, didn’t you? Shame on you! Maybe you need to take a long look at yourself for even assuming that.). Everyone knows it was really nothing more than a pop culture reference to A-Rod’s dating habits and Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. But the knuckleheads out there keep spouting off that it must have been about statutory rape because of the undeniable facts, like “Fact: The 14-year old was the one at the game so that has to be who he meant”… blah blah blah. IT WAS A JOKE based on pop culture subjects, not based on facts (as pointed out in a recent NY Times article, link below).

It is like saying: "A bird walks into a bar and says 'I’d like a grasshopper.' "
FACT: Birds rarely walk into bars.
FACT: Birds can not speak.
FACT: Birds obviously prefer scotch.

...Shall I continue?

Thank you ladies and germs. I'll be here all week!

-JC

NY Times Article: http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/the-ethics-of-lettermans-palin-joke/?hp --Which was pointed out by "Doug" on Cynthia Yockey's blog: www.aconservativelesbian.com.

In fact, my entire post is really derived from the comments at: http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/2009/06/21/what-letterman-is-doing-is-mobbing-not-humor-fire-david-letterman/#comments (Perhaps you'll want to check it out)

Gay Marriage

2009-06-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

As a heterosexual, married and somewhat agnostic American, I feel specifically qualified to pontificate on the merits of legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because I really don’t care. I don’t have a vested interest in the issue one way or the other. I am not gay, but I also don’t care if someone else is. And I’m not really religious to the point that I hold the word “marriage” on any sort of sacramental pedestal. So, my fairly neutral stance on this issue means I can look at both sides of the debate.

But is there really a debate? Are people talking about the same thing? I think the two sides are arguing two totally different points. The argument seems to be around the word marriage. Is marriage a legal term? Or is it a social term based on traditions and/or religion? Well, let me break it to you…. it’s both. It’s a legal term AND a social term. And until everyone can understand this fact, the debate will go nowhere. So I say it’s time for divorce. We need to separate the terms “legal marriage” from “social marriage” when people discuss this topic.

Legal Marriage: This is a marriage as legally recognized by the state. It is formally registered, licensed and legally binding. This is an agreement between any two legal "of age" citizens regardless of race, religion, creed or sexual orientation. Basically, if you are of the age of consent and would otherwise be eligible for heterosexual marriage (single, mentally competent to sign a contract and doing so of free will), then you are eligible for legally recognized marriage. There are legal rights and ramifications to marriage. As long as those marital laws are in place, then marriage needs to be a LEGAL right to ALL Americans. “But what would stop two straight guys from getting married just for the health benefits?” The same thing that stops a straight man and straight woman from getting married. Nothing. But if they are married, then they are subject to the same legal and contractual obligations of all marriages. Besides, I doubt you will see an influx of marriage license applications from all the straight guys out there looking for better healthcare. I’d hate to see the divorce when they fight over who gets custody of the "kegerator."

Social Marriage: Social groups can choose when they want to perform a marriage from a social perspective. For example, it is currently somewhat difficult for a Catholic and a non-Catholic to get married in a Catholic church. Some priests simply refuse to perform the ceremony. However, others will do it, provided certain traditions are met... such as pre-cana marriage counseling, promising to raise the children as catholic, etc. These are social conditions of the church that must be adhered to before the marriage is allowed. But if the couple chooses to skip the social aspect of their marriage, they can certainly still go to the courthouse and get married legally in the eyes of the state. So although the church is not obligated to perform the marriage, they do not have the right to prevent the marriage from a legal standpoint.

Did you ever notice that the priest, minister or rabbi always says something along the lines of, “And by the powers vested in me by the state of (insert state)..." Why do they say that last part about the state? Because they are not only social administers of marriage in the eyes of their religion, but hey are also legal administrators in the eyes of the state law. They are licensed and registered by the state to legally perform marriages, regardless of the social setting.

If you think a marriage between two gays in someway takes away from your own marriage… I have to ask “Why?” Nothing that someone else does can demean the value of the vows I took when I got married. Only I can do that (and kind of do during the NFL playoffs). But nothing that someone else does can ever change the value of my marriage. For Pete & Pete's sake, if someone is crazy enough... uh... I mean, "in love" and wants to get married, let them. Legally and Constitutionally, don't we have to?

Torture & Interrogation

2009-06-18T21:07:00.000-07:00

I figure this will be a hot topic today and for some time to come. And I have to admit I have mixed feelings about the subject of torture and interrogation. Don’t get me wrong, I am very against it being done to me personally. That I am very clear about. But my mixed feelings are around the general subject, from an international policy perspective.

I have always thought there is a vast difference between torture and enhanced interrogation. Yet, they always seem to get lumped together by the media. Enhanced interrogation is basically causing someone pain and discomfort in an attempt to obtain critical information—think Jack Bauer/24. But torture seems to be abuse for the sake of abuse—think Lynndie England/Abu Ghraib.

As a policy, yes, the U.S should be against both since it goes against the Geneva Convention, right? At least that is what I gathered from years of watching Hogan’s Heroes re-runs. But here is the thing… if we have “the guy” who has “the code” for the “ticking time bomb,” then yes, sick Jack Bauer on him. But that is a big if. As far as I know, the ticking time bomb scenario has not ever really come into play, at least not that we have heard of publicly. And maybe that’s the way it should stay. If that scenario does come up, maybe we should never hear about it. If it's a matter of national safety, do whatever it takes and do it well.

As for plain ol’ torture for the sake of torture… America should be very against it and punish those who do it. Punish those who allow it to be done. Punish those who choose to turn a blind eye. And we should aggressively go after those who commit acts of torture against Americans, and we should do so by virtually any means necessary. But it doesn’t take a lot of conviction to be against allowing a 19-year old kid to abuses the one drop of power they have ever had in the life. It simply can not be tolerated.

Letterman v. Palin

2009-06-17T18:18:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying I am a huge David Letterman fan. Not someone who simply enjoys his show from time to time. I mean a HUGE fan. When I was a teenager, I painted a 6-foot version of the old "Late Night" logo on my bedroom wall. And I can blame my excessive sleeping habits during high school homeroom on my addiction to his old 12:30 NBC show. Yes, I am biased. Very much so.

But isn't that the point? When you have watched someone for 20+ years and learned something about the way they conduct themselves publicly, shouldn't that deserve a little bias? And the same holds true when you have observed someone else for a year or so and have seen how they conduct themselves publicly.

Dave's joke was not the end of the world. He clearly was referring to the adult Palin daughter with the very public, unplanned, unwed pregnancy. And besides, the joke was obviously aimed more at A-Rod's dating habits. Similar jokes have been made before and will be made again. Joking about someones child is never really a winning move. I think Dave knows that, which is probably why he decided to apologize... twice (sigh). But Bristol Palin, an adult, is now the spokesperson for the Candie's Foundation against teen pregnancy. C'mon. That's a little bit funny, right?

In the Governor's defense, she was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer. The media made an issue out of this (as far as we know). But when asked, Mrs. Palin had the chance to answer any way she wished. And she chose to make an issue out of a non-issue. She should have said (hypothetically), "Yes, he made a bad joke. I get it. But it was my 14-year-old Willow who was at the game, not my older daughter Bristol. It was a cheap laugh regardless, but I'm sure he did not mean anything more by it."

But nope. She chose to make an issue out of a non-issue. Rather than showing it was hardly worth her time and brushing it off for what it was--a late night comedian making a pop culture joke--instead she said, "Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is disgusting." And the First Dude chimed in later with, "Any jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable."

Sexually perverted? Rape? Really? And I bet they still can't figure out why they aren't hanging out in the White House these days. Thank you for reminding us what we all saw last year. At least there is something to be said for consistency, I guess.

Is Maroon More Blue Than Red?

2009-06-17T17:06:00.000-07:00

Although the color maroon seems to favor the color red, the "Maroon way of thinking" sometimes favors the blue. In my previous post I mentioned that this blog may, at times, have a blue'ish tint. Some of my views may seem to be coming from the left, rather than being truly centered. There's a few reason for this.

First, many of today's hot button issues are based on two things: human rights and morality. Morality is measured on a personal barometer. Everyone has their own moral compass, and that is hard to govern from one person to the next. But human rights should be universal, regardless of personal moral beliefs. This way of thinking tends to come with a liberal tag.

The truth is that many conservatives proclaim to believe in personal freedoms. Yet, that comes with a caveat. They believe in personal freedoms (Caveat: *As long as those freedoms are in line with the conservative way of thinking). If someone's belief system is not in line with conservatives, then the conservatives are often opposed to that person's rights.

So yes, things you read on this blog may seem to be coming from the left. But when the right is so far to the right, every other point of view seems to be from the left. And that's why Maroon is more blue than red, at least when it come to human rights and personal freedoms.

Welcome to "Marooned in America"

2009-06-16T22:21:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note about this blog. This is devoted to those of us who feel the U.S. national dialogue has been hijacked by the Red and Blue extremes. Many of us are somewhere in between -- thus the reference to the color maroon -- neither red nor blue. Perhaps a little of both.

I would like to share a voice, albeit a small blogspot-esqe voice, to speak the truth from the middle-of-the-road perspective. Some of the views expressed here may lean to the left and have a blue'ish tint. But that's because these days the blue team seems to be closer to the middle than the red. I will expand on that theory later. But for now, just wanted to warn you to expect a slightly "left of center" slant... but you'll certainly see some stuff from the right. After all, isn't that the point?

I plan to ramble, pontificate and make random statements that you may or may not agree with. Oh, and I also plan to end sentences with prepositions like "with." Expect hundreds of spelling errors, especially "teh" because I type with two fingers and TEH is just easier to type than THE (right-left-right, rather than right-right-left). But I'll try to make sense to the best of my ability.

I got the idea for the name of the blog from a very old (and bad) joke. I’ll paraphrase, to spare you the pain: Two tanker ships collided at sea, one carrying blue paint, the other full of red paint. The good news is that everyone survived. The bad news... they are now marooned on an island. :-)