Jaded Times

The below video may appeal to me more because of my (oh so useful!) degree in folklore, but it’s still Jon Stewart, still funny, and still a great representation of what Congressmen do to earn their six figure salaries and lifetime pensions…

Chuck Grassley’s Sir Taxalot

Unfortunately, Senor W. T. Fayta saw his shadow, so we have eight more weeks of ridiculous partisan bitchery to deal with.

Earlier today California’s supreme court upheld the results of the vote on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages. As I haven’t really broached this subject directly before, let me try to sum this one up as best as possible:

1) Based on what I’ve seen of marriage, you’re an idiot to want to be married.

2) BUT, either all of us or none of us should have that right. Basic “equal rights” logic. So you’re a much, much bigger idiot for preventing anyone from getting married.

3) In a state that has been in severe financial crisis for several years, it’s a bit gross that so much money was spent trying to make same sex marriage illegal.

4) You don’t need a piece of paper to tell you that you love someone. But if that paper is offered to some, it should be offered to all. Again, basic “equal rights” logic.

5) For all of you out there who feel this even fucking matters, feel free to write in to explain why you voted for Prop 8 and why you feel it’s any of your business what other people do in their private lives. I’d seriously like to know.

6) And for all of you bashing the right wing over this, the best resolution I have heard to the issue came from an ultra-conservative relative of mine (though I have read similar ideas elsewhere since), who suggested:

SOLUTION–change the legal definition of marriage: make the legal end of marriage a “civil union”, and let religious groups ONLY perform marriages. What this means is that anyone can be together with anyone and have their union be recognized/receive all the same rights as current “marriages”, and let churches and synagogues and temples and mosques decide who should be married in the eyes of their god.

For the gay among us about to complain, keep in mind many churches were already performing gay marriages and it really should be up to them, not the state, as to what is acceptable in the eyes of their god. For the bigoted among us about to cheer, keep in mind that if you were not married by a priest or rabbi or the like, you have a civil union, not a marriage.

There. Done. Now can we move on to this whole “collapsed economy/people starving in the streets” thing, California?

So far President Obama seems to have done more in a few days than former president Bush (man, those words in that order just feel right, huh?) accomplished in his first year.  In a rarely seen political move, Obama has actually kept true to his word and signed the directive to close Gitmo and limit the army and CIA’s ability to torture prisoners, a promise many felt he wouldn’t fulfill.  His administration is already hard at work attacking the current economic apocalypse, moves that harsher critics might point out the Bush Administration could have been making for the past three months.  He has also reversed several unpopular Bush administration policies, including striking down the pre-suffragette throwback abortion funds policy (though the policy did warn that if he were to strike it down, it would become more powerful than he could possibly imagine) late Friday afternoon.

So while one could conceivably point out that the man is being scrutinized far beyond any reasonable measure, most Americans do have to admit that, after 8 years of Bush, it’s just nice to have a President who is actually fucking doing something.

It is rumored that his next move could very well be to overturn the Bush Administration’s highly controversial “Babyback Ribs Act”, in which orphans who have not found homes by age 9 are harvested for their delicious, delicious meat.

While much of the country (nay, the world) celebrates our nation’s return to reason, many others are protesting the backwards steps some states have taken yet again this year in the continuing fight for civil rights.  California was the hot-bed for this battle, from police clashes at protests to celebrities condemning Proposition 8, which changes the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage in direct conflict with the summer ‘08 state Supreme Court ruling.  Most notable on the celebrity front is Melissa Etheridge, who has publicly stated she will no longer pay state taxes:

Etheridge declares that if she’s not “allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. … I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen.”

The announcement comes as Governor Schwarzenegger, who has also spoken out publicly against Proposition 8, has called for tax hikes in the financially troubled state. Guess that hike will have to be a bit larger if others follow suit, especially Apple Computers, who donated $100,000 to the no on 8 campaign and who are one of the larger corporate tax contributors to the state (EDITOR’S NOTE–this is comedic speculation, Apple has not even joked about not paying their taxes). We at Jaded Times applaud Miss Etheridge, and will happily send a fruit basket (with requisite file) to her cell come tax week.

In other celebrity news, Leonardo DiCaprio has said he is glad to have dropped his “sex-symbol status”, which is news to us, as we didn’t know he’d had one.

No joke in this post, just serious applause for Apple, a company I’ve always respected and now, ever more so.  From their frontpage today:

No on Prop 8
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

If I asked you what “conservative” meant, in the political context, what would your answer be? What about if I asked you to define “political liberal?” It’s certainly not easy to come up with a succinct and definitive answer to these questions, and I doubt it ever has been. However, I believe that our basic criteria for evaluating these labels have changed dramatically over the past thirty to forty years, to a disturbing and disheartening degree. 

I was raised in a single-parent home, with my mother working the night shift as a nurse for infants in intensive care. Between her going to work around six o’clock in the evening, and getting her much-needed sleep during the day, I needed additional guidance that my mom was regretfully unable to provide. Luckily, we lived close to her sister and parents, and other family members stepped in and helped to raise me. One of these people was my grandpa, who for a long time was my only male role model and someone I looked up to immensely. My grandpa is a massive history buff, I attribute my intense patriotism to our chats when I was just a little kid. I would spend every weekend at his house watching historical documentaries and asking him about the people on TV talking in front of podiums. But most of all, I reveled as he spun me stories of our founding fathers: Washington crossing the Delaware, Sam Adams and the Boston Tea Party, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. My grandpa was a revolutionary war re-enactor and after about a year of me begging to join him (even though I was far too young), he got me some authentic dress and took me along to join the First Virginia, probably to his extreme embarrassment. 

As I got older and more mature, we continued our conversation about America and the principles that this country was founded on. As I became more aware of politics and politicians, I noted what his personal views were on the role of government and his reactions to the policies of Congress and the President. I found myself agreeing with him more often than not, although he always encouraged me to make up my own mind. And I did. I remember the first time I asked him what people meant by “conservative,” and “liberal.” He told me that political conservatives held the view that the government should be restrained in its action, and liberals believed that our leaders should have more freedom to intervene and should enjoy less restraints on government action. I then asked him which he believed in. He smiled and said “the right one.”

I grew up believing in a small central government and the freedom for each state to determine its own laws based on the needs and beliefs of its constituency. I also believe in limited federal spending, a more involved local system of government, deeply cautious foreign policy, and using military force as an absolute last resort. Based on these beliefs and my grandfather’s stories and descriptions about the GOP of the old days, I believed myself to be a republican, a federalist, and a true conservative in the definitive sense of the word. But as I got older and became an adult, I developed additional beliefs about social issues, like what the government should and should not pay for, and what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to do. At the same time, I noticed that the Republican party, as I understood it, was appearing more out of sync with my pre-existing understanding of its principles. 

I truly started paying attention to politics during George Herbert Walker Bush’s term as president. Shit, I remember my mom waking me up early one day to tell me that America was in a war, and that I should take a moment to think about all the people that might be hurt or killed in the coming weeks. “Iraq invaded Kuwait,” she said, “and we have to go help them, because no one else will.” The first thing I did was look for Iraq and Kuwait on the globe in my room. The second thing I did was ask if I could stay home from school and watch the news, which to my surprise, she allowed. This was the first American war of my lifetime, and from that day I kept a close eye on what was going on in Washington. I wanted to know why and how the lives of my countrymen were being gambled, I guess.

Over the next decade, I noticed that people were talking less and less about what the government’s role should be and more about what private citizens should and shouldn’t be allowed. I was pretty confused by this – it was almost as if everyone had presupposed that the federal government is allowed to tell you what you can and cannot do. Instead of the conversation being about whether the federal government should be able to regulate the social minutiae of America, it was now all about what those regulations should say. And I have to admit that I got caught up in it as well. I took a look at myself and my personal beliefs about things that everyone was talking about. I went right down the list: Abortion – I believe that a baby isn’t a baby until it can survive apart from the mother’s body. Up until then, it’s a part of the mother’s body and subject to her choice, including the choice to abort. Gun control – I believe that the Second Amendment confers the right to maintain militias and keep and bear arms, but not to stockpile AK-47s and devices designed to kill and maim human beings. Immigration – I believe that closing our borders would betray our national heritage and the spirit of a nation founded by immigrants. And on down the list. I was shocked. Was I a liberal? According to the media, I was. According to some others, I was also a “pinko,” a “socialist,” a “communist,” and a “traitor.” 

The fact is that the post-Nixon GOP leadership has taken the questions about the federal government’s powers and purpose completely off the table. In the past few decades, the federal government has expanded exponentially, regulates in more areas and with more authority than ever, and our foreign military sojourns and spending (both foreign and domestic) are sky-high. Conservatism or Liberalism now has absolutely nothing to do with these questions. Instead, the application of these labels are now determined by a wholly different criteria. Essentially, we are supposed to believe that one is a liberal or a conservative based on opinions about four or five social issues: gay rights, gun control, the separation of church and state, immigration, and the big one, abortion. How did we get to this point? Why are we obsessed with these issues that, in the grand scheme of things, don’t really matter all that much? The divisiveness of these issues and the petty squabbling that they inspire have done much damage to our national consciousness. Today, the American electorate is more distracted by these small issues than ever before, and to our detriment. Our shortsightedness is crippling our ability to understand and make decisions about the things of far greater importance: war, death, our futures, our children’s futures, and preserving the foundations of our great Union. 

I am deeply saddened by what has become of the political conversation in the United States. I lodge much of the blame on the contemporary Republican party, which has betrayed its former principles and become a monstrosity in patriot’s clothing. As one who has always identified with true conservatives and the Grand Old Party of emancipators and heroes, I feel like myself and my country have been left behind. 

My grandpa and I don’t talk as much as I would like these days, and when we do, the conversation is about my grandmother’s health or what’s going on around my old hometown. But the other day I asked him about what he thought about the current state of things and the upcoming election. A lifelong Republican, he stood by the party in 2004 even though he was baffled by Bush’s foreign policy choices, and never wavered in election after election even though the party he loved’s ideals were crumbling. He asked me how I thought the first Continental Congress would vote, and after we finished our friendly chuckle, he reminded me that being pro-life or pro-gun wasn’t what makes you a conservative, and blind trust in the government isn’t what makes you a patriot. For the first time, he’s going to walk into the voting booth and pull the lever for a Democrat, because it’s the right thing to do. I’m going to join him.

Man, if McCain’s approach to music licensing is anything like his approach to the economy, I half expect the Hamburgler to be a crucial voice in domestic economic policy. In his latest act of artistic theft, the campaign has once again appropriated music without permission, this time pilfering from the significantly less ancient Foo Fighters. FINALLY, a candidate who isn’t hiding his criminal acts; think he’ll be this honest when it comes to Iraq?

The press release from Nasty Little Man (Foo Fighters’ publicist):

FOO FIGHTERS DENOUNCE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEIR MUSIC BY MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

Having received confirmed press reports that John McCain has been using Foo Fighters’ “My Hero” as the latest in a number of unauthorized theme songs at his campaign rallies without seeking permission from the band, its management, record label or publisher, Foo Fighters have issued the following statement:

“This isn’t the first time the McCain campaign has used a song without making any attempt to get approval or permission from the artist. It’s frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that ‘My Hero’ was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song–and start asking artists’ permission in general!”

Earlier this year McCain used songs by artist John Mellencamp without permission, and this most recent act of copyright infringement follows rock band Heart sending a cease and desist order to the McCain/Palin campaign for use of their song “Barracuda” and rock legend  Jackson Browne announcing he is filing suit against the McCain campaign for their use of his song “Running on Empty”.  At least he’s getting closer to the right decade, though this may just be the latest attempt at McCain trying to nab the youth vote, most of whom haven’t paid for music in several years.

I notice that today the fine folks over at CNN are making a big deal out of the fact that Wasilla, AK, the town in which Sarah Palin (GOP VP candidate and amateur Tina Fey impersonator) was mayor, charged rape victims for their examination kits up until 2000 (which includes four years of her 1996-2002 tenure).  I would cover this further, but Jon Stewart already did.  Like a week ago.  Trumped by a comedy show?  That’s got to hurt, CNN…

The one comment I will make is that her defenders are saying that she didn’t know about the practice.  If this is true, how is it even remotely any better?  It was a town of 7000 people, and she wasn’t aware of a major point of contention; this makes her qualified for one of the highest offices in the world how, exactly?  I know standards have fallen off a bit as of late, but really?

Hello America!  I’m back because shit just got real.  Again.

This time it’s the economic woes of these United States.  After the closure of the regional Indy Mac Bank (reopened under the Federal Reserve to the tune of 10% of the DIF), the bail outs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who between them hold over 50% of the mortgages in the nation (trillions promised if needed), the continually rising unemployment rate, the announcement that median family income has actually dropped by more than 1% in 2000-2006 despite reports that the economy expanded 18% in that time, to the $2 billion buyout of almost 5% of CitiBank by a Saudi prince (making him the largest single stockholder) and now the bankruptcy of Lehmans and sale of investment firm Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, the American economy is truly booming.  Just, you know, not in that good way.

Now, with the Dow falling 4% in one day and AIG receiving an 85 billion dollar bailout we, as Americans, look to our leaders for support:*

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended the $85bn (£48bn) emergency loan for AIG.

“While no-one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead,” she said.

Leadership!  Yes, that is exactly what we need!  Surely our president will have the right words to calm us and make us feel safe and secure, a plan to stem the tide of economic disaster and renew faith in our markets, both abroad and at home:

President George W Bush has not answered questions on the economic situation and had cancelled a statement he was set to make on Tuesday.

When asked by a reporter in the Oval Office on Wednesday to comment, Mr Bush said he had not heard the question and joked: “I’m old.”

YES!  He’s…old?  Maybe he’s saying this is old news, I’ve made it this far, you will too?  Or perhaps he is implying that old men aren’t suited to hold the office?  Whatever the reason, truly shocking from the man who, just after the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, literally lept into action and proposed a bill that would classify birth control as a form of abortion. I know I felt more secure on that day, just as I feel more secure in my government’s, um, age today.

Honestly I expect more from the man who stared into the face of terrorism and didn’t blink, who acknowledged and rewarded hard work during crises, who was dilligent in preventing possible, nay, known threats to this nation from day 1…

[source 1, 2]

*–sorry, I had trouble typing that without laughing hysterically, then curling up into a little ball and hoping I can learn to love moldy bread.

11 states, two cities, and four environmental groups to be precise, according to the Associated Press.  That’s a pretty large number of people pissed off at the Bush Administration’s proposal; the law suit, filed last year, includes California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York City, and DC.  The bush plan calls for average fuel economy of passenger trucks (including the ever-so-popular-amongst-arrogant-idiots SUVs) from 22.5 to a whopping 23.5 by 2011.

 ”The idea of raising vehicle efficiency 1 mile per gallon is pathetic and shocking,” said Brown, who along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Bush administration over its refusal to act on California’s fuel economy plan for cars in the state.

Dude, when the former Terminator and Reagan lackey finds your emissions standards too low, you’re really fucking up.