MJS's blog

Dumb It Down, Mr. President

MJS — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:15:10 +0000

President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night has garnered some negative reviews, not so much due to the message itself - that's inconsequential, after all - as much as the difficult language used by our Commander-in-Chief. Paul Payack, the president of Global Language Monitor, a Texas-based company that analyzes the cultural impact of word choices, considered President Obama's speech to have been written at a 9.8 grade level.

In other words, you probably had to have gone to high school in order to understand it.

Here's a sentence from President Obama's speech, chosen by Mr. Payack as particularly difficult to follow:

"That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge - a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."

On the other hand, a phrase like "oil began spewing" was supposedly more comprehensible.

Perhaps it is because English is not my native language, or that I never experienced the American public education system first-hand, but I did not find President Obama's speech difficult to follow. In my opinion, that sentence which Mr. Payack singled out, is simple and to the point.

I am, quite frankly, disturbed by the notion that the President of the United States should dumb down and simplify his speeches to match the intellects of the academically uninspired. I would go so far as to suggest that the "leader of the free world" should be speaking at a 10th grade level or higher.

Perhaps we got spoiled by those eight years with Bush.

Topics:

Politics

Purity Control

MJS — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:20:56 +0000

I forgot I made coffee this morning, and once I remembered the pot was a-brewin', the black sour liquid of life had already gotten cold and stale. Luckily, as I got online and checked out Dagblog, my heart basked in the warmth of the realization that if there's one thing that never gets old, tired, cold, and stale, it's the gay marriage debate.

Of course, whether there is any actual “debate” is in itself, well, debatable. You can debate about economics, because ultimately there are concessions and compromises that can be made, and the goals are similar, if not the same, regardless of the differences in the proposed means of arriving at them. In the case of gay marriage and equality, however, there does not appear to be any common ground. In such an environment, it is difficult to reach a consensus.

Whenever I witness one of these “debates,” or participate in one myself, there appear to be similarities among all of these occasions. The arguments remain the same. The proposed facts remain primarily the same. So do the ideologies, the moral viewpoints, and whatever else you want to mix in. There's tugging, and there's pushing; there's ramming, and there's pulling.

I try very, very hard to understand the opposition. But it sure can be difficult. For instance, all this talk about the sanctity of marriage. I'm not sure what that even means, but it does sound great, whatever it is. Take Larry King, for example – he's getting divorced for the eighth time. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Taylor, who's also been married eight times, is dating another young guy. She maintains she won't get married again, but we all know how insatiable Cleopatra is. These two iconic individuals would make great poster fodder for pro-marriage campaigns; it can hardly be said that either of them has a problem acquiring a marriage license. Or repeating wedding vows. Or filing for divorce. And that, after all, is the usual procession of a marriage.

About half of all marriages end in divorce, but I have never seen massive, public anti-divorce campaigns. I haven't seen any bills on the Congress floor for making divorce illegal, either. So I guess when we talk about sanctity of marriage, we are simply talking about semantics. Definitions. Like, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's nice. It's a simple mentality, kind of like a form of mental saran wrap; seals in the stench and keeps other flavors and odors out. Very convenient. No need to ask unpleasant questions, such as “what about the transgendered?”

It must be hard enough trying to answer other, much more plain inquiries, such as “why should homosexuals be treated as second class citizens?” or “why should they not have the same rights as heterosexuals?” Tough questions. It's fairly common to see gay marriage opponents remark that they think we should all be treated equal, and that they do not consider homosexuals inferior; they simply want to maintain the idea that marriage is a concept that only heterosexuals are entitled to. That's all. Cue in the usual disclaimer to the tune of being “a heterosexual man/woman who loves his/her wife/husband, and desires him/her and only them, is in a monogamous relationship in which he/she has vowed to stay.” This statement is elaborate for a reason – it is intended to present a contrast of values between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship. After all, only heterosexuals can be loving and monogamous; gays will have sex with anyone.

The one step on which the opponents of gay marriage always trip on is the question of whether or not religious morals should do battle with civil rights in the form of legislative agendas. It has always seemed strange to me that Republicans, who are so gung ho about keeping the government out of personal lives, seem to think that legislation should be used to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, and that those laws should be drafted by individuals whose own rights are not affected by those very laws. How is this even constitutional? There has been a lot of uproar lately regarding the health care reform, and how those legislative changes do not apply to the senators and congressmen who voted on them. How many of those politicians, who have and will vote on gay rights, will experience an impact in their personal lives as a result of the validation or invalidation of those rights?

Legislation is not intended – at least in this country, at least in theory – to reflect the religious morals of the right, nor is it supposed to force the values of the left to be accepted unilaterally by the whole nation. What it should do, however, is provide us all equal rights in the eyes of the law, and to protect individuals in a corporeal and non-corporeal sense. If we want to be democratic, if we want to be fair, and just, and free, then the majority should protect the rights of the minority when they are incapable of doing so themselves, particularly when the majority are the sole threat to those rights.

Sanctity means moral purity. If you want to defend the moral purity of the constitution of marriage, here is my advice: it begins at home, not on the steps of a courthouse. And while we're on the subject of defending the sanctity of marriage, here's the problem: there is barely any sanctity to it when half the nation's couples are filing for divorce or committing adultery. Sanctity, as it pertains to marriage, is not a legislative concept; it is purely, simply, and only a matter of individual actions. You cannot, cannot, cannot protect the sanctity of other people's marriages, you can only protect that of your own.

Lastly, I take issue with the religious aspect of the argument. I was brought up Evangelist-Lutheran, I have been baptized, I have been through confirmation; the Lutheran church was a constant presence in one form or another as I was growing up. I realize that there are differences of belief even among Christians, but I was taught to place more emphasis on the Ten Commandments than every chapter and verse of the Old Testament. I thought this was universal as far as Christians go, but clearly not. Could someone point to the one of the Ten Commandments which prohibits two men, or two women, from getting married and forming a union? Can you refer to the one that states that we should, as Christians, make the effort to prevent others from entering monogamous, spiritual, and legally binding unions? Do we not want couples to be exclusive, to promise to have and to hold, to remain true? Are you seriously telling me that we want less people getting married and forming these official commitments?

The destruction of the sanctity of marriage begins at home.

Topics:

Politics

Social Justice

Religion

Health Care Book Making Few Waves

MJS — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:10:20 +0000

So, you, like so many others, have spent the recent months on the road with a motley crew of Mensa members in 18th century garments, protesting against health care, tax cuts, education, lamp-posts, and shopping carts with one missing wheel. Now, out of the blue, you’re reading from someone’s Facebook update that the bill that was printed on both sides of hundreds of thousands of pages, and which grants the government the right to make it easier for people to keep themselves alive (whatever happened to a man’s right to have a coronary on a Burger King parking lot?), has actually been passed in secrecy in the dead of night. Who knew?

Suddenly, it seems like you’re running out of things to fear. However, the flame of unabashed, uninformed patriotism is still flickering feverishly — and there is more to come.

Salmon & Shyster is publishing the 8,000-page health reform bill in its entirety, according to the publisher’s spokesperson. “We are printing the whole thing, all twelve thousand pages of it,” spokesperson Amanda Hugginkess stated under condition of anonymity. “Nothing is going to be left out, it’s all there,” Ms. Hugginkess said moments before being distracted by a bird. “Every word of that 16,000-page bill is going to be there. Plus, as a special treat, there will be illustrations provided by a well-known politician. I’m not going to spoil the surprise, but he’s one of the black leaders of the RNC.” Ms. Hugginkess refused to reveal the cartoonist’s identity, and hurriedly went on attempting to keep her place in line for the recently released 12th volume of the Harry Potter series. “Cool, there’s magic in this one.”

Despite the publisher’s excitement, the anticipation on the streets is lukewarm at best.

“I’m not gonna buy it,” ombudsman Timothy McDonald said, shaking his head. “I don’t need to read it to know what’s in it.” McDonald, on his way home from visiting his sick grandmother, stated that most of what he needed to know he had already learned from television. Citing public prejudice, McDonald refused to reveal his sources. “I ain’t gonna tell you what channel, but it’s like an animal. Not the emu, but the other one.”

As of now, Salmon & Shyster is yet to set a release date for the upcoming tome, but rumor has it that Paramount is already planning a major summer blockbuster based on the book.

Furthermore, a heavily abridged version, edited by former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, is expected to hit the shelves just before November.

Topics:

Humor & Satire

Once More Unto the Breach, Dear Friends

MJS — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:27:31 +0000

The layman definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results.

That mentality, incidentally, also appears to be the cornerstone of Republican politics. We have seen it many times before: start a war or two, give tax cuts to the rich, and expect the national debt to decrease. If at first you don't succeed...

In a recent tweet, Senator John McCain said he was "ready to sit down to do what's right for the American people." No, he's not drafting a letter of resignation; he wants to "start over" the health care reform. Senator McCain's suggestion is proof that the Republicans truly have more great ideas regarding health care reform than you can shake a teabag at.

Didn't we just spend an entire year hashing and rehashing the disaster that is the American health care system? Were we not treated to hours of news broadcasts about village idiots in 18th century garments, gathering together to yell about socialism, Nazis, and other topics completely unrelated to the health care debate?

Did we even have a debate?

President Obama has stated that he's eager to reach a bipartisan understanding, but is not interested in starting the reform debate over from scratch.

When John McCain was running for President in 2008, and Barack Obama announced his desire to rebuild the American health care system, McCain was quick to point out that the Republicans, too, had ideas for health care reform. Now, after a year of reform debates, it seems evident that the primary "idea" they have is to oppose whatever the Democrats are suggesting.

I can see why the concept of starting over from the beginning would seem logical to Senator McCain. For one thing, he gets hired elected for six years at a time. What's another year to him to piss away on going over the same arguments for the umpteenth time? It would also be tremendously convenient for the GOP to still have the teabagger movement be in full steam when the elections roll around this fall. I can already envision the Republican campaign ads, declaring that it's "your last chance to stop this insane health reform."

A successful health care rehaul would simultaneously be the best thing to happen to this country in a long time, and the worst thing to happen to the GOP. I'm not surprised that they would be eager to put the train back at the station.

Topics:

Politics

Scott Brown's Injury Not Expected To Delay Move To Capitol Hill

MJS — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:26:18 +0000

Immediately following the recent injury of freshly elected Republican Senator Scott Brown, there has been some speculation that the Massachusetts Senator might not be sworn in this afternoon after all. However, according to a source at the House GOP leadership, such rumors and speculations are not only premature, but entirely baseless.

"We don't expect Senator Brown's ceremony this afternoon to be delayed. He will be sworn in at around 5 pm, and will thereafter be able to vote on any bills that may come before the Senate," reported an aide on the condition of anonymity.

Senator Brown was injured late Tuesday night when one of the strings that RNC Chairman Michael Steele uses to control Brown's movements broke off. The immediate concern among his Republican constituents was that their new Senator might not be able to properly vote in the Senate in line with the party's expectations. Our insider, however, maintains that this is not going to happen. Said the aide: "Senator Brown is eager to do as told by the party. He is looking forward to taking off his shirt and getting to work."

In other news, at the time of this writing there is no official word on whether Brown's daughter Ayla is still single.

Topics:

Humor & Satire

Vive La Resistance!

MJS — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:28:39 +0000

Now that President Obama's approval ratings are slipping, and the good people of Massachusetts have voted in their first Republican senator in almost forty years, it's time to get real about politics in this country. It's time to take leadership into our own hands.

Brother, I know what you are thinking: "how am I supposed to feed my horse and my wife the next winter when the government wants to spend my money on health care and education?" This is a difficult question, one that needs an easy answer.

President Obama does not have that answer for us, Brother. That is precisely why the election this November is so important. We need to win back the House to pave the way for the all-important 2012 presidential election. That's when the real change will begin.

The liberals want to loan money to big corporations like General Motors, and for what? To keep a quarter of a million employees from losing their jobs? My Cousin Lenny lost his job for taking a few sick days - nobody bailed his ass out.

Then there's all this health care crap going on. It's all just government bullshit, I'm telling you. I don't need some doctor telling me to eat more apples.

If you follow the news, and I certainly do, you know that that bearded guy in Iran is just asking for it. Only a matter of time before we have to extend the War On Terror to include Iran - it's right next door to Iraq, for Christ's sake - and North Korea is probably next. Fighting terrorism abroad is what keeps us safe at home, and it comes at a high price. How are we supposed to afford it if we're bleeding money trying to provide the poor, huddled masses with affordable health care?

This whole concept of taxing the outrageously wealthy insurance companies and only providing tax relief to the indigent is fruit from the Socialist tree, plain and simple. You know what? Fuck the poor. We need solid capitalist leadership that is cemented in Christian, "Real American" values. Like the Bible says, "an eye for an eye" and "every man for himself."

Topics:

Politics

College Republicans Irked by the Threat of Original Thought

MJS — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:02:40 +0000

It must be difficult for the GOP these days. On one hand, they want to continue to appeal to Bible-thumping, teabagging, gun-toting bigots, but on the other, they also want to extend their congregation beyond the high school drop-outs and the plantation owners. This level of re-branding is hard enough to do without the family of one of their most recognizable Senators breaking ranks with the party on one of their core issues.

Senator John McCain's wife, Cindy, recently posed for a website promoting the NoH8 Campaign. I was admittedly quite shocked when I saw an article about it on CNN.com - I don't know how a prune like Sen. McCain managed to land such a looker of a wife.

At any rate, McCain's daughter, Meghan, is scheduled to speak at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The GW College Republicans were at first excited by the news; they were under the impression that Meghan McCain was going to speak about “Redefining Republican: No Labels, No Boxes, No Stereotypes.”

Unfortunately, what these budding young Republicans were not expecting was that Ms. McCain's speech would occur during the college's LGBT rights group's “Marriage Equality Week,” and that the unusually open-minded young Republican may use the platform to express her own refreshingly positive views on gay marriage.

Threatened by the concept of a Republican with thoughts of her own, the GW College Republicans quickly withdrew their funding from Ms. McCain's speaking engagement, which will carry on regardless.

I guess we got a little too close to talking about “no labels, no boxes, no stereotypes” and actually meaning something by it.

Topics:

Politics