Palin vs a Cartoon

No lie. In her latest manufactured outrage incident, she takes on not David Letterman, not Rahm Emanuel, not even what she so cleverly calls the "lamestream media." This time she takes on the show "The Family Guy." You know...the animated series? The one without real people?

If you haven't heard about it, in the episode in question, there is a character with Down syndrome. Palin took offense at this, saying that it was making fun of her son, and was apparently so upset (it was a "kick in the gut," she said) that she couldn't think straight (*snort* Like that's new.) and had her daughter Bristol write something about it.

Insults directed at [my] youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent. People with special needs face challenges that many of us will never confront, and yet they are some of the kindest and most loving people you'll ever meet. As a culture shouldn't we be willing to say that some things just are not funny? If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed.

In the interest of thorough research, I found the episode online and watched it. Extra Large Medium was the title, if you'd care to check it out yourself. I know that some of these animated shows can be pretty extreme (I love "South Park"), but I have never watched "The Family Guy," although my friend Darren has said it is hilarious. For whatever reason, I just never got into watching it. I was curious to watch this episode, to see if Darren was right, and to see if Palin was justified in being offended. In my opinion, chalk one up for Darren and give Palin a big fat zero.

It was hilarious, and I laughed out loud at several points. As far as insulting people with Down syndrome, I didn't see that at all. In fact, it was more flattering, in that the teenage son has a crush on a girl at school, thinks she's beautiful and hot and wonderful, and gets up the courage to ask her out. And, oh yeah, she has Down syndrome. When they go on a date, he asks what her parents do, and she says her Dad is an accountant and her Mom is "the former governor of Alaska." (That's one of the parts at which I laughed out loud.) A-ha! Now I get it. Palin wasn't insulted so much because they were ridiculing her special needs son; she was insulted because they were ridiculing her. Hey Palin, remember that satire thingy that you thought was so funny and appropriate when you mistakenly thought Rush Limbaugh used it? [laughing]

As the episode goes on, the Down syndrome girl turns out to be a royal bitch, the teenage son is disappointed, and makes what I think is a very pertinent point. He tells her that he thought people like her were supposed to be special, but they aren't...they're just like the rest of us. In other words, they can be assholes, too.

I've maintained that for years. Being physically handicapped, intellectually disabled, a war veteran, terminally ill, or what have you, does not necessarily impart sainthood upon you. I've encountered some real jerks along the way who have had to deal with some of those things. To accept that they can be bitter, angry, moody—to accept that they can be assholes, too—seems to me to be more accepting of them as a part of the community, to not set them apart as something other than potential assholes, just like us. haha

I hesitate to try to see a broader meaning in everything I watch—sometimes it's just funny—but I thought this episode had a nice, subtle message. I saw no ridicule towards those with Down syndrome whatsoever in what they aired, only a dig at Palin herself. If she continues to be insulted by such things (and it was only one line in the entire episode), she's going to have a miserable life being in the public eye. Comedy, satire, cartoons...it's a part of life, and if you put yourself out there, you're going to be a target. Arguing with a cartoon just makes you look even more ridiculous.

Ruminations

I was pondering a bit today.

You've all been warned.

As I was reading various news items, and reading those that some of my Facebook friends posted, I was thinking about how I have gravitated towards like-minded individuals and how my political philosophy has changed over the years. I also have friends, as well as family, whose leanings are diametrically opposed to mine, and that's a good thing. Keeps me on my toes. Although I tend to be drawn to those who share my opinions (who isn't?), I do appreciate those people who are able to enjoy my writing without agreeing with the things I say. I can think of one person in particular who I had to stop reading (and then defriend on Facebook) because the writing just wasn't enjoyable anymore. Endless conspiracy theories, multiple Glenn Beck videos, and calling anyone who didn't believe the way they did deluded and stupid. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a mouthy little thing, and I'm sure I've called the sanity and/or intelligence of certain people into question here (not to mention any names, Sarah Palin), but I try not to be too shrill about it. I guess that was what finally made me stop reading the person I mentioned...it just got so damned shrill.

But I digress. I was thinking about being drawn to like-minded people, and since I'm friends on Facebook with a few people from high school, it made me think about getting from there to here. I'm not close to people from high school, and although my 30th reunion is coming up this year, I have no desire to go (I haven't been to one yet). There are a handful of people that I know I would enjoy seeing, and those are people that I know have the same feelings as I do about things. There are others that I suspect haven't strayed far from our small town, conservative, religious upbringing. I was friends for a while with a guy from high school, and noticed that his profile said "Republican." He apparently didn't care much for the things I posted, because he defriended me eventually. I wasn't hurt by this...I always thought he was kind of an asshole, which he proved by posting a shirtless picture of himself--I KNOW! Ewww!--and I actually found it funny.

I don't interact much with any of them on Facebook, and I don't know if they read this blog. The one person that I do often hear from and get comments from is even farther to the left than I am, and has friended a few of my friends! He wrote to me a while back and said that he was happy to see that someone felt similar to the way he does about things. It made me wonder about how and why we think the way we do, how and why we took the path that we did, when so many stuck with the familiar, the usual, the ingrained.

I'm sure that most of you know that Indiana is a very conservative state, in pretty much every way. It's different in the larger cities and the college towns, and for some reason, my own city and county leans to the left. But overall, it was a very typical Midwestern upbringing, religious and conservative. Early on, I had a liberal bent (much to my Dad's chagrin), and although I went through a more conservative period a while back, my liberal side came roaring back with a vengeance. I wonder why it is, despite being raised in a very conservative household and among conservative relatives, in a conservative state, that I went left when so many of my classmates went right?

Was it a matter of going off to college and being exposed to new ideas there? (Although even in high school, I was feeling leftist yearnings. haha) Was it moving away after college and being in a new environment, or after that, living in Indianapolis and encountering even more diversity? Was it being more curious than the average bear, being an avid reader, loving to visit different cities, being a fan of punk rock, being contrary...? What? Was it having a Dad who, although conservative and religious, spent his youth in the Army during WWII and was apparently a bit of a wild child himself? One of my favorite phrases in college (and I suppose it still is) was "Question Authority." I'm not some kind of violent protester or behind-the-scenes subversive, but I'm definitely the type who doesn't like being told that I have to do something, and when I hear that, I ask, "Why?" I want an explanation, and being told “Because that’s how we’ve always done it” just doesn’t cut it for me.

I really am puzzled by this. I haven't figured it out yet, either. For all intents and purposes, I should be far to the right of where I am, and should even be a very different person from who I am. I'm happy with who I am...but I really do wonder how I got here.

A sad day in Hoosierville

I was saddened and disappointed today to hear that one of my Senators, Evan Bayh, has decided not to run for re-election this year.

Senator Bayh has been a fixture in Indiana politics for many years, serving two terms as Governor, followed by two terms as Senator. He is seen as a moderate Democrat, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and considered one of the "blue dog" Democrats in the Senate. A very liberal Democrat would have little chance in such a conservative state as Indiana, but he has always been well-liked and has served Indiana and the United States well. Some of my Democrat friends feel that he should have been more liberal; I feel that his presence as a Democrat was important, and on major issues like health care, he came through for helping all people, not just the well-off. He is also apparently a pretty good guy, and I've never heard a word about any improprieties or scandals.

So why is he not running again?

After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned. For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done.

Examples of this are legion, but two recent ones will suffice.

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted “no” for short-term political reasons.

Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs — the public's top priority — fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right.

All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state, and our nation than continued service in Congress.

That's right. He's sick of the partisan politics in Congress. So sick of it that he wants out.

My feelings were a strange combination of disappointment that we're losing a good person in our government; disappointment in him that he didn't stay to fight for us all; and a complete understanding of why he is so frustrated and disgusted with what he is seeing lately. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty frustrated and disgusted, too. Bayh raises a great point, especially with the question of the debt commission (he has long been a proponent of being careful with our budget and cautioned against overspending): Republicans who previously endorsed such a commission actually voted against it. Yes, they voted against a commission that would address our national debt.

I'm sick of it, too, Evan.

For anyone who thinks that he dropped out of the Senate race because his seat was threatened, think again. He had double-digit leads against all comers, and he really is a fixture in Indiana politics. I think that he would have won re-election. I really believe that he has just had it with what he's seeing lately (and mentions that it is coming from both the left and the right) and can't stomach it anymore. I really do understand, because sometimes I find myself saying, "I swear, I'm moving to Canada!"

I have two questions. First, I want to know when our legislators are going to take notice and realize that we aren't voting them into office just to play these ridiculous games, to automatically gainsay whatever the opposition party wants to do; we vote them into office to actually do shit and work towards the betterment of our country and all of its citizens. This gridlock benefits no one, and it is seriously fucking up my country. Yes, you may be my legislator, but it is also my country.

Second question: Is there something fundamentally wrong with our legislative system that this can happen? That recent fuckaroo with Richard Shelby from Alabama blocking all of Obama's nominees until he got billions in federal aid for his state...that is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm glad that our President said basically to cut the bullshit, or he's going to bypass all y'all and make recess appointments. Shelby backed off. Washington seems to have become all about stopping the other side from getting things done, rather than enacting legislation that will help our country move forward and address a myriad of issues we are facing. This shortsightedness is becoming increasingly frustrating; I'm able to look to the future and see what might be, able to plan ahead, able to see what problems there might be and try to plan accordingly. Why can't our legislators do that?

I'm sad that the system has disillusioned a decent guy like Evan Bayh so much that he is getting out. But I do understand. I'm starting to think that getting out isn't such a bad idea, too.

A special needs entry

Okay, I'm going to wade into the fray here, although I know this is a very controversial topic lately--and you all know how I try to avoid controversy! I'm sure some of you will disagree with me on this, and I'm okay with that. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here, merely offering my own opinion.

I'm sure you've all read about the kerfuffle (AKA kerfluffle) over Rahm Emanuel's remark calling some in his own party "fucking retards." I find it more than a little amusing that the kerfuffle didn't come from him dropping yet another F-bomb, but from what some people are now calling the "R-word."

Of course, Sarah Palin saw an opportunity there, so she called him out on her Facebook page (Best line I've heard so far, from Andy Samberg as Rahm: "You call me out on Facebook?! What are you, fourteen?"), asking not just for an apology, but for Rahm to either resign or President Obama to fire him. Personally, I think that would be a bit of an overreaction, but in the strange world of Sarah Palin, that was a perfectly reasonable response.

Although...when Rush Limbaugh did it the following day, using the word not once, but several times, she not only didn't call for his big fat head on a platter, she didn't even mention him by name. She just said that it wasn't acceptable for anyone to use the word. In an interview with Chris Wallace, she maintained that Rush was merely using satire to get his point across, and wasn't calling any person or group retards. What do you think?

Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I think their big news is he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters f'ing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House.

Kind of sounds to me like he explicitly called a group of people retards, even called a meeting of said group a "retard summit."

This tells me a few things.

1. Palin is an asskisser who is afraid to piss off Rush because he could hurt her political future
2. Palin is a hypocrite, playing the insulted mother and defender of her child only when the "attacker" is someone she doesn't like or doesn't align herself with politically
3. Palin is an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of satire and mistakenly thinks that was what Limbaugh was doing

Asskisser, hypocrite, and idiot? No breaking news there.

Now this is where I may part ways with some of you; I don't think using the word "retarded" is that big of a deal. In fact, I use it sometimes myself (and have friends who use it). Not often, and usually among like-minded friends, but yeah, I use it. Context is important, however. I can state unequivocally that I would never call someone who is mentally challenged that word. The phrase "mentally retarded" is no longer used when referring to such individuals. In fact, even mentally handicapped or mentally challenged is no longer used. The new term is intellectual and developmental disabilities. I maintain that the word "retarded" has entered colloquial usage, just as previous terms like "idiot," "cretin," and "simpleminded" have. All terms that used to be used when referring to such individuals, and now generic terms for anyone who behaves stupidly.

Someone raised the argument that it's still not cool, that it's like saying "That's so gay!" as an insult (which I do not do). I don't think it is, because a segment of the population identifies themselves as gay; the word "retarded" is no longer used as a term to identify certain disabled individuals.

I know that not everyone feels the same way, and there are still people who feel that it is an insult to disabled people. I believe that it's an insult only to able individuals who are acting like idiots, and there are plenty of those around. I'm not going to stop using it, but I will be careful around who I use it, keeping in mind that some would find it offensive. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that someone found something I said offensive!

As for the new terminology, "intellectually and developmentally disabled," I'd say that Sarah Palin is most definitely intellectually disabled, so I'll join Stephen Colbert and others in saying that Sarah Palin is fucking retarded. I enjoyed Lewis Black's take on it, though, just because his frenzied outrage makes me laugh.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black - The R-Word
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Last one…promise!

"The Tea Party is the future of politics." ~~Sarah Palin

Well, I guess we're in a whole shitload of trouble then, aren't we?

I've been procrastinating on writing this, because I'm just really tired of seeing and hearing this lobotomized drone. But the sooner I get it done, maybe I can put it out of my mind...at least until the next idiotic comments we hear coming out of her mouth. It's only a matter of time, after all.

I watched her speech Saturday night. It was so profoundly disturbing and hurt my brain so terribly that I had to lay down and take a nap to recuperate. First off, she is such a horrible speaker. Her timing and cadence is poor, her voice is grating, and her words seem stilted and unnatural. (I'm sure many will disagree with me and find her a fascinating and compelling speaker. If so, you're hearing something I am not.)

She hit on current topics, leveling plenty of criticism against the Obama administration, but offering few solutions of her own. One of her main topics was national security, saying that the President spent little time in his State of the Union speech addressing that issue. His main focus in that speech was on job creation; I'm certain that if it had mainly been about national security, she would have bitched about how he doesn't care about Americans and job creation. She wished for a strong national defense, despite the fact that defense spending takes up the largest percentage of the President's submitted budget.

New terms used like “overseas contingency operation” instead of the word “war.” That reflects a worldview that is out of touch with the enemy that we face. We can’t spin our way out of this threat.

That's pure bullshit, and everyone knows it. Of course the President speaks of war--his predecessor got us into two of them, after all.

She accused the President of blaming Bush for everything. Well, that's pretty much the reality of things, isn't it? All the shit that is going down was in place and happening before Obama took office. Now he's left with the Herculean task of trying to clean up a shit-tastic Augean stable full of arrogance, jingoism, corporate greed, and international hatred for what Cheney and his minions perpetrated on the rest of the world. The collective amnesia I'm seeing in the teabaggers is perplexing and maddening. While I don't want to hear every other word out of the President's mouth be "Bush did it," apparently people do need a reminder of who got us into this FUBAR'd mess in the first place.

She spoke about how she rejected the stimulus dollars and then mentioned that she was over-ridden and Alaska accepted the money. Now who is passing on the blame, Palin? For someone who never takes responsibility or blame for any of her frequent failures, it's rather amusing that she enjoys accusing the President of doing that.

She ridiculed intelligence by once again talking about "elitists," and those who have a "fat, elite résumé in their back pocket." She said that we need a "Commander in Chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern." I get the impression that she thinks that being Commander in Chief is all about tough talk and bombing the hell out of anyone who disagrees with you. Again, we know how well that worked.

She harped on Obama's use of a teleprompter--although that particular dig needs to be put to bed, after his stellar performance, sans teleprompter, at the Republican Caucus--all the while looking down for long seconds at a time at her own notes. (More about that in a moment.) She let her snark loose, asking Obama's supporters, "How's that hopey, changey thing workin' for ya?" Well, it's working great for me, you dork. I finally feel like I don't have to be embarrassed by my government when I say I'm an American. And I've been seeing that "hopey, changey" phrase on the Web for at least six months now. Get some new material, or at least stop getting your one-liners and witty bon mots from Zazzle.

After the speech, she took a few questions asked by a moderator. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the questions had been chosen beforehand and given to her; her responses were immediate, with no deliberation or thought...she just immediately started talking. I did read in a couple of places today that the questions were indeed submitted to her prior to being asked. In one of her rambling answers, she said that we need to get back to our roots as a God-fearing nation, and mentioned seeking "divine intervention." This is as scary as anything she has ever said...we are not a theocracy, and praying for "divine intervention" goes against everything I believe (or don't believe) in.

Finally, this brings us to the teleprompter line. By now, I'm sure most of you have seen the video of her glancing at her hand in order to answer one of the questions. (If not, you can see it here.) Now, I'm not one to begrudge anyone a teleprompter or notes for a speech. I know I have always needed notes whenever I've had to speak; I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. What bothers me about this, though, is that despite looking down frequently and lengthily at her own notes (one of the things that makes her a bad speaker, in my opinion), she still used that tired line about the President being a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter." The worst thing, however, is that the question asked was what should the top three priorities be for conservatives? She managed to get through one, but then had to look at her hand to remember what the other two were. Isn't that a pretty basic question, summing up a personal philosophy of conservatism? Shouldn't you kind of have that ingrained, at least if you're a political figure who talks about common sense conservatism? AND she had the questions beforehand! It wasn't like this came out of left field and surprised her!

Well, she was playing to her audience. They loved her, and I know I won't change any minds here, if anyone supports her. It obviously gave people like me even more reason to despise her (and I do, I do). I've also heard opinions from some independents who said that she did nothing to reach out to them, or give them any reason to support her. So she was essentially preaching to the choir, who lap up her witticisms [exaggerated finger quotes] like they are savoring the taste of the sweet, sweet tears of liberals.

I'll leave you with one final thought from the woman that some people inexplicably think is capable of leading our country:

And around the world, people who are seeking freedom from oppressive regimes, wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause.

Alaska...beacon of hope to the world's downtrodden.

Congratulations, New Orleans!

I was very disappointed to see my Colts lose, but it was a great game, it was a clean game, and the Saints won fair and square. Although it hurts, it doesn’t hurt as bad since it was New Orleans. :)

Now I’ll look forward to snapping up some great deals on Colts AFC Championship shirts in the next couple of weeks. [grin] There is a silver lining to every cloud, and my cloud is lined with awesome, cute, and adorable little Colts shirts.

Here’s to ya, NOLA! Cheers!

 

A while to wait

It’s Super Bowl Sunday! I’ve been trying not to think about it too much, and the teabaggers have kept me occupied for the past few days (one more entry about it coming), so I’ve been keeping my nerves in check. But now it’s here, and the next few hours are going to go soooo sloooow!

The Colts are still the favorites, by 5 points, but I take nothing for granted. I do think they’re the better team, and will win by a larger margin. A Facebook friend is predicting an offensive blowout, with the Colts winning by something like 41-20. I don’t think it will be quite that lopsided. I’ll go with…Colts 35-17. Okay, that’s still pretty lopsided, but I think the Colts defense is going to stifle the Saints offense fairly well.

You know, I realize that most people are pulling for the underdog Saints. I don’t hate on the Saints at all, in fact, have been cheering for their success ever since Katrina. I know they mean a lot to New Orleans (a city which I love), and I know this is really a great story. (One of the side bets you can take is how many times Hurricane Katrina will be mentioned by the announcers. I think the over-under was 3.5. But it has to be the full phrase. Yes, people bet on stuff like this!)

If it were any other team playing them, I’d be Saints all the way. But it’s my Colts, so I’ve gotta go with them! They have their own heart-wrenching story (every team has to have at least one) in receiver Pierre Garcon whose family is from Haiti (all his relatives who remain there are okay), and who has been raising money for relief efforts. I hope he has a great game—he’s one of my favorites to watch.

Anyway, I’ll be working a little extra mojo today, and instead of wearing my usual—a Colts sweatshirt or T-shirt—I’ll be sporting my Peyton Manning jersey. Yeah, I’ve got one. Don’t you judge me! I look good in it, too, so there. I’m sure there will be frequent updates on Facebook, so maybe I’ll see you there. GO COLTS!

My friend Mark made this for me, an answer to the “Who Dat?” question. How cool is this? Thank you, Mark!