Author: Michael A. Ventrella

by

How to Speak Republican

Lesson 27.

When an official report says something other than what you want it to say, make sure to twist it into something more favorable to you and bad for your opponent.

Example:  The Congressional Budget Office said that because of Obamacare, people who stayed in jobs solely for the insurance were now free to pursue other things.  They could now get rid of that second job, stay at home with the kids, or even start their own business.  Approximately 2.5 million people would be taking advantage of this, which will mean that 2.5 million jobs will soon be available for the unemployed to get.  The unemployment rate will fall, and perhaps even more small businesses will be formed.

Question:  How do you translate this news into Republican?

Analysis:  This is a difficult one, because clearly these are Republican goals.  Reducing unemployment, encouraging parents to stay at home, and helping small businesses form are all traditional Republican ideals.  However, to acknowledge this would be to not only admit that Obamacare might have some good points, but also allow the Democrats to claim that.  Clearly, any admission of any gains at all would be improper.

Solution:  Lie.  The best way to get around a truth you dislike is to lie.   Try one of these whoppers:pinocchio

“Obamacare is a disincentive to work!”  This one isn’t bad.  It implies that staying in a terrible job you hate just for the insurance is preferable to taking your life into your own hands and doing what you want.  But it’s still slightly true, albeit misleading.  you can do better.

“Obamacare will destroy 2.5 million jobs!”  There’s the winner.  A complete lie, absolutely not what the CBO said, and sure to be bought by a clueless media who doesn’t want to have to actually do the reading to realize that it’s complete bullshit.  Even if it was true, it’s offset by the fact that Obamacare has added 8.1 million new jobs.  But of course, you will never mention that.

Summary:  As we have seen from every other lesson, the answer is always to lie.  You can never go wrong that way if you want to learn how to speak Republican fluently.

Editorial cartoon: Fox checkers

by

Top 5 Underrated Beatles Songs

So today, on the 50th anniversary of the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan show — at the time, the largest TV audience ever — I’ll share my view on the top five underrated Beatles songs.beatles_12a

By “underrated” I mean they should be considered along with the more famous classics, and I think if any of these had been released as singles, they would be.

I didn’t count any song that had been on a Greatest Hits collection, although two of these songs were featured in the background of other songs on the Love album remix.

Final disclaimer:  Like all art, music is subjective.  One person’s masterpiece is another person’s trash.   Your mileage may vary.

In no particular order:

HEY BULLDOG

This was recorded around the same time as “Lady Madonna” and I think is far superior.   John threw this together in the studio and everyone pitched in ideas as a video crew filmed.  It was one of the last true group efforts, and George does one of his best solos and Paul’s bass really pushes the song forward.   After it was done, they gave it to the Yellow Submarine filmmakers who put it into the movie and then the song was cut for the American release of the film.  The only way you would have known this song existed is if you bought the Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, which few people did since it only had four new songs on it.  (The scene has been restored to the latest DVD releases of the film!)

AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING

This is another one of John’s and was on the excellent Revolver album, which has no bad songs whatsoever.    Engineer Geoff Emerick had developed their distinctive guitar style by that album (copied many times since by other bands) and it really shines on this classic.  Imagine how much John and George had to practice to get those parts done!

YOU NEVER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY

Paul, apparently inspired by John’s work on “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, decided to write his own song like that, with many different parts that all flow together into one.  I mean, you don’t really realize it while you’re listening, but the first bit (“you never give me your money”) is never repeated after two consecutive runs-through.  And we go right along, because it all fits so well.  Paul, of course, felt that he really should do another verse of “you never give me your money” so he stuck it in “Carry that Weight” near the end of the album instead.  Cheeky lad.  (Note that he continued to do these kinds of songs in his solo career, notably with “Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey.”)

SEXY SADIE

This began as John’s comments on the Maharishi and that is what it was originally called.  He then  just replaced “Maharishi” with “Sexy Sadie.”  I love the feel of this song, from the spooky piano to the fade out with the solo that goes on and on, which is perfect.  (Not too short, not too long.)

TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS

Try to imagine what it was like in the music world in 1966 before the Beatles released “Revolver” with this song as the closer.  The top songs that week included “Wild Thing” by the Troggs; “Li’l Red Riding Hood” by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs;  “Summer in the City” by the Lovin’ Spoonful; and “Hanky Panky” by Tommy James and the Shondells.  And then this comes over the loudspeakers.

The Beatles were once more pushing every envelope possible, experimenting in the studio in the way no one had done before, and, with this song, pretty handily creating what is still today known as “psychedelic music.” And more importantly, underneath of that is a really catchy tune. John wasn’t about to give up hooks for his experimentation. (Well, not until “Revolution 9” a few years later, anyway.)

So happy 50th anniversary, everyone. Now to go watch Paul and Ringo perform at the Ed Sullivan theater again…

Editorial cartoon: Selective vision makes everything simple

by

NOW can we please get single-payer?

For those of you who are against Obamacare:  Most of you are not deluded.  You understand that it’s not going to get repealed.  We’re stuck with it.

But it has a whole lot of problems.  There’s a new bureaucracy, and that damned web page, and there’s still issues involving businesses that don’t want to provide health care for things they don’t believe in.  It’s a bother to force people to sign up for it, and then there’s the penalty part of it if you don’t.  And insurance companies can still limit which doctor you get to see.  (That happened to me when I switched and suddenly discovered that they wouldn’t cover payment to the family doctor my wife and I have been seeing for a dozen years or more.)

There is one easy solution.

All we have to do is remove the age restriction on medicare.

The bureaucracy for it is already in place, and the elderly are overwhelmingly happy with the way it works.  You get to choose your own doctor.  Insurance companies are out of the picture and can’t regulate what gets covered.  medicare
We spread the costs out among 300 million people or so (as opposed to the way we spread them out among much smaller insurance groups today) and reduce the average expenditure per person.   And a new Obamacare bureaucracy, with its books full of regulations telling the insurance companies what they can and cannot do, can be thrown in the garbage.

And just like the elderly do now, you can buy insurance that goes beyond what medicare covers if you so desire.

This is the original plan the Democrats wanted way back when, but you folks insisted on a “market-based” plan similar to Romneycare.  That is, until the democrats agreed to do it that way.  Then you hated Romneycare.

Medicare for all is the way to go.

This is why every other industrialized country has done it this way, and has had many years of experience doing it to show that it works.  (Heck, we have many years of doing it, if you count medicare.)

But the fact is that this is the easiest, cheapest, and best way to provide health insurance to Americans.  That’s what you like, right?  Saving money?

This will do it.

Editorial cartoon: Employment escape

by

Driving While Brown

My office manager’s husband was stopped again yesterday for no reason — second time this week. It usually only happens once a month. The police searched the entire vehicle and of course found nothing, because he’s a successful businessman with no criminal record.

Then again, he is a dark-skinned Latino.Police Car Lights

Whenever he gets stopped, he remains polite but firm and does not give the police any reason to arrest him.  He allows them to search the vehicle because he knows if he says no, they will find some reason to hold him, go and get a warrant, and do it anyway.  After an hour or so, they have to give up and let him go.

He is a building owner and manager in New York city, so he often travels in work clothes so he can make repairs to his buildings.  He may not dress in a suit and tie every day, and that is part of the problem.  Fortunately, he does not wear a hoodie.

When police want to pull over a car, they must have a “reasonable suspicion” that a violation of the traffic code is taking place.  That’s so easy to find, though.  You swerved a bit, you forgot to turn your signal on when you changed lanes (even if no one was behind you), and in this case, his license plate was obscured by snow.

Once you’re stopped, they can hold you if you “fit a profile” or if they “smell marijuana” (which they do a lot of).  I had a case a while ago where my client’s car was pulled over for being suspicious because “there were many people in the car, it was from New Jersey, and it was driving on a road known to be used by drug traffickers.” Mainly, route 80, the biggest highway coming from New York city, which everyone takes. A car full of people from New Jersey in a tourist area like the Poconos, just over the New Jersey/Pennsylvania border? Clearly suspicious.

Oh, did I mention all the people in the vehicle were black?

This particular person, however, gets stopped along the 100-mile corridor between New York city and his home here, so it’s not just one police department doing this.  That’s even worse, though, isn’t it?  It says this is systemic.

And it’s not always racism as much as it racial profiling, if you see the distinction. I’ve had many cases where black cops pull over black drivers for stupid reasons, too.

Some people scoff at this, and say everyone is overreacting.  These people are always white.

Editorial cartoon: It all depends on how you read it

by

Businesses must be free (except when they do things we disagree with)

“Yeah, gimme a pack of Marlboro Lights.”

“Sir, this is a Foot Locker.  We only sell shoes here.”

“What?  But that’s illegal!  You have to sell me cigarettes!”

So we find another gross injustice and example of discrimination in American society.

This has brought about some questioning from the media. “How can a business decide to not sell a legal product?” asks a reporter from Fox News. (Ha ha! I really didn’t need to add the “from Fox News” part, did I?)

Anyway, Miss America pageant contestant and Fox News “reporter” Gretchen Carlson was quite upset about CVS’s decision to no longer sell cigarettes.

cvs"Businesses need freedom!"  Fox News continually shouts. "A business owner shouldn't have to answer to anyone about their internal decision-making … Except when they decide things we here at Fox don't like.  That's different."

I think the real reason Fox is so upset is because President Obama applauded CVS for taking this position. And as we all know, if Obama is in favor of anything, Fox News is legally required to oppose it.

I anxiously await the day Obama proclaims that "breathing is good."

Editorial cartoon: Woody would pecker