by

Irony Alert: Song about brotherhood and bringing us together has divided us

Whenever I see some conservative politician’s ad about “Real America” it always shows  a bunch of white people on a farm somewhere, even though the vast majority of Americans live in cities and suburbs, never see a farm, and are more and more not even white.  As I said in a previous post, “Real America” to me is a bustling city full of all sorts of different cultures, races and religions living together in relative peace and harmony.

So I thought the Super Bowl Coke ad was wonderful.  It showed Americans, singing “America the Beautiful,” and making its point that we are all Americans, no matter what we look like, who we love, or what our native language may be.

So here it comes.  Warning:  Irony Alert.  A lot of Irony Alert.

Some conservatives thought the ad was an insult.  They complained, often with misspelled words and poor grammar, that if you can’t speak English you shouldn’t be considered an American.

Michael Patrick Leahy over at Breitbart complained that Coke had used this song, which is about brotherhood and bringing people together, in a divisive manner.  He complained that it didn’t fit our American ideals of “e pluribus unum.”  That latin phrase literally means “out of many, one.”  Or, to use simpler words, we are stronger together than we are as individuals and no matter what we are as individuals, we are all accepted and part of the whole. 

Best were the “patriots” who whined that Coke had ruined “our National Anthem” (which is, of course, “The Star Spangled Banner”).

So yeah, I don’t get the complaints.  They think this ad is tearing us apart from what America really means when to me, it is exactly what America means.

Editorial cartoon of the day: They were here a while ago…

by

Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

While working on my next novel, I spent some time researching conspiracy theories.  Why do otherwise reasonable people believe in them, and especially the ones that are so easily debunked?

What I found was that conspiracy theories provide a comforting way to explain evil in the world.  Like people who find comfort in their religion, conspiracy theorists find comfort in knowing that evil can be explained, that it’s done by someone else, and therefore they cannot be held responsible.  It’s a simple answer to a complex world.

Belief in grand conspiracies is not limited to political view.  I have some liberal friends who are convinced that George W. Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks, aliens are hidden in Area 51, and that the moon landing never happened.  They are just as convinced in their view, despite all evidence to the contrary, as the right-wingers who are certain that Obama was born in Kenya, that the government is going to take everyone’s guns away, and that something illegal happened in Benghazi.  (I still haven’t figured out what exactly they claim is the conspiracy with that last one, but they’re convinced it’s one nonetheless).

At a press conference yesterday, one of the loonies grabbed the mike and warned us all that 9/11 was a government plot.  Gee, thanks, Crazy Man!  Without you telling us, we would have never have taken such a claim seriously.  Your wonderful presentation has turned believers into all of us.


If you find yourself as one of these believers, please ask why you are so willing to accept these things without proof.  (Ha ha!  I’m joking, of course.  These guys all think they have “proof” and we’re just too stupid to see it — or more likely, we’re all part of the conspiracy, too!  Dun dun DUN!)

Now do not read this post to mean that I think there are no such things as conspiracies.  Of course there are — businesses conspire to set prices, drug pushers conspire with police officers to make sales and not be arrested, and so on — people conspire every day.  I am referring to the huge major Illuminati-type of massive conspiracies that logically just cannot exist.

Editorial cartoon of the day: Executive Odor

by

Maybe we should ask the people involved

“The Cleveland Indians isn’t insulting!” say many many white people.  “And the Redskins?  They are a proud people.  They don’t mind at all.”

Gee, that doesn’t seem to be what Native Americans are telling us.

nyjews

Sure, sometimes people can be overly sensitive.  And sometimes “political correctness” goes too far.  But you know what?  When I was a kid, “political correctness” was called “being polite.”

I like to listen to experts when I want to make a decision.  I think doctors know more about vaccines than actors.  I think lawyers know more about the Constitution than talk radio personalities.  I think plumbers know more about sink clogs than Presidential candidates.  You get my point.

When you wonder if something may be insulting to a particular group, it just might be that the particular group is the “expert.”  I am not sure I should be telling them that they are not feeling a certain emotion, because I cannot personally relate to that experience.

People often can’t put themselves in another’s position.  They would be outraged if there was a sports team that made fun of their particular ethnic group, but don’t see any problem with another group being so stereotyped.  Or perhaps they wouldn’t be outraged concerning their own group, and therefore think no one else should ever be outraged either.

In either case, the decision to be outraged does not belong to them.

Editorial cartoon of the day: The War on Men

by

No, we are not moving toward a tyranny

It’s hard to debate with people who are convinced that the United States is becoming a tyranny.

Does anyone really believe that Obama will say, “I’ve decided to suspend elections and remain President-for-Life”?  Do you really believe the military, who swear an oath to the Constitution and not the President, will go along with this?  Do you think all the politicians who won’t even pass a simple jobs bill for Obama will roll over at this?  Hell, can you imagine Hillary Clinton deciding she’ll go along with it?

It ain’t gonna happen.  But some paranoid people who probably should be taking some sort of medication think that basically “If I don’t get my way, then clearly this country has become a tyranny.”

There are a lot of things our country does that I don’t like.  And I think the President has become much too powerful (but that has been going on for generations).  But the chance of anyone turning our country into a tyranny is next to zero.  Calm down already.

This usually comes up with gun debates.  Gun owners who feel that their rights are being trampled cannot understand that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them.  Even the Supreme Court disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution.  Only 13% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll think there are too many gun control laws.  49% say there aren’t enough, and the rest think it’s just fine or have no opinion.

As I stated previously, the way you get change in the US is by getting the population on your side and voting in change (through referendum like the ones legalizing marijuana and gay marriage), by electing politicians who agree with your views, or by bringing lawsuits to protect your rights and affect change.ExecutiveOrders_byPresident (1)   Sometimes your viewpoint will lose.  That’s how it works in a democracy.

The latest crap is about Obama’s Executive Orders.  Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but have been around forever and the Supreme Court has said they are Constitutional.   There’s one internet story going around about “Obama’s 932 Executive Orders” which is a complete pack of lies (whoever wrote that hopefully was wearing flame-resistant pants).  Further, he’s issued less Executive Orders than many of the Presidents before him.

So just calm down.  There are indeed issues concerning our personal rights and liberties that we should be worried about with the government.  But we’re not going to become a tyranny.

EDIT:  Obviously, this was written during the Obama presidency. I no longer hold to this belief.

Editorial cartoon of the day: How to spot a thug

by

Regulations Schmegulations

Can’t help it, I think regulations are a good thing.

I like the fact that our government regulates our food to make sure it’s not filled with e coli.  USDA-Meat-Inspection-LabelI like knowing what ingredients are in the food. I like restaurants to not have rats.  I think regulations to make sure our cars are safe are a good idea.  I like having doctors and lawyers and electricians certified by the government and subject to regulations about what they can do.  I like requiring only adults to buy alcohol and cigarettes. I like regulations about workplace safety, and prohibitions against discrimination, and housing restrictions that prevent someone from putting a pig farm next door to me.

Some people, however, think that the “regulation” is a bad word.  They will use some example where a regulation has gone too far and then say “See?  Therefore, we should get rid of them all.”

Both extremes are bad.  “No regulations” is anarchy.  “Complete regulation” is tyranny.  Usually we’re pretty good about finding a reasonable spot between the two, but anyone who says “all regulation is bad” or “all regulation is good” is deluded.

Take financial regulations.  From the time of the founding of the United States, we had a recession or financial crisis on the average of once every seventeen years.  There was the Panic of 1819, the 1837 Crisis, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, the 1907 Banker’s Panic, and so on up to the Great Depression. Then Franklin Roosevelt put in controls and restrictions on Wall Street and banking and lo and behold, no depressions and no recessions for fifty years. Reagan comes in and removes those and bang! The S&L crisis, the 2001 recession, the 2007 Mortgage crisis, and the 2008 Bush collapse.

Regulations can be good things.

So no, you won’t get me jumping on your libertarian view that all regulations are bad, any more than you’ll get me jumping on a communist view that everything must be regulated.

Editorial cartoon of the day: Identical!