"The Political Landscape as Interpreted By Officer Krupke"

Pop quiz.

Name three influential political minds.

Try these.

Thomas Jefferson.

Immanuel Kant.

Thomas Paine.

Here's a "get one free" for you.

Stephen Sondheim.

Well, in fairness, the team of Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein because, as the song goes, "you can't have one without the other."

More on that in a minute.

The method behind my madness of including one of musical theater's most gifted collaborative duos in the listing isn't as cryptic as you might think.

Allow me to elucidate.

(There's your word for today, kids. Look it up. No reason to risk illiteracy just because summer vacation has you on educational furlough.)

Depending on what you see, hear and/or read at any given time these last few days, we are either:

• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent posturing by the Democratic Party.
• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent posturing by the Republican Party.
• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent interference in the already criminally negligent two party process by the self proclaimed extreme right wingers in disguise who call themselves the Tea Party
• About to awake sometime between now and mid week next week to find that some half baked, half assed quick fix solution has been agreed upon just in the nick of time to prevent the aforementioned cataclysmic international financial crisis, in which case, of course, both major, and all minor, players in any and/or all parties will simultaneously take credit for their own contribution and place blame for the other guys obstinance.

Those of us who don't really understand all the nuances of living the life political will find ourselves, once again, faced with a myriad of choices regarding who to believe and how much.

Whole lotta spin going on.

And since the wonderful world of blogging has afforded "civilians" in the political wars, such as myself, the opportunity to add two cents (actually nine cents, adjusted for inflation), indulge me, if you will, as I contribute a few coins from my own perspective pocket.

The "debt ceiling" has been raised, without any serious brouhaha, dozens of times over the last fifty years, give or take.

Nobody in their right mind would be a party to allowing the United States of America to default on its debt and trigger any form of the aforementioned cataclysmic financial crisis. And while many politicians rightly deserve to be pilloried for their failure to look after our own interests as opposed to their own, a reasonable case can be made that most are in their right mind.

Some sort of "last minute save" is as inevitable as another Jesse James engagement announcement.

So the question that begs to be asked is...what's really going on here?

Here's a thought.

It's a pissing contest disguised as patriotism.

The Repubs supposedly want to save the Republic from the Dems, the Dems supposedlyb want to save the Republic from the Repubs and the Tea Party just wants to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray.

Nope.

It's nothing more than a very high stakes game of chicken being played out between the three gangs that pretty much spend most of their time pushing and shoving over who will rule the neighborhood.

Okay, two and a half gangs depending on how much street cred you give the Tea Party at this juncture.

Sharks.

Jets.

(Personally, I tag the Tees as the extreme right wing of the Sharks. Or Jets. Whatever)

And while all the "pin headed patriots" who make up the Congress (a right angled head nod to Bill O'Reilly, there) would love for us all to believe that they are out there fighting for us all ("us all" being defined as that most mystical of social demographics, "the American people"), I would offer you that what's really going on here is nothing more, or less, than a garden variety turf war.

It's a rumble, baby....bring your clubs, bottles and brass knucks and meet in the House Chamber at midnight.

Save the Republic, my ass.

It's Riff and his posse versus Bernardo and his posse dancing and duking it out for top dog status.

While those of us who would just like to live safe and sane and serene in the neighborhood hope that we won't get injured or killed in the melee'.

Any one of the previously mentioned thinkers would likely have volumes of opinion and perspective to offer on the societal implications of this current political watershed moment.

Steve and Lenny, on the other hand, would likely be able to sum it up in a couple of minutes of poignant music and lyric.

Because, posing and posturing aside, the end result of any rumble is inevitably the same.

Innocent people get hurt.

Lives and property get damaged, sometimes irreparably.

And neither side wins anything.

We don't need another Thomas Jefferson or Immanuel Kant to tell us that.

Sondheim and Bernstein have got it covered.

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear....."

By any reasonable measure, the presidency of Barack Obama, at this writing, deserves no better than a grade of C.

That grade was determined by emulating the time honored fashion of knocking both the high and the low score off to find what passes for an honest rating.

In other words, that grade is less a designation of "average" as it is a finding the center line between those that still think he is a superstar and those who would like to send him packing back to his birthplace.

Kenya or Hawaii, your call.

If you will concede, if only for the sake of discussion, that C is fair, then let me run this past ya...

If the election were held today, I believe that he would be re-elected, if only by a thin margin.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with his accomplishments or lack thereof, as the case may be.

It has to do with the other guys are offering as alternative.

Another "evil" for us to choose the lesser of.

And, more insidiously, an invitation to subscribe to, and/or endorse, the politics of fear.

At this writing, Mitt Romney leads the field of prospective candidates.

But just like Ricky Bobby appearing in Jean Girard's rear view, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and  Texas Gov. Rick Perry are moving up on Mitt.

And, so far, it looks, and sounds, like both Bachmann and Perry are card carrying members of the "be afraid, be very afraid" school of political presentation.

• Both are expressly pro-hetero, and for all appearances, anti-homo, sexual, don't even get them started on gay marriage.
• Both are on record as believing there is no credible evidence to accept global warming is real, Bachmann, in fact, going so far as to call it a hoax.
• Perry endorsed a resolution calling for "state sovereignty" which many believe was a thinly veiled endorsement of the idea that Texas should secede from the Union.
• Bachmann has voted against financing higher education and lowering student loan interest rates, in one case, opposing a bill that was later signed by George W.

The list, as it does, obviously, for anyone and everyone, goes on.

Here's some reference resources for you to check out for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

No one, of any political persuasion, can deny that Joe and Jane Six Pack are tired of the same old, same old when it comes to American politics and, in tough economic times, that fatigue often manifests itself as outright resentment and/or hostility.

In the heat of that anger, the last thing people usually want to hear is platitudes and homilies about "the best parts of our humanity" or "how we can, together, realize the dream of a greater nation and world".

Yada, yada.

But, once cooler heads prevail (and inevitably they do or we wouldn't have made it this far, would we?), we all start looking for that person who is going to inspire us, motivate us, make us want to be better than we are and set the bar to a height that we will work to clear.

Motivation is born out of inspiration.

Not intimidation.

And the politics of fear is the politics that keeps injecting into our collective blood stream, the virus of intolerance and hatred and prejudice.

Not a campaign that lifts us back up to a place where we believe we can overcome challenges and obstacles together, but one that warns us of the dire consequences of not endorsing exclusion and separation.

A campaign that offers not "ask what you can do for your country' but one that warns "vote for me or pay the piper".

History is littered with the names of "leaders" who fear mongered their way to power.

And the end result has always been the same.

Barack Obama has, admittedly, not accomplished what fervent followers expected.

But I think if the choice had to be made today, a majority of voters would choose another dance with the devil they know.

Because, he has,to this point, not asked us to continue believing in him lest we realize our worst fears.

With the exception of Romney, that seems, so far, to be the strategy of the other leading Republican candidates.

And millions of Americans seem to be buying it.

Now that's scary.

"It Isn't So Much That We Don't Know WHAT It Is As It Is We Don't Know What To DO About It..."

Old saying.

"Dying is easy...comedy is hard."

New saying.

"Politics is easy...comedy is hard."

While thousands of hours and oceans of ink are used up by print, TV, radio and Internet sources bouncing a thousand badminton birdies of opinion and analysis back and forth across a thousand badminton nets separating the blue nation and the red nation, the essential premise of national politics as it is, and has always been, practiced in America is sufficiently simple as to be easily explainable to anyone.

In fact, it can be done in less steps than it takes to achieve six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

i.e...

1. Congress is made up of people we choose to spend the money we give them to run the country.
2. People who wish to be chosen for the job promise us they will do a better job spending the money than the people who already have the job.
3. We believe, or do not believe, either the current officeholder or the one promising to do a better job
4. Each four/six years, we make a choice as to who we believe.
5. Once chosen, the same(new) officeholder continues/begins to spend our money on their, and not our, interests.

Any questions?

Thought not.

"...Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly and Fat Albert....Sixes of One...."

Pop quiz.

Name the first insightful and perceptive political analyst that comes to mind.

Got yours?

Here's mine.

Bill Cosby.

Say what?

More on that in a minute.

Everybody's favorite dancing daughter showed up on Leno this week to provide an update on whazzup, 2012 plans wise, with the family Palin.

And like every good teenage single mom with no particular political education, training and/or resume' to provide as credentials, she wasn't a scosche shy about laying out her take on the lay of the presidential landscape.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/bristol-palin-mom-has-chance-at-presidency-despite-the-past/#more-167434

Putting aside any obvious observation that getting mature and sensible political perspective from Bristol Palin is like getting mature and sensible relationship perspective from Snooki, here's the "hidden" sticky wicket in this whole scenario.

The ever dissolving line between political and pop culture.

(OLD FART FOGEY ALERT....I am about to use one of those expressions like "was a time", "used to be", et al whose side effects on younger readers/voters might include damage to corneal tissue due to excessive eye rolling)

When I was a kid (you were warned), politicos didn't posture and pontificate on the popular playgrounds.

And pop stars didn't proselytize on matters political.

"Serious" news matters were left to serious news shows.

And "entertainment" celebrities stayed in their own yards.

Now, as we approach the 2012 election of a President of the United States, we have the aforementioned unwed, teenage single daughter attempting trenchant political insight to a former stand up comic turned variety talk show host sandwiched in somewhere amidst the classic comedy schtick of Don Rickles and the savvy song stylings of Colbie Caillet.

"..and tomorrow night....Roseanne drops by to talk about her wacky new reality show "Roseanne's Nuts" and shares her views on the debt ceiling debate.....!!"

Personally, I think Wolf Blitzer would make a wonderfully dry and droll guest host for Jay from time to time, but that's another blog.

Here's the bottom (or center, as the case may be) line.

The blurring of the lines between political commentary and pop culture conversation doesn't serve either entity particularly well and inevitably ends up watering down the quality of either/both.

And a generation of up and coming youth voters who are teething on politics as seen through the knocked up daughter raps with stand up comic viewfinder are just as inevitably going to groove the habit of forming opinions that could affect their, and their kids, lives based on what and who's cool and hip as opposed to what and who's insightful or, dare we dream, inspiring?

All of that said, I refer back to my earlier choice of Bill Cosby as a political pundit.

In one of his classic routines, he observes that it's a mistake to ever "challenge worse".

As in, don't ever say things can't get worse.

Because, as Mr. Cosby correctly observes, worse will take that statement and show you who wears the pants in the family.

So, while I'm comfortable with being in full "tsk-tsk" mode when it comes to ragging on Bristol gettin jiggy with Jay, I going to pull up just short of saying things can't get worse.

There's a whole lotta talk shows out there.

And Michele Bachmann has five kids.

"...Shut Up...I Can't Hear Myself Interrupting You...."

Linguistics is not in my skill set.

I have, though, through the years, apparently acquired a knack for translation.

Stand by for a demonstration.

First, though, here's a clip of an exchange that took place on Hannity's show late last week.




Now, here's a wonderful version of a piece from "South Pacific".




Ann Coulter is, by any reasonable measure, a limelight fixated, one trick pony who continues to defy the odds makers by continuing to hold an audience's attention though her fifteen minutes were up years ago.

That said, Mr. Johnson's style of "debate" only fueled the fire while botching a wonderful opportunity to let Coulter further prove Mark Twain's observation... "better to keep quiet and have people think you stupid, than to talk and confirm it".

Spirited discussion requires both talking and listening.

Mostly listening.

These days, the goal almost always seems to be "oneupmanship".

Even when the most obvious strategy is allowing the opposition to make Mr. Clemens' point.

Political discussion in media is essentially oxymoronic.

What remains is "twin soliloquies".

Oh...and about my acquired gift for translation?

In most cases, when exposed to "discussion" like the one between Coulter and Johnson, here's, in fact, what most people hear:

Blah, blah...yada, yada....blah, blah....blah.

I'm thinking about applying for a gig with Rosetta Stone.

"....We Don't Want You To Put Your Finger On The Problem...."

I have an idea for a new bumper sticker.

More on that in a moment.

The brouhaha surrounding the "to scan or not to scan, pat down or not pat down" issue is, predictably, bubbling closer to a boil point as the busiest travel day of the year appears on our radar.

If you believe what your read (and, admittedly, I have mixed feelings about that concept because I'm innately skeptical but, at the same time, taking on faith that you believe what I'M writing here...) a mini revolution is brewing for November 24.

Here's the link to the latest:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40242420/ns/travel-news

Okay. Here's the view from the center line.

People are, by nature, individuals.

Individuals don't like being told what, where, when or how to do.

Government is, by its nature, entirely about telling people what, where, when and how to do.

Much of the time, people go with the flow.

Speed limits, licensing requirements, assorted and sundry rules and regulations, all of which are, ostensibly, created to make life safer for the many, some of which accomplish that purpose, some of which toe the line between direction and dictation.

The laying on of hands, though, is usually where even the best of intentions go south.

The mindset of the average American goes a little like this.

"...I'll stand in your damn line at the DMV, I'll wait patiently for my turn at Space Mountain, I'll even disperse though the cause be just...but try to pull or push me toward, or away from, it and I'll dig in my heels so deep it'll take a back hoe to pry me loose...."

Now, let's thicken the plot.

Because Osama Bin Laden and his wack job posse made the Towers come a tumblin down, our own government, much like a well meaning, but over protective, parent, continues to invent new ways to protect us.

Putting aside the legitimate question "why, after ten "quiet" years, are we just NOW so drastically ramping up the airport security thing...is there something you're not telling us?", here's the dilemma.

Some well meaning, over protective parent has decided that we need to be scanned.

Six to five and pick em' there's a body scan machine manufacturing company lurking somewhere around the story line here.

As a result, Joe and Joan Six Pack are faced with a lose lose situation.

Choose being checked out all over.

Or being checked out all over.

Which brings us back to that "don't like to be told what, when, where or how to do" thing.

Checkmate.

For almost ten years, we have all co-operated pretty patriotically with the "don't pack shampoo, take off your shoes, no, your family can't meet you at the gate" revisions to what used to be a reasonably uncomplicated event, an airplane trip.

Now, we're being told we have to be x-rayed or touched x-rated.

Okay, that's it.

It's time to let mommy and daddy know that we're big kids now and we know the risks and we know the dangers and while we are willing to be mature about not being able to pack shampoo, keep our shoes on or have the family waiting at the gate, we don't want to be x-rayed and we don't want to be touched x-rated and we just want to get on the damn plane.

We're not stupid. We know how the world works. We know there is a statistical possibility that our flight will come to its conclusion on the fiftieth floor of some skyscraper.

We get it.

And while we appreciate your ramped up efforts to "keep us safe', we sincerely believe that the value of that effort is too costly when it results in a three year old child being groped by a stranger in the name of safety.

Every intelligent parent knows that, when it comes to keeping kids safe, there is, literally, only so much you can do.

At some point, you have to suck it up, give them the keys to the car, tell them you love them and hope for the best.

The government needs to suck it up, give us the keys to the car and hope for the best.

When an ounce of prevention becomes an unbearable burden, its time to lower the dosage.

We're all willing to swallow that ounce.

And we all know what the odds are.

It would look like this on that bumper sticker I mentioned earlier.

"Life...it's the chance we take..."

"...A Few Words on Fancy Footwork..."

Book reviews aren't my thing.

The root cause, I imagine, being several elementary and secondary education year's worth of forced labor in the form of book "reports".

At a time in literary history when the only written words my peers and I coveted were the mysterious/misogynistic licensed to kill narratives of Ian Fleming, I really didn't give a shit about reading "Lord Jim", let alone wasting valuable weeknight TV time writing about it.

Add to that my intrinsic disdain for the obviously subjective concept of "review" in the first place (one man's poppycock is another man's Pulitzer,after all) and you needn't worry about finding blog space taken up with my bland efforts to become the cover to cover equivalent of Roger Ebert.

So when I share with you that I have neither the time or inclination to "review" Sarah Palin's newest collection of thoughts and theologies, "America By Heart", you can rest assured there will be no thumbs up or down to be found at the end of this piece.

Meanwhile, though, I would respectfully offer that there is an admittedly thin line between review and reflection.

And I do enjoy an opportunity to tippy toe along thin lines.

To wit, my reflections on the latest gospel according to Sarah:

Her take:
In a chapter on faith and public life, Palin addresses at length John F. Kennedy's noted speech on religion during the 1960 campaign — a speech many saw as crucial to counter sentiment that his faith would hold undue sway over him if he became the nation's first Catholic president.

"I am not the Catholic candidate for president," Kennedy said at the time. "I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic."

Palin writes that when she was growing up, she was taught that JFK's speech reconciled religion and public service without compromising either. But since she's revisited the speech as an adult, she says, she's realized that Kennedy "essentially declared religion to be such a private matter that it was irrelevant to the kind of country we are."

She praises Mitt Romney, a Mormon, for not "doing a JFK" during his campaign for the 2008 GOP nomination. "Where Kennedy seemed to want to run away from religion, Mitt Romney forthrightly embraced it," she writes. She attributes the gulf not just to the difference between the men, but to the distance the country has come since 1960. Now, she says, America is "reawakening to the gift of our religious heritage."


My take:
The conventional wisdom in 1960 was that electing a Roman Catholic to the presidency would result in some kind of puppet government, the strings attached to the guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C, the strings being held by the guy living in Vatican City, Rome, Italy. Any full read of the text of Kennedy's speech on the matter clearly spells out, in some passages bluntly, that JFK believed the separation of church and state was, and is, a constitutional dictate and any violation of that should, and would, be considered an impeachable offense. In other words, elect me, you get a president not a pope lackey. The history of the Kennedy presidency bears out that he kept his word. Sarah's use of fifty year old hindsight is not only obviously out of context but an unmistakable example of the remarkable skill, if no others, she possesses: the ability to play to the crowd, in this case, the crowd being the hard core religious right or, as its known affectionately, the Republican base.

Her take:
Palin, whose daughter Bristol is in the thick of a much-scrutinized run on "Dancing with the Stars," takes aim at another competitive reality show, "American Idol." She says the show's "talent-deprived" contestants suffer from "the cult of self-esteem" to the extent that they grew up convinced they could be stars like Michael Jackson.

But Cowell, the acerbic judge who left the show at the end of last season? He is "almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths," Palin writes.

My take:
Is there any person on the planet wiling to consider a point of view even resembling objective that hasn't been scratching their heads wondering how a contestant who has week after week after week been at the bottom of the judges list but who continues living to dance another day?

And is there any person who, aware of Simon Cowell's "willingness to tell hard truths", doesn't believe that if Simon were a judge on DWTS, Bristol would have left the show weeks ago, if only in humiliation as a result of the hard truths Cowell would be willingly telling about her performances?

Her take:
Palin praises "Juno," the movie where a pregnant teen chooses to carry her baby. "Most Americans, I think, are a lot like Juno," she writes — they may not be actively religious, "but they still want to do the right thing." She also likes "Knocked Up," in which a baby results from a one-night stand, and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."

My take:
Conservative candidate for President of the United States (and let's cut to the chase, okay, she's running and we all know it) deftly sidesteps base line conservative values by momentarily wrapping herself in a loving mommy outfit just long enough to deflect attention from said conservative candidate's daughter who deftly sidestepped base line conservative values by getting knocked up in the year 2008, a year in which birth control is more easily purchased than a fishing license. In one fell swooped paragraph, she mollifies her followers by cloaking conception in courage, while calming the more liberal thinkers who fear she has a puritanical stick where sun shine is lacking. Seriously, is it just me or is this lady the real dancing talent in the family?

Her take:
In fact, she says that if she had to pick a role model between Bristol and Murphy Brown, the 1990s sitcom character who chose single motherhood as a lifestyle, she'd choose Bristol. As for Brown, she laments that former Vice President Dan Quayle's criticism of the character essentially cost him the chance to be president. Quayle, she says, turned out to be right.

My take:
Let's just enjoy the laughter of the Murphy/Bristol comparison and move right along to considering the thought processes of anyone expressing regret that history and the American Presidency never had the chance to benefit from the once in a generation brilliance of J. Danforth Quayle.

I said, at the beginning of this piece, that I wouldn't be reviewing the book.

Turns out I wandered into a book report, though.

So, to honor the teachings of my assorted English teachers/professors through the years, let me wrap it up correctly.

The book is "America By Heart" by Sarah Palin.

If you find it interesting and would like to read more, I recommend another work in the same vein.

"Every Man A King" by Huey P. Long.

Now, there was a dancer.