Recently in Politik Inkorrecta Category

It seems, sometimes, as though the United States is, in reality, a giant high school. It has its cliques, like the jocks and the stoners. Remember? The jocks swaggered, blustered, and got in your face. They'd use threats and fear, and they'd beat up the stoners. The stoners, meanwhile, would be all, "Hey, man, just chill, it's cool. Wanna toke?" Then they'd giggle and make off-color jokes about the jocks' sexual preferences and the size of their girlfriends' tits or ass.

This is how I see partisan politics these days. On one side, you have the rather mellow lefty-loons who use comedians as their spokes-media. Colbert, Maher, Groening, "Family Guy's" Seth McFarland, Gary Trudeau. These guys didn't just take a page, they ripped entire volumes from Twain's library, clearly.

Not to be outdone, the right wingnuts have selected the masters of froth to pitch for them. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin. Fearmongers and screechers. The world is ending! The holy of holies of the week is under attack, and only spittle can save us! It's odd, but only right wingnuts seem to be listening seriously. Moderates are hanging back, not too far from the stoners, and laughing.

I wonder when the right is going to realize how stupid they look. If they really want start influencing people, they should stop blustering and fire up their own barbecues.

See, the problem is that politicians are just people. We forget that. We elect them, and then we want them to be more than people. We want to hold them to a higher standard. We are aghast when they cheat on their spouses -- moreso than when it's your neighbor. We're shrill -- Jesse Jackson fathered a baby with a young woman! John Edwards had known all along that baby was his! Bush lied! Obama lied!

But they're people. They're human, and so they are frail, and they lie, cheat, connive, take risks, are arrogant, jingoistic, bloated. Just like pretty much all of humanity as a species. And just as individuals among the species vary, so too do politicians. Some are kind of good. Some are not so bad. Some are worse.

This is nothing new, nothing surprising, but we forget it. We expect -- demand -- our leaders be better than merely human. We find it difficult to forgive them when they end up being merely human.

A few days ago in some lost conversation I mentioned that I dislike politicians. A friend said she actually liked them, which, of course, got me to thinking. Why do I not like them? They're human. I like humans. Should I not like politicians, just as a matter of course, and let the bad individuals among them stand out as not like-worthy?

Well, no. See, I form likes and dislikes based on behavioral characteristics and how it affects me. It seems to me that the very behaviors a politician requires in order to succeed as a politician and a statesman are the behaviors I find least like-worthy among humans.

For example, we all lie to varying degrees, and I am no exception. It is not a behavior to celebrate, and yet, a politician, in order to succeed in getting elected, must hone and refine and embrace the lie. He must lie without seeming to lie. He must shade, and evade, and spin. Deceit is one of the tools of his trade. Once elected, that tool is again essential as he deals with other elected officials, and with foreign statesmen. It behooves the elected official to do the best he can for his constituency. I can't really fault the politician for being an accomplished liar. We would not do well as a nation if our leaders could not or would not do this to some extent. But I don't like it.

We all manipulate. We all try to get the best for ourselves and ours. Politicians, again, must excel at manipulation and taking tactical advantage of situations, even at cost to others. Politicians must succeed more than they fail at amassing the goodies. I can't fault them for being good at it. But I don't like them, because they are good at it.

Does that make sense?

So I am unsurprised when a Joe Wilson type plots to gain notoriety and improve his campaign chances by shouting "You lie!" during a a televised address by President Obama. I figure, that's what he and his ilk do. Grandstand and make themselves known. I don't like that he did it. I don't like him, for many reasons beyond his politician-ness. But I feel pretty much the same way about President Obama, and President Bush before him, and Senator McCain and, well ... politicians in general.

They're too good at being human.

See, the problem is that politicians are just people. We forget that. We elect them, and then we want them to be more than people. We want to hold them to a higher standard. We are aghast when they cheat on their spouses -- moreso than when it's your neighbor. We're shrill -- Jesse Jackson fathered a baby with a young woman! John Edwards had known all along that baby was his! Bush lied! Obama lied!

But they're people. They're human, and so they are frail, and they lie, cheat, connive, take risks, are arrogant, jingoistic, bloated. Just like pretty much all of humanity as a species. And just as individuals among the species vary, so too do politicians. Some are kind of good. Some are not so bad. Some are worse.

This is nothing new, nothing surprising, but we forget it. We expect -- demand -- our leaders be better than merely human. We find it difficult to forgive them when they end up being merely human.

A few days ago in some lost conversation I mentioned that I dislike politicians. A friend said she actually liked them, which, of course, got me to thinking. Why do I not like them? They're human. I like humans. Should I not like politicians, just as a matter of course, and let the bad individuals among them stand out as not like-worthy?

Well, no. See, I form likes and dislikes based on behavioral characteristics and how it affects me. It seems to me that the very behaviors a politician requires in order to succeed as a politician and a statesman are the behaviors I find least like-worthy among humans.

For example, we all lie to varying degrees, and I am no exception. It is not a behavior to celebrate, and yet, a politician, in order to succeed in getting elected, must hone and refine and embrace the lie. He must lie without seeming to lie. He must shade, and evade, and spin. Deceit is one of the tools of his trade. Once elected, that tool is again essential as he deals with other elected officials, and with foreign statesmen. It behooves the elected official to do the best he can for his constituency. I can't really fault the politician for being an accomplished liar. We would not do well as a nation if our leaders could not or would not do this to some extent. But I don't like it.

We all manipulate. We all try to get the best for ourselves and ours. Politicians, again, must excel at manipulation and taking tactical advantage of situations, even at cost to others. Politicians must succeed more than they fail at amassing the goodies. I can't fault them for being good at it. But I don't like them, because they are good at it.

Does that make sense?

So I am unsurprised when a Joe Wilson type plots to gain notoriety and improve his campaign chances by shouting "You lie!" during a a televised address by President Obama. I figure, that's what he and his ilk do. Grandstand and make themselves known. I don't like that he did it. I don't like him, for many reasons beyond his politician-ness. But I feel pretty much the same way about President Obama, and President Bush before him, and Senator McCain and, well ... politicians in general.

They're too good at being human.

Everyone is giving him exactly what he craved. The whole reason he did what he did -- self-indulgent piece of shit that he is -- was to get attention for himself. No, not for the gracious lady he spoke of, but for himself. His career may or may not be down the tubes, but he is SO getting attention. There are even Facebook apps about him. If the negative stuff goes on too long, or gets carried too far, a cadre of fans will crop up to defend him and will ensure his career is NOT tanked.

The douche bag should be ignored.

Iowa's Supreme Court understands what the real stuff is when it comes to gay marriage, and the Court clearly understands the US Constitution. Read the ruling here. One of my Facebook buds -- you will know the Hip Unhip one as Don -- showed me this link. Also, over on the NorthPuffiner's blog, there's a bit of talk about the focus on gay marriage.

Regardless to say, I agree with the Iowa SC's ruling. I disagree with those who make the specious claim that marriage is only about children and the natural bearing of same, or that it has some bearing on "morality." Marriage as a church sacrament was about church approval of contractual bonds between land owning families (read noblemen) in order to ensure that the acknowledged offspring of those unions (whether or not the children actually came from either of the married pair) inherited the properties.

Marriage today is about forming a family unit for a broad array of civil and legal conveniences, entitlements, and rights. It is, by its own nature, a moral thing. It may be between one man and one woman who either can not or refuse to procreate. It may be between one man and one woman each of whom have several children by other means (prior marriages or children born out of wedlock). It may be as it was with my own parents -- a marriage into which children were adopted, and a marriage that broke apart as my father went from one lover to the next.

In some cultures legal and sanctified marriage may be between one man and many women. So it was in Jesus' time and culture, and so it continues to be in many cultures today.

There are cultures today where marriage may be between one woman and many men.

And in sub-cultures today, marriage may be between many people of any of the three sexes.

Sticking your head in the hoary muck of "God Intended One Man & One Woman When It Comes To Marriage Cuz That's How Genesis Defined It" is utter nonsense. Even the people who wrote the Adam & Eve fable believed in multiple wives and concubines, for goodness' sake! God intended men and women to create children. He intended them to be raised in a stable society with stable family resources from which to draw. In the days when the Man was the sole breadwinner, it made sense for there to be a man in that family unit, but today, that's hogwash.

As Iowa's Justice Cady wrote: If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.

God Bless Justice Cady, and God Bless America -- here's hoping the rest of the country stops fearing their own rectums, pulls their heads out of it, steps OUT of the nation's bedrooms and moves ahead.

Would you take out an ad in the paper and publish your friends' home phone numbers?

Would you stick one of those magnetic signs on your car as you drive about with your friends' and relatives' names and addresses on them in large, readable letters?

Would you send copies of postal letters to everyone you know that list the home addresses of each and every one of them, irrespective of whether they knew one another -- and send a copy to a national newspaper for printing?

If not, then why not?

Finally, are you one of those who sends mass e-mails to everyone you know, putting the e-mail addresses in the "To" line for all to see?

Irrespective of your answers to the questions at the top, if you answered "Yes" to that last question, then do me and everyone you know a favor and cancel your Internet service immediately.

If you answered "pffft, duh, no, I mean, hello?" then you are excused and may go off in search of the perfect cupcake or wotever you find more interesting.

Everyone else, take notes; there will be a quiz later.

It's not information that can readily be used for identification theft, and it's not likely to give real life stalkers added fodder for finding you, but a person's e-mail address is personal information. It is information your friends and relatives have chosen to share with you to make it easier for you to communicate with them.

What it is not is information you have the right to share with others.

Why is this important?

Number 1: Your second bestest friend in the world will probably forward your e-mail to his third cousin's fourth wife's late child's dog's veterinarian who, as it turns out, was involved in a bitter lawsuit with one of the people in your address book and now has a way to harass his nemesis. Or something along those lines.

Number 2: spammers. They get e-mail addies from spyware planted on the computers of about half of your correspondence list. The rest they get by siphoning out of the zombie routers that might've helped send that joke along its way.

Number 3: It's fucking rude, 'k? It's pretty much exactly like sending the postal letter full of names and addresses to the newspapers and to everyone you know, or sharing the phone numbers with the world.

So what should you do?

Simple. Put the addresses in a "bcc" list. Put your own e-mail address into the "To" line.
Less simple: sign up for one of the many social networking sites or "communities" or e-mail lists and invite all your friends. Then use that site to communicate those mass jokes you just have to share.
Even less simple and not for the faint of heart: get an e-mail client that'll let you set up messages that go to a list of people individually. You supply the list to the software, it takes care of sending multiple messages one at a time to each of the people in your list. Ritlabs "The Bat!" lets you do that. Take care you don't trigger your ISP's spam laws, though.

I'm ranting about this because my personal e-mail address has again been compromised to the point of becoming nearly useless. Anti-spam 'ware is only somewhat helpful and often shitcans perfectly legit messages which is a pain in the arse. I now get to go to some lengths to scrub my mail so I can get the good stuff and never have to see the shit that has been added because friends and relatives thought it was just peachy to send my personal address to people I've never heard of before.

'k. Done now.

Someone needs to.

I can tell when our "Winter Visitor" season is starting by counting the number of Winter Visitor coins I receive as change when I conduct cash transactions. They increase substantially as winter approaches, and drop off dramatically when the temperatures start to rise and the local roads and freeways become magically unclogged and devoid of cars bearing license plates from exotic Vancouver or Alberta.

I suspect my northern cousins can likewise use coinage to tell when they see an influx of southern visitors -- either in the summer months or when a Republican wins the Presidential election.

This is why someone -- either the US or Canada -- needs to change. They need to change their change. The similarity in size, weight, and color of the various coins making up our respective dollars simply must cease. We must differentiate.

I'd like to see the US do this -- even with the addition of a touch of color to our paper money, our cash is dreadfully dull. Dull, flat, lifeless disks of base metal -- even the copper-esque penny dulls out rapidly. We tried to do something interesting with our dollar coin, but that never went anywhere.

Of course, the similarity means that the wealthy, retired senile sorts who can afford to have a home in the sunny Southwest when their igloo doors get iced over are easily confused, hence the uprise in Canadian coinage in my pocket. Seems my local shopkeepers figure to unload their foreign metal on customers, rather than risk the wrath of the boss.

So. We need to change. We should talk to the designers for Apple -- they keep coming up with eye-catching stuff for their products, maybe they can innovate some really cool coinage.

It is not as though the coins are worth anything, anyway, so we may as well make them as interesting as the toy prizes you can get in your Happy Meal.

TransformerCoins! Collect the whole set!