11/28/03
Michael Jackson, or Kobe Bryant.
I don't know what to talk about first.
Let's cover Michael. It ought to be quick. Is he a sicko? Of course. Is he stranger than anyone you know, quite possibly. Did he molest that kid? Well, he's not a priest. Let's take this in context...a couple of years ago, this kid and his mother appeared on national TV and told the world that he slept in the same bed with Michael, and that there was nothing wrong with that. Jacko himself appeared to tell us that it was the most natural thing in the world. The kids mother couldn't stop telling us how good Michael was to her and to her family. Now, there are allegations of molestation. When things like this happen, the first thing you have to ask yourself is....why is it national news? Well, it should be obvious...Michael's got a new CD out. The last time we saw this much information about Michael was the last time he had a new CD coming out. Methinks this is a publicity wagon. Not to down play the possibility that there's truth to the allegations; but it does seem odd that the news comes out about the same time that Michael's got a new CD in the stores, and needs some kind of publicity to hype it. With the melodrama the press made out of this whole thing, CD sales ought to be expected to sky rocket.
The more interesting story would be getting Jacko to admit he has had multiple plastic surgeries. Apparently, he won't admit to any of them. Yeah, right. Download a picture of him now, of him in the Thriller years, and of his time with The Jackson 5. Tell me that there's anything natural going on with that nose.
Now, on to Kobe. Did he sleep with that chick? Probably. Is he a villain for doing it? Only to his wife. Why is it that whenever a famous person has indiscretions, it's national news? Do we truly have nothing better to do with our time than to be concerned with who a basketball player is sleeping with? With the level of press coverage available today, and the obsessive way the American Public chases after it's famous people, we're probably going to be hearing a large quantities of these stories in the years to come.
Did Kobe commit a crime...somehow, I doubt it. There are hordes of women that follow sports and movie stars, nearly throwing themselves at them. Don't believe it, try and find out how many pairs of women's panties have been thrown at Tom Jones. Do men all over the country cheat on their wives? Sure...talk to any traveling salesman, military member, rock star, or other profession that requires the guy to be on the road. At the risk of making numbers up, I'd bet that you'd find 2 out of 3 had committed some kind of indiscretion while on the road. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens. And when it happens to someone like Kobe, it's news. Here's my take on it. Kobe's young, successful, and could be considered good looking by some. He's on the road a lot...and I'm sure he loves his wife...but he meets up with this chick, and she's falling all over herself because he's Kobe Bryant. They have consensual sex, and Kobe moves on to the next town. Now, this chick's sitting around, telling all her friends that she had sex with Kobe, and generally enjoying herself because of it. Then, one day, a friend of a friend that happens to be a lawyer hears the story. The proverbial cash register sound goes off in his head, and he meets with her and tells her how much money she stands to get from Kobe (probably assuming he'll settle out of court to get away from the publicity). Voila, here we are watching a court case almost as annoying as the OJ Simpson case a couple of years ago. The only difference here is Kobe is probably innocent; the media has tried to drive a wedge between him and his wife; and, oh, by the way, it's basketball season, and he still needs to play in some games!
Kudos to the LA Lakers for standing behind their star, and allowing him the time he needs to deal with this farce in the court systems. There are teams that would have cut him loose, rather than deal with the bad press.
George W. Bush
There's no better way to begin political cynicism than with a discussion of George W. Bush, and his performance in the White House. First, a few disclosures. I am a declared Democrat, and my views are most often left of center. However, even I can concede that with options like Dubya and Al Gore, the choices were difficult. A hick from Tennessee, or a cowboy from Texas. I was also a fan of the last President Bush, and thought that he got the short end of the stick after the Gulf war. I mean, who would have been able to look good picking up the pieces of the economy from Ronald Regan?
But we're not talking about the father here. I'll save him for another day. George W. Bush, a man who's claim to fame prior to being elected President was a horrible state economy in Texas, a decimated educational system, and military service in the National Guard. A man who will forever be remembered as the President who wasn't quite as bad of a choice as his opponent; and who won thanks to the fact that people in Florida don't know how to vote.
As the campaign season gets into full swing, Bush's performance will be intimately studied by the media. Well, at least the good points of his performance will be intimately studied. We're all aware that our communist media sources will faithfully report all of this President's successes, while glossing over his failures. Let's take a brief look at his track record:
More jobs have been lost since George W. Bush was elected than had been created in eight years of economic explosion under President Clinton. Now, a lot of this may be caused by GWB having been in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but hey...Clinton got praised for his work on the economy, so Bush gets the credit for the jobs lost.
Hmm, what else do we have? Oh yeah, TAX CUTS. Everyone loves the tax cuts. Thank god the Republicans were around to give us our hard earned money back. Oh, I have one small question...how are we going to pay for this war? Come on, not even a hard and true Republican can believe that providing tax cuts is a good idea while attempting to win a war. War costs money, a lot of money. We've recently learned that it'll cost an additional $87 billion!!! And that's just this year. It's pretty evident that we won't be winning this war by 12/31/2003! How much money will it cost next year? We've been promised that the tax cuts will not be eliminated. That's the good news. Here's the bad news. In a couple of years, when GWB is long out of office and forgotten, who ever is in office will be destroyed in public opinion poles when they RAISE taxes to pay for the deficit that we're experiencing now, and will experience in next years budget. Let's look back at history. Deficit spending reached historical highs under Ronald Regan. George Herbert Bush promised that he would not raise taxes (read those lips), and then promptly found that he had to raise taxes to pay the bills; he went on to become the ONLY President in US history to lose reelection after having been in a declared war. Here we are, a little over a decade later, and deficit spending has reached new historical highs. What can that possibly mean for the near term future? Well, if history shows us anything, it'll mean that if GWB is not re-elected, our next President will be forced to raise taxes, and will promptly be trotted out of the White House in four years. If I were a part of the Republican National Committee, I'd call it a pretty sweet plan to ensure that as soon as we find a viable candidate, we'll be back in the White House in 2008...maybe we can talk Wes Clark into running as a Republican by then.
The War on Terrorism. You remember this one, right? This was going to be the defining moment of George Bush's Presidency. I'm pretty sure that we were trying to eliminate Al Quaida, and remove Osama Bin Laden from power. Somehow, that got translated to Saddam Hussein, and cleaning up the mess that the other President Bush started. Now, I know that Dubya needed to take a strong stance against terrorism. The September 11 attack was the most despicable act ever committed on American Soil. However, committing the country to fight an un-winnable war probably wasn't the best answer that this Administration could have come up with. But don't worry, most of us have already forgotten Pakistan and Osama, in favor of the media coverage of Saddam and Iraq.
I could go on....and on and on and on....but I think I've illustrated my point. In a time when this nation needed a strong leader the most, we were stuck with George W. Bush. It's unfortunate that he'll go down in history as the man who led the country against the threat of Terrorism (but didn't really finish the job because it was impossible), and that the performance of the economy will be forgotten by the writers of history in favor of stories of the liberation of Iraq (which will probably not be finished by this President).
11/28/2003
The War in Iraq and on Terrorism
Where to start. According to President Bush, major conflicts ended in May. Since then, we've lost more troops in battle than we did during major conflicts. It was one thing when there was a large swarth of military might making it's way through Iraq, but now that we've "liberated" the Iraqi's, there are daily terrorist acts that should remind most American's that walking around the desert in camouflage and carrying guns makes our soldiers an easy target. Our soldiers can't even identify the enemy, until it's too late. It should be blatantly obvious to any reasonable human being that there is still a large contingent of people in Iraq that do not want to be liberated...at least, they do not want to be liberated by Americans. The White House assures us that Saddam Hussein is behind these attacks, but isn't it possible that these random bombings aren't being coordinated by any one person or group? And if that's true, it should be readily apparent that the only reason this is happening is because the Iraqi's want us out of their country. Perhaps they can't remember why we're there in the first place...I mean, back in 1990 when we went in there, it was to protect Kuwait. Why are we there now?? Oh yeah...our conflict against Terrorists in Afghanistan logically led us to a desperate need to free Iraq and remove Saddam from power.
Ah...Afghanistan, you remember Afghanistan, don't you? That would be the country we attacked when we were still justifiably battling world terrorism. The hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and revenge for the September 11th attacks. What a blissfully ignorant nation we were then. President Bush stood strong, and assured the world that America would fight the war on terrorism, and we would win. A few months later, it appears as though the world (well, at least the American Media) has forgotten about Pakistan, and is completely focused on Iraq. Perhaps President Bush is trying to finish what his father started....even though his father clearly recognized the error in attempting to topple the Saddam regime. Does anyone remember the outcome of the battles in Afghanistan? No? Let me remind you. Nothing. I mean, we created a number of pretty craters throughout the country, and our troops got in some long awaited spelunking, but wasn't our objective to get Osama Bin Laden, and defeat Al Quaida? Where do we stand on that front? Oh yeah, I remember...we're in Iraq, and can't locate Saddam Hussein, either.
12/18/2003
The X-Mas Season
It's X-Mas again. Note that I use X-Mas, and not the pseudo-religious term normally associated with this holiday. Why, you ask? Simply because in society today, materialism and commercialism seem to have usurped the religious implications of the holiday. Having grown up as a Roman-Catholic, we were always taught that the true meaning of the season was to celebrate Christ's birth, and the gifts that he bestowed on humanity. However, also having grown up in the 80's, it was pretty easy to realize the true meaning of the holiday was to get as many gifts as possible.
The church teaches that this is a time of goodwill towards man, and all that jazz, but as I talk to people, and travel through my day, I wonder what has become of that good will. Have you gone to the mall recently? People are cruising around looking for parking spaces with guns drawn, and a look of pure determined hatred on their faces. Don't get in their way....they've _got_ to have that spot forty feet from the door, and if it involves yelling and screaming, or denting your car, they don't really care. As you stroll through the mall, make sure that you don't get in the way of anyone making tracks towards this years must have gift. Recently, DVD players were sold at Walmart for under $100. People lined up at the doors before the store opened, and when the doors were opened, and the crowd pushed in, one woman lost her footing. Reports stated that she was trampled by a number of people on their way in to the store. No one stopped to help her or check on her well being. Goodwill towards man apparently does not extend to sales in retail outlets.
This is also the season of the company holiday party. I've attended a few in my time, and have gotten pretty decently inebriated at them. Thankfully, I'm generally capable of not making a fool of myself. However, not everyone is so lucky. So to add to the materialism of the season, we now have to deal with co-workers behaving in a manner we had not thought possible, and then are forced to dodge these people on the roads. It almost makes you want to stay home and drink instead.
I've noticed that as I grow older, the spirit of giving does seem to grow. Although, I still get aggrivated when I think I've gotten the best gift for someone, and I come away with something that I wouldn't even have looked twice at in the store. It's times like that when I have to remind myself that it's not the getting, it's the giving. Yeah, it doesn't really work. So as we enter another X-Mas season, let's hope for all the things that we should hope for; increased retail sales, dangerously drunk individuals on the roads, and parking lots that resemble war zones. Merry X-Mas, everyone.
1/8/2004
Give me your tired, your poor, your ILLEGAL ALIENS...
I sat awe struck yesterday afternoon, watching George Bush announce his new "sweeping reform" to the US Immigration policies. Somehow, Dubya thinks that allowing Illegal Aliens to remain in the United States while employed will be good for the country. I've been scratching my head ever since trying to figure out how this is a good thing.
Let's see...as noted previously, during Bush's tenure, the US has already lost more jobs to overseas concerns than were created during the Clinton administration. Now, with unemployment rates higher than they've been in my lifetime, Dubya wants to offer more jobs to Illegal Aliens, a deprive Americans of these jobs. Sure, the business groups interested in this plan are claiming that the majority of these jobs are unskilled labor that American's don't want, such as migrant farming, hotel cleaning, etc; but what could this foreshadow? If we spent some time introducing the large quantity of American homeless people to these jobs, would there be as high an unemployment rate, or an interest in allowing Illegals to work here legally?
I know, the press is no longer calling them Illegal Aliens. They're taking their cues from the administration, which has taken to calling them Undocumented Immigrants. C'mon, I can't believe the American people are going to buy this change in phraseology!! No matter how it's stated, or what you call it, these are people who have entered into the United States illegally, and are an active drain on societal resources (public services, such as police, homeless shelters, etc). I'm not saying these people shouldn't be in America, the US has a long history of being populated by immigrants...unless you're an American Indian, there's a pretty good chance that your ancestors immigrated here at some point in time; but I am saying that the amount of immigration needs to be controlled.
Of course, Bush has taken care to say that these workers will not automatically be offered green cards. Thank god for that! They'll only be allowed to work here for three years (potentially six, with renewal), and then will be required to leave the country. How easy do you think that will be? Can you imagine the resources that will be needed to ensure that people who have tasted the home of the free actually leave it? But the administration has an answer for that, as well. They're going to provide financial incentives for the Illegals to return to their own countries!! Can you believe it? Can you actually think that Americans are going to buy this? Please, come to our country, do the jobs we don't want, and then, when we kick you out, we'll pay you to leave!! This has all the markings of the most ridiculous piece of legislation that GW has presented; right up there with continued funding of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Who is going to benefit from this sort of legislation? Most obviously, it'll be the states bordering Mexico. In case we couldn't figure that out already, Bush began the day by talking to the President of Mexico; and then made the announcement in front of members of the Hispanic community. This is an obvious attempt by the administration to cull the hispanic vote; a large demographic that leans to the left most of the time. Considering Bush is from Texas, as well, he's obviously trying to make a large quantity of Texans happy...probably the kind that own farms and ranches, and already employ a large quantity of Illegal Aliens. Hmm....I wonder how many Illegals are employed on Bush's ranch??
2/28/04
Let's Put Discrimination in the Constitution
You know, when I started this site, and this page, I never meant it to be a Bush bashing page. Just seems to be turning out that way, every time Bush opens his mouth.
My latest round of outrage is directed at the whole homosexual marriage issue. I do not understand how we can say we live in a country with no discrimination, when blatant attempts at discriminating against homosexuals are made on a regular basis. The President now says that he would support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. How bigoted is that? Never mind the bigotry, how self-centered and egotistical is that? An Amendment of this nature would make it impossible for homosexual couples, in committed relationships, to enjoy the same basic freedoms that my wife and I enjoy, including paying more taxes because we're married, survivor benefits if one of us dies, adoption rights, and on and on.
It is absolutely despicable that anyone thinks they have the right to prevent anyone else from having the same rights and freedoms. And the thought of putting that in our Constitution is simply disgusting. Look, it's ok to not approve of homosexuality, if that's your moral bent. It's ok to not want to be associated with it, or to not want to observe it. But it's certainly not ok to classify homosexuals as the bane of society, and not extend them common human rights.
One of my co-workers at a previous job was gay. I met his partner, who was a caring man who had joint custody of his two children from a previous marriage. These two men were committed to each other, and had been for about as long as I had been with my wife at the time. They were preparing to buy a house together. However, the laws of the state and country prevented them from any of the benefits that I enjoyed. They had to buy their health care separately, and were unable to minimize their health care costs because of this. They had to set up special powers of attorney, and wills to ensure that if something happened to one of them, the other could inherit their joint possessions legally. If one of them was in the hospital, in intensive care, the other would not be allowed to visit, since they were not considered immediate family. There is no way that we can claim that our country is considerate when things like this are happening.
The discrimination currently being practiced against homosexuals is akin to the racial discrimination that happened in the past in our country. No one thinks that racial discrimination was a good thing, but somehow people think that discriminating against homosexuals is the moral thing to do. I'll remind you that in the past, people viewed blacks and indians as an abomination under God, justifying their moral outrage, and discriminatory practices.
Bravo to the city of San Francisco for having the grace to allow homosexual marriages. Bravo to the State Supreme Court in Massachusetts for realizing that banning gay marriages is not legal. Boos to anyone who thinks that the federal legislature, or any state legislature needs to go around defining words.
2/28/04
Boobs, Super Bowls, and Highschool Kids in the Draft.
First up, Janet, the boob, and the Super Bowl. Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that this was a set up? Well, by now, Janet has told us that she planned it, after rehearsals, by herself. Hmm...publicity stunt with a new album coming out? And following on the heels of what her brother has been up to? Wow...pretty coincidental. There has been a huge amount of fall out in the press regarding the activities during the Super Bowl half time show. But all I keep hearing is that people can't believe that Janet did it, or that they can't believe that it made it on air. The Grammy Awards show even set up a delay in broadcasting. I need to ask...why wasn't there a delay during the Super Bowl? A five second or ten second delay is just about second nature for all broadcasts these days. We even get a delay on golf broadcasts, so you can't here Tiger swearing, and don't know why he's in the news getting fined next week. The more appropriate question to be asking of the half time show coordinators is: Couldn't you have gotten a better show together? Come on, this is the highlight sporting event of the year, and you give us Kid Rock, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and Aerosmith. I mean, I like the Aerosmith tie in with the Pat's being from New England and all, but do the rest of these people belong at something like the half time show? Or were they only ones that could be afforded, or were willing to do a 15 minute spot? I'm not a fan of canceling the half time show...all that will get us is more commercials that we'll need to watch; but the quality of the entertainment needs to be addressed. We need to have performers that the majority of America and the rest of the world will like....not a couple of washed up artists, and a never-will-be super star.
Also big in the news now is whether or not kids in high school can try out for the NFL draft. Apparently, court rulings are expected to allow kids to try out, and repeal the NFL's rule of requiring a length of time out of high school before they can try out. The legal arguments have been that by allowing these kids to try out earlier, their earning powers are maximized. Is there anyone out there that thinks this is a good idea? Other than the people who's kids want to try out? There is no argument that can make me believe that a 17 year old kid should be playing pro sports, and making millions of dollars doing it. Their bodies and minds are not mature enough at that age to handle the pressures of playing, never mind the pressures of being multi-millionaires. How many of these kids will end up with drug or alcohol convictions before they're 22? The NBA has been allowing this for a long time now. The story goes that it's not an age limit that is abused; it's self selective by the kids that want to try out. Matter of fact, they say only 29 kids have tried it in the 30 or so years that it's been allowed. Course, as a side note they barely mention that of those 29, only 6 have been successful in the NBA. The upside is I didn't read any stories about them having drug/alcohol addictions, or being hard partiers related to their cash....but I still don't think it's a healthy alternative. These kids don't realize what could potentially happen to them, if their bodies fail them and they can't play. Lets look at Robert Edwards as a classic example. First round draft pick by New England....great stats, promising career. Plays in a rookie pick-up game in Hawaii, and destroys his ankle. This kid gets one years salary as a rookie, and will never play foot ball again. Thankfully, Edwards completed his education. He's got something waiting for him outside of football. How bad would it have been if he had been 17, and a high school drop out? What kind of a future would he have then?
3/17/04
Happy St. Patty's Day
St. Patrick's Day is another one of those made up holidays. I guess it's supposed to be a showing of solidarity for the Irish; but usually involves a lot of drinking, and eating really disgusting cabbage. Me? I wear orange and white on St. Patty's Day. Really pisses off the Irish Catholics.
But today, I didn't really want to discuss fake holidays that I don't get a day off for. I want to discuss a growing problem in America today. I call it the "It's not my fault" syndrome. This problem has been developing for many years. In the nineties, we found out that some adults that seem relatively well adjusted could commit heinous crimes, and it wasn't their fault!! It was their upbringing, their parental situations, or society at large that was at fault (if you don't know what I'm talking about, go Google about the Menedez brothers, and how and why they murdered their parents. While you're there, find out about John Chapman, the guy that killed John Lennon, and blamed JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye."
If situations like that aren't enough to start getting you cynical, these days corporate America is being blamed for obesity!! That's right, it's not your fault your fat, it's McDonalds fault. You should go get attached to the class action law suit that's currently pending. It's become so bad, that McDonalds is now eliminating their super-size option under pressure from the overweight lobby.
I'll grant that there has been portion size creep in America in my life time. At McDonald's alone a large fry is now as big as a super-size fry used to be when I was younger. But c'mon, people. If you're a fat cow that ceaselessly crams McDonald's french-fries down your throat, and makes no attempt to limit yourself, or get exercise, it is NOT McDonald's fault. It really annoys me that we're living in a society that is unwilling to be accountable for its own actions. Society certainly didn't make you think that looking like the Michelin Man was desirable.
My only hope is Darwin's theory....natural selection ought to take care of the people who refuse to take care of themselves.
11/13/04
The Populace has Spoken, and they are....confused
Well, it's been awhile since The Cynical Bastard has spoken. Does that mean he hasn't been cynical throughout the year? Au contraire. It simply means that I've been to busy to allow my innate cynicism to manifest itself in prose. It also means that since this was an election year, no level of cynicism here on these pages would have been able to compete with the mud slinging that the press gave us throughout the year.
In the Red corner, that bastion of stupidity, George W. Bush. And in the blue corner, the holier than thou liberal, John F. Kerry.
The biggest question in this election is how did America make a choice between these two super-mediocre politicians? John F. Kerry, a man from a family so pretentious, they made Fitzgerald his middle name. A nod to the Kennedy clan, also hailing from Massachusettes. A man who honorably served his nation in Viet Nam, and then promptly elevated himself to prominence by speaking out against that war. A man who is so firmly entrenched upon the left, that he makes Southern California appear Conservative. And George W. Bush; possibly the single most misled leader that this country has ever had. A man who hasn't had an original idea since the last time he snorted that white powder. A man who is actively attempting to cement his name in the world history books by invading every middle eastern country that looks the wrong way.
Ah...the wonder of it all. In true fashion, we have had to listen to ad campaigns for the past year that extolled the virtues of John Kerry's leadership in Viet Nam. We've had to listen to the Bush campaign tell us that the economy is improving, and that a change in Iraq is for the best. What have we all learned about the candidates? We've learned that John Kerry doesn't really know what it is that he stands for. And we've learned that George Bush is very good at staying on message, after his aides spent 48 hours prepping him for televised debates. We've learned that the internet is a good grass roots campaign method; although, you have to be younger, and better looking, to appeal to the audience. We've learned that the American Public can very easily be told that a dictator in a remote country was directly involved in nothing that we could prove, but that it's still better to take him out of power. We've learned that the Democrat's simply can not stay on message and win the south. And, most importantly, we've learned that the leftist people in America are prepared to cecede, simply because we were unable to oust the right wing from power. Again.
Well, we're in for four more years of George Bush. One hopes that the devil we know will end up being better than the devil we didn't know. Could it truly get any worse than it has been for the past four years? Well, those of us that remember Regan's second term think that that's a distinct possiblity. There's still more defecit spending to accomplish. There are still radical terrorist groups to attack. There's more military funding to strive for. There are taxes to raise. One bright light, in all of this: More people voted in this election than at any time in the past century. And, a clear winner was determined. That, above all else, should be considered a victory for democracy.
And one hopes that the Democrats can mount a better challenge than Hillary Clinton in 2008!!
