Tonight, David Letterman retired. After over 3 decades in TV, the man followed in the footsteps of his mentor, Johnny Carson, and retired while he was on top of his game. I guess his heart no longer said "Buttafuco". (That was the reason Letterman gave for signing up with CBS.)
- - - - - -
Like Carson before him, Letterman was a master of his craft. However, also like Carson, he defined the type of show that worked best in a time slot. Carson took the tonight show, and created an impossible mix - a show that kept you entertained, but if you fell asleep watching it, you'd feel as if you missed nothing while asleep. Letterman did something similar for the 12:30 am to 1:30 am slot - taking a mix of edgier comedy,"dumb" comedy, up and coming celebrity interviews, and targeting a younger generation than Carson aimed for. And, like Carson, he aged with his audience.
If you have been in the public spotlight for 33+ years, there will be a lot of people poking fun at you - as they have with Letterman. In his case, the "Krusty the Clown" character from "The Simpsons" was modeled on his curmudgeonly character traits.
And the creators of the Simpsons helped out with an animated bit on Letterman's final show as a way of paying tribute to the man. But the best tribute may have come from the man hosting the show immediately following Letterman - who did a "Top 10" list during the show, and then at the show's end, rolled watermelons off the roof onto the parking lot below.
- - - - - -
Letterman was not known for political humor, but he didn't avoid a good political joke it it came to him. One of my favorites was:
"Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it is best to stop at 2."
If I wanted to, I could find a lot of jokes he may have done about politicians of both parties. But I'm not interested in recycling old humor. Instead, I'm more interested in the fact that the real life Krusty did let his feelings show in public. And it is fitting, that when he exited the building, that he did not go through the the theater's front or side doors. Instead, he made an unceremonious exit through the delicatessen that shared the building, and walked away into retirement.
Dave - you will be missed!!!!!
This image makes it seem like the Baltimore police had the situation under control. However, given 4/27's news reporting on both Fox and MSNBC, this would be the furthest thing from the truth.
Normally, I lean left of center (based on today's politics) when interpreting affairs of the day.When it comes to riots, I have no problems with police being able to "shoot to kill". "Why?" you may ask... To me, the answer is simple - a riot is like a quick moving cancer. If it is not put down quickly, a community gets labeled as a bad place to make an investment. And, as a result, there is a loss of jobs which can force the community into an economic death.
Sadly, the fact that riots are taking place are indicative of a bigger social problem. We have an excess supply of people who are willing to work, but can not find gainful work. We have draconian laws (especially in regard to recreational substances) whose net effect is to disenfranchise large segments of the population, to warehouse them where they can't compete for jobs against a blissfully unaware but shrinking middle class, and to function as a tool to keep the lower economic classes in check.
If we look at the people in places like inner-city Baltimore, we see poor people who have poor educations, who will not be able to qualify for the jobs of tomorrow. They are frustrated, and do not have the ability to articulate their complaints against the larger society. Strangely enough, Fox had a reporter on the ground, interviewing one of the locals in front of the police, while MSNBC only had talking heads in the studio. But the message was clear, no matter which side of the political aisle you were on - the people in inner-city Baltimore are tired of living in conditions of little hope.
Watching the Fox interview of the unnamed Baltimore local, I noticed that the local mentioned that he just got out of prison on a trumped up drug charge, where the policeman planted the evidence that was used to convict him. In the past, I'd be inclined to think that this would be someone lying to save face. However, with these incidents (and others) on file, I'm not so certain we can put the word of the police above the average citizen any more:
Can we assume that the police are telling the truth? Not anymore. Yet, I believe that most of the police are getting a bad reputation from these "bad eggs", and from policies meant to detect crimes, even when no crimes have been committed.
Let's assume that this unnamed Baltimore local's statement is true. Then this is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. The people we've entrusted the duty to protect us have become part of the problem. In an article on where Baltimore's police went wrong, the author notes that dealing drugs is the only "industry" left in the inner city - and that our current drug laws are creating a police force that no longer polices neighborhoods to keep them safe, but instead, becomes a tool used to keep the poor and disenfranchised in line, and afraid to challenge the corrupt status quo.
Most policemen starting out are good people who are put under a lot of stress every day. However, our elected leaders set policies that often demand that the police meet quotas to show that crime is being reduced - and our police oblige them, out of fear that they will become victims of politics. Instead of being the trusted members of the community that one could count on to find out who is committing crimes, they become the distrusted outsiders responsible for keeping a sector of society out of public sight.
The big question is - how long will it be before the lower classes in American society rebel, as the French did in their 1784 revolution? I have no idea, but I hope that we can humanely fix the problem with the disenfranchised poor before they find a way to create a successful revolution of their own....
Sadly, we're seeing in some of the "Red States" a push to break down the wall that separates Church and State. Although many of the people think this to be a good idea, saying that "if we go back to God's word, then all will be right with the world", history has shown this idea to be the furthest from the truth.
- - - - - -
If one looked at Europe before the "Peace of Westphalia", one would see a collection of European states fighting each other, with people being expelled from their homelands because they did not worship in the same church as the princes that rules their principalities. This was not a stable situation, and it was not good for the princes nor was it good for their subjects.
According to Wikipedia, the main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:
- All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio)
- Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.
- General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.
Over the long term, the associated treaties that defined this peace helped define the nation-state we know today. People could worship in their own churches - even though the crown may be associated with a different religious sect. Europe stumbled into a policy which would reduce the risk of sectarian violence between Christian sects.
Undoubtedly, the well educated among our Founding Fathers were aware of these treaties, and wanted to make sure that the fledgling United States would not have religious wars between the states. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As a result, religious sects had to market themselves as this country grew Westward. Often, the first church in a community gained most of the parishioners - but this was not a hard and fast rule. Later immigration might result in new churches being built for people who belong to different sects, and we had relative peace. (I choose to skip over the persecution of the Mormons for now, as it is a notable exception to this trend.)
Even now, in most areas outside the "Bible Belt" most people don't care what church, temple, or mosque their neighbors belong to. Sadly, in the "Bible Belt", there is a large number of people who believe that they should roll back America to the "good old days" where traditional Christianity was the default religion - as if the 1950's were great for all of America. These people judge others based on their conformity to tradition, claiming that these cultural norms are defined by God - and punishing those people who don't follow these norms. Challenges to any authority are squelched - even when the person in authority is corrupt and self serving.
We see people trying to use fear of God to control others, such as this post that God will destroy America if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Same Sex Marriage equality. Why do they fear this change? I know of no traditional marriage which has been harmed by two people of the same sex getting married. The answer, as I see it, is that people in cultures (or subcultures) where tradition is valued very highly do not have adequate skills to cope with and manage the unknown. So instead, these people try to use both secular law and pseudo-religious dogma as their tools to keep others in line with tradition.
Some traditional cultures, such as the Amish, simply shun those who do not follow the group's edicts regarding following tradition and associated behaviors. But the Amish also allow for their children to make a "knowledgeable" decision, giving them time to learn about the outside world before committing to the Amish tradition. Contrast this with the Hasidim, who do their damnedest to make sure that their population is as ignorant as possible about the outside world as a whole. But it's not my intent to bad mouth people from traditional cultures, as it is to make note of a line between an informed decision and a decision made out of ignorance and fear.
Years ago, Southerners used religion as an excuse to preserve slavery. Now, the social dysfunction once limited to the South has infected other states - and is being used to deny rights to a new class of people. Although I am a straight male, I feel that I must stand up for the Gays and Lesbians in our community. If I don't help them defend their rights, who will be there to protect mine when I need help?
Do not interpret this post as an endorsement of Hillary. As much as I am not a fan of any of the GOP candidates so far, I am not a fan of Hillary. At the time of writing this entry, I know more about where the 3 GOP candidates stand than I do of where of where Hillary stands - and that's a big problem. Hillary is a Machiavellian Sphinx.
- - - - - -
The democrats have a big weakness - they have no fallback candidates. Elizabeth Warren does not want to run for president - her power, like Ted Kennedy's power, is to influence the debate from the Senate chamber. She is a true liberal, and has more access to the levers of power as a senator than she ever would as a presidential candidate. If she were to run against Hillary, she would only force Hillary to move to the right, instead of being able to pull Hillary to the left, as she could from the Senate floor.
Next comes Bernie Sanders. I respect him because he's a true, honest liberal. He will likely run for president, even though he can't win. The taint of the "Liberal" brush has made it impossible for him to capture any of the "Red States". Yet, he has ideas which must be included in the presidential debate, although he has no chance against Hillary.
But who is left in the Democratic party to challenge Hillary? If there is anyone, then who is he/she, and what does he/she stand for?
- - - - - -
Let's say that Hillary loses. Who does the Democratic party have on its bench for the 2020 run? I see no one who can capture enough Red states to make a difference. This is very important. Although demographics are favoring the left over the long term, they strongly favor the right in the short term. Gerrymandering, abuses of political powers, stacking of the courts, and other tactics will make it much harder for the left to gain power in the normal cycle of the political pendulum - and this is dangerous, as it will make the stakes even greater each election cycle, and authoritarians tend to abuse power to stay in power.
If we look at the recent problems in Ferguson, MO, we find that there is a political district whose officials are not representative of the community as a whole. A large percent of the community has been disenfranchised (made ineligible to vote) because of minor legal infractions. Even though these people have paid their time for their crimes, their rights have not been restored. Add to this, a government which is financed mostly by predatory law enforcement, and one has a pot ready to boil over.
What happens when the pot boils over? The most recent time it did, we had riots - which makes the people from the community look bad. These riots are disorganized, and do not serve much than to be a collective release of anger. This is inexcusable, as much as it is ineffective. But what would happen if these same people were to get illegal weapons and overthrow the police using selective assassinations? We could see a situation similar to that occurring in Central Europe in the 1920's - where Fascists and Communists fought in the streets, and a relatively unknown Austrian found a voice and a forum to gain power after a short stint in prison. You might have heard of his most famous book - its English title is "My Struggle".
- - - - - -
"My Struggle" is not the name most people associate with this book. They are more familiar with its German title "Mein Kampf". Years ago, I had a conversation with a friend whose political views shifted far to the right, a friend from whom I disconnected to preserve my sanity. And at that time, we both came to the conclusion that the political left decays much more quickly, as it tends to place more emphasis on the rights of the individual than the political right. The political right puts a greater emphasis on the needs of the tribe (its tribe) over that of the individual, though it uses misleading language stressing individual and collective liberty.
We've seen this problem before. Leaders (from the right) stir up hatred for selected minorities who do not have the power to fight back - and the average person follows, as a herd mentality takes over. In 1934, it was hard to believe how quickly a free Germany changed into an authoritarian state. People got tired of the political battles, and surrendered power to an authoritarian government simply to end the fighting - and instead, got war. We have that same danger in today's America - give those authoritarians power, and they will keep us poor and in forever wars. So it is extremely important for the political left to again have a strong back bench of people who know how to use the levers of power - if only to check and balance the political right.....
