Showing posts with label Charlie Chaplin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Chaplin. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!:


Al Franken - Giant of the Senate, and the man who should be out next president.

In an age of political correctness on the left, Al Franken was one of its victims.  I will not focus on his resignation from the Senate, nor will I focus on this man's comedic past.  Instead, I will focus on a man who won the respect of people, and is more qualified than our present president to hold that office.

- - - - - -

When Al Franken decided to run for the Senate, many people didn't take him seriously. Because of his previous career in comedy, they thought he'd be making fun of the Senate and its institutions. Even though many people didn't take his candidacy seriously, he won his first election by 312 votes - forcing a recount before he was seated.

During his first term, he barely cracked a joke.  When he did, it was not in public.  He was spending all of his time earning the respect of both his fellow Senators and of his fellow Minnesotans.  By the time the votes were counted in his second election, he won with 53.8% of the ballots cast.

An avowed Liberal, Franken favors a single payer health care system.  He has also addressed conflicts of interest in the issuance of financial securities, by creating an independent board to choose which ratings firm would be used to rate a given security. I could go on and on, but it would sound more like a rehash of a Wikipedia entry than a detailed list of things this man had worked on during his tenure as a Senator.

- - - - - -

Sadly, Al Franken was forced out of office by the puritanical wing of the Democratic party. Although he has showed remorse for his actions (unlike our president), the "Me Too" movement needed sacrificial lambs, and he was chosen.  Yet, he still has the respect of more people in the Democratic party than those who would keep him from running for office again. 

Franken's sense of humor (as a politician) can be summed up by two jokes about Ted Cruz:

  1. When an average American thinks of a bad cruise, they think of Carnival.
    When a Senator thinks of a bad Cruz, they think of Ted.
  2. I'm Ted Cruz's closest friend in the Senate.
    And I Hate Ted.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that if he knew how evil Adolf Hitler was when he filmed The Great Dictator, he'd never have made the film.  Mel Brooks takes the opposite tack. He tries to belittle and make fun of Hitler every chance he gets.  He feels that people that evil do not deserve respect.  As for me, I wish I could have told Chaplin to make the film, as all dictators need to be taken down, and the best way to do so is with humor.  Franken is the type of person who can and will use humor as a weapon if needed. And he is the only one who could burst Trump's bubble of invincibility with a well placed gag during a debate.

- - - - - -

Given the man who is POTUS now, we know that Franken is good enough to be president. We know that he is smart enough to be president. And he is still well liked by the majority of Americans.  Hopefully, he will throw his hat into the ring, and be elected our 46th president in 2020.


Al Franken for President - 2020

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Thoughts on the first presidential debate.


One speaks to our gut.  The other speaks to our mind.  Both are disliked by almost everyone. And yet, we have to choose one from these two candidates.  Either way, America loses.


- - - - - -

Everything Trump says is a lie - including the words "and" and "the". When Lester Holt (the debate's moderator) tried to fact check Trump on a ridiculous claim, Trump shouted over him. Given Trump's style, he showed that he'd bully anyone, everyone, and anything that got in his way - including the truth. (Hillary tends to be more in touch with reality.) Sadly, Hillary didn't go in for the kill where Trump was weakest - his tax returns.  It has been documented elsewhere that Trump is in bed with many unsavory characters, and she could have brought up the slavery in Dubai associated with one of Trump's partners.  In short, she could have gone a little loose with the facts and played Trump's game by her rules.  

Sadly, Hillary is too much of an intellectual type.  She's the type of nerdy girl who tried to impress people when young by studying everything in the town library. She is a fountain of facts fighting a tiger of lies. If one listened to the debate, as I did, one would have noticed Trump shouting over Hillary at least 20 times.  If Hillary had responded in the same way a man would, she would have seemed shrill and lost any of the gravitas she had.  There is a double standard applied to women, and Hillary does not have the vocal tools which Maggie Thatcher used to beat men at their own game.  (Over Thatcher's career, she gradually lowered her voice to take advantage of a human prejudice to assign gravitas to lower pitched voices.)


- - - - - -

Who won the debate?

If one listened to the debate and carefully parsed the questions and answers - Hillary.  But that's too easy an answer. Trump was not preaching to the public.  He was preaching to a base who already had their decisions made for them, and needed to avoid anything that smacked of defeat by a woman.  And that he did with his visual image. He is a dominant, bullying male. He used all the key tools of an emotional abuser to dominate the moderator and to dominate Hillary. If you were already supporting Trump, you'd have said that he won - especially, since neither Hillary nor the moderator could talk over his shouting.

I'm very afraid here.  Hillary needs better tools to use in her battles with Trump.  I've said it many times - Hillary needs a gag writer.  She needs appropriate insults she can throw at Trump and get the audience laughing at him.  (The audiences are instructed not to applaud or make any other vocal comment during the debate.)  If she can break that wall, Trump will lose, as he can't stand to be humiliated - especially by a woman.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he'd have never made "The Great Dictator" had he known how bad Hitler was. I am very thankful that Chaplin did make this movie, because he showed that humor was the one tool that can always be used to deflate the ego of a tyrant. Let's hope that the comics of today know that it is their turn to step up to the plate.




Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Charlie Hebdo


What is it that many devout Muslims find offensive about any visual depiction of their prophet? I can understand why they might find the pictures in Charlie Hebdo offensive, but can't they do what Christians do when Christ is depicted in an offensive way - look elsewhere?

These radical Islamists (like radical Christianists and radical Zionists) are a dangerous cancer eating away at our society. The use of terrorism to cause fear must be pushed back. But most of the mainstream media refuses to publish any of the pictures that catalyzed the deaths that just happened in France. Why? They are afraid! This is why we must insist that these pictures are published - to insure that people know why the murderers committed their crimes and why we must protect satire at all costs, as satire is the most valuable of speech protected by the 1st amendment.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he would never have made "The Great Dictator" had he known how evil Hitler was. To me, that would have been a great crime in itself. Only Chaplin could put Hitler in proper perspective - as an evil man who was out of control and wanted to rule the entire world. 

We have a choice as Americans - run and hide, or defend free speech.  Years ago, Larry Flynt was asked why he appealed an obscenity ruling against Hustler Magazine. He responded that he believed that it was important to defend obscene satire - and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed, in an 8-0 unanimous verdict. He could have given up, but he didn't. 

Yes, I find Flynt a vulgar man - unlike his then peers, Hefner (Playboy), Guccione (Penthouse), and Goldstein (Screw). But I respect him and his peers (especially Hefner) for their work to preserve the protections of the 1st amendment. And I feel that it is important that we support the right to be offensive, for if we don't support it, our freedoms will be whittled away by those who want to act as moral police....