Author Archive
Which Senator for President?
Written by Cal August
Wednesday, 27 February 2008 05:13
No Comments

Now that you’ve gotten over the initial shock of who is left in the presidential race, it’s time to weigh the candidates. The good thing about the Republicans having pretty much chosen their candidate, is that it gives the country plenty of time to see the enormous difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Speaking as a layperson, and not as a pundit who has looked at the minutia of every candidate’s policies, this is the picture that is shaping up for me.

Both of the Democrats lean very hard to the left, with Obama being further to the left than Clinton. These are the impressions that I am getting. We can depend on the Democrats to do these things: they will both clearly raise taxes, especially those on the highest income brackets. I can’t imagine fuel costs going any lower under the Democrats either. We can also depend on government to get bigger under both the Democrats on the slate. They will do “something” about health care, but it will not be the something that needs to be done.

John McCain has had his problems, especially for conservatives, but there’s one thing we can depend on McCain to do. He will support the military, and do what needs to be done to secure Iraq. This obviously is not a popular position right now. If he loses, it is not because he is not the best available man for the job; I believe many of his positions would make him a good Commander-in-Chief. The problem is that we live in really insane times, especially when it comes to how those on the left demonize conservatives.

There’s no getting around it: people are simply tired of George W. Bush, and tired of the war.

Supporting the war in this climate may be a liability. An aside: I believe that history will see George W. Bush as a good president overall, but the idea of going to war with Iraq may be seen as a blot on his record. Unfortunately, I think even going to war against Afghanistan would be seen as a mistake by the doves of our country, even though it was a “just” war. McCain is no conservative, but the label “Republican” has been given a bad name because of the way people seem to feel about George W. Bush.

Other than McCain’s position on the war, his other weakness is one he shares with all the candidates: He seems to believe in Global Warming, and his subsequent policies on energy could be a problem. However, I like his “straight talk” and I hope that people will listen to what he has to say.

Barack inspires, but has little experience. Clinton has experience but doesn’t inspire. I think McCain has the ability to do both, but as Michael Medved has pointed out, McCain will have to clearly differentiate himself from Obama to make it clear how important the difference really is. McCain would not satisfy conservatives or liberals, but I think he would make the best president of the three.

Here’s what I think the ideal candidate would focus on. I think these are winners:
1. Reform Social Security and Medicare.

McCain talks “straight talk” and I think he realizes something needs to be done here before this “House of Cards” collapses. The Democrats want to reshape health care, but don’t want to deal with the problem of funding this mess.
Do you want to decrease health care costs? Here’s an idea: we need more doctors and fewer lawyers involved.

2. Energy Costs

Approach the problem of energy with a multi-faceted solution. Forget biofuels. It’s a waste of time. Instead, focus on increasing cheap energy and take away some regulation if possible. Mid to long term: work on getting energy plants up to date to create cleaner energy, but get technologies into action that can help eliminate our dependence on foreign sources for oil. Increase refineries in the meantime. Republicans could really take it to Democrats on this one. We need “straight talk” on energy. Just how many taxes are there on our gasoline? Just how much does it cost the average family? I think the problem of high fuel costs could easily be placed at the door of the Democrats. This is a big interstate commerce issue – dealing with this one would actually be one of the few things Federal government has a mandate to do.

3. Lower taxes.

Everyone thinks that more government programs are the answer to all our problems. I feel that there is a great deal of taxation without representation going on in our government. Often our lawmakers are out of touch with our needs, and vote accordingly, all the while taxing us at higher and higher rates. Taxation stagnates the economy and stunts the growth of jobs. You can tax big business, but they WILL move away and do business where they can keep profits up, and expenses down. Business isn’t the enemy; BIG government is!

4. Support the nation’s security.

A candidate might take this approach. We’re in Iraq, and this is not the ideal situation, but to protect those people from further bloodshed, it is a moral obligation for us to stay. Getting us out, could also lead to a power vacuum, which unsavory elements will quickly fill. We must do what is best for America abroad, which also means not signing treaties, especially when the other signatories refuse to keep them. A strong America is good for the world. It would be wise for us to maintain the size of our military (even if we bring some military people home), and continue to improve weaponry.
The CIA may also need a house-cleaning. We don’t need policy wonks and bureaucrats; we need people on the ground, getting important information, and that means more spies.

5. Cut government. Let the private sector fill the void.

Reading a “Wired” magazine article about private space travel versus NASA, I found their satirical NASA patch humorous. On it I believe was an upside down American flag and the words, “Big. Dumb. Slow.” This is a good description of how big government bureaucracies do things. We need to streamline. We need private innovators and less regulation. Fewer taxes will put more money in the pockets of innovators, giving them the incentive to take risks that will pay off. We also need the ability to protect the things our people invent.

6. One more pet idea: put the United Nations elsewhere. Someone else can pay for it.

What do you think?

 
Junk Food for the Mind
Written by Cal August
Thursday, 24 January 2008 22:04
No Comments

Until just a few years ago, I only had a handful of TV channels at my disposal. When my wife and I decided to get cable internet, we also decided to get cable TV along with it. If you are one who has cable, how often have you looked at the more than 100 channels that you had in the evening and realized that there was nothing on? Sure there was something. But how often did you find that there was nothing you really wanted to watch?

There is a lot of really awful programming on television, and many people mindlessly watch this stuff. A lot of garbage is streaming into mainstream America. Children and their families are inundated with sexualized imagery, the glamorization of drugs, decadent culture, and of course, bad ideas (the mind-numbingly constant promotion of political correctness) 24/7. I call it junk food for the mind, utterly lacking in substance or wholesomeness. Yet, to actively oppose ingesting this “head candy” will invite certain doom from the P.C. thought police.

For example, you wouldn’t dare take all of these things off television, because that would “violate free speech.” This is nonsense. Who says the government has to be the one to do it? I understand the importance of free speech, but whatever happened to self-censorship? Why does everything have to be about decadence? Why do we need to learn about some rock star’s quest for his version of love? Why do we need to learn about the problems of ten or twenty young people living together in a house and trying to get along with each other, even though they all came from dysfunctional settings? The same problems apply to the movies. It seems that if you’re going to create a movie, you have to get at least two hours of decadence in; maybe you’ll even get an Academy Award or an Oscar for it.

Recently, we learned of the tragic death of Heath Ledger. It’s not certain whether this was accidental or what, but it seems reasonable the lifestyle Hollywood encourages didn’t add value to Ledger’s life. Part of the reason for this is that Hollywood is a facade. When you are an actor, you might play some interesting and “deep” characters, but that doesn’t replace the depth of real life lived. (Sometimes I wonder too, how often actors or actresses think “This person I played lived a really tortured and tragic lifestyle,” if I’m going to really live, I have to as well.)

How many of these people cultivate more than what’s on the surface? I know that a few do. But this doesn’t come out in the television and movie fare. How many of them could you say are learned people who actually support causes that they’re truly knowledgeable about, rather than just doing “charity” films (that will bomb) or supporting fringe causes because they’re politically correct? (My definition of a “charity” film is a film about a Hollywood cause that really isn’t a charity that the average moviegoer doesn’t really care about and never will. It seems that actors and actresses feel they have to do these lousy movies to “broaden their horizons” and show that they’re “edgy.” Then they’ll most certainly get an industry award). Probably the most acclaimed role in recent times (acclaimed by Hollywood that is) was the role that Ledger took up as a homosexual cowboy. This is not what mainstream America cares about or is interested in.

Probably, with the advent of Ledger’s untimely demise, he will always be known for that role. It’s sad really, because he had other more promising roles, including his role in The Patriot.

But moving on, the lifestyles that Hollywood tends to glorify are the unsavory ones. When drugs, promiscuous sex, and tortured lives are portrayed, it’s fashionable and Academy Award worthy. But most of the time, this is not what moviegoers are really interested in watching. Real, hard fought struggle in a film is good; think of movies like Master and Commander, Cinderella Man, or The Patriot, for example. Such notable examples draw viewers without having to appeal to the profligate values which have come to symbolize pop culture. Anti-Americanism and the glorification of moral decadence on the other hand, yawn.

We’re no longer shocked; that passed a long time ago. We just don’t feel like shelling out ten bucks or more per person for a crappy movie. Consumers, you’ll get a lot more out of reading a good book or practicing a musical instrument for a few hours. At least you’ll have something to show for the time spent. Adults and children alike will be better off consuming less junk food for the mind. –Cal Samuel August

 
Shut Up and Sing Syndrome
Written by Cal August
Monday, 19 November 2007 16:41
No Comments

Editor's Note: This opinion first appeared at MYVOICENEWS.COM Friday, 14 September 2007.

Laura Ingraham wrote a book called Shut Up and Sing about how Hollywood is always jamming its views down our throats.

Well, here's a recent experience along those lines. Among the latest "reality" type shows is one called The Last Comic Standing, and last night it was a twofer night: last week's episode and this week's episode.

My TV time is limited; so when I sit down, I'm more than ready to be entertained. Most of the contestants that I saw last night were rather funny. Of course, The Last Comic Standing people also invite established comedic guests on the show. One of them was a guy (sorry, can't remember his full name) who has been on Whose Line is it Anyway with Drew Carey. He's been in some other things as well, and is normally a very funny guy. That was before last night, when he turned to the subject of politics.

If you're an entertainer, I think that unless you're speaking at a national political convention, or are addressing an audience you know is going to be rather partisan, it's best not to "tread the ground" of criticizing those who are politically active. You may annoy, if not offend, half your audience. (Remember the Dixie Chicks?) Unless, you can somehow relate to it, it's just not funny.

Case in point: this particular comic began talking about our possible choices for president including a woman and a black. Obviously, this is in reference to Hillary and Obama. He then characterizes those on the other side of the aisle as ignorant or stupid if they can't vote for a black or a woman. Putting it another way, if you vote for someone other than Hillary or Obama, you're a moron. He also said those who wouldn't vote for these people are happy with the status quo, which he described as the long parade of "white guys" indicative of the presidency.

I'm really not offended that he was poking fun at Republican types; it's his reasoning I find objectionable. This isn't a question of sex or race; it's a question of qualifications. If there was a qualified Republican WOMAN or a qualified Republican AFRICAN-AMERICAN candidate (to speak in politically correct terms), and they were absolutely the best person for the job, I would vote for them.

However, it is unreasonable to accuse people who aren't voting for Obama or Hillary as misogynist or racist. It's faulty reasoning. I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's unqualified, and absolutely unlikable. If she were running for most irritating woman in the room I might then vote for her, but only if Nancy Pelosi wasn't there. As for Obama, I actually find him rather personable; he's just not competent for the critically important job of President. Maybe he'll prove himself someday. But until then, I don't believe that he deserves the job. I also believe that there are plenty of WHITE guys who don't deserve the job either, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

So, entertainers, a word of advice. Entertain. Do the activism quietly and on your own time. You've earned our ear for entertainment, but until you really know the issues, (where you stand and why) please, just shut up and sing when we've bought our tickets for your concert, or paid our cable bill and are eager for entertainment. Don't lose your audience permanently by annoying them; our free time is precious.

Cal Samuel August, concerned entertainment consumer.