Posted on

Political Rants on Facebook Are Annoying, But…

A lot of people have complained about all the ugly political comments and memes coming from their Facebook friends from the left and right. Some days it gets to me, too. But I’m going to take a moment to defend the practice.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:08yfTLT6ei3j15382V1foN]

There are some comments I have no patience for, like when people resort to outright name calling. I unfriended one guy recently for telling another of my friends to “get his head out of his colon” during one political spat. I can’t even remember the topic. What mattered was that the guy was being an asshole. He resorted to all kinds of name calling because my other, more conservative friend dared question a liberal principle.

I unfriended another guy for constant right-wing propaganda. It seemed like he had no other purpose in life than to attack anyone who didn’t share his Republican values.

For those keeping score, no one side or point of gets a free pass.

But extreme cases aside, I don’t think the political posts are such a horrible thing. A vigorous political debate is healthy. It’s American. And it’s more important than ever to discuss the day’s issues. A lot of my conservative friends are annoying my liberal friends by continuing to harp on the terrorist attack in Libya that left one of our ambassadors dead. They have just as much right to question what happened as my liberal friends do to question why Republican candidates keep saying things like rape pregnancies are a gift from God.

Besides, these clashes are a lot more relevant and interesting than a lot of the other posts I see on Facebook every day, such as:

  • People who seek sympathy by constantly complaining about their jobs.
  • People who seek attention by constantly making statements that lack the context or detail we need to know what they’re talking about.
  • People who constantly post pictures of their food.
  • People who jam up the news feed with hundreds of memes about a zombie apocalypse.
  • People who slather the news feed with love notes to their significant others, including sexual details none of us really need — or want — to know about.

I could go on, but you get the picture. At least with politics, we’re talking about things that matter. Just keep it respectful, folks.

Facebook Flag

Posted on

Reefer Madness: Vote Yes on Question 3

When Massachusetts residents go to the polls this November 6, they’ll have the opportunity to vote on the Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Initiative, also known as Question 3. If voters approve the initiative, medical marijuana will be decriminalized in my home state. I’m in favor of this for a variety of reasons.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:5p4T4XOoXQXPpGVPCEGUzE]

For my fellow Massachusetts residents, here’s how the question will appear on the ballot:

A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.

A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.

Supporters of the initiative include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance and the Committee for Compassionate Medicine. Opponents include Dr. James B. Broadhurst, a Worcester doctor who treats people with addictions. He says the ballot initiative contains a gaping loophole that would allow a physician to prescribe medical marijuana for just about any debilitating medical condition. He’s part of a coalition called the Massachusetts Medical Society, formed in opposition to Question 3.

As a recovering addict, I respect Broadhurst’s concerns. Undoubtedly there will be those who easily talk their doctors into prescribing marijuana for whatever ails them. But that’s not reason enough to stop this.

I’m a food addict in recovery. If certain foods I’m addicted to had been illegal when I was abusing them, I would still have found a way to get them. Prohibition didn’t stop the flow of alcohol for addicts or anyone else in the 1920s. Moonshine simply became an easy way for mobsters to get rich.

Addicts will do whatever it takes to satisfy the demon, and plenty of people are willing to make money to help them do it.

Given that, we should do more than legalize marijuana just for medical purposes. We should legalize it altogether.

I’m not for legalizing the hard drugs, like cocaine, heroin and other narcotics. The effect those drugs have on the user are a lot more insidious and violent.

Pot is in a much lower class. It can turn the user into an incoherent blob of uselessness, but so can alcohol and the massive quantities of junk food a compulsive overeater ingests.

Most importantly, though, if medical marijuana can ease the pain of people suffering from a litany of dreadful maladies, I’m all for it.

I don’t have all the answers. I just have my opinion based on personal experience. If you want to try to sway me, the floor is now open for discussion.


“Pothead,” by Bob Dob

Posted on

Bill Maher: Bomb Thrower from the Left

We hear a lot about conservative pundits and how their rhetoric often crosses the lines of decency and civility. I made an example of Ann Coulter a couple days ago to illustrate the point. But there are also plenty of bomb throwers on the left who paint large segments of the population with the same big brush they use to attack individuals who may deserve it. Take Bill Maher, for example.

Maher is a comedian and political commentator. His stock-in-trade has always been to bait people with over-the-top insults. That’s what Politically Incorrect was all about. As Coulter does against liberals, Maher makes a lot of valid observations about conservative stupidity but ruins it by resorting to hate talk and rhetoric that borders on racist.

Mychal Denzel Smith, a writer, social commentator and mental health advocate, offers an example in an NPR article, “The Root: Bill Maher’s Off-Color Jokes Go Too Far“:

Lately he has come to depend on this style of joke to bring home laughs in a way that distracts from the insightful sociopolitical commentary he has to offer. Moreover, he has forgotten the first rule of comedy: Be funny. It simply wasn’t funny when Maher suggested that he wanted President Obama to act like a “real black president” in his handling of the BP oil spill last summer by flashing a gun in the face of its CEO and asking, “We got a motherf – – – ing problem here?!”

Maher is no racist. But, as I wrote in another post a few months ago, the language you use still says something about the kind of person you are.

That aside, what really burns me up about Maher these days is his attack on religion. I’ve written plenty about the crazies who attach themselves to religion and distort reality for their own gain, usually burying the truthful, illuminating aspects of faith beneath the rubble of hooey dumped on us by a minority of nuts like evangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom suggested 9/11 was God’s punishment upon society for homosexuality, feminism, paganism and groups like the ACLU.

With comments like that and their constant penchant for blaming everything bad in this world on homosexuals, liberals and judges who don’t share their worldview, Robertson, Falwell and other like-minded souls are legitimate targets for someone like Maher. But it’s not enough for Maher to go after the individuals who give conservatism a bad name. He denounces all religion and everyone who believes in it. In his book, if you have faith, you’re delusional. He made a whole movie on the subject, Religulous.

As someone who practices Catholicism, I find that insulting.

I’m the first to admit there are a lot of buffoons in the Catholic Church, as evidenced by “Screw You, Cardinal Egan” and “A Rebellious Catholic’s Analysis of Rick Santorum.” But as I’ve said many times before, I believe in Jesus Christ and the Sacriments of the Catholic Church. People often lose their faith because they spend too much time getting angry with church officials and not enough time on the main point of their faith. I also reject the idea that God will send you to Hell because you’re gay, liberal or a devotee of some other religion.

Maher’s worldview is that if you have faith, you’re a racist, conservative, homophobic sheep.

I’ve heard that despite their political and religious differences, Maher and Coulter are actually good friends. Given their tactics, I’m not surprised.

Bill Maher

Posted on

America’s Struggle Through Puberty

In yesterday’s post, “It’s the End of American Dominance and I Feel Fine,” I suggested that it’s no big deal if America is no longer number one. But if it’s no longer the top dog, what is it? America is like a confused, emotionally exhausted child trying to find itself.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:0oO29Ht2H9AiENqRsq3zIT]

My friend Dave Marcus offered this reaction to yesterday’s post:

Not so sure I fully agree with the tone. I think its more that America shows signs that it needs to evolve and neither party wants to as it would mean an end to their bureaucratic hold.

That’s certainly true. If you compare America’s age to that of many other countries in the civilized world, it’s still a child. The Democrats and Republicans are a couple of drunk parents in the middle of a bitter divorce, grabbing the child by each arm and pulling the limbs from the sockets. And it’s been that way for a long time.

Now that child has hit puberty, and the shit is hitting the fan.

Like any tortured kid, America is trying to be what both parents want it to be: the winner; the one who always brings the awards home and walks away from schoolyard fights unscathed. But the parents are clinging to old, unrealistic ideas the child can never live up to. 

The old ideas of prosperity are obsolete. An increasing number of us no longer live in a world where you go to an office or factory for eight hours a day, five days a week, then leave the work behind. We’re always checking email on our smartphones and the Internet allows us to work pretty much wherever we want. Work and personal time have been woven together. In this new environment, we have to re-evaluate what it means to successfully compete and prosper while also enjoying our friends, families and personal pursuits.

And so we have a country in economic turmoil and divisiveness coated in hateful rhetoric. In a sense, the child realized it can never live up to Mom and Dad’s expectations and decided to kill the pain with a bottle and a handful of pills.

Our country needs to find itself.

Finding ourselves is not about trying to be number one. It’s about trying to be better than we are.

America can still be a winner. It will never lose its ability to compete, innovate and lead. I’m proud to call myself an American, and I cherish our history. But we can’t stay atop the heap forever. We can only get so big before the load gets too heavy to sustain. The Roman Empire couldn’t do it. Neither could the British Empire. The empires are gone, but the cultures that sprung from them are as prosperous and vibrant as ever.

I know plenty of Brits who are proud of where they’re from, and it has nothing to do with being the richest and most powerful country, which they’re not. I know some folks from Ireland who are pretty happy to live where they live and are proud as hell of their rich heritage. By economic, military and population standards, Ireland is not number one. Not even close.

So what?

The difference between those countries and America is that they have the wisdom that comes with age. They matured long ago. When you get older, you realize some of the stuff you found important as a kid wasn’t so important after all.

America will grow up sooner or later. It will stop measuring its greatness by the size of its wallet and the number of missiles it has in the basement. Right now it doesn’t know quite what to do because the careers of old are gone and not coming back. It has to evolve, as my friend Dave said, and that means shifting expectations.

Adjusting expectations doesn’t mean settling for less than an excellent existence. It may mean redefining our idea of what an excellent existence is and adjusting to the idea that America can’t go back to the way life used to be. The dream of a house with a white picket fence and two cars paid for by Dad’s 9-to-5 office job isn’t realistic anymore. Mom has to work now, too, and there’s no gold watch for either of them after 45 years of service. They’re lucky if they stay at one job 5 or 10 years.

That doesn’t mean we can’t have it good. It just means we have to find new ways to get there.

Flag on Boat

Posted on

It’s the End of American Dominance, and I Feel Fine

America is a nation in economic decline. But that reality isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

My friend Larry Walsh said on Facebook yesterday:

What neither Obama or Romney is telling us is the world we’ve known for the past 70 years is over and not coming back. Both parties are trying to control the decline of the U.S. standard of living long enough to avoid having to take responsibility. Pathetic.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:4e9eGQYsOiBcftrWXwsVco]

It’s an interesting statement that has some truth to it. Most people already know the era of American economic domination is over, but we’re addicted to the idea that we’re number one. And like good addicts, we’re masters of denial.

When I was a kid, I was full of insecurities. Insecurity over my parent’s divorce, my brother’s death, my illnesses and my lack of popularity at school. But I always took some comfort in the fact that no matter how shitty life could be, I was still an American. Therefore, I was still a higher form of life than someone in my predicament who was living in France, Mexico, Saudi Arabia or some war-torn land like Afghanistan.

Back then we Americans felt pretty good about ourselves, because Ronald Reagan told us we should. I always thought that was Reagan’s best quality — lifting our sense of self-worth and destiny, no matter how messy our personal lives were. Fast-forward 30 years and all the folks who idolize the ghost of Reagan like a god are  grousing that President Obama is presiding over the decline of America. But the truth is that America’s slide started long before Obama took office.

That’s right: America is sliding from the pedestal is sat upon since the end of World War II. The oil crisis and inflation of the 1970s couldn’t knock it over. So what gives?

I have my theories, which may or may not be accurate. I think, as Larry suggested, that we’ve been clinging to the false notion that we can restore America to its past glory. But I don’t think it’s that America has lost its ability to compete and shine. It’s simply the fact that technology has made the world a smaller place and the Internet has empowered people from around the world in unprecedented ways. You could say it’s leveled the global playing field.

That may mean that we don’t get to be number one anymore. But so what?

Personally, I’m happier in the face of our national decline. I have my shit together in ways I could only dream of in the 1980s. I have family and friends I adore. I see people conducting themselves with valor in the face of adversity every day. And nationality has nothing to do with it. It’s about personal will, heart and faith.

I see fellow Americans shining at everyday life. And I see friends from around the world doing the same.

Are we Americans going to have to work harder for our slice of the pie in the years to come? Perhaps. But, really now, have we ever gotten anywhere without busting our balls every day? If you’re independently wealthy maybe you have. But most people I know have never had it easy.

Larry’s right: The world we’ve known for 70 years is gone and isn’t coming back. Presidential candidates will never tell you that because their profession is to tell you exactly what you want to hear. So it’s up to us to face reality and get over it.

Fuck being the number-one nation on Earth. Let’s focus on being better human beings regardless of nationality.

I’ve never been much of a Billy Joel fan. But he once sang a lyric that’s always resonated with me: “The good old days weren’t always good, and tomorrow’s not as bad as it seems.”

Ain’t that the truth?

US Flaf

Posted on

Chick-fil-A Controversy: Free Speech or Corporate Irresponsibility?

Let’s take a short quiz: The controversy over Chick-fil-A’s president opposing gay marriage is a matter of:

  1. First Amendment rights
  2. Corporate irresponsibility
  3. Both
  4. None of the above

Mood music:

[spotify:track:1fU41e5cCCeZddm0Lk8WnJ]

If you ask me, the answer is either C and D, depending on your political and social sensibilities.

Yesterday I wrote that I don’t really care about the controversy because I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A and the story looked more like one of political grandstanding than squashed rights. Naturally, some of my friends and readers thought I was missing the point. Said one friend:

Two mayors threatened to deny [Chick-fil-A] licenses. It’s a 1st Amendment issue. Plus, it was Dan Cathy’s personal views. Threatening the company that employs him is thuggery.

Said another friend:

FYI – The Cathy family *owns* CFA – not just an employee. The 1st Amendment only applies to gov’t reprisal for speech. Not private action.

To that, the first friend noted that the reprisals were from Boston mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel, and NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

And on the Twitter discussion went.

Is this about First Amendment rights? Sure. Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is an American, and as such he has every right to share his beliefs without fear of government reprisal. True, the mayors of Boston and Chicago joined some other politicians in telling Chick-fil-A to get off their lawns, but to me that was nothing more than grandstanding to score a few points with voters. They can threaten to evict, but in the end we all know they can’t do that.

The mayors deserve big ugly dunce caps for their tough talk. They shouldn’t have threatened at all because they can’t follow through, nor should they be able to. It restricts freedoms.

This is also about the right of Americans to support or protest a corporation based on the political views coming from its CEOs, presidents and other leaders. That’s not thuggery; it’s freedom of expression. I don’t like people shoving their views in my face, but they still have the right to express themselves, whether they’re standing outside with protest signs or standing in line in a show of support.

Is this about corporate responsibility? Perhaps. Consumers have the right to hold companies to high standards and punish them with boycotts when they feel a line has been crossed. But while some see Cathy’s opining as an irresponsible smear against gays, others see it as a courageous stand. There is no black and white here.

To me corporate responsibility is more about the quality of the product, the treatment of the customer and honest bookkeeping, however. That’s my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

There’s another aspect worth considering, which Erin (wife of Bill and managing editor of this blog) brought up. In her words:

If the CEO is open about being against gay marriage, how much of his belief is part of the corporate culture? Are gays hired at CFA, from the highest to the lowest? Are they treated equally? Are there regular gay customers of CFA who are not treated equally? The CEO can believe what he likes and espouse it, but he can’t allow his company to discriminate based on his beliefs. Not blatantly, not subtly. And maybe that’s the real danger of a powerful person espousing his discriminatory beliefs so openly: there are those who will take it as license to discriminate accordingly, whether to please the boss or because they feel safe to act on their own beliefs.

In the final analysis, my feelings are still summed up by this comment, made by another friend on Facebook:

Dammit people, what’s wrong with you? Eat where you want to eat! Love who you want to love! Do whatever you want to do, just don’t expect everyone else to necessarily agree with you, share your views, or hate your enemies. Live life and stop worrying about who the hell ate yummy chicken today!

With that, it’s on to the next subject.

I'm Just Here for the Violence

Posted on

I Don’t Give a Chick-fil-A

A lot of people have been pissed off at Chick-fil-A lately. Some are outraged that the restaurant chain’s president, Dan Cathy, came out against gay marriage. Others are outraged because a guy can’t make a social stand without people taking it out on his poultry.

I wasn’t going to write about it because, well, I don’t really care. But the noise has gotten too loud to ignore.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:2KLjwY9kRqYVBAgeYs8FxR]

We Americans love to find things to be pissed about. If you support gay marriage, Chick-fil-A is now synonymous with bigotry. If you think marriage should only be between a man and woman, Dan Cathy is now a hero. If you’re like me and you don’t really care, you’re now pissed off at both sides for getting in your face with their politics.

I don’t care what Cathy believes for a couple of reasons:

  • I’ve never eaten at Chick-fil-A and don’t really care to. Fast food is the monkey on my back, and I’m better off staying far away from it. Since I lack the enthusiasm others seem to have for the place, I find it difficult to care what the chain’s president thinks about the issues of the day. If I were a Chick-fil-A enthusiast, I’d care a lot more about the taste of the food than the politics of the owners.
  • I’ve already taken my stand regarding homosexuality and have nothing more to say about it. I don’t care if you’re gay or straight. I care about how you treat your fellow man and woman, not who you choose to love.

But now people are really starting to get crazy over it, with name-calling and scapegoating. So here I am with a couple thoughts:

  • If you choose to boycott Chick-fil-A, go for it. But don’t expect everyone to follow suit, and please don’t paint people as villains because they eat there. You’ve never met most of these people, and you have no idea what they feel in their hearts.
  • If you don’t want to boycott, don’t. But don’t start bashing people for taking their stand. Just walk past the protesters, eat your sandwich and shut up.

One’s political and religious beliefs are complicated things. You can’t unlock what a person thinks and feels based on where they eat.

It’s also a safe bet that a lot of people standing in line for their chicken don’t follow news and politics that closely and have no idea the chain’s president said something about gay marriage.

Sometimes, a person is just hungry and needs something to eat, pure and simple. They’re not going to appreciate or understand your support of or protests against Chick-fil-A and, by extension, gay marriage.

They’re just going to be pissed because you’re holding up the line.

Chick-fil-A

Posted on

When We Look in the Mirror, We See John Edwards

I admit feeling some glee over the fall of former U.S. senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards. I always thought the guy was full of himself, and cheating on his cancer-stricken wife was probably one of the shittiest examples of infidelity you could find. Yet I’m going to defend him — a little.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:5edNYGd8F7pEhfIQu6RenB]

Edwards was back in the news this week when a jury found him not guilty on one count of accepting illegal campaign contributions. A mistrial was declared on five other charges after the jury declared it was hopelessly deadlocked, USA Today reported. He was accused of using nearly $1 million from Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Fred Baron to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter, a former campaign videographer.

At a press conference yesterday, Edwards said, “I do not believe I did anything illegal. I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. There is no one else responsible for my sins. … I don’t have to go any further than the mirror. It’s me and me alone.”

Yeah, I’ll say it:

  • I always believed Edwards was more about cockiness and empty rhetoric than substance.
  • I hate him for the way he treated his wife, Elizabeth.
  • I’ve always seen him as a political narcissist.

I also admit that in holding those views, I’m a hypocrite. I think any of us who judge him are hypocrites. We’re all sinners, right?

I’ve never cheated on my wife, but I’ve sure as hell lied to her. It’s usually because I’m embarrassed or ashamed of something stupid I’ve done in the addiction department. I’ve written about the lying at length in this blog.

The dumb things I did to cover the damage of my addictive behavior makes me understand all too well how a guy like John Edwards could play fast and loose with the law to hide his sins. It’s a human weakness we all have inside of us. Some are luckier than others at controlling it.

I also have an ego of my own, so it’s kind of funny that his irks me so much. Maybe it’s because his ego comes with a stylish head of hair.

Convictions or not, Edwards is paying for his sins. His political viability is vaporized and he knows he did shitty things and that the public hates him for it. I think the suffering he has to go through for that is appropriate. But like the rest of us, he could — if he really wants to work at it — rebuild himself and turn his experiences into something good.

If he can do that, I’ll be one of the first to give him credit.

John Edwards