"...And With Passionate Patriotic Fervor, The Voters Picked Up A Snake To Kill That Stick...."

The pundits, predictors, philosophers and assorted other "politicos" will, for at least the next, oh, few days or so be coming at you with a detailed (read: endlessly repetitive) analysis of the Trump and Sanders victories in New Hampshire and offer up a myriad of reasons for those victories. (Again read: endlessly repetitive).

I'm a simple guy who likes and appreciates politics in plain English.

Some day I might even start a blog site and give it that simple name.

Oh. Wait.

Here's my "offered once and then let's move on" perspective on why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are, at this writing, considered the front runners for their respective party's nomination.

Arguably.

But, we won't waste time, energy or resources arguing. (read: being endlessly repetitive).

Here's what it comes down to.

Jane Lynch.




CBS has cancelled Angel From Hell  , the Jane Lynch-Maggie Lawson comedy — and will yank it from its Thursday-night comedy bloc beginning this week, TVLine has confirmed.

A repeat of The Big Bang Theory will fill the 9:30/8:30c time slot, before 2 Broke Girls moves in beginning Feb. 18 — the day after Survivor’s new season reclaims Wednesday’s 8 o’clock hour.

After premiering last month to 8.1 million total viewers and a 1.6 demo rating, Angel From Hell took a tumble in Week 2, but then stabilized in the neighborhood of a 1.4 rating — two tenths below predecessor 2 Broke Girls’ average in the time slot. With DVR playback, the comedy grew 36 percent on average.



Jane Lynch is a world class comic talent with a long and, deservedly acclaimed, resume of accomplishment in the entertainment biz.

Do the Google and check her out if you're not a fan and/or hip to her.

The TV game of "ratings means revenue", though, has obviously not been played satisfactorily by the sitcom featuring Lynch as a zany, wacky, drunky guardian angel.

Personally, I would have thought given where the baseline IQ level of the viewing masses seems to hover these days, the show would have shot to number one in a heartbeat.

Previous indications, of course, being the phenomenal success of such Peabody Award deserving flatscreen personalities as Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Mama June, Sugar Bear, Willie, Phil and/or all the other quack shots in the family.

My own premium channel prejudices notwithstanding, Angel From Hell just didn't give the key 18-49 year old advertising dollar devil its due.

So, as with our old friend Keyser Soze, like that...it's gone.

To be "replaced" by "2 Broke Girls."

Another sitcom that, rest assured and/or bet the farm, has never required any exertion to watch save for an enjoyment of, and appreciation for, 23 minutes of millennial humor which, for those unaware, consists primarily (oh, what the hell, completely) of setups and punchlines pretty much exclusively drawn from the manual labeled "sexual and/or scatological".

T&A and/or f***ing and/or fart jokes, for those whose libraries lack a thesaurus.

Which brings us back to Trump and Sanders.

And their new found place at the top of their respective piles.

In a campaign year where the term "pile" has new, and multiple, meanings.

And the once only analysis I promised you at the outset.

When people (read: the American voters in the year 2016) are sufficiently unhappy with what they see week in/week out, they turn away from it in droves.

The key term there, of course, being sufficiently unhappy and not just unhappy. Each and every election cycle creates the illusion of voter unhappiness but "throw the bums out" is, as a rule, only hot air from voters spewed in response to the hot air spewed by the applicable bums.

With a documented "incumbent re-election" rate of 90% in this country, "throw the bums out" has about as much real meaning as, say, "new and improved."

This time around, though, this particular election year, 2016, has, at least for now, all the appearances of the appearance of an honest to God, we ain't kiddin' around "sufficiently unhappy" electorate.

And when people really decide that they really don't like what they don't like they really want it gone.

Viewers don't like Angel From Hell.

So it's got to go.

Voters don't like the status quo.

So it's got to go.  (By the way, for clarity sake, the term "status quo" here refers to any and all candidates who have even a whiff of the "same old, same old" about them)

At first, the long term quality and/or amount of improvement expected from whatever is available as replacement isn't so much a priority concern as is just getting rid of that which doesn't work.

Clearly viewers don't like Angel From Hell.

Jane Lynch? Outta there.

In her place...

Really? "2 Broke Girls"?

Clearly voters don't like the status quo.

Hillary, Jeb, Ted, Marco, Chris?

So far, outta there.

In their place?

Really?

Donald?

Bernie?

Sometimes people assume, without thinking about it too much, that different and better are the same thing.

Sometimes they are.

And sometimes they're not.

Replacing "Angel from Hell" with "2 Broke Girls" puts a check in the "not" column.

As to Trump and Sanders?

That remains to be seen.

Stay tuned.

"...Two Ways It Will Happen....No Way....And No F***ing Way..."

Seven words are going to prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming President of the United States.

Just seven words.

And no, thank you, very much, students of classic comedy, not to mention "helpers" who always (think they) know the punchline before it's delivered, not the seven words immortalized by George Carlin in his seminal monologue, "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television."

These particular seven words are perfectly acceptable for family consumption and conform to all broadcast standards.

Oh, by the way, "helpers", those last three words there, "all broadcast standards" are an oxymoronic punchline all by themselves these days.

Meanwhile, back to Bernie...

The post-Iowa skirmishes between the Bern and the Hill (she really needs a cool nickname, don't you think?) didn't result in any revelations from the Vermont senator, nothing headline making, earth shaking or even particularly new to those who have been paying any attention for the last few months.

What we/you saw/see when it comes to Bernie Sanders, or Hillary, for that matter, is pretty much what you/we get.

He is, obviously, a man with an agenda, several, many, in fact, but there's nothing to indicate that he has any agenda(s) hidden away, to be sprung on us in some kind of after inauguration "ah-HA!" moment of revealed treachery and/or deception.

Somehow, I get the feeling that "executive order" isn't a button a guy like Bern is likely to even have in the office, let alone right there on the desk, next to the phone and pencil cup and pictures of the family.

Whatever else he is, or isn't, Bernie Sanders has not been, because he really can't be, accused of being anything other than a straight shooter.

Whether or not you like his rootin tootin style, his brand of bullets or the targets at which he is aiming.

Speaking of...


The head of Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday that Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."

Lloyd Blankfein, who is chairman and CEO of the bank, was speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

In January, Sanders was asked by Bloomberg Politics to list an example of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein.

“I don’t take it personally since we never met," Blankfein responded.

But he added that Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.

“It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line,” Blankfein said. “It’s a liability to say I’m going to compromise I’m going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you’ll never compromise. It’s just incredible. It’s a moment in history.”


Old definition.

Mixed feelings is seeing your ex-wife drive off a cliff...in your brand new Ferrari.

New definition.

Mixed feelings is hearing that bankers and billionaires are feeling threatened.

Actually, no, you know what?

Scratch that.

There's no mixed feelings there at all.

I feel pretty confident that nobody actually reading this piece is feeling at all upset by the idea.

Because I feel equally confident that the readership demographic of my work is very, very lean on bankers and billionaires.

As for the rest of us?

Dollars to day old doughnuts (staying within our budgets, don't you see) that we're all, at least, a little jazzed by the idea of the fat cats feeling a little less imperial these days.

Yeah.

That's right.

Let them eat cake.

And it's more than a little fun that Mr. Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein seems to be unaware that he is validating our paltry peasant perspective that the uber rich folk really, really are out of touch with life down here on planet middle class by actually allowing into print his fears that Mr. Sanders' candidacy represents a threat to them.

Them, of course, being the uber rich folk.

Because Bernie wants to take a lot of their money and just give it away to the riff raff living down here on planet middle class.

Uh, excuse me...Mr. Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein?....uh....calm down a little, dude. It's gonna be okay.

Bernie Sanders ain't Robin Hood.

And you guys ain't the evil Prince John and his partner in crime, the sinister Guy of Gisbourne.

Oh, you're evil and sinister and shit, but the leotard look?

You could never pull it off, man.

And Bernie isn't talking about stealing from you to give to the poor.

Or as they're more commonly known, everybody who doesn't belong to your country club.

He's simply, and folksy-ishly, talking about working to change a country that is currently owned, and operated, by a few very, very, very....very wealthy people into a country that is owned and run by that most magical of heretofore mythical groups.....

"we, the people."

Yeah, okay. So the ice cube has a better chance in hell.

Because you guys can be pretty mean when riff raff dares to knock on the door of your country club and ask for a tee time.

Or an application.

Or, God forbid, a crust of bread.

And purchasing power means the ability to purchase lots of power.

And lots of power enables people to do lots of things mere mortals could never do.

Two words.

Jimmy Hoffa.

But I digress.

While you and your ebony black American Express card qualified Decepticons may be feeling a little quivery at the idea that Bernie will show up at your monogrammed vaults and load up sacks of your greenbacks to dole out to the rabble,  there are some of us who have neither a fear of the rumored looting (because even if it went down, we ain't got nothin' he'd want to loot, anyway) nor any excited anticipation that our lives are about to do a 180, thanks to the arrival of truck loads of the aforementioned captured currency in our tidy, but admittedly tiny, middle class, suburban driveways.

Some of us understand that it's not going to happen.

First, because we simply don't think that what Bernie Sanders is saying translates into a warning of the impending arrival of any neo-Robin Hood.

Second, because we do think that all he is saying is that it's time to try and put a stop to half a dozen people owning America and their thinking of the other 318, 899, 994 (at this writing) citizens of the United States as tenants who should be grateful for the space they've been granted in a really, really big ass rental property.

Third, though, it's totally understandable why you would want to never want to see Bernie anywhere near a headset calling the plays.

Government by oligarchy is never, ever...ever to be found on a level playing field.

Again, though, all you Richie Riches of the U.S. of A., not to worry.

Your monopoly is safer than money in a mattress.

Bernie will never get anywhere near Boardwalk or Park Place.

And there's no need to worry about all those other terrifyingly "radical" ideas/plans of his.

Like an educational system that welcomes new graduates into the world, and work force, unburdened by an obscene debt that will take them more than the rest of their working life to settle.

Like a heath care system that actually offers health care at a fair and reasonable cost.

Like the literal elimination of wasteful government spending (a delightfully redundant phrase) and the implementation of sensible spending on programs and opportunities and infrastructure, et al.

And that's just the top three on the Bernie Sanders hit list.

Fair play?

Reasonable and sensible spending?

Debt free education and care of our nation's health?

Seriously, what is up with this guy?

Is he Cuh-raaaaazy?

This is America.

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

The nation where, as folk hero Gordon Gekko so eloquently offered some years ago, "greed...for lack of a better word...is good..."

But even if greed and avarice and sloth (oh, my) were to evaporate over night, there would still be, insuring that somebody well intended but, obviously, deluded like Bernie, a fail safe that would prevent any common sense, good judgement, fair play or reasonable methodology to find its way into the American mainstream of operation.

Seven words.

The seven words that have resulting in management in almost every professional field since the beginning of time digging in heels to prevent any change or variation from the "manual" regardless of how much sense any change or adjustment might obviously make.

The seven words that are to experimentation and/or innovation like Kryptonite is to the Man of Steel.

The seven words that will be hauled out, doled out, spewed out and/or fast drawn from the head honcho holster to bring down any upstart, impertinent attempt to make things better than they are.

All Bernie Sanders is really talking about is getting rid of waste and implementing balance.

Shutting down old and inefficient ways of doing things and implementing new and efficient ways of doing things.

Eliminating failed methods and instituting potentially successful methods.

But it ain't gonna happen.

And I don't know about naming that tune in seven notes, but I can sure sum up why Bernie's quest is valiant but in vain in seven words,

"We've never done it that way before."

Which, automatically and inevitably, activates the go switch on another written in stone American axiom.

The more things change....





 

"...If You're Winter Gift Shopping For HIllary, Skip The Muffler....She's Good..."

The problem Hillary is having getting people to buy her message about money isn't that it's meandering.

Or that it's messy.

Or even that it's mealy mouthed.

More in a moment.

In her second presidential campaign, Clinton clearly doesn't want to win through a war of attrition. She's sick of Sanders casting himself as the protector of the progressive realm against the corrupting influence of the Clintons, and she is ready to extinguish the Bern now.

After yet another Sanders swipe at Clinton as part of a political establishment bankrolled by Wall Street and drug companies, she unloaded.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

Then she challenged him: "If you've got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received."

And finally, Clinton made it just a little bit more personal, saying: "I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks."

But, at the same time....

Wall Street continues to be full of potholes for the former secretary of state. 

Her pragmatism and her accusations of an "artful smear" on Sanders' part don't erase the political problem caused by her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs -- which she had joked about in a CNN town hall the night before, saying with a laugh that the $675,000 in speaking fees she received was what they'd offered. 

On Thursday, Clinton admitted her mistake. 

"I may not have done the job I should in explaining my record," she said, arguing that she was tough on bankers behind closed doors and has been in the 2016 campaign, as well.

Uh, yo, there, Hill....to paraphrase our down under buddy, Crocodile Dundee....

"...that's not a mistake......now....that's a mistake...."

And, in this case, the mistake that is the mistake is either the inability to read and understand (unlikely given Hillary's long experience at playing the game) or inability to lock on to a way to once and for all deal with (much more likely given Hillary's long experience at playing the game) with the unavoidable, and inevitable, phrase that pays in the artful smearing less sophisticated folks know better as "politics".

Perception is reality.

In this instance, we're talking the theory proven, to borrow a Hillary phrase, "time and time again" that people, average, everyday, go to work, come home and wonder how to run out of month before  they run out of money people aren't likely to change their minds about something, or someone, once they have formed an opinion about that something or someone.

Oh. It's possible.

But, it's also possible that Miley and Liam will live happily every after because she'll give up acting like a budget brand circa 80's Madonna on stage, complete with porn style balloon animals.

It's just not likely.

Just like the likelihood that people who don't like Hillary, who don't believe Hillary and who don't trust Hillary will just up and decide, "what the hell, let's like, believe and trust Hillary" because she says she's not beholden to all them fat cat, Silver Cloud ridin', country club memberin' uber-rich corporate CEO's.

Oh. Well, if she says she's not beholden, then, surely, she must not be beholden.

Matter of fact, if you need any further convincing, just listen to any of the hundreds of speeches she's going to give between now and November 8.

And, bless her heart, she's giving all of those speeches at no charge.

As opposed to the 675 grand she scored from the Goldman Sachs chats.

But, only, you know, because that's what they offered.

And right there, kids, is the problem that Hillary is having getting people to buy her message about money.

It's not that its meandering.

Or messy.

Or even mealy mouthed.

It's that the message is muffled.

Which is what happens to the sound of someone speaking....

...when they try to speak from so far down inside someone's pocket.

"...Better...Better...Worse...Better...Worse...The Same...Better...Worse..."

The prognosticators, pundits and post -game analysts are, within the predictable margin of prediction error all pretty much agreed on, at the very rock bottom least, one thing.

No absolutely clear winner in Iowa last night.

The prognosticators, pundits and post-game analysts are, actually, absolutely wrong.

Notwithstanding all the spin, swivel, slant, twist, turn and/or tweak the applicable assessors might put on the performance of their particular pony in this first race toward the Triple Crown of American Politics, the numbers, those pesky little digits that both metaphorically and in actuality never lie, sum up last night's contest in the cornfields as follows:

A three way race on the Republican side.

A dead Democratic heat between the two remaining after O'Malley decided that there was no real difference between being almost completely ignored and being completely ignored..

Leaving those still standing, and us, for that matter, with those three words that any and all with a stake in the game will avoid like the third rail in the subway.

No clear winner.

Once again, au contrare', mon patriotic frere'.

In the first actual ladling out of proof flavored pudding in what promises to be one of those campaign years people will be talking about for years to come, one conclusion requires no jumping in order to arrive.

America, at least the America that was represented last night by the fine folks of the Hawkeye State, has, thus far, no crystal clear vision of where it is, where it wants to go and who it wants to lead on the journey to that destination.

In fact, it might be argued that, given the lack of a clear favorite on either side, the country might not be at all happy with what they're seeing around them, but can't, for whatever reason, see where it is they need to go.

All of which makes last night's outcome a big, big win for at least one group of Americans.

Opticians.

Talk about retail politics.

"...The Best Things In Life Are Free...Which Explains The Quality Of Government..."

Take a look at how Dylan Rattigan gets cookin' here.

And then I'll boil it down just a smidge.

NEWS ANCHOR COMPLETELY LOSES IT FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE REASON
Posted by Giggle Palooza on Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Nice to see a little purposeful passion, for a change.

As opposed, of course, to your everyday, garden variety, run of the mill pandering passion.

And Rattigan is obviously locked on to the root cause of the primary problem in our contemporary political system.

He's on the money, as it were.

Because it's about the money.

For what they're worth, though, here's my two cents.

This conversation (really more of a monologue, actually, but, hey, you go, guy) also comes with a special bonus.

Intended, or otherwise, it's a perfect illustration of the impotency of one of those phrases that gets thrown around like it was some kind politic panacea.

"Take our country back."

I hear that a lot when doing a radio show and I'm programmed to immediately react by responding with two very wacky words.

"From who?"

Well, actually, on those days when the fearful, but lovingly intended conditioning I got from my 7th grand English teacher, Mrs. Baker, kicks in, it's more like....

"From whom?..."

The answer from the listener/caller side of the shows unfailingly comes in some variation of the same old, tried and true.

"Those (fill in the blank with any particular, derisive, profane adjective preferred) politicians who (fill in the blank with any particular, incompetent, treasonous activity or performance preferred)..."

Here's the part of that whole knee jerk back and forth that simply doesn't jive.

The taking back of the country thing is all very well and good....and God bless America and all that.

It's that "from whom" thing that gets all tangled up in red, white and blue.

And Rattigan spells it out nicely.

If a little wordily.

That's not meant as a shot, by the way, because I am fully aware and admittin' that I could rightly be accused of libeling Mr. Rattigan as a black kettle.

But, this little literary loony bin where I chit and chat is entitled "Politics In Plain English" for a reason.

So let me offer up a little plain English here.

The problem is not the politicians.

The problem is those who own them.

When that changes, things will change.

Until that changes, nothing will change,

If the neighbor's dog shits in your yard, you're, obviously and instinctively, going to be annoyed with the damn dog.

But after just a few seconds of rage morphs into a more lengthy period of reason, you know exactly where to place the blame.

On the damn dog's owner.

The dog is (big DUHH here) merely doing what the owner allows and.or encourages the dog to do.

Especially when the dog knows it will get, and has come to expect, treats from that owner.

So, all you zany "take our country back" patriots out there in freedom land, listen up.

The biggest threat to our republic in this year of our Lord, 2016 A.D. is not.....

Terrorism.

Taxes.

Even terms that we say we'd like to see limited.

The threat....

...is treats.

Chew on that.

"...Election Stuff?...Don't Stop Till You Get Enough..."

And so it begins.

Well, officially, anyway.

Given, as British historian Timothy Stanley writes, "...a campaign that feels like it started in 1776 is finally going to count some votes...."

Amen, brother.

Iowa, baby.

Lot of people doing a lot of talking about a lot of other people and what those other people will, or won't, do, who they will, or won't vote for.

How things will, or won't go, for any/all of those whose hats are in the ring.

CNN.com (among, obviously, many other sources) predictably offers up, today, (the Sunday before the Monday) a six or seven on a verbosity scale of one to ten treatise on  "what to look for" prior to the voting. And what the Iowa caucuses "really mean".

I think they think of it as "things you need to know".

I think of it more as yada, yada.

With a sassy splash of blah, blah.

So, I've taken a pass on including it, in its entirety, in this piece.

Because too much yada, yada, blah, blah makes for a blah blog.

That said, never let it be said that I'm not always ready and willing to let you make up your mind(s) for yourself(selves).

Here's a link to that article.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/iowa-road-trip-caucus-takeaways-king/index.html

As for me, I haven't come close to making up my mind about any of those hatless folk I mentioned earlier.

But I'm coolly confident about my take on what the Iowa caucuses are all about.

Michael Jackson.

Bear with me.

Whatever other virtues the voting aged population of this country, at this point in our history, may possess, it's neither unfair, nor inaccurate, to opine that the term "informed voter" is, at least, an ironic, even laughable description and, at worst, an overwhelmingly depressing oxymoronic, but, again, irrefutably fair and accurate categorization.

Take a minute or two to click on You Tube and find yourself one of the many "street interview" schtick segments the late night talk show folk like to do.

You know the ones I'm talking about. Where everyday folks are stopped, at random, on any busy street, USA and asked questions that spotlight, or dim light, their knowledge about and/or awareness of current movers and shakers and the current events that have them moving and shaking.

Even allowing, and conceding, that a lot of editing goes into the final product that airs, it's certainly a lot of funny.

And not just a little scary.

Because of how little so many seem to know about so many things that they should know at least a little about.

Let alone a lot.

And no one place in America deserves any more derision than another when it comes to being home to those who honestly think that the right to bear arms has something to do with sunscreen and Rand Paul, for example, is, for example, that famous hairdresser guy who does all the Kardashians.

That kind of funny, and frightening, ignorance can be found in any one of the fifty states any time, day or night, 365 a year.

From California to New York, from North Dakota to Texas, from sea to shining sea.

Oh...

And Iowa.

Where  "...a campaign that feels like it started in 1776 is finally going to count some votes....".

And those in the other 49 states lacking the "know" but looking for a little "show" are, curiously, if not anxiously, awaiting the outcome.

For a variety of reasons, surely.

Not the least of which being some indication of how they might want to cast their own vote down this very, very...very long road to November.

Old joke.

King stands on the main road of his kingdom, a good and faithful servant by his side, watching the entire population of said kingdom moving rapidly past him, a reverse parade of sorts.

The King, quizzical expression dramatically expressed, turns to his good and faithful and, in a confident and commanding tone, commands....

"...quickly....tell me where my people are going....so I may lead them..."

That satirical swipe is usually offered up as an impish indictment of our elected officials inability to find purpose, direction and/or their asses with both hands and a flashlight.

But you get the idea.

Meanwhile, back in Iowa.

Or more to the point, meanwhile, back to Michael Jackson.

Since its release in the 1980's, Michael's seminal album, "Thriller" has sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 million copies.

A pretty nice neighborhood, I think we can all agree.

Courtesy of  the "wisdom" that life experience provides, though, I've offered, both in print and on the assorted radio shows through the years, what I think is a valid perspective on the prolific volume of "thrilling" Michael managed.

Simply put...

40 million people, let's say, give or take, bought a copy of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" because they loved Michael, loved and respected his work, knew what he was all about musically and were excited about hearing his particular style once again with the added bonus of whatever new, even, perhaps, culture changing, innovations he was going to offer this time around.

And 25 million people, let's say, give or take, bought a copy of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" because the first 40 million people bought one.

Didn't know diddly about the guy.

Except what they'da heard here and there, every now and then.

Must'a been somethin' to it, though, if that many people were excited about it.

I haven't come close to making up my mind about any of those hat-less folk I mentioned earlier.

But I'm coolly confident about my take on what the Iowa caucuses are all about.

They're about a couple of hundred thousand, everyday kinda, Midwest folk, give or take, deciding on who they want to live at 1600 Pennsylvania come January next year.

So that a pretty sizable chunk of somewhere in the equally nice neighborhood of 120 million people, give or take, can begin to get some idea on who they want to live at 1600.

Even, and especially, those who, at this point, don't know diddly about the guys.

And gals.

Except what they've-a heard here and there, every now and then.

Must be somethin' to em', though, if that many people are excited enough to vote for em'

Heck, those up till now out of the loop folks might start to get a little ed-u-ma-cation about the American presidential election process.

At the very least, the outcome of the Iowa voting will qualify as interesting.

Maybe even a little exciting.

What the hell.

Might even be a thriller.

"...We Would Do Well To Heed The Teachings of Newton AND Nelson..."

Just finished up a week guest hosting on local talk radio.

Spent more than a few minutes talking with listeners/callers about this current concerted effort by people to be all things at all times in all ways to other people.

Or as it's known by its more familiar brand name....political correctness.

One screamingly, ragingly obvious bottom line fact about the whole concept of total inclusion seems to have gotten buried under the tons and tons....and tons....of hype, hysteria, whining, wailing, bluster and bullshit.

I'll dig that out for you in just a sec.

Meanwhile, in one of the higher profile examples of the epidemic of enforced equality that's infecting the populace faster than the Kardashians can spread herpes, the "Oscars are too white" bitch and bother found yet another voice this week in the person of accomplished screenwriter Patricia Resnick who, after the "adjusted Academy voting rules" were announced, found her herself no longer welcome in the voting booth where each year the choice of the best fruit is made from amongst the nominated apples, oranges, bananas, kiwis, tangerines and/or cantaloupes.

And, come to think of it, none of those are black, either.

Hmm.

Of course, they are all fruits.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Here's what Ms. Resnick had to say to her former Academy bros and sistahs.



To the Board of Governors of the Academy:

So let me see if I have this right. I managed, against all odds, to become a produced, young female screenwriter in the 1970's, getting my first credit co-writing for arguably the preeminent director of his time, Robert Altman. By 27, I had written the highest-grossing film of 1980 and what was to become one of the iconic comedies of our time, 9 to 5.

 I wrote a number of other films, got some produced and then found myself running into the brick wall of ageism and sexism by my mid-forties. As the sole provider for my two children, I did what I could to take care of us all, which meant going where the work was for me: television movies, then television pilots and then series work. I am still working and my current credits include consulting producer on Mad Men and Recovery Road and creator of my own pilot starring Alan Cumming at Showtime.

One of the proudest accomplishments of my life was being invited to join the Academy way back in the eighties, and now I am being told that I no longer deserve to vote because the Academy is too white and too male. I happen to be female and I'm also gay, another underrepresented minority, and yet, because I haven't been hired on a film in the last 10 years, I am to be booted into the "emeritus" status and replaced by younger members who are being asked to join in order to help you deal with a publicity nightmare.

 By the way, the actors branch nominated or didn't nominate certain actors. Replacing sexism and racism with ageism is not the answer. It's like deciding to boycott graduation at a college that is not diverse instead of the admissions office. The problems lie with the motion picture business decision-makers, not the Academy members.

I'm angry and I'm ashamed of the Academy.

Patricia Resnick


This currently in fashion controversy about the lack of black in the Oscar process, along with all of the other controversies involving the lack of whatever and/or whomever in whatever is, ostensibly, well intended (much like, of course, the pavement on the highway to hell) but, as 60's pop hit maker Shirley Ellis might offer us, when you get right down to the real nitty gritty, it's simply a waste of time.

Because of that pesky, aforementioned,screamingly, ragingly obvious bottom line fact about the whole concept of total inclusion.

It simply cannot be done.

Filibuster all you want, there, filibusterers.....

Filibuster gets trumped by physics every time.

As in several, among many other, irrefutable laws of said physics that are unavoidable, inevitable and...well...irrefutable.

What goes up must come down--Isaac Newton.

A body in motion stays in motion, a body at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by an external force--Isaac Newton.

And probably most profoundly in this teapot full of tempest nonsense regarding the attempt to make life equally equal for everyone and/or everything when it comes to any and everything at any and all times....

You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself--Rick Nelson.

When the effort to accommodate diversity results in an explosion of divisiveness,  common sense, if not that pesky unavoidable inevitability, dictates that there's really only one possible practical option.

Grow the fuck up and get it through your narcissistic noggin' that there's, literally, no such thing as total equality.

The term is an oxymoron.

Like, for example, intelligent life on other planets.

Well, actually, in the spirit of accuracy (as opposed to correctness, which is killing us) that should read...

Intelligent life on this planet.

Seriously, Earthlings, evolve a little more quickly, could ya?

Life here is about challenges and overcoming them.

Obstacles and surmounting them.

It's an expedition and an exploration and an often rough, tough journey.

Not a party.

Garden...or otherwise.