TV fare is the pits (No! Not the programming – the commercials)

TV fare is the pits

(No! Not the programming – the commercials)

    

     Things that don’t seem to affect normal folks one way or another seem to drive me quietly bonkers. My pet peeves range from slow service in restaurants to a button missing on a shirt freshly back from the cleaners to people who fold up their checks in the church collection plate so no one can see how little they are giving.

     Television commercials, on some level, are irritating to a majority of viewers – or at least to those viewers with whom I discuss the matter. But they don’t seem to drive them crazy and want to throw a can of tuna at the screen.

     The problems with commercials are growing. Commercials too loud. (Wasn’t the Federal Communications Commission going to fix that?) Too many commercials. As the number of channels proliferate like the number of hamsters in a cage munching on rodent-grade Viagra, the price of commercials go down, and the number of cheaply mad commercials go up exponentially.

     Television commercials have made almost a full circle in the past 60 years. Producers and sponsors have gone from cartoon ads (LSMFT–Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco and those cute, singing elves that needed a haircut in the ‘50s Ajax the Foaming Cleansing ads) to multi-million-dollar I’m so sexy you need to buy this product ads and back again. Notice how many cartoon commercials there are today?

     Many commercials today insult the intelligent of the average viewer. (What is it with The General insurance company ads? I get “The General” but what’s up with the penguin sidekick? And The General’s mustache style went out in the 1870s!))

     And, really, do we need to see consecutive commercials for pills and auxiliary products aiming to fix every male and female problem that could possibly exist from the waist to the knees? You might argue that public information on new medical discoveries is important to the general television viewing public. You might be right. But give me a button to blip those hummers before they get to the punch line (so to speak) and you can send me one for every TV in the house.

     The proliferation of medical ads selling drugs for every possible dysfunction known to medical science, makes me feel weak, sluggish, creates a twitch in m right eye, creates atrial fibrillation, makes the space between my toes itch and gives me a pronounced, pounding headache.

     The actors hired for any commercial that’s not for a major movie trailer or a major car company come from Rejection Casting.

     There’s another insurance company where a guy puts a lampshade on his head and his pretend-wife is wearing an orange sweater that is tight enough to show her chest veins. I don’t remember the name of the insurance company because I am wondering how she got that sweater over her Texas Big Hair and her doctor-bought accessories.

     I like some of the white-on-white Flo commercials and the talking baby ads are a hoot, but have trouble remembering what company they are promoting.

     Good writing – in movies or on TV – can sometimes save bad acting, but when you have neither, you are wasting your money trying to reach potential customers with an IQ that add up to more than their personal digits.     

     If you watch the prescription medication commercials and listen to the words closely, you will never, ever again take a prescription medication. Bottom line: Take any medication that ends in “syn,” “ox,” “oid,” “ol,” “tra” or “xa” and you have a good chance of developing smelling armpits, upchuck your toenails, retain enough water to float a boat in the Uncertain Christmas Parade or die.

     A frequent TV watcher has two choices: Tape everything and “button fly” through the commercials or get up every time a commercial airs and go to the bathroom.

     The first option seems best. Even me, at my age, can’t go to the bathroom that many times in a day.

     I take a pill for that. Heard about it on TV.

    

What is about the IRS that makes us hate it so?

A word about the IRS: The Internal Revenue Service collects money from taxpayers so the gummit  can provide services for taxpayers.

That's it. Plain. Simple.

It is the most-detested of all spokes in the gummit wheel not because it takes our money but because the agency has no heart. Of course, being in the tax collecting business is not going to ingratiate yourself to many folks; history points to that truism time and time again.

Starting with the premise that the mere action of their work -- and the fact that WE pay them to do it -- is aggravating to most folks, what is not understandable is the clear perception of a pompous and condescending attitude exhibited by the agency. It is not a miscalculation to state that from the IRS's standpoint, the citizen is presumed to be wrong -- a liar, cheat and thief, if you will -- whenever the agency decides it's Audit Time.

I've had two run-ns with the IRS in the past 20 years. Well, "run-ins" is a bit harsh; they sent me a tax bill and I sent them a check both times. The intimidation factor of that agency -- even to a rebel with claws -- is as real as the hangover after a night of swilling tequila trying to wipe out bad memories.

The IRS, like the persona of "public welfare" is a part of the government we love to hate. And, darn it to hell and back, the IRS asks for it.  In 2010-2011, the agency has spent $49 million on 225 conferences, with some officials spending more than $3,000 a night on accommodations.

They paid $17,000 for a speaker who drew pictures of Michael Jordan and U2 singer Bono to motivate employees. Conference expenses have fallen dramatically over the last year as the administration is trying to revamp its image in the second term. And it's making a dent: After spending more than $40 million on do-something conferences, the agency dropped that "educational" number to slightly more than $4.1 million last year. That's still about $4 million too much

Tax reform is needed but will never become a reality until lobbyists for major corporations and Richer-than-Rich individuals are told to fly a kite by our elected officials.

Fact, there is no reason that IRS statements of earnings, deductions and payments should not be readily accessible on a3x5 note card. Well, there is one reason: Money. Those that want a complicated tax code with well-hidden exemptions for those that make enough money to hire folks to find them will never let that happen due to campaign contributions.

It's sad when the system that's supposed to be working for the public is "working" the public.

Tax reform? It will happen ... when world currency is based on the underarm hair standard.

What about those guns?

Three times in the past month or so, I've sauntered into a store and tried to buy ammunition for one of my guns. No ammunition was to be found. For my .22 caliber pistol and rifles.

Someone out there is hoarding ammo and I'm getting a little nervous thinking about the herd of armadillos I know is gathering in Andres Thicket, ready to pounce upon us as soon as I snickety-pop the last .22 shell at a charging target. 

I don't need bullets for an AK-47 or a a nosecone for a ballistic missile, just some little ol' long-rifle .22 shells.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 25 states this year have considered restrictions on certain types of weapons or ammunition accessories. Not in Arkansas. 

The Arkansas Legislature loosened restrictions on carrying firearms in churches and higher-education institutions. Lawmakers also exempted former law-enforcement officers, court bailiffs and county sheriffs, from concealed-handgun licensing requirements, including mandatory training.

 Other bills included recognizing all states’ concealed-handgun licenses in Arkansas, allowing liquor store employees to possess a firearm and granting authority to a church that operates a school to permit concealed handguns on its campus. The salons still won't permit a citizen to carry a gun in the state Capitol. Good thing, too.

As Tina Fey said recently, doing her schtick as Sarah Palin, “If more people have guns, there are less guns in stores, you betcha.”

Pandering by any other name ...

-->

It’s perfectly acceptable to have differences of opinion. Having a free and honest discourse on important issues creates a healthy environment for intellectual growth.

Why then do some politicians insist on working to build a hostile political environment by attacking every single item presented by members of the opposing party? They do it to endear themselves to interests with deep pockets and a core constituency that can deliver votes. It’s a matter of staying in office, not necessarily following the path of what is right for America.

The simple term for such behavior is “pandering.” The technical definition for that term is “pimp,” or be more precise, “a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute; procurer.”

A majority of elected public serpents (not misspelled) are pimps for special interests and their rhetoric on vital issues and votes are indicators of that status. If you sell you soul for votes or money, if you deliver a vote simply to ensure your re-election, you are a political panderer.

For example, with more than 85 percent of Americans on record as being in favor of background checks on gun purchases, there is absolutely no excuse for those Republicans and Democrats who voted against that measure. Well, there are excuses for that behavior: They were bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association, desperately wanted Tea Party support or just don’t give a rat’s backside about doing whatever is possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill.

I know what you’re thinking: They are just following the wishes of their constituents. Fine. Good argument. But – and this “but” is bigger than the Wyoming sky – it is also the duty of elected federal officials to consider the national implications of proposed laws.

The next big issue on the national political agenda is immigration reform. Some Republican who were against any form of reform prior to last November’s election, have had a change of heart and now support the concept. Why? They want to hold onto power at the congressional level and gain ground on administration front. With a fast-growing Hispanic population, which certainly was a factor in the 2012 presidential election, “pandering” for Hispanic votes is, all of a sudden, good politics.

Nothing is going to change the art of political pandering except, well, you, the voter. First, do whatever is possible to change the political landscape by pushing good, common-sense, logical people to run for federal office. Next, start working on local, district and statewide levels to demand term limits for the Senate and House of Representatives; without term limits, there is no reason for politicians to vote their conscience rather than filling their election bank accounts with special interest money.

We must start holding elected officials accountable for their actions and votes. We are the ones who put them on pontificating pulpits and we are the only ones to hold them accountable.

The lies and the liars who tell them

Gun reform.

It’s really a no-brainer but the discussion is being controlled by people with no brains and no compunction against lying to get what they want.

Under present law, you go into a gun store and have to pass a background check to get a gun; you can go to gun show and purchase assault weapons from private owners, no questions asked; guns are bought and sold on the internet every day with no checks.

A majority of Americans, including a vast majority of members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), are in favor of universal background checks. It’s just common sense: If law-abiding, gun-owning citizens are in favor of background checks, why wouldn’t their elected officials follow their lead?

One word: Fear. A majority of our elected senators and representatives are so afraid of being ousted from office by a well-heeling lobbying group for a perceived “anti-gun” vote, that they will bow down to lobby groups like the NRA in order to stay in power.

It makes no difference what is right or wrong; it’s what is politically expedient.

It is a fact that the NRA is an organization of liars, headed by liars who perpetuate lies in order to scare gun owners. The NRA is on record as stating that the newest attempt to ensure background checks of persons buying weapons in all venues is an attempt to “register and confiscate” weapons.

That’s a lie. The law that Congress is/was considering would make it a major federal crime for any public official to attempt to use background checks to “register” gun purchases.

It is a fact of our political system that lobbyists exist to spread information – as well as disinformation – to sway public and political opinion to the argument being presented by their employers. It is a fact that lobbyists lie in order to do their job.

As long as there are no term limits, and politicians have to face re-election on a regular basis, lobbyists and their money and ability to marshal forces for or against a particular candidate will run our government on the two-pronged platform of money and fear.

Gun reform. Immigration. Finance reform. Abortion. Gay rights. All these controversial topics, among others, attract money to support various views and lobbyists do whatever it takes to push their clients’ agenda.

The lack of term limits for elected officials and the influence of lobbyists on the political system minimalize the opinion of every voting American on some level.

Dispensing information so that all sides of an issue is explored is good business and a symptom of good government. Lying to get what you want and using scare tactics and threats is abominable.

We should all be ashamed for allowing it to proliferate in our society.

Eating their young popular pastime

In the wild, some dominant maies kill or eat the younger members of the group – gorillas, lions and polar bears come to mind.

In the wild world of politics, the same thing can happen, as evidenced by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham verbally eviscerating Young Gum-slingers of the GOP, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio and Rand Paul.

The Old Hats took offense at the depth and overall show quality of the 13-hour filibuster Rand started in spotlighting the U.S. drone program. McCain and Graham blasted the support shown by other congressional neophytes to Paul’s  basic premise that the Obama Administration could possibly kill American citizens using military drones.

As in any familial grouping, the proven leaders hang together, while the youngster cavort in the sunshine and generally raise hell. McCain and Graham are political Siamese twins, closer than the two sides of a strip of duct tape. Both remember that drones were coming into vogue during Bush the Junior’s Administration and no one – not even the “evil” Democrats – questioned whether the U.S. would kill a terrorist operative with one of the flying buzzers on U.S. soil.

The premise is preposterous and wise Republicans know it.

Paul held his bladder for almost 13 hours and talked and talked and talked in a real filibuster (not the fake faux filibusters of recent years). He is now taking credit for getting Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to promise no drone would be used to kill a citizen on U.S. soil, which Holder stated in earlier testimony before a congressional committee.

For a while the administration was dodging the issues, not wanting to embolden possible terrorists with an absolute answer. That was a miscalculation on Obama’s party, but an understandable security move.

Again, because of their inability to understand the scope of a number of real issues facing this country, the Republicans are digging a hole from which it will be hard to climb out of by 2016. The party’s hopes of regaining the presidency are slipping down that precarious “slippery slope” because of no-can-back-up stances on other issues … guns, immigration, abortion and gay rights.

Paul is, of cowhile urse, considering a run for the White House. His 13-hours without a potty break “ensuring” the safety of citizens here in America via assassination-by-drone will be touted in campaign literature as an heroic effort   until after the next round of campaign debate blatherings hits the airways.

The senator is today’s darling of the Tea Party, but few of that ilk understand the narrow appeal of that party’s platform. In the 1800s, a popular party was the Know-Nothings; the Tea Party is this century’s “No” Party … no to possible economic growth, no to women’s rights and basic rights of other citizens, immigration and tax reform, no to defense cuts and no to compromise in any form.

That stance is simply not practical nor realistic. While Rubio is heading his conservative bets a bit on immigration (Mario Rubio? Hello!), the other Senate and House newbies are content with the regional appeal of their far right stances.

On the International Reality Chart, none of these youthful naysayers register above the 1.0 mark because they refuse to believe that the demographics of America is changing. In today’s politics, to win a national office, the ability of compromise on key hot button issues is a necessity of one’s opinion is going to matter.

Right now, these collegiate kids are enjoying the attention their pabulum-words are generating; they are trying to ignore the backlash within their own party.

But, that’s not the way to establish long-term credibility or assist your chosen party to make a difference in the future of America. It’s a lesson Paul, Rubio and Cruz have yet to learn.

Straight-ticket voting makes no sense

I’ve never understood straight-ticket voting. Folks who practice that form of “democracy” are saying that followers of one party have all the right answers. No party has all the right answers.

The Tea Party, for all its pomp and circumstance and pompous stances, is just a Republican offshoot, pushing a right-of-Atilla-the Hun philosophy with little regard for folks that really need help. Members of that party are for reduction of the national debt (with which I wholeheartly agree) and reducing the size of the federal government (again, I believe that is the right idea).

The Tea Party and those Republicans who lean so far right as to have their shoulder touching the ground are vehemently against abortion for any reason; we part ways on that issue. I believe that if you do not have lady parts, your opinion is not worth a “warm bucket of piss,” to quote John Nance Garner, the 32^nd vice president of the United States. (For years, the quote was changed to “warm bucket of spit,” but Garner disavowed that quote, saying, “I meant what I said.”)

As with any planks of a political platform, the means to the end may differ, but that’s where the art of compromise is supposed to come into play. The Tea Party, and most of the GOPers and Democrats, have forgotten the intricacies of that lost art. Compromise is what is supposed to grease the massive wheels of government so that the needs of the people are served.

After the last presidential election, where Obama handed the Republican Party their collective asses in their hats, the party has done a you-turn-back square dance move on a couple of major issues, the biggest to date including immigration. Republicans who, before the election, were against any compromise on immigration reform, are now four-square for some sort of immigration reform; without a bigger Hispanic voting percentage in future elections, GOP chances for winning the White House are somewhere between none and bahahahahahaha!

The far-right-wingers are proud of the fact that they are holding out due to principle, but in this case, principle on certain issues guarantees victory only at the regional level. Potential national office holders – if they espouse the nutty language and actions of several GOPers in the last elections – will win nothing but big headlines for their crazy antics and statements.

It is a political fact that in order to be considered a viable candidate, presidential contenders must cater to the demands of women, minority groups and young voters. Mitt Romney’s campaign strategists missed the important demographic shifts in 2012 and ….

The GOP hopes in 2016 are tied to Florida’s Jeb Bush, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Florida’s Mario Rubio. Rubio and Jindal are not yet ready for prime time; a battle between Christie and Bush, if it really develops, will be a reality show worth watching.

The Republicans are actually in better shape for an interesting race than the Democrats. Right now the Democrat field is … Hillary Clinton. If she decides to run, other contenders will be fighting a climb-the-mountain-without-pitons struggle.

But, regardless of her present popularity, she is vulnerable. So many years in the public eye has left a lot of territory for an opponent to exploit. And, she does not have the warm-and-fuzzy personality and charisma of her husband.

Three-and-a-half years out, 2016 is shaping up to be a donnybrook of an election year, like 2012, but with some interesting intrigue in play and fewer nut-jobs in the mix.