Cerebrate Good Times

I don't normally get political on here, for three reasons. 1. It's boring. 2. I lack the patience to truly think through all the nuances of a well-reasoned debate. 3. I'm not sure anyone was ever convinced to change their views based on something presented by another person. (Prove me wrong!) But here we go. I'll try to keep it brief. My political background: I grew up in a white, Republican household in Utah. Not surprisingly, I inherited values considered conservative: traditional families, limiting governmental power, all that. My first job out of college was working with a company that lists strongly to the Tea Party side of things. When Obama was elected I genuinely thought it was a disaster. Then I left the company and started having more conversations with people. And I'm confused about these two ideas. 1. Conservatives in this country tend to identify themselves as  Christian. 2. They don't espouse the ideals that I think Jesus himself would a...

I've become much more keenly aware lately of the differences of opinion I have with other people. With the presidential election in particular, people whose opinions I value and respect have differed from mine, when I feel the reasons for my feelings are so obvious that anyone who thinks otherwise must be ignorant of the Truth. And I recognize that those feelings are wrong. Of course, things are complicated. Several months ago, after yet another mass shooting, I wrote the following and very nearly posted it on social media. Then, realizing it would not foster open discussion but simply incite rancor, I decided against it. Here it is. I'd like to share an opinion for once, bearing in mind that it may differ significantly from yours. And that's okay; we can disagree without animosity. Let me first say that I like guns, I enjoy shooting them, and although I don't own any I believe we have a constitutional right to own them. I would gladly give up that right if there...

Warning: This post contains quasi-political material, and may be considered inappropriate for those with the attention span of a 13-year-old. I have been worried for some time that our country is becoming more socialist (I’m not going to blame a particular party, though, because both sides have contributed to the problem). It’s pretty obvious that people are expecting more and more intervention from the government in their everyday lives (and yes, I did spend my $900 stimulus check). At this point we could depart for a tangential discussion of welfare-statism and the downfall of Rome , but I’d rather talk about human nature in general. People are lazy. I know this because I’m a person and, being lazy, I assume most other people are lazy too. Ha. But seriously, I believe the main reason people work hard is to get rich. All those backyard inventors have a dream that someday they’ll perfect the self-microwaving dinner and become an instant millionaire. Now, a socialist government ...

“Son, sit down. We need to have a talk.” “Gee, dad, I’m pretty busy right now. Could we talk later?” “It’s important. Put down the video game paddle.” “Fine, dad. What is it?” “You’re becoming a man, now, so it’s time we talk about the—” “Geez, dad. I’m almost 18. We had that talk like 6 years ago. Remember the puppets?” “No, son, this is more important. We need to talk about the elephants and the donkeys.” “…” Seriously, why don’t parents ever sit down with their kids and talk to them about politics? Most of us grow up with only a vague idea of which political party, if any, our parents belong to. But wouldn’t it be nice to sit down and tell your kids why you believe the way you do? If parents cared even a little bit about their children’s political education, maybe we wouldn’t have to rely on news-channel pundits to spoon-feed us all our political information. Just a thought.

It's time for the once-in-a-blue-moon feature I call "Joel Actually Gets Political,” in honor of the Iowa caucuses. Usually I leave the politics to my friend Todd, who actually pays attention to things. I just like to make the occasional snide comment, and of course today is no exception. This morning I caught 5 minutes of news, including a few seconds of speeches by the major presidential candidates. Most of them included the word “change,” although not in any specific sense. I’m amused by this trend that comes around pretty much every time there’s any kind of election. The candidates promise unspecified “change” in their term. Just imagine a president who, after being sworn in, declares himself king, kills off everyone who opposes him, and forces us all to wear wooden shoes and quack like ducks. That would be “change,” wouldn’t it? This political moment has been brought to you by the letter I (as in ignorance and indifference).

I just had an imaginary conversation between Bill and Hillary Clinton in my head. It went something like this: Hillary: “ Fine . You can go out carousing, but you have to help me get elected president. Plus you have to at least act meek and penitent in public.” Bill: “Deal!”

So I was wondering if Al Gore was planning on running for president at the last minute, and then I heard that he’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m not sure why, but I think I’d rather win the Nobel Prize than be president. For one thing, winning the Nobel Prize means you’ve really accomplished something, whereas becoming president might just mean you’re accomplished at lying to strangers. While that is an important skill, I’m not sure it should be publicly venerated. Also, people rarely look back on a Nobel Prize winner and think, “Why did that jerk win?” But revisionist history is often less kind to presidents. Plus the cash prize is nice… (Yes, I am aware that being president could potentially get you a lot more money, but the stress of the job isn’t worth it.)

So what's the deal with totalitarian governments trying to pass themselves off as peaceful and democratic? Every communist or pseudo-socialist government seems to have freedom-implying words in its title. Think about it: Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. People's Republic of China. Union of Myanmar (with its State Peace and Development Council which commits genocide). The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Is anybody anywhere ever fooled by these names? They would probably be taken more seriously on the international stage if they had names like "Murderous Genocidal Xenophiobic Terrorist State of _____." I'd be more intimidated by a country employing those words than a so-called "democratic republic."