The False Dichotomy Of American Politics

Earlier today, I was having a discussion with some friends and fellow actors (so, you know, Godless liberals all) about the 2012 presidential election and the potential vice presidential picks of one Mitt Romney. While we all generally agreed that Romney is trying to run further to the right now that he essentially has nailed down the nomination, but the real fun comes with his vice president. Will they go further to the right, a la last election season’s Sarah Palin, looking at a Rand Paul or an Allen West? Or will they try to stay more moderate, like with a Chris Christie?

Of course, then there was some discussion as to whether or not Christie could be considered moderate. I argued that, in comparison to many leading the GOP these days, the Michele Bachmanns and the Rick Santorums and the Rick Perrys, Christie is almost downright liberal.

And, since Olympia Snowe decided to retire, I struggle to think of any other Republicans in national politics I could point at and say, “Yes, they’re moderate.”

Speaking of moderate, remember how I mentioned Representative West as an example of right-sided politics, especially in comparison to Romney? Well, some people think he might be “too moderate.” Because he voted against spending cuts sometimes.

The false dichotomies in our political system are reaching a point of ridiculousness. What happened to the adage, “Everything in moderation”? How, then, could someone be too moderate? Moderation should be good. The extremes should be avoided. But in American politics, we’ve drawn lines.

You’re either capitalist or socialist.

You’re either liberal or conservative.

You’re either for abortion or against women’s rights.

You’re either for taxing the rich or for cutting spending.

You’re either a hard worker (rich) or you’re lazy (poor).

I will grant you that not everyone thinks in these dichotomies. But so many do. Including a frightening amount of people involved in the political system. People that believe compromise is going across the aisle and dragging people to their side of things. People that see others that disagree even slightly with what they say as villainous.

I can be for spending cuts in our Defense budget AND for taxing the rich.

I can be a moderate liberal, or socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I can have stipulations about my support for abortion and still support it.

I can be hard working and poor.

I can agree with the need for social services from our government to supplement our capitalistic society.

I promise you, all of these things are possible. Some are perhaps more difficult or rarer than others, but they can exist. And we need to realize that, collectively. If we allow this rush to extremes to continue, we will fall apart as a nation. Nothing will ever be done because no one will ever work with anyone else in out government. All the time will be spent blaming the other party for some perceived wrong-doing, instead of taking time to work toward fixing things.

Let’s get out of this ridiculous notion and face reality: The world isn’t made of black and white. It’s filled with shades of grey.

Santorum: Promoting Higher Education Is Snobbery?

It seems like, lately, I’ve been writing a decent amount about GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. I really never thought I would be doing that. I figured everyone would notice he’s kind of an idiot and leave him out of the race. But, then again, pretty much all of the GOP candidates now seem either crazy, idiotic, or some wonderful, cubist mix of the two (That’d be Newt Gingrich.).

With Santorum being a serious contender longer, perhaps, than any other non-Mitt Romney candidate, he’s had more of a chance to say what’s on his mind.

And, y’know something? That just hasn’t been going terribly well for the GOP as a whole.

Now, before, I’ve talked about Santorum’s views on environmentalism, with some links to his views on women and gays, but he says outrageous stuff about those subjects all the time.

This time, I want to talk about his views on education.

See, President Barack Obama has been making the (clearly outrageous and controversial) statement that every American should go to college.

Santorum disagrees.

This actually started back long ago in January, when New Hampshire was on the line and Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry were still candidates. …it seems forever ago, doesn’t it? Anyway, at that time, Santorum mentioned that he felt Obama’s views on higher education was naught but “snobbery” and that he felt “outrage” at the suggestion. He brought the subject back up just recently at an event in Michigan, adding the angle of liberal indoctrination to his rant. When asked to clarify that point later, he doubled down, suggesting that college destroys faith.

Now, of course Obama has had a chance to respond before I have, but I had some Oscars to watch, daggum it. So, you may note that some of my points reflect the president’s. Be that as it may. To me, that just means Santorum is being doubly stupid.

Santorum’s biggest point against Obama’s desire to see every American go to college is the idea that college doesn’t fit for everyone. That some are better for more hands-on labor, something a four year college won’t necessarily assist with.

But Obama didn’t say “Every American should attend a four year, accredited university.” He said they should go to college. Basically, every American should continue their formal education beyond high school. Which can include trade school, vocational school and even community college. All of which are things that can help more formally teach someone “good with their hands” exactly how to use those hands. And often times, those schools are required by employers to ensure the potential employee knows what they’re doing. Even if it isn’t required, it still looks good on a resume.

Has Santorum not heard about how much more money people with college education make annually than people without it? Making money may not be the goal, but it certainly doesn’t hurt your average American.

But let’s ignore the money thing. College can also help you figure out what you actually want to do. With our primary and secondary educations failing us more and more as time goes by, higher education solidifies and expands knowledge that may have been skipped or rushed in primary and secondary schools. Further, with more focused classes, students are able to access more knowledge and find some field they may not have previously known even existed, much less wanted to be in.

When I came to college, I showed up knowing I was going to get a degree in Theatre and figuring I’d do Computer Science as well. I ended up trading CS for Philosophy, and I don’t regret it. A friend of mine was told by high school teachers he’d be terrible in the sciences. Now he’s getting his Master’s in Geology, has worked with NASA and in other countries… I don’t think he’s looking back any time soon. And as geology and philosophy weren’t classes available to us in high school, we never would have found our passions without college. (Mine’s still mostly theatre, but hey. Without college, I almost definitely wouldn’t have ever worked at a newspaper and gotten the journalism/writing bug.)

Further, a more informed, educated nation is a better nation. A nation of excellence, not stagnation. A nation that would actually understand the world around them and not have to be force fed by pundits and politicians.

What if that guy that’s great tinkering with cars could’ve become the next greatest architect or civil engineer? How would he necessarily know if all he did was some shop class in high school? It’s better for him AND America as a whole to get that higher education.

As for the indoctrination claim… I feel that’s insulting to conservative students and students of faith that make it through college without wavering. If access to knowledge makes them change their mind about what they used to think, then okay. How is that a bad thing? Without people changing their minds, the earth would still be thought of as flat. (And by some, it still is.) But for those of us that made it through college having a faith and keeping it, it’s a bit insulting for Santorum to insinuate that college can destroy it. That makes the people with faith sound weak. For goodness’ sake, I was a philosophy major. I knew teachers (never had them myself) that openly mocked the idea of belief in a god. And yet, somehow, I made it through still believing.

And liberals and atheists get “called out” and “mocked” just as much as every other religion and political ideology. The whole martyrdom thing is really just pathetic. Maybe it’s worse at some colleges than others, but I have a feeling that goes both ways… and that, really, it doesn’t matter much. If you believe something, you believe it in the face of adversity. If you believe something because you don’t know any better, however, you should be given the knowledge to feed your belief system.

Education is a precious commodity that needs to be encouraged. It is FAR from “snobbish” to promote the idea of better education for all Americans, for eliminating ignorance. Santorum, with his doctorate in law, ought to know that.

But, then again, maybe he’s counting on people being too ignorant to know what a terrible candidate he is.

What Makes The Government So Inherently Evil?

In watching and reading the events of this political season, I’ve noticed a funny little trend going on that seems perhaps strangely related to the disdain to progressivism I’ve mentioned before…

See, the past year has been focused almost entirely on the GOP, since they’re the ones trying to break into the incumbency of President Barack Obama. So, of course, we hear a whole lot of rhetoric and statements from them. And one of the common threads I keep noticing is just how terrible the government is.

It’s weird. They talk like the government as a system is designed to ruin lives. Like citizens should fear the government, especially in its current form.

…by, you know, voting to let one of them be in control of that really terrible evil thing.

And I don’t get the rhetoric. Really, it makes no sense. Just like the Tea Party rhetoric makes no sense often times to me. Because it always seems to be this outcry against the government, the federal machine as a whole… except for all the wonderful things they’d like to keep around. Y’know, like roads, cops, Medicare… That stuff.

The GOP candidates, on the other hand, decry the federal government and how terrible it is… but they’re all running to, well, run it. And with exception of Mitt Romney, they’ve all been a part of it. Granted, I don’t recall Ron Paul ever saying the government is evil, but his stance is definitely anti-federalist.

Now, if every one of them were talking about shrinking the size and scope and power of the federal government to eliminate its direct effect on the lives of its citizens, I’d understand. But Paul is about the only one that thinks that. The other three are all about having the government make drastic changes, they just want it to be drastic sweeping changes in their political favor.

Mitt Romney wants to repeal “Obamacare,” which could just be seen as a reversal of a sweeping change, but really it’s the only thing I’ve found he’s said and stuck to mostly. Rick Santorum wants to reinstitute “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and federally, nationally ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment, which flies in the face of state’s rights, something most conservatives are all about. And Newt Gingrich wants to build a moon base. I suppose that’s not really a great example, but it is a bit silly. Which Gingrich is.

If you listen to each of them, they demonize federal government. And if you listen closer, they want to use it to make drastic changes. The examples were perhaps more plentiful when Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry were around to talk about things like immigration, but perhaps you see my point.

When did the federal government become something despised? Something people refuse to see as something potentially helpful? Granted, Congress certainly doesn’t help the image much, but the federal government is there for a reason. So many people talk about the Constitution and how awesome it is… well, that Constitution gave us the government we have. Now, I may be risking cries of treason being thrown at me, but our government isn’t perfect. Gasp. Shocking, I know. There are several issues with our government, often dealing with money being too easily bandied about and into the pockets of Congresspeople. But we can use the system to help. We can make things better with it.

But only if people stop talking about how evil it is. Until people start talking about how they will use the government to do things and not how they hate the government and we should protest everything they do always, nothing good will happen.

Obama V. The Current GOP Lineup

Well, the first votes for the GOP presidential nominee have come and gone, and you’ve likely heard about the results. Mitt Romney squeaked past a last second Santorum surge from behind (eeeeeeeeew, gross) with an 8 vote win. Or a 29 vote win. Or a 12 vote loss. Whatever. Ron Paul gave a rather impressive showing as well, gathering 21.4% of the votes, only 3.1% less than both Rick Santorum and Romney. Newt Gingrich pulled off only 13.3%, but is not to be counted out as John McCain placed fourth in Iowa in 2008, as I recall. Rick Perry grabbed only 10.3% of the votes despite spending the most money in the state, and former Iowa straw poll winner Michele Bachmann grabbed a pitiful 5%, forcing her to pull out of the race.

And so, we are now left with 6 candidates people have heard of plus Buddy Roemer, since Jon Huntsman didn’t participate in the Iowa caucus and has been focusing fully on New Hampshire. And as the votes continue to crawl on, we’ll have fewer and fewer, until there is only one.

But who is it to be? People like Jon Stewart think that, despite the GOP’s almost adamant refusal to get fully behind Romney, that’s who they’ll end up with. Yet high up members of the Tea Party movement, who still hold a heavy grip, especially in the southern states like South Carolina, think Romney sucks a whole heck of a lot. Yet so many people think Romney has the best chance to beat Barack Obama in the general election. Allow me to break down the way I see things now, not in who will get the GOP vote, but in who will be best against Obama.

Starting with the least likely:

Rick Perry – Before you ask, I actually am including Roemer on this list. I think Perry has the worst chance of any candidate to win against Obama. Why? He has shown a complete lack of ability to harness the excitement his own party had for him, has become the king of gaffes the way Joe Biden could only have ever dreamed, and can’t seem to choose between the image of serious man and drunk frat guy. With Bachmann dropping out and Cain gone, Perry is the most caricatured ridiculous GOP candidate still on the list.

Buddy Roemer – Unfortunately, I have to put Roemer here due to the simple fact that he is complete obscure. Even if he did manage to gather enough last second (like, seriously last second) popularity amongst the GOP to get the nomination, he’s been too obscure to get the general election excited about him. I think he’d actually debate really well against Obama. But he has a lot of liberal tendencies that I don’t think would allow enough of the GOP to want to vote for him.

Newt Gingrich – Okay. This guy is kind of a giant jerk. And a bit of a clown. He may have sustained a surge that granted him some spotlight, but he wasn’t really gracious about it. Not to mention, the ideas he wants to institute are, frankly, crazyballs. Even many in the GOP thought his best two out of three application of Constitutionality was insane. And liberals want to keep him far away from the White House, which would gather up a powerful amount of votes against him.

Now, these three are actually far behind. The next four are much closer to each other than these three and depend on several factors.

Rick Santorum – Not a candidate anyone took seriously before… well, this week, he is kind of like a Rick Perry that doesn’t gaffe like a crazy man. He’s got the social conservative values the GOP adores so much and is willing to apply them with extreme prejudice. Now, he’s on the bottom of this because, again, liberals want him far and away from the White House. No one with a liberal leaning wants a Santorum presidency. If you’re disappointed in Obama for not doing more, Santorum would be like anti-what-Obama-promised. He’d make sure EVERY liberal ideal was scorch earthed, or die trying.

Mitt Romney – Let’s face it. This guy is the 2012 GOP John Kerry. He’s boring and says absolutely NOTHING of value. Even all the hate the GOP has for a second Obama term would not garner enough excitement in Romney being president. Romney has said exactly everything that he thinks any voter pretty much ever may possibly want to hear at some point. The only thing I know for sure about a Romney presidency is that the Occupy Wall Street movement would probably grow like crazy, because Romney would make the 1% so far away from everyone else, it’s really quite sad. Very pro-Wall Street, this guy, but that’s really the only thing I know about him.

Jon Huntsman – Yeah. I’m putting Huntsman above Romney. People can actually get a bit excited about Huntsman. Plus, with Huntsman’s slightly larger amount of open-mindedness, he could more easily court a slightly more liberal vote. This is something the GOP seems to fail to realize as a whole: Liberals are fair game for them. While his approval is getting a last second surge as unemployment drops and he stands up to a rather annoying Congress, Obama has still disappointed many liberals by being a bit too friendly with Wall Street and a bit too lacking in the chutzpa when standing up to a belligerent Congress. There are liberals that could be talked away from the Democratic vote. Why do you think Democrats have blue dogs? There are fewer slightly liberal GOP members than slightly conservative Democrats, from what I’ve seen, especially evident during the health care battle. Further, Huntsman has been pretty consistent with his message, while Romney has yet to have one that isn’t “Beat Obama.”

Ron Paul – Those keeping score knew he’d be up here. Yes, I feel Ron Paul actually has the best chance of beating Obama. Why? Because he courts the liberal vote like crazy. Because he’s a libertarian. He is consistently, 100% for an actual small government, one that stays out of citizens’ personal lives as well as the market, making him very much for many of the things most GOP voters claim to be for. Sure, some of that small government stuff means they lose a bit of their moral institutionalization, like by seeing an end to the war on drugs, but Ron Paul has the easiest time grabbing both GOP and Democrat votes. He has a lot of the same pull on young voters that candidate Obama had, and they were a big help in winning Obama the election. Sure, some people think his ideas are a bit crazy, but he could be tempered by Congress and the courts. Sure, it’d mean Congress will have to DO things, but the voters might like that idea.

What it all boils down to is this: Can GOP voters rally behind someone who is closer to center than they would perhaps like, someone who appeals to the disenchanted liberals and the angry conservatives alike? And can Obama remind people that, while his presidency hasn’t been perfect, he has scored some big victories that would likely be immediately lost with pretty much any of the GOP candidates, and any good (from a liberal’s perspective) gained in the last 4 years would be completely lost with a GOP presidency?

The beginnings of socialized healthcare, the repeal of DADT, the removal of troops from Iraq… versus the recent law of indefinite detention, the bailouts and the drones.

Obama’s had his disappointing moments, and still does… but I think, if we re-elect a better Congress, Obama will have a better showing in a second term than in his first. Now that he has a better idea of what he’s doing.

What Makes Gays So Special?

So, today, I was having yet another random conversation at randomly random, and the issue of how idiotic all the current frontrunning GOP presidential candidates are and why came up.

But that’s a post for another time.

What came up during the conversation was, of course, Rick Perry’s “Strong” ad, which you can find in this previous little post of mine, and Rick Santorum’s rather idiotic “Gay marriage is like paper towels being napkins!” tirade. Also, in response to Perry’s most recent ad, there’s this little video in which a bisexual teen asks Perry why he seems not very fond of gay people.

And Perry falls into the same rather stumbling “I’m a Christian” moment: “Well, it’s a sin. But I’m a sinner. But I don’t hate the sinner.”

Et cetera, awkward cetera.

Pretty much every single Christian that claims a specific dislike for homosexuals, when needled for their opinion on why they’ve got such a pointed dislike for them, falls into the trap of, “Crap. Why do I dislike them more?”

And that’s my question: What makes homosexuals so special?

When touting all these “Christian morals,” why is it that homosexuality gets special treatment?

Let’s assume that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, since it seems that the majority of Christians think that (even though the largest Christian organization, the Roman Catholic Church, does NOT find homosexuality to be a sin, just homosexual sex). If homosexuality is in fact a sin, why does it get selected specially?

People seem to think homosexuals should not be able to adopt, should not be able to marry, and should not be able to openly serve in the military. Simply because homosexuality is “wrong” and “sinful.”

Isn’t adultery sinful? Lying? Stealing? So, liars shouldn’t be able to marry, thieves shouldn’t be soldiers, adulterers shouldn’t adopt.

Oh, and isn’t not worshiping the Judeo-Christian God sinful? So, that should mean atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and all the other peoples of other faiths and non-faiths should not be allowed to marry, adopt, or serve openly in the military.

That sounds sensible, right?

And on that note, for all the people that seem to think America was founded on Christian morals and it’s Christian morals that should be the basis of law and government decisions… What is the first commandment? Not the greatest commandment, just the first of the 10.

“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence…”

Now, in an interesting parallel, we in the United States have 10 Amendments to the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights.” What’s the first Constitutional Amendment?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Huh. Congress is not to make any laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If the 10 Commandments were law in America, Judaism and Christianity (and MAYBE Islam) would be the only legal religions.

But that’s the sort of thing people are trying to insinuate should be when they suggest the sinful status of an action should make such an action illegal. That’s the extreme to take it to. But it’s not really an extreme so much as it is a full application of the thought.

And that cherry picking nature that people are pulling is the thing that is extremely annoying, the thing I’m asking about. Why is it that homosexuality gets special treatment, is specially picked as something that should be particularly targeted by the legal system? Why the heck aren’t there laws against adultery, nor any outcry against adulterers? Adulterous politicians can even manage to be the front-runners of a political race, a la Newt Gingrich.

Homosexuality, sin or not, should be treated no differently than any other action within its subset. If it’s a sin, treat it like every sin. If it isn’t, then don’t. It’s that simple.

And instead of spouting this non-Biblical mess about “I hate the sin, not the sinner,” please stop. Hate is too difficult to separate between action and actor. Hate is what gets us here in the first place.

“Jesus” Has Something To Say To “Strong” Rick Perry

Man. I seem to still be recovering from these 1 to 10s immediately after a three day weekend in Tuscaloosa (which was, if I’ve not said it before, loads of fun). That said, I don’t have a real post today. Once I’m more conscious and able, I’m sure I’ll be able to drop back into my politics related posts. This Newt Gingrich thing has a lot of potential for several “What The What” type posts.

Anyway, I don’t know if you’ve seen Rick Perry’s “Save Christmas and get gays out of the military” ad, but it has, as you might guess, caused quite a bit of stir on the internet. Heck, just do a Youtube search for “Rick Perry strong” and look at all the many several spoofs and parodies. Even Stephen Colbert jumped in with his opinion on the ad (he loves it, if that tells you anything).

But probably one of my favorite responses is found on “Funny Or Die.” In this one, which hosts echoes of why I simply can’t understand how the Republican party is the “Christian” party, “Jesus Christ” responds to the things said in Perry’s ad. Give it a watch.

Why Aren’t People Looking At The Candidates?

This post will likely be brief. Long hours at work and the nearing Thanksgiving holiday find creative ways to eat at my time and energy. I will hopefully introduce the discussion in this post and go into more intelligent, pensive depth in a later post. Apologies for the low quality as of late.

Something I’ve noticed lately, brought on by a passing, brief joke made by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show,” is that voters don’t seem to be paying very much attention to the candidates at all. Stewart’s joke was something like, “It’s amazing what paying attention to a candidate can do to their campaign.”

And isn’t it? Every single GOP front runner that has not been Mitt Romney, that has basked in severe media adoration, has seen a cataclysmic fall the moment scrutiny is turned toward them. Michele Bachmann suffered when people realized, via HPV vaccines and other subjects, she didn’t seem to know much about what she was talking about. Rick Perry suffered from racist rocks at hunting grounds, confusion and weariness at debates, and a speech a man would be hard pressed to emulate without alcohol in his system. Herman Cain got slammed by a complete lack of knowledge of foreign politics and a completely too thorough knowledge of women that aren’t his wife. And now Newt Gingrich, as the front man, is being hit with accusations of greedy lobbying, “dickishness,” and rather ridiculous plans that are grounded in the idea that child labor laws are stupid.

…my question is, how did these guys become front runners in the first place? Why don’t people actually research and get to know the candidate beyond a random sound bite? Bachmann’s popularity soared with her Tea Party backing, as did Perry’s. Cain’s homespun attitude and political purity, plus his status as a cancer survivor, helped out quite a bit. Gingrich’s disdain for all things liberal and seeming refusal to be afraid to show that disdain have given him a boost.

Note that pretty much none of those things have to do with what a president of the United States needs.

Final thought for now: The constant second place runner, the man most likely to be nominated by the GOP, has pretty much resorted to blatantly lying, or at least being blatantly dishonest, to gain more press coverage and news time covering his taking the fight to Obama. Do we really need a president that will do that without even pretending to have moral qualms?

Second First Time Viewer – “The Muppets Take Manhattan”

While I did manage to stay away from simply reposting my Muppets movie commentaries the past couple of days, a glance at the current news cycle is just depressing. There’s a lot of giant jackholery from people that are very likely child rapists and child rapist enablers, some people coming out about how their own experiences being sexually abused as children show that humanity is very often an ugly, ugly thing, and then there’s a touch of “Breaking News: People running for president on the GOP ticket are still giant morons.” Sigh. It’s rather frustrating/upsetting to think too hard on. But the next, newest Muppets film is a mere 8 days away. Am I excited? Heck yes. And you should be, too. So, I present you with my The Dome UA commentary on what is unfortunately my least favorite Muppet film (though I have yet to see “Muppets In Space,” so take that as you will).

“The Muppets Take Manhattan” is the third Muppets film, produced in 1984. It has a few things that set it apart. It’s the first film that Frank Oz directed by himself. It’s the film that debuted the Muppet Babies, who are in fact ridiculously cute. Except for Gonzo. It was the final film made before the death of Jim Henson, a titan of entertainment now sadly gone for over 20 years.

Also, this is the first Muppets film I’ve seen that has disappointed me. The songs, the story, the pacing and the humor were all… off. Mind, I’ve never seen it before watching it for this blog, but… Well, you’ll see what I have to say.

A Frank Oz Film? Sounds like a hostile takeover to me.

Woah. There are parts of Manhattan with that many trees? News to me.

So, the movie starts with a song, cutting out all the buildup from the last couple of films. Which also means no meta. Which is a bit sad.

Okay, with that much applause, people should be standing up more. Shame on you, audience.

Hm. So the Muppets are college educated. I wonder what their degrees are?

Piggy and Kermit are thinking about getting married? …yeah, that’ll end well.

Oh, man. If only getting something on Broadway were as easy as knocking on a door and badgering people. This is all a joke, right?

Oh, the guy’s a con artist. I knew something was off.

…okay, the Muppets interacting with the human like that was kind of weird. Much like the pace of this movie. Something seems off and not quite Muppety about this movie thus far.

Good to see Rizzo again. He’s the funniest part yet.

So, is Kermit flirting with the new girl? The girl who isn’t in college yet? …player.

Uh-oh, the Muppets may disband. This early in the movie, it’s like the opposite of “The Muppet Movie.”

Upon reflection, this whole going broke and living in a box (albeit a metal one) thing is one of the reasons I’m not in New York myself just yet. And this movie took place over 20 years ago, when these endeavors were much cheaper and easier to do. I don’t really think the randomly leaving New York for far corners of the earth is any smarter than leaving your original corner of the earth for New York. Seriously, guys, get an actual job.

I can only imagine the lack of reaction from the other New Yorkers to Kermit’s shouting is because they live in New York.

Ooh, mysterious person in a hat!

Ah. So that’s where the penguins are from.

Great, the theatre person is working in a restaurant. So many stereotypes to exploit in this film…

Is Kermit channeling Liberace right now? What the what?

Again with the mysterious person in the hat. Who could it be? Those sunglasses atop the snout are a perfect disguise.

…do construction workers really leer and wolf whistle women and pigs like that, or are we seeing stereotypes at play again?

Joan Rivers looks weird (so, nothing new). At least I assume that’s Joan Rivers, what with the Mick Jagger botox lips.

Wow. They both look moronic. And there’s no way they’re keeping their jobs. Aaand there it is. Apparently, beauty stores don’t like their workers to use their products, look like freaks, and scare the crap out of all the people in the store. Can’t imagine why.

These songs/musical numbers are a bit random.

Poor Rizzo, trying to be suave and failing miserably.

Finally Lew Zealand’s boomerang fish bring about hilarious results.

Man, look at Fozzie, that player. Already getting himself a woman out in nature… You go, guy.

…Electric Mayhem is not really designed for polka in my opinion.

Oh, God. Kermit with a mustache looks even worse in this movie. The massive coat doesn’t help.

Wow. Underhanded technique, the whispering campaign, but pretty effective. …well, up until the point of Liza Minnelli and the rat infestation.

With all this stalking, Miss Piggy would totally love Twitter.

Purse snatcher really should have stopped running so conspicuously after a while. Also, I can’t tell if Piggy or Animal has worse anger management problems. Piggy definitely has scarier ones, though, what with the being on wheels thing.

…a hacksaw? The living heck? Why does Piggy have a hacksaw in her purse?

Poor random skates guy. He really probably would do better to stay out of this. Except now he’s getting to cop a Piggy feel. …in the end, he’s kind of weird.

Ah, Statler and Waldorf in their element. I want to make a witty reference to the fact that they’re named after New York City hotels, but I kind of just flat out said it there.

…okay, I have to admit. The baby Muppets are ridiculously cute. And remind me too much of Charlie Brown and company. Think about it. Kermit is Charlie Brown, Piggy is Lucy, Rowlf is Schroeder… Clearly, the analogy is perfect.

Piggy got too involved in her fantasy. Entertaining.

The Muppets are far too excited about interspecies dating

Ah, Gonzo doing a ridiculous act that makes no sense and involves random song. Just like the good days.

This awkward dog owner may be the creepy villain of the film I was looking for.

Elliott Gould again? He actually looks pretty natural as a cop. “Contract killer? …whatever.”

Having a chicken dancing on stage actually might be illegal in New York. And that producer has a point. Just because it’s weird doesn’t mean it can’t make it on Broadway.

OH MY GOD, THEY KILLED KERMIT. …wait, if that ends up being with malicious intent instead of simple manslaughter, I totally called this last movie.

Peoples is peoples. This guy Pete is a regular Russian Confucius. Rusfucius.

The show has to go up in two weeks? …sounds normal for everything that isn’t a Julie Taymor show.

Did people still use telegrams in the 80s?

Why are they all so excited about New York as if they’ve never been?

Wow. This doctor might be a bit of a hack. And a downer, what with telling the patient that there’s no hope for him.

Kermit’s voice sounds different post-amnesia. And Fozzie’s hasn’t sounded quite right all movie.

I like this ad company’s style. “It’s like x, except for all the things that make x x.”

God, the end of that scene was surreal. Also a bit creepy.

Okay, I may not have broken into show biz yet, but I’m pretty sure with one week until opening, you cast a new person as your star if he’s missing.

All this rhyming may eventually make me ill. Still.

Look how excited everybody is to hear Gonzo say it’s Kermit. What with the not moving to see if he’s right.

Oh, an almost manslaughter, a theft and a kidnapping. This may have more crime in it than the movie about stealing. Welcome to New York.

I actually kind of liked the callous pig jokes from Amnesia!Kermit.

Huh, turns out he just needed a punch in the face and to sit upside-down for a while.

…well. Those random walk-on extras memorized their scripts quite quickly. And their blocking. And Jenny made those costumes more quickly than an entire Taiwanese sweat shop could have made one.

…I may have only ever seen one show on Broadway before, but I’m pretty sure this one wouldn’t be getting applause that rampant.

I like the presence of the entire Sesame Street cast on the groom’s side (or at least I assume it’s the groom’s side). It’s nice remembering that Kermit actually got a start on Sesame Street before many of the other Muppets even existed.

Okay, THOSE baby Muppets? They’re freakin’ creepy. And kind of ugly.

Nice. Piggy conning Kermit into a marriage. Bravo. I wonder if Broadway should take a hint from Vegas and do this more often, keep the money more steadily flowing.

Okay, I can’t tell if this is still on Broadway or not. Where the heck did the fourth wall go?

…wait, that’s the end of the movie? …well, um… alright.

There was no bad guy, which is something that has made the Muppet movies more interesting previously. The music was pretty much completely unmemorable, which is really unfortunate considering how very musical the Muppets have always been. I just watched the movie less than a week ago and I can’t remember a single song. Heck, this song is far more memorable and entertaining than anything the movie offered.

And things just seemed… really off the entire film. It’s unfortunate, but this is definitely my least favorite Muppets film so far. Of course, I’ve yet to see “Muppets In Space,” so maybe we’ll have to wait to make that judgment.

Second First Time Viewer – “The Great Muppet Caper”

Y’know, as much as I could talk politics, like Rick Perry’s gaffe that makes Joe Biden look like a rank amateur and Dick Cheney’s quail-man hunting seem like a hiccup of humor, I think I’ll pass for today. And today’s football, which means I’m sure no one but me is actually on the internet today. My massive number of zero hits today support that hypothesis. Anyway, I figure I’ll lay down my second Muppets film commentary for you all. Enjoy. (Though, seriously, visit The Dome UA.)

“The Great Muppet Caper,” produced in 1981, was the second Muppets feature film in the series. This film places itself in the United Kingdom, the country where “The Muppet Show” originated. It still sticks with some of the formula “The Muppet Movie” had, featuring cameo appearances and a working knowledge that the Muppets are filming a movie. It is, perhaps, a bit more watered down in some of these aspects, being more mystery-oriented, but it’s all still there, and all still a big part of my childhood. Let’s begin.

It’s really not a Muppet movie unless Animal eats something random, is it?

I like the running commentary from the Muppets through the opening credits. Helps make the credits more entertaining.

Hm. I guess Gonzo has a danger fetish or something, what with the desire to plummet. …which makes him even more disturbing than the chicken love.

This time, we’re treated to an entire musical number about how this is a movie about a movie. But I guess this is more like seeing the behind-the-scenes features than the super-meta “Inception”-esque stuff of the last movie.

Okay, who exactly is the little girl with the villain? A Girl Scout? An evil Girl Scout?

Man, the police are really bad at reacting to crime. Heck, everyone on that street is bad at reacting to crime. Probably too busy trying to remember their dance moves.

I worked at a newspaper for about a year and a half. What editor would allow a front page above the fold story about identical twins joining the paper?

So, Fozzie and Kermit are brothers? …when the heck did that happen? …and I hate to say it, but their dad was ugly.

This movie is likely to reveal an amazing spectrum of mental illnesses in the Muppets that the previous film only gently touched on. Like Fozzie’s inability to remember who he is and whether he has fur. I don’t know if that’s a crazy form of amnesia or some sort of persistent delusion.

Good thing physics isn’t something Muppets have to worry about, because Fozzie, Gonzo and Kermit would have landed several hundred miles apart being tossed out of a moving plane like that. Physics: destroyer of gags.

Oh, England. Give an Englishman a cup of tea and he’ll be unruffled by pretty much anything. #stereotypes

I like that the random Englishman has a book of places to stay. One that includes where to stay if you’re homeless.

…what the heck did Fozzie just ask? “Are bears allowed nosta’ns?” …that’s what it sounded like. Now I feel like I’ve completely missed a joke. Which makes me feel kind of dumb. (I have since been informed that Fozzie says “Are bears allowed in those fountains?” In other news, I now feel quite dumb.)

Ah, the English River. Good that they avoided the obvious joke of calling it the Thames and mispronouncing it.

I wonder how many times the Muppets are going to be thrown about and generally abused.

Of course the Happiness Hotel would be somewhere a bunch of likely jobless Muppets stay.

Condemned by American Express? Harsh.

I wonder why Sam the Eagle is in England. Isn’t he, like, allergic to anything that isn’t America?

I don’t know which would be more uncomfortable: Spooning with two other men or sleeping slightly folded up into the wall.

Oh, dear. The fashion world. Definitely not something I’m big on. Apparently not something Lady Holiday is big into either, since she’s trashing every single dress she made.

Miss Piggy has already given up on the acting, has she? Although, this is simply a role in the movie, so I guess she’s just acting the character that wants to be a model. …not much acting needed for her to be immensely conceited, though.

If only jobs today worked that way for everyone. “I want a job that’s really high on the pay scale. Gimme.” “No. But I’ll hire you anyway for a somewhat lesser job that’s still higher up than most in the company.” You could go in to be CEO and be hired as a mere assistant to the Senior Vice President or something else that sounds like business jargon.

Hah! Plot exposition being randomly shoved in to the most awkward spot in the film is a Hollywood tradition. Good to see the Muppets carrying it on in glorious, self-referencing fashion.

Yep. Gonzo has a danger/pain fetish. Creepy.

Miss Piggy has the weirdest shiny eye ever. Looks deadly. Or at least dangerous to have in your eyes.

Ooh, cartoon birds! That’s new. I wonder why they didn’t make tiny Muppet birds.

I’m going to have to use Google Maps and see if there really is a 17 Highbrow Street in Britain somewhere. I wouldn’t be completely surprised if there was one.

Gonzo has shown a surprisingly good talent when it comes to jumping in this movie.

Oh, God, there’s a worse driver than Fozzie. But Gonzo must be loving this.

Wait, I thought there wasn’t any food at the hotel? Also, that looks like steering wheel spaghetti, not steering wheel souffle.

Fozzie thinks he should be dating the same girl as his brother? That is only a quite creepy idea.

Ah, no blade in the razor. I was wondering what exactly Kermit was shaving.

Got to love the dancing shadow. Where can I get one of those?

Dinner date for Miss Piggy and Kermit is now a Muppet party. How unsurprising.

John Cleese would live at 17 Highbrow Street. He always was the most upper crust of the Monty Python gang.

Okay, now I’m wondering if the British are trained to be completely unshaken by all the crazy things that happen. They seem to be that way in this movie, at least. A pig climbs up the outside of your house and your reaction is to continue talking about the disappointing weather. I bet Americans could use a dose of that training. …though, at Cleese’s current level, it’d probably be dangerous.

…maybe I’m ignorant, but what exactly is a supper club?

I’m not sure if “Night Life” is a song or just an excuse for Electric Mayhem to go nuts on their instruments.

Too bad Kermit won’t be able to haggle down the price of the Oldsmobile roast beef like he did the car in the last movie.

Wait, is that Jim Henson? Looks a bit like him.

Ah, Charles Grodin. Haven’t seen you since that movie with that really big dog and the classical music.

Tsk, tsk. How inaccurate for Holiday to say “college” instead of “university.” If there’s one thing I look for in my Muppets movies, it’s immense accuracy.

Wow. Alcohol in the last movie, adultery in this movie… If this keeps up, next movie there’ll be a murder.

With that “Thieves aren’t breathing down your neck” line, Nicky Holiday is applying for creepiest Muppets villain. Doc Hopper still holds that title for now, though.

What is up with Muppets and inter-species relations? Gonzo and chickens, Kermit and Miss Piggy, and now Nicky Holiday and Miss Piggy. And with the creepy intense lust-stare, Holiday is pushing forward to make a serious challenge for the “Creepy Villain” award.

Only in a Muppet movie would someone actually scream “Aiee!”

I bet you can dance and steal at the same time. Not me, you.

I’d say it was dangerous for them to bust in to the bathroom like that, since they could’ve caught someone with their pants down, but I don’t know that any of the Muppets ever wear pants. Except when wearing a tux.

It’s Peter Falk as a shady watch salesman! Please say “As you wish” you wonderful grandpa man, you.

Ah, what a coincidence, Kermit and Miss Piggy running into each other at the pond and continuing the plot.

Miss Piggy is hamming it up. Get it? It’s funny, because pork products. Though I must say, as an actor, this scene where Piggy threatens to walk is probably the most realistic one in the movie.

Okay, that random dog outrunning Piggy and Kermit was unexpectedly funny to me.

Statler and Waldorf! Finally! I’ve missed them.

Man, the rest of the Muppets are some kind of creepy stalkers or something. Either that or cycling is way more popular in England.

Oh, God. Nicky totally just tried to ravage Miss Piggy. Congrats, you have officially become the leader of creepy Muppets villains!

What’s with the complete lack of techno and crazy strobe lights? This can’t actually be a legitimate fashion show. But Statler and Waldorf’s presence makes up for the lack of techno.

Am I the only one who finds synchronized swimming to be slightly creepy? …I do rather like the random goldfish in the water, though.

So, either Grodin is secretly an opera trained singer/Pavarotti impersonator or Nicky Holiday was totally dubbed in that song.

Man, it’s a good thing for Nicky that fingerprints don’t exist in the time of this movie.

Ah, Nicky was dubbed. Called it. …though I wish he were a Pavarotti impersonator. Also, if there’s a character that’s more of a ham than Piggy, it’s Nicky. The evil laugh wasn’t really something well pulled off.

Can Muppets actually die? If they can, exactly how is it wrong of them to not want to risk their lives to catch the criminals? Why not call the cops? For shame, movie, forcing Muppety action on us.

…Sam is proud of being an American, but exactly how was that scene American? To my count, there are only three other definitively American Muppets in this movie.

Hand color jokes are going to be this movie’s Hari Krishna.

Kermit plus facial hair equals weird. For some reason it looks more appropriate on Miss Piggy.

What would the purpose of all the items the Muppets have on their list be? It sounds more like the items Fozzie needs for his comedy act.

Well, Piggy is clearly in possession of some super, almost steroidal strength.

It’s always the laundry. Why do prisons even bother outsourcing laundry?

Okay, Muppets with human noses are even creepier than Kermit with a mustache.

Piggy is now a car thief. If she didn’t have a reason to be in jail before, she’s got one now.

Good to see Oscar the Grouch in the movie. Y’know, if Oscar, Statler and Waldorf teamed up, they would make the best hecklers ever.

Piggy certainly knows her way around jargon. Or can at least fake it.

Huzzah, dumb guards! How the heck are Kermit and Fozzie going to get in with this plan, anyway?

Never knew the Muppets were such good climbers. I guess fear for one’s life helps.

I’m pretty sure the alarm system the bad guys are taking down is based on a Mario game, considering the sounds it’s making.

It’s a good thing the guards are Conveniently Deaf. Smashing glass is usually an indicator of something hinky going on.

Can’t say I’ve ever seen a wall of Muppets before this movie. It’s impressive.

Beauregard seems to be the only Muppet actually fighting. The rest of the Muppets are just tossing the diamond around senselessly. Or chasing women. Or, in Scooter’s case, trying to make a quick buck.

Warts? But we talked about that last movie. It’s a myth! Myth!

And, of course, Piggy and her anger management problems come to save the day. After causing many dollars of damage to the museum.

I guess the rest of the Muppets were evicted from the Happiness Hotel or something. At least this time they got parachutes before being tossed out. …wonder why Statler and Waldorf left their seats to be tossed out?

Hm. I’m actually slightly surprised the entire end credits didn’t get the “and me” roll call from every Muppet in the film. But it’s nice of Gonzo to offer to send us copies of the photos he took.

So, the songs are perhaps not as memorable, there are fewer cameos, and the plot is a little less Muppety than the last movie… but it’s still a great Muppet film. Not that anything really compares to the excellence of the first movie.

The Sexual Harassment Cycle

Okay. This Herman Cain sexual harassment thing is something I can’t actually continue to ignore anymore. After “The Daily Show” makes fun of it, it’s hard to ignore it. Unfortunately. Well, at least Jon Stewart grants me the joy of laughter. Because, really, there’s a lot to be had involving this situation.

If you don’t know what’s going on, then you’re really good at hiding from the standard stream of media. Basically, GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain, lasting as the GOP’s top-of-the-charts #1 hit for longer than any previous candidate has managed thus far, has had a bit of a scandal on his hands. About a week ago, Politico broke a story about the cover up of sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain while he was president of the National Restaurant Association.

As Jon Stewart points out in one of the segments I’ve linked above, these aren’t allegations coming against Herman Cain. These are facts being reported: The NRA (the non-shooty one) made monetary settlements with women that alleged Herman Cain sexually harassed them. The allegations happened back in the ’90s. Not now.

Anyway, since Politico broke the story, more women have been coming out of hiding to tell of their own Herman-handling. (#VeryPunny) There are, I believe, five women in total, and some of them (like the fourth accuser) have started leaving anonymity and letting people attach faces to the accusations.

So, how is everyone reacting to this?

The only way they know how: Hilariously. Let me break it down.

1) This is a double standard! Liberals attack Cain for his sexual misconduct but were okay when Bill Clinton got raunchy!
This response has nice levels of laugh out loud material. First, I’d like to point out that by attacking Bill Clinton’s sexual activities and misconduct while claiming a double standard and defending Cain’s sexual activities and misconduct is, in fact, the quickest turnaround I’ve ever seen. You’re using the very double standard that you’re decrying in the definition of the double standard. It’s so… meta. Delicious. Second, are you sure liberals weren’t disappointed in Bill Clinton? I’m pretty sure many were. I think what most conservatives mistake for defense and support is the lack of a rallying cry from liberals to get Clinton booted out of office. But, come on. Did conservatives really want that? That would have made Al Gore president, and I’ve met far too many conservatives that shudder at that name. Third, Clinton seems to be every conservative go-to guy. Even though Anthony Weiner had his nice debacle just recently, and there’s always Eliot Spitzer. But what about the many Republicans that have had sexual scandals and been defended by and large? Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford… Can we not all just agree that there are many people in positions of power (which will inevitably include politicians) that have done things of a sexual nature that are scandalous and unfortunate?

2) You’re only going after Herman Cain because he’s a conservative black!
Aren’t there other black conservatives, or has the GOP finally disowned Michael Steele? But, seriously, despite what Ann Coulter thinks, I don’t know that there’s much talk of party ownership of blacks. And last I checked, being black or being conservative wasn’t all you needed to have media scrutiny targeted at you. Really, it’s being in the spotlight. Considering that Rick Perry had that hunting ground thing dug up against him when he was leading the polls, Obama had the “Muslim” school, the terrorist and the terrible preacher thrown at him, John Kerry had his Purple Hearts scrutinized… and so on and so on. There is no conspiracy. When you’re in the limelight, people dig for dirt on you. Doesn’t really matter who you are, what your politics are, what the color of your skin is.

3) Rick Perry/Liberals/Rahm Emanuel leaked this story, the jerks!
For some reason, as this video of “The Five” shows, this response is getting more attention than should. Exactly who cares who “leaked” the story? If anyone even did? The story is out. The allegations, the facts, they’re out there. While Herman Cain was president of the NRA, the NRA made settlements thanks to sexual harassment claims filed against him. It is a fact. It doesn’t matter who the heck pointed out those facts, the facts are there. Facts are not different because of the voices that said them.

Meanwhile, Herman Cain has been conveniently forgetting and remembering and denying and refusing to answer questions and going all over the freakin’ place with handling this situation. But, somehow, he’s still the front runner. Personally, I find the way that he’s handling the situation to be the most alarming thing about it. For God’s sake, if he becomes president, how is he going to handle a legitimate crisis? Or if a foreign power accuses the U.S. of shenanigans? The more he stands at the head of the class and says and does things, the more frightened I become of the idea of him actually being president.

The number of politicians that don’t have dirt, that haven’t done some sort of sexual shenanigans, that haven’t had a financial anomaly, that stick to their guns no matter what… well, that number might be above zero, but I can’t be positive. The entire discussion on the sexual harassment stuff is just an endless cycle of idiocy and departure from the things that actually matter. Can we just stop politicizing the scandal and say, “I wonder if Herman Cain is fit to lead America?” Look at his policies. Look at how he handles pressure. Look at how he interacts with people that work for him.

(Spoiler alert: The answer to my question is a giant no.)