Murphy’s Bye-Laws

Then I saw heaven open, and I saw a white horse! The One who rode him is called `One who can be Trusted’ and `The True One’. He punishes and makes war in the right way.

 His eyes were like a flame of fire. On his head were many crowns. He had a name written on him, but no man knew what it was but he himself.

Revelations 19:11-12  (Worldwide English Bible (New Testament))

In libertarian circles, debate and invective have been swirling in recent months based on differing opinions of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a multi-term Congressman from Texas.  Why is a Republican candidate drawing the attention of libertarians (and party Libertarians)?  One direct answer to that question could indeed be that it is the second coming of Mr. Paul – he ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian Party banner.  A more general answer is the focus of many mainstream libertarians recently on fiscal and entitlement policy; which, if the eyes are squinted just right, looks sort of, maybe, like the Republican Party – or their supposed platform, anyway.  Mr. Paul’s governing philosophy is refreshing (compared to other choices) in certain (not all) areas of policy-making to libertarians (like hanging out with ugly and dumb people to make one’s self look better or feel smarter by comparison), but does this deserve the reverence and fanaticism some of his followers are overcome with; fanaticism strong enough for previously-avowed anarchists to attempt to confiscate the non-believing heretics’ libertarian credential cards?

Personally, I don’t care to involve myself in the debate beyond stating my reasons for not entering.  Read the rest of this entry »

What are the parodists to do? The more they bend and exaggerate the subject the more absurd the subject becomes. Instead of the parody being on a different track altogether, now it appears parody and reality are racing to the (dreadful) finish. It even gets to the point that people can’t tell the difference between the two. So what are the parodists and satirists to do?

Recently, they’ve taken to having a news program in the Daily Show. When the parody becomes a primary source for news, which isn’t unwarranted as I’ll explain later, is the problem with the consumers of the news, the delivery of the news, or the news itself? The Daily Show is a swipe at the television news programs with its format of roving reporters on the scene and ridiculous exposes. This format is a straight shot at television news and the stories they create. Jon Stewart’s reporting of the current stories and complete ridiculing of the news itself only rakes in the news programs that feast on this tripe as collateral damage. The real target of his jokes are the PR-minded politicos who are used to playing to the willing, eager, and, homely “practice” girls of the mainstream media and appear absolutely ludicrous when looked at objectively*. This uncovering of the ugly face of politics does actually reveal, if not the real news then some closer approximation of it than is typical. Is it any wonder that a generation so blatantly lied to for so long seeks the refreshing near-truth of comedy for their news? I’ve heard it said that comedy is the first place one can hear challenging ideas because it can disarm the usual defenses enough to get the message across. It is in this light that Jon Stewart has the opportunity to ask questions – serious questions – to the likes of Alan Greenspan and Lynn Cheney.

Other sources of news come via pundits like Bill O’Reilly, so the parodists stepped up their sarcasm and took on the punditry in the persona of Stephen Colbert. In order to parody these shows, Colbert has to be so far over-the-top that he often falls out of character and just laughs at himself on the air, especially during interviews. Even with such hyperbole it appears some people can’t see it and regard him as the new edgy pundit in the game. So when a parodist’s most absurd isn’t absurd enough, what does he turn to? A Presidential campaign.

I see two flaws with Colbert’s approach. The first would be the already-atmospheric level of hyperbole present in this genre. It is a high bar he’s setting for himself; going up against the professionals. The second (minor) flaw I see in his run for office is the mixing of disciplines. Pundits don’t usually run for office; they just talk about everything. And most politicians don’t have talk shows because if allowed to talk that much, their ruse would be up and everyone would know them as a huckster. Perhaps Colbert is taking this cross-over approach to highlight the parody of both sides, which seems to get past some of the more dull observers. I can’t say, but finding out ought to be fun.

*By objective, I don’t mean to imply that The Daily Show is fair and balanced or impartial to certain ideologies. It seems they are a mix of true liberal ideology, attacking power and establishment, and modern “liberal” ideology clamoring for more government programs and market interference. These ideologies tend to shift and sway depending on the subject of the joke.

Office coffee smells like coffee in the little pre-measured pouch, aromatic and enticing, even hopeful. It looks legitimately like coffee when it brews. It even taste a little like coffee in the first few seconds of its existence. But all hope is quickly dashed after having more than a taste, and all that remains is the weak bitterness of dashed hopes and the stale shame of being fooled again. It reminds me of election years.

The similarities between elections and office coffee are many. Both are packaged, filtered and watered down. Inside those packages aren’t the best products either. Neither the coffee nor the politicians being sold would be desired in a free market with many choices. When the thin perceptions are stripped away to reveal the hoax that was lurking behind the mask, disappointment follows. Yet so many of us can be fooled into thinking this next batch, in essentially the same portioned packet with the deceiving aroma of freshness, can offer hope for something tasty and satisfying.

In the 2004 presidential election, I was taken by the hype of Micheal Badnarik and the enthusiasm for this new Libertarian Party candidate. Having never paid much attention to the elections and candidates with any more interest than a spectator (I was always skeptical of the whole process), the hope and rhetoric was infectious. I thought he had a chance (only to make some waves, which is victory enough for a third party in national elections). It was different from years past, better than ever, if the talk was to be believed. Alas, it was more of the same and not even as good as in previous years. My lesson was complete and I ducked off of the political merry-go-round for good.

This year Ron Paul, a former Libertarian Party candidate for president, has the hopeful hype behind him. Using the energy third-party candidates usually expend on actually getting on the ballot, trying to get media attention, and be considered for debates and election events, Dr. Paul has been in several debates already, is automatically on the primary ballots due to his affiliation with the Republican Party, and has raised several times the amount of money that Micheal Badnarik was able to muster.  On the surface it seems that liberty has a chance to be elected again, just in time for a big election.

There is always hope, that is until the product is filtered and watered down to generate the most appeal to the largest number of people possible.  Don’t be surprised when the brewing is done, all the votes are cast, and the bitter taste of the lowest common denominator is stuck in your mouth.  Some people try this charade over and over before they get any kind of eye-opening effect.  They brew the same coffee in the same manner several times a day, morning after morning, and they vote the same way for the same people (essentially), election after election.  Some coffee drinkers come to like the office coffee, but it is their tastes that change over time and not the coffee.  Some voters become happier and happier with results of elections not because the votes are working, but because their desires and expectations adapt to the results and their desires change.  Then there are those who think outside of the usual grind and drink tea, or those who decide to not bother trying to vote for their freedom or whatever ends they desire and just make it happen themselves.  There will always be another cup of weak, stale coffee in the office pot.  Some will continue to drink while complaining every time, trying to add sugar or creamer to dress it up and hide the awful taste.  Many more continue to vote, while complaining the whole time, and waiting for someone else to make the changes they would like to see.