oh, for christ's sweet sake

.
have you seen this story?

seems our glorious leader has decided--in the interests of avoiding even the merest appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, you understand--to start charging guests at the white house for their meals.

and i can totally see his point--i mean, you give a few captains of industry some government largesse on the scale of a free chicken sandwich, a glass of iced tea and a cookie stamped with the presidential seal, it could look pretty bad.

[whereas the fact that his re-election committee will no doubt hit those same captains of industry up for thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for his 2012 run--why, there's no conflict of interest there; that's just politics as usual, right?

yeah, right.]

the thing about this small-minded, petty idiocy that bothers me the most (aside from its classless tackiness, of course) is the cynical assumption that the american people are so stupid as to be swayed by such charades as this.

on second thought, that's not the thing that bothers me the most--what really scares me is the thought that this isn't the cynical ploy that it appears, and that barack actually believes his own bullshit.

because that's just what we need right now--another carter.

[note: this was just a little test-rant--you know, see how well i handle indignation sober]

let's call it a trial run

.

during the last four or so years, i've spent many weekend nights alone, and a few without the companionship of alcohol. this coming weekend will mark my first conscious attempt at accomplishing both simultaneously.

the whole gay marriage thing (the last part)

.
you ever started something and then wished you hadn't, but couldn't just drop it in mid-stream because if you did you'd leave everybody with the impression you were a raving, reactionary loon?


if so, then you know what it feels like to be me right now.

* * * * *

in part two, i talked at some length about what western civilization has lost over the course of the last 50 years as we abandoned the ideals of responsibility and sacrifice that were the norm back then.

this time, i meant to flip the coin--talk about what we've gained as a result of casting off the shame, repression, patriarchy and segregation that were the dark legacy of that "father knows best" era.

and after that, having thus explored the subject from both angles, i was gonna pose the following question: if i, mkf, could snap my fingers and choose for western civilization either (a) the familial and societal stability of yesteryear, or (b) the individual and collective freedoms we enjoy today [because we can't have both, which is the real point of all this], which way would i go?

and then, having made my choice, i was gonna extrapolate the consequences of that choice a couple generations into the future; i.e., show--given the clear-cut evidence that's out there for anybody who chooses to look at it--where we're headed.

but, you know what? i'm not gonna do any of those things tonight, because i've suddenly grown tired of pissing into the wind.

the sad fact is, most people are content to accept whatever's in front of their faces now as proof of what will forever be; it's left to pessimists like me to think three moves ahead--and nobody listens to us anyway.

sober update: hmm, looks like i never made it past stage 4 last night.