Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Moral Court Should Be Up There With Locke, Hobbes, Plato and the Rest of the Gang

That's right, I said it.

Moral Court is a truly ridiculous show that only the brain dead and unemployed would ever watch, and it's too much dreck even for me, most of the time. Closer friends know that I always have something on in the background for white noise, so normally it's court shows - I particularly like The People's Court. (Gotta watch Wapner at three.) Moral Court is - obviously - not a real court show, but instead a sort of talk show shoehorned into a court looking set, and people get actual real money when they are proven "morally right." HAH! Awesome. Except not because it's usually utter crap and scary weird crazy people who like their Bibles a LOT. ANYWAY.

Today I happened to catch the tail end of a "case" involving - read this carefully - twin brothers running for the same office, one of whom had actually changed his party affiliation in order to run. That's the key thing; there's a lot of other crap like excessively similar campaign posters and what have you, but it doesn't really matter.

This is what politics have become and what parties have become - something completely fluid, with an complete absence of solidity. The political arena began life and, as far as I'm concerned, should REMAIN a forum in which to debate the moral issues of a society. This whole thing keys into my rant about the difference between government and politics, to wit - government is the establishment responsible for the development, passage and enforcement of concrete laws governing society, whereas politics has to do with the open debate over the moral stance of the society that those laws govern. Naturally, the two systems rely on each other, because laws call into question the morality of application, and politics breed the bases upon which laws are based. Fine. The lines have blurred...more on that later. But the issue is that you cannot have a moral (or otherwise theoretical) debate without picking a stance and STICKING WITH IT. You can always change your opinion, and I actually think that it's a huge positive statement on your character and ability if you can listen to facts presented by your opposing mental combatant and admit the merits of their argument, but you have to admit you changed your opinion, not try and pretend apples are the same damn fruit as oranges. No. They are not.

That kind of crap has become the hallmark of the politically correct, bullshit modern era of politics - everyone has become so terrified of offending someone else that they refuse to stand for something concrete. I've noticed something funny, though...PEOPLE STILL GET OFFENDED. Look, here's an important memo to the folks who are so PC they won't speak more than five words without a publicist signing off on it: There are some people out there who are going to FIND something to be offended about, no matter how hard you try to appease them. Someone like the person I wrote about last time is going to be upset about anything you call the holiday season unless it is exactly what her concept of it is. That is not someone you need to be catering to...it's someone who needs to be presented with an extention ladder to get over herself with. And of course, it's all causal...people bitch about it because they have seen people do it before and be successful. Same for people who sue at the drop of a hat. Yeah, it sucks when you get hurt and have bills you can't pay and all of that. But that doesn't mean the world owes you. It means life sucks sometimes. It's a little offensive to me when people crack Quaker jokes - which they do, usually confusing Quakers with the Amish or with Mormons - but you know what? I know that it's because they don't know the first damn thing about Quakerism, and that's just the way the world is. So I shrug it off, because my life is not going to be adversely changed by the fact that someone made some joke about how Quakers don't use electricity.

Anyway, back to politics. I had a lip twitch going on the entire time I was watching Moral Court, because it was so digusting to me that someone would lie to a LOT of people just to get a job. It's like falsifying a resume. And yeah, you're right, everyone pumps up their resume a little. But you don't lie and say you're a mechanical engineer when in reality you are 18 and have never worked anything but mall retail. It's ludicrous. And the thing is? He had NO ISSUE with changing his party affiliation in order to get into office so he could then switch his position and do what he wanted. Politics has become a career, and that's not how it should be. Run for office because you care about affecting change, not for the paycheck. And STICK TO WHAT YOU SAY! Democrats are Democrats because they believe in the party. Ditto for Republicans. If you are not prepared to go along with the party goals and platforms that the party you affiliate yourself with promotes, then it is your moral obligation to run as a damn Independent.

In other political news, props to the Republicans - I know - for a smooth move with the troops out of Iraq play. They "gave in" to the Dems when they knew the Jackasses were too disorganized and hyped up on emotion to put forth an organized effort...and the result? Reps look magnanimous for considering and promoting the idea for the troops to be withdrawn, Dems look like idiots for putting forth incomplete legislative concepts and not being united.

On the other hand? Bush, Rove, Cheney, DeLay.


No comments:

Post a Comment