Homer Jay's Slightly Demented World View....Mmmmm, World View

Of Gay Cartoon Characters and Pot-Smoking Presidents

So now a satirical television show needs a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode because they take a humorous look at-horror of horrors-the issue of gay marriage.

Yes, The Simpsons took it on in one of their most brilliant satirical moments in years, and hit a bullseye.  The show has had jokes about homosexuality for years...think back to the early days when Homer's assistant "Karl" was madly in love with him.  Remember the John Waters episode in which Homer thought Bart might be gay?  And how about when Homer moved in with two gay roommates? 

But now, oh heavens, NOW they went and introduced the "m" word, igniting a controversy among some die-hard right-wingers that the show is promoting an agenda.

Ummmm, hello....The Simpsons has always promoted an agenda: it's called making fun of the absurdities of the world around us, including their own show.  No one escapes from the writers, no matter the topic.  Alas, it must be a case of the jokes only being funny until one takes aim at you.

So what was the big issue this time out? That Patty Bouvier revealed she likes women.  All in all, not exactly the biggest TV shock of all times.

And guess what, in the end, there was no wedding, as Patty's fiancé turned out to be doing a little Tootsie-esque masquerading to make it on the LPGA tour. 

The idea that this show needed a disclaimer shows how bizarre things have gotten in this country.  We can't even make jokes about certain topics without fear of some sanction befalling us. 

Lighten up people-it's a fictional cartoon, nothing more.

                                                                                         

   

I thought it would be interesting this morning to tune in to the ultra-conservative talk show run by Bill "Fly Me To Vegas" Bennet, to see what he would be saying about the tapes in which the Shrub in the White House essentially admits to past drug use.

It would have been funny if it weren't so pathetic to hear the same people who would be calling for a Democrat's head had Clinton/Gore/Kerry been the subject of the Weed tapes bemoaning the (I'm not making this up) "betrayal of the President." 

Seriously.  Bennet even had the audacity to call it a tragedy for the country if a President doesn't feel he (or she?) can trust people.

That takes ducking the issue to a mind-boggling new level.  Had it been someone with a (D) next to their name on those tapes, Mr. Weed would be hailed for exposing the fraud, the hypocrisy and the horrors of those evil liberals in office.  But let it be "W," and no, the issue isn't that he did e-x-a-c-t-l-y what Clinton and Gore did.  No.  It's that someone betrayed his confidence.

Want to guess what the conservative attack dogs would call someone who KEPT the confidence for a Democrat?  Probably a co-conspirator.

For the record, I didn't think Bill Clinton's past drug use or his sexual, um , proclivities, were relevant to the job I was casting a ballot for; nor do I think the fact that Bush tried drugs disqualifies him from office.  But since Limbaugh, Hannity, Bennet, Savage, O'Reilly (who by the way is an outright liar; but that's for another time) have loved to hang the "pot-smoking" tag on Clinton so frequently when they describe him, will they do the same for our illustrious leader now?  And how about going one step further and calling Shrub a coke-snorter and pot-smoker? 

Don't hold your breath...and not just because of the funny-smelling smoke.

Disgusting Politics As Usual

I love the hypocrisy of our country—from both the left and the right sides of the spectrum.  I’ll be the first to say my own beliefs sometimes seem to be contradictory, and sometimes I evaluate a position and decide my stance should change.

It still baffles me that the right side of the political spectrum is pushing the “values” and “decency” argument when it comes to the media, saying people need protection from smut run amok, yet have the reprehensible nerve to say Americans—particularly senior citizens—shouldn’t have the right to buy the EXACT SAME DRUGS offered in this country from Canadian pharmacies instead of paying the unconscionable markups that leave too many people forgoing the medicines they need.

Let’s think about this for a moment.  We need to be protected from bare nipples and juvenile sex jokes, but don’t need life-saving medicines at affordable prices.  That’s the message coming from the White House and Congress. 

OK, I know, I know—the drug makers, when they aren’t splurging on the stomach-churning ads justifying their outrageous prices, have lined the pockets of the right people to make sure the transportation of those identical drugs over the border is a thing of the past.  But it’s just unbelievably frustrating that we (as a country) voted these two-faced sleazeballs into office, with so many voters claiming their decisions were based on “moral” issues. 

It’s “moral” to make choose between going broke and taking medicine?  How on Earth is worrying about bare nipples and juvenile sex jokes a bigger moral priority than helping people get the drugs they need without choosing whether today is a pill day or a food day?

It’s a sad, sad commentary on our society that we barely pay attention to important issues like fixing the costs of medicine in our country yet flood the FCC with letters if someone says an off-color word on TV. 

And now Mr. Morality-in-Chief (who smoked those same special cigarettes as Bill Clinton, much to everyone’s shock I’m sure) wants to dismantle Social Security for workers under 55, which will eventually put even more people into the “food or drugs” quandary down the road. 

Gee, you don’t think big business stands to gain anything from George’s plan, do you?

Nah.  Can’t be.  He’s only doing what’s right for the people of America, just like the drug companies are by putting the squeeze on Canadian pharmacies that dared sell identical pills to Americans for the better Canadian price.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the Administration sees companies transferring labor to countries where it’s cheaper to be progress and good for Americans, yet those same Americans can’t be trusted to pick and choose where THEY can find the best price for something?

I’m sure those policies are unrelated, of course.  And not the least bit contradictory.

So, more and more people will be giving up the drugs they need.  But, hey, at least as they suffer, they can rest with the knowledge that the Moral Cops Squad has pushed through higher fines for indecent broadcasts like Nipplegate 2004.  And in the end, isn’t THAT what we want from our lawmakers?  The ability to focus on the bigger priorities?