GOP Asshat of the Month

I'm starting a new regular feature on "Mark My Words". At the end of every month I will feature the Republican politician who has made the biggest ass or him or herself in the past 30 or 31 days. With this being the early stages of the campaign season, Republican pols are out raising as much mullah as they can from their increasingly unhinged base, which means there's never a shortage of good old-fashioned wingnuttery on display for the world to consume. There has been so much GOP excess in just the past week that I already have three top-tier contenders for the opening crown. But this one just has to win the blue ribbon.

Without further adieu, I present to you March's GOP Asshat of the Month (drumroll)........New York Senate candidate Kathleen McFarland, who is challenging Hillary Clinton.

Now granted, anyone bold enough to challenge Hillary in New York in the current inhospitable political climate has to have a screw loose, but this chick is just a stark raving moonbat. Here's what she told a group of Long Island Republicans at a gathering last week: "Hillary Clinton is really worried about me, and is so worried in fact that she had helicopters flying over my house in Southampton today taking pictures."

The crowd was reportedly stunned, particularly since it was obvious that she wasn't kidding. She also apparently added that Clinton's people were across the street from her Manhattan apartment snapping pictures as well. Perhaps it was the same goons who murdered Vince Foster!!!!

What a hysterical state of affairs that the Republican Party is reduced to running Fox Mulder for a U.S. Senate seat. As jubilant as I would ordinarily be about the Republican Party running such a flake in a high-profile race such as this, it's actually a mixed blessing. The good news is that Hillary Clinton and New York Democratic gubernatorial candidate Elliot Spitzer will win by such overwhelming margins in November, they could help swing vulnerable GOP-held Congressional seats in upstate NY to the Democrats. On the other hand, Hillary's commanding win will position her beautifully for her kamikaze 2008 Presidential bid. If there was a glimmer of hope of slowing the Hillary '08 train before it derailed, Kathleen McFarland just blew that glimmer out.

Will Gay Marriage Keep Working for the GOP?

A national poll released last week indicated that public opposition to the previous election cycle's biggest wedge issue, gay marriage, is waning. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2004, national public sentiment showed opposition to gay marriage running at 64%, and more than a dozen states quickly moved to amend their constitutions permanently prohibiting gay marriage. The issue was credited with aiding-and-abetting in George Bush's re-election and expanding the GOP's Congressional majorities in the 2004 election. It seemed the issue was solved. Americans don't want gay marriage, so we can finally move on to some of the real-world issues bearing down on our society with the subtlety of a falling anvil. Right?

Not just yet apparently. Last week, a new poll released indicating voter opposition to gay marriage had fallen from 64% to only 51%, a bare majority. While I favor the legalization of gay marriage, this is nonetheless incredibly bad news. Proponents of gay marriage will be reinvigorated by these numbers and will again push the issue in places where they believe they can gain some turf beyond Massachusetts. They're certainly entitled to pursue their endgame and I wish them luck, but I shudder at the thought of another election cycle where clueless hicks head to the polls with this issue on their minds. Unfortunately, I have seen enough to be convinced that as long as this issue has even the faintest pulse, there will be a shockingly high number of voters, particularly in the South, who are so thoroughly distracted by the prospect of Adam and Steve exchanging wedding vows that all other social and political issues become instant irrelevant to them.

My home state of Minnesota will be an interesting case study of how the gay marriage issue will impact a proverbial "swing state" in the 2006 election cycle. Every indication is that public sentiment in Minnesota has moved decidedly against the Republican party and its elected chesspieces. Apparently realizing this, Republican leaders are betting the entire farm on baiting the Democrats over a gay marriage ban, specifically forcing a ballot initiative this November for a constitutional prohibition. The logic, obviously, is that having gay marriage on the ballot will bring social conservatives to the polls and help Republicans hold off expected losses in the Legislature and possibly even the U.S. Senate and House races. And thus far at least, the results have been quite satisfying for the GOP. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader made a gaffe in which he put words into the mouths of state Supreme Court justices, and has dominated the headlines for the last two weeks with apologies over the comments. Meanwhile, newspaper headlines throughout the state are splashed with anti-gay marriage rallies that include prominent Republican lawmakers and respected local pastors....and the Minnesota voters are responding in the editorial pages of local newspapers with the same tiresome back-and-forth we heard on the issue in 2004. It sure seems as though the Republicans are winning this battle by keeping as many Minnesotans as possible more worried about gay marriage than petty little matters like the quagmire in Iraq and the deficit-fueled budgetary armageddon we're tossing at future generations like a molotov cocktail.

However, I'm not convinced the issue will yield the political bounty Republicans are expecting it to despite these early indications, at least in Minnesota. It's a tough call whether the gay marriage amendment will make the ballot in the state, but the hourglass is running out of sand. If the amendment makes the ballot, it will most likely pass by a comfortable margin. On the other hand, Minnesota is not like the South, where gay marriage was a top-tier issue for a significant percentage of the population. Even many who agree with the ban and vote accordingly will view the measure as a cynical ploy unworthy of consuming so much time and energy when the republic (and to a lesser extent the state of Minnesota) faces some of its stiffest challenges in recent history. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the GOP scores a hollow victory with passage of the gay marriage ban, but still find themselves on the receiving end of a voter backlash against frivolous political posturing, ultimately losing the statehouse, both houses of the legislature, a U.S. Senate race, one or two U.S. House races and maybe even a couple of constitutional offices. I can dream.....

Say It Ain't So, Al

I've been getting my hopes up for months. The liberal blogosphere, along with a few Congressman, has been actively lobbying former Vice-President Al Gore to make another run for President in 2008. But on Tuesday, my hopes were crushed when Gore reinforced his previous disappointing announcement that he will not be running in '08. It appears the guy really has chosen to end his political career.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a die-hard supporter. I'm merely a political scientist who feels like he's won the lottery every time Al Gore makes a public appearance. The man is a poli sci geek's dream come true. He panders to voters as shamelessly and as transparently as any pol who has ever lived. He stages hokey, over-the-top "moments" for the benefit of the camera (remember "the kiss" with Tipper at the 2000 Dem Convention). He's incapable of even a shred of humility, arbitrarily launching into self-aggrandizing statements that would make even Muhammed Ali blush. And best of all, his public persona changes every time he hits the stage. The old adage that "you don't know which Al Gore is gonna show up" perfectly sums up the Al Gore experience. The soft-spoken intellectual wearing "Earth tones" and putting us to sleep with droll, robotic soundbytes by morning could easily become the enraged "alpha male" screaming at the top of his lungs, flailing his arms, and making exasperated sighs of condescending disgust towards his political opponents by night. With Al Gore, anything can happen.

In all seriousness, Al Gore is a worthy public servant who brings alot to the table intellectually and could even make an above-average President if he cut the act. But there's no escaping the fact that he sucks as a politician. The gamesmanship that came so easily to Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and even to George W. Bush consistently eludes Al Gore, motivating an otherwise smart guy to behave like a fool. As frustrating as it always been for me as a Democrat, I can't say that Gore's antics haven't provide comedy relief to help me through the tears.

The comedy value quotient of the 2008 Presidential campaign is certain to be much less prevalent if Gore holds to his word of not running (this is Gore...he's changed his position on everything else over the years, so there's still hope he'll have a change of heart here too). Just the thought of watching a primary debate that included Al Gore brings back wonderful memories of the fall of 2000, the heyday of Gore-dom both before and after the election. Would we see the thoughtful but boring centrist or the sweaty, table-pounding leftist who can easily out-"Yearghhhh!" that amateur Howard Dean? It's sad to think the world may never know.

At the very least, we should be able to count on Gore making headlines with one of the shrill, bombastic verbal smackdowns of the Bush administration he makes every few months. Still, it's nothing like being able to see him in full pandering campaign mode. It's the political world's loss if Al Gore is not standing in front of a camera. Political geeks of all persuasions should be in mourning this week.

Attack of the Drones!!!

Last week, country singers Tim McGraw and Faith Hill publicly bashed the Bush administration at a high-profile press conference over its ineffectual handling of Hurricane Katrina in their respective home states of Louisiana and Mississippi, before, during, and after the disaster. Their tongue-lashings were aggressive without being hostile or militantly disrespectful, certainly nothing that rational people of either political persuasion could take umbrage with. Still, bearing in mind that the Dixie Chicks' commercial music careers ended when they slammed Bush three years ago, I couldn't resist logging onto an online chatroom addressing the McGraw-Hill dissent the following day.

I can't say what I ran into was shocking, but it certainly helped me remember than more than one out of every three Americans still supports George Bush. Despite the shocking incompetence on display for everyone in regards to disaster relief, evacuation, and the current unacceptably slow pace of cleanup, approximately half of the posters on this message board found NOTHING to fault the Bush administration for. The only contempt these posters (in the dozens if not hundreds) held was for McGraw and Hill for stating their informed opinions.

Intelligent Bush voters had the sense to distance themselves from their leader months ago, so the caliber of intellectualism coming from the keyboards of these purple Kool-Aid swilling Bush-bots was predictably unremarkable. Basically, the critiques followed a variation on two or three formulas: "Shut up and sing you illiterate hayseed hicks!"; "If you two think you could do better, go down there and lift a finger yourselves!" (uh, they have been...for months...that's why they can give a first-person account on how badly things are going); "Don't blame Bush, blame the Democratic Mayor and Democratic Governor for FEMA's inability to find LA or MS on a map on the short side of a week!!!"; and my personal favorite, "The lazy scum should get off of their asses and rebuild their own city!" The latter is particularly amusing considering that the Gulf Coast is, or rather was, teeming with trailer-park Republicans who were probably counting on their fellow "red state" brethren to have their back if they ever needed it. I guess there's no such thing as solidarity on Planet Republican, particularly if it could potentially cost a fellow Republican a few more tax dollars or if it pressures them to disagree with the Almighty Bush.

Clinton had some pretty flaky loyalists with a permanent schoolgirl crush on him, but even his staunchest defenders were able to occasionally find fault with the man over a given policy, public statement, or decision. Similarly, most Democratic partisans acknowledge that Louisiana's Democratic Governor and New Orleans' Democratic Mayor dropped the ball on their end of managing Katrina almost as badly as the Bush administration did on theirs. But it seems as though at least a third of Americans have no such nuance when it comes to George Bush. They seem to believe the man is incapable of making a wrong decision, either because of the (R) next to his name or the fact that he "has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" as they do.

Whatever the justification for their lockstep loyalty, the scariest thing the "Bush drones" articulate about our society is how vulnerable tens of millions of people to becoming disciples. In all seriousness, the breathlessness and teeth-clenching ferocity that Bush's loyalists but into defending his every decision reminds me of the passion that Branch Dividian cult members put on display for the world back in 1993. When cult leader David Koresh decided for his group that mass suicide was a preferable alternative to handing over their illegal firearms to the Feds, the "true believers" ran into the flaming complex so they could be incinerated along with their leader. I am convinced that at least a third of the country is dangerously close to that level of robotic allegiance to George Bush.

MacGyver, Act Five

MacGyver: The Complete Fifth Season was released to DVD today, which like previous seasons, warrants a blog entry. The fifth season receives the same lackluster DVD treatment that Paramount afforded seasons one through four, which is hardly surprising given that Paramount never did one thing more than it absolutely had to when it came to promoting the series when it originally aired. At least their apathy has been consistent over the course of more than 20 years since MacGyver's premiere. It would be nice if the studio provided some special features for the shortened seventh season, but I'm not holding my breath.

Despite the conspicuous lack of bells and whistles, MacGyver: The Complete Fifth Season is well worth the sticker price as the diverse selection of 21 episodes stand up well by themselves. In my opinion, the series peaked creatively in the fourth season, but the stylistic approach of season five was largely similar. MacGyver charted new territory in season four with a darker, edgier set of stories and correspondingly brooding production values. Season five continues with the dark theme on occasion, but expands the creative horizons with what can best be described as an "anthology" approach. The thematic contrasts week-to-week were the starkest for the series to date. Our hero was literally searching for the Holy Grail one week, derailing the African poaching trade the next, and saving inner-city youth from themselves the next. Sprinkle a couple surrealistic fantasy episodes in and you have the exciting roller coaster ride that was MacGyver: The Complete Fifth Season.

Some of the more noteworthy episodes include:

"Legend of the Holy Rose, Parts 1 and 2"--A few months after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade hit theaters, Paramount decided to loosen the purse strings and finance an ambitious international safari for the Holy Grail, MacGyver-style. While the episode wasn't without flaws (MacGyver's female companion was unbearably annoying), the story arc was wildly imaginative and the cleverly-scripted narrow escapes that ensued throughout made for one of the series' most epic globe-trotting adventures.

"Cease Fire"--Mayim Bialik (the future "Blossom") made her first of three appearances as pre-pubescent child-of-privilege Lisa Woodman, a girls' school student in Switzerland, who in this adventure helped nurse our gunshot-wounded hero back to health in time to stop a political assassination. The story and acting were more than a little cheesy at times, but the monorail-dangling climax was pretty impressive for 1989 TV.

"Halloween Knights"--A fan favorite featuring Murdoc, returning from the dead once again and this time beckoning MacGyver's help (!) to rescue his sister from Homicide International Trust, the hit-men recruiting bogeyman who doesn't take kindly to Murdoc's decision to retire. The episode is a total MacGyver original and was loads of fun. It even manages to make Murdoc's short-term transformation to a good guy believable, which given his history, couldn't have been an easy task for the writers.

"Black Rhino"--The annoyingly preachy animal-rights theme was as politically heavy-handed as anything ever seen on MacGyver, which is saying something considering the show's love affair with left-wing moralizing. Even so, this episode worked amazingly well, managing to touch even the hardest social Darwinist heart with a grueling scene of animal torture. But what really made this episode was its exotic African locale, original storyline, smooth pacing, and energetic cast support for the always-entertaining Cuba Gooding, Jr...... and a supercharged ride down a man-made waterfall near the episode's climax didn't hurt either.

"The Ten Percent Solution"--I'll forgive casual viewers who have a hard time taking seriously a TV show plotline featuring "Neo-Nazis", but this ingeniusly-plotted political thriller involving that very theme is worth taking in.

"Two Times Trouble"--The darkest of the fifth season's episodes, MacGyver tries to reconcile a seething sibling rivalry between twin sisters from his hometown. The hairstyles and keyboard/synthesizer driven rock music provide an excitingly cheesy trip down 1989 Memory Lane and make this episode worth one's time by itself, but the intense and shocking story arc help the episode sparkle even without the goofy music video background noise.

"The Madonna"--This amazingly well-done Christmas episode stands out as one of the most original and touching Christmas stories I've ever seen. While the story may seem strange early on, the ingeniusly layered execution of the episode helps me appreciate it more after each viewing and has become my favorite episode of the season. Highly recommended.

"Serenity"--This Western dream sequence didn't overwhelm me from a story standpoint, but nonetheless serves up some of the series' most impressive production values as well as a smorgasbord of the series' semi-regular characters coming together for one "epic" episode. There are some notably clever moments, but I generally feel this episode was a lost opportunity.

"Live and Learn"--Clearly fitting into the "MacGyver: Social Worker" mold, this episode gets mixed reviews and is often panned by fans who dislike the series' deviation from the action-adventure boilerplate. The story revolves around MacGyver taking a personal interest in Tony Milani, a troubled high school student on the verge of dropping out. The story takes an unpredictable turn at midpoint and ends with a wildly elaborate MacGyverism followed by a clever rescue scene that subtly brings the story message home full circle. I was impressed with this episode, but am willing to forgive its critics who don't share my enthusiasm for than less-than-James Bond-ish plot.

"Log Jam"--Political preachiness ensued throughout, but writers producers were nonetheless able to pull off an exciting and entertaining story about a corrupt logging outfit tangled up with Japanese Yakuza gangsters. A lengthy and impressive fight scene helped the intelligently-crafted episode conclude with a flourish.

"The Treasure of Manco"--MacGyver searching for a golden treasure in the Peruvian Andes while dodging murderous mountain guerillas on horseback....what could go wrong? Well, the pacing was a little slow on this episode, but the high adventure storyline is generally satisfying and the clever ending helps make up for the slow parts.

"Jenny's Chance"--One of those illogical but relentlessly fun "sting" episodes, where the bad guys' every move corresponds with exactly what the sting organizers expected it would be. Bad accents, goofy disguises and "Exorcist"-girl Linda Blair all contribute to an hour of guilty fun that introduces us to MacGyver's nerdy alter ego Dexter Fillmore.

"Deep Cover"--MacGyver's 100th episode keeps it simple with a submarine manufacturer in cahoots with the Colombian drug cartel to seduce a Phoenix employee into giving up secrets about a classified sonar system the government plans to use to seize subs full of blow. Some nifty narrow escapes ensue.

"Passages"--Many fans consider this surrealistic episode to be the series' best. I am not one of them, but I can appreciate their admiration for this pivotal, well-written episode. The shorthand of the plot involves MacGyver lapsing into a coma and having an out-of-body experience that allows him to make peace with his long-ago deceased parents. Hokey as it may sound, the episode provides some touching moments and some haunting otherwordly imagery. A good way to close the season.

As with every MacGyver season, the fifth had a handful of episodes that didn't rise to the standards of others. The series seemed particularly weary late in the season, with a string of episodes like "The Lost Amadeus", "Rush to Judgment", and "Hearts of Steel" (the season's weakest episode) that were weak, at least by MacGyver standards. Disappointingly, the series was once again snubbed by Emmy nominators, even at a time where the standards of weekly television dramas was in noticeable decline.

Those looking to nitpick about something will get their wish with MacGyver: The Complete Fifth Season, but those looking to enjoy a wild ride with the most entertaining television series of all time will not be disappointed with the set. I would recommend starting with earlier seasons for those who haven't yet viewed them, but the good thing about this show is that one can jump in for Season Five and still be wanting for more the same as a viewer who watched a captivating pilot for an ordinary hourlong series.

Legalization of Drugs? Government Would Screw It Up

For the last 10 years or so, I've been moving ever closer to the libertarian position that the sale and consumption of illegal narcotics should be legalized....or at least "decriminalized", whatever the hell the difference is. I arrived at this perspective upon recognizing the futility of prohibitions. Laws imposed by the state cannot overcome the laws of supply and demand. When a good or service is in demand, there will always be a way to deliver the good or service to consumers....either through regulated commerce or a through a black market controlled by organized crime. In almost every situation, the latter scenario produces more devastating cultural and socioeconomic consequences than the former, and illegal drugs are no exception. Looking at a quarter century of ruinous consequences incurred through our narcotics prohibition, I had convinced myself that nothing could work less than the course we've been taking. Recently, however, after closely evaluating the way our government has handled other controversial legal products, I'm starting to lean back to the position that legalization of narcotics would end up being so mishandled by our government that it would bring about even more societal harm than the current dysfunctional prohibition.

To be clear, legalization done properly would still be the best option. If the distribution of narcotics was handled by licensed pharmacies that kept a closely-monitored paper trail on its customers, the street thugs and Latin American cartels that currently control the distribution of narcotics would go the way of the gangster bootleggers and speakeasies of the Prohibition against alcohol. Unfortunately, our government would be highly unlikely to be satisfied with this scenario. Its inability to resist the sugar daddies of the business communities and excessive "sin taxes" would sabotage the ability of a tightly-controlled legalization plan to play out.

Look at how legalization has impacted the drug of alcohol. And let's be honest.....alcohol is chemically identical to every drug that is current outlawed in America today, if arguably less immediately corrosive to the human mind and body. While lifting Prohibition has successfully eliminated the black market for alcohol, it has also wrested the control of sale and distribution of the product entirely into the hands of profit-driven entrepreneurs who promote the product through flashy and glamorous advertising. The stigma of alcohol consumption is virtually non-existent for adults and few of its consumers feel a sense of shame from drinking it, even in excess. If our government allows the same formula to ensue with narcotics of any kind, drug use would soar and commercially-distributed cocaine, heroin, and meth would be consumed with a diminishing stigma while our government looked the other way and counted the swelling revenues.

Even if legalization of drugs didn't lead to a free-market bonanza of destigmatized commercial narcotics, you can be sure that government would still feel the need to incur huge profits from the legalization the way it increasingly does from legalized tobacco products. Indeed, most people who support legalization of drugs usually follow up their initial statement of support with "...and then tax the hell out of them." This wouldn't work. The only way we'd snuff out the criminal element currently controlling the drug trade is sell these drugs at their market value. If we try to "tax the hell out of them," the Colombian and Mexican cartels along with urban street gangs will still be able to get the product to consumers cheaper than what the prices in legalized pharmacies could. The criminal element of our current prohibition would remain alive and well, rendering the entire progress of legalization meaningless. Cluelessly gluttonous state governments have already created a huge underground market for tobacco thanks to ever-rising cigarette taxes. Supersized taxes wouldn't work any better on drugs.

Looking at the ineffective consequences of our government's ham-handedness in controlling legalized products such as alcohol and tobacco, I have to concede that legalization of drugs would be a mistake. I'm confident that the pharmacy-controlled legalization plan I outlined above would work much better than what we're doing now, both in controlling usage and cutting off the head of the drug underground, but America's two-headed dragon of market-worship and regressive taxation would eventually muscle its way into any good idea, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.