Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Yes, But Is It Really Funny?

With exceptions, I usually don't like comediennes. Most of them are really full of not-too-repressed anger, which reaches their audiences more as outrage than humor.

An LA-based radio talk show hostess, Stephanie Miller, does a better job of controlling this and going for really clever humor, than most. I occasionally listen for the humor--but not for the commentary. There is almost no serious political commentary, in spite of the show's being billed as a "progressive" talk show.

Incidentally, I really hate their having co-opted the word "progressive." to mean socialist. Once, they were proud to call themselves socialists. Jack London proudly called himself a socialist. Eventually, "socialist" became a pejorative term, so they started calling themselves "liberals." This in spite of the fact that free marketeers had been calling themselves liberals for decades. Now, if you refer to A. J. Nock as a liberal, people assume you mean socialist. Recent years, the term "liberal" has become pejorative.

People now know a "liberal" is a socialist. After experimenting with words like "communitarian," which most people (correctly) confused with communist, socialists have finally begun to call themselves "progressives." How we can apply the term "progressive" to a group comprised of "environmentalists," who want to put an end to technology and reduce mankind to roaming bands of hunter-gatherers, and wealth redistributors, who want to take wealth from the productive and turn it over to the non-productive, is well beyond my ability to understand.

They're not liberals. They're not progressives. They are socialists.

And I have digressed.

Back to the very lovely and quite talented Stephanie Miller. She's clever, she's quick, she's funny and she's interesting. She is not informative. She very rarely actually gives a rational discourse on any part of the Democrat agenda, rational reasons for hating GW Bush (there are many), alternatives to his programs, the Democrat platform or anything! Her radio program is basically a three-hour standup routine--with numerous commercial breaks.

Today, however, she slipped up. She actually allowed a bit of real "War on Terrorism" news to slip through, along with an actual rationally formed conclusion. 'Twas a welcome event!

Apparently, the Afghan drug trade is very business-as-usual, in spite of the efforts on the Iraq-depleted US forces there. It's coming out that the money from this trade is financing a resurgance of the Taliban. This, in turn, is making the job of our Afghan-stationed forces even harder and more dangerous. By the way, does anyone know what is the current job of our forces in Afghanistan?

Y'know? (sez Col. Hogan, not Miss Miller) This wouldn't even be possible, but for the other really stupid war the feds are waging: The War on the Bill of Rights.....er the "War on Drugs."

One of the major effects of the "War on Drugs," other than:
  • Huge amounts of land, money and property stolen from their rightful owners as "booty" in the "WOD."
  • Competing, often warring drug gangs throughout the nation.
  • Increasing numbers of innocent bystanders killed and injured in battles between drug gangs and the police.
  • The romanticization of drugs to rebellious young people.
  • The paramilitarization of local police forces, separating them from the local people.
  • The creation of a non-productive drug subculture dependent 'pon social welfare programs.
Is the fact that drug prices increase to the point where such monsters as the Taliban can make huge profits on the trade; enough to re-energize the organization which served to repress the Afghan people for these past many years.

So, as the very clever and somewhat oblivious Miss Miller has inadvertently revealed, the federal government is once again working at cross-purposes with itself.

It's not making the President and his Administration look very good.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

No comments: