I'm tired of writing about all this heavy stuff, so I though I'd try something lighter.  I'm one of those who gets forwarded e-mail political jokes.  I'm usually one among many recipients (most of whom are unknown to me) in the "To:" or "CC:" field.  Many come from my conservative friends.  Anyhow, it used to bug me a little bit that they seem to have more jokes along these lines than we Democrats/liberals do until I realized how easy it was to redirect many of them--at least the ones that were genuinely chuckle-worthy rather than just mean spirited.  Surprisingly, I have gotten amused responses from a few of the conservative recipients of these redirected jokes.  It's all in good fun.

I've found that rewriting them in any significant way doesn't work.  That just turns them into jokes that they won't find any funnier than I did.  I've settled on adding an "Reality-Based Ending" to the jokes and leaving the original untouched.  I guess brevity really is the soul of wit.  I hope this gets your Friday off to a good start.  Feel free to share this or any you might have.

--- 

Left and Right

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut.   After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week"

The florist is pleased and leaves the shop.   Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The cop is happy and leaves the shop.   Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop.  Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.
---
[Reality-Based Ending]

The Republican is happy and leaves the shop.  He goes home and invests the money he saved from the haircut in a chain of low-paying MacBarbershops (that enjoys generous GOP-sponsored corporate tax-breaks) that eventually runs the local, community-minded barber out of business.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.

I thought I would follow up here to a comment I left over at the TPM Cafe Book Club regarding what I'm sure is Kevin Phillips' newest overwrought tome American Theocracy. I'm all for some reflection on the role of Christians in American politics, but I don't think we should get carried away.

That conservative Christians have played a vital role in GOP politics cannot be doubted. That they believe they are socially engineering America in their own image can be confirmed by polling. However, the idea that they are actually achieving their goals in any significant way through their Republican Party activism can still be doubted. How anyone can argue that America is not becoming more secular (and, unfortunately, debauched) is beyond me. They can complain that the department stores are taking Christ out of Christmas (which, of course, they have been doing since at least the invention of Santa Claus), but it ain't us workaday Democrats who own all the stocks in those stores. Take your case to your buddies on Wall Street, folks!

Anyhow, I don't revel in or celebrate these facts. I merely point them out. If anyone can conclusively show that Christianity is actually more influential on American society today than it was in, say, 1970 (without falling back on mere statistics), please do so.

My other concern here is that too many liberals/progressives are prone to believe the enemy's propaganda. If the Democrats and Republicans were two armies arrayed on either side of a no-man's land and the GOP dropped leaflets into our trenches, how would we react? What if the leaflets said, "Lay down your arms! The Christians of America are against you! You cannot hope to prevail!"

I guess the first thing we could expect would be for footsolders like Bill Moyers, Thomas Frank, and Mr. Phillips to run up and down the line freaking out about it. "We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose!" I would hope that our C.O. would tell them to shut up an get back to their posts before he ordered a court marshal for spreading discontent in the ranks.

Of course I know that can't be done in a political movement. But, I think we'd be well served to quit being so credulous. A lot of the hype about Christian conservatives is just propaganda. A lot of Christians turned pessimistic during the Cold War. We don't need those gloomy types in our ranks any more than we need the gloomy types from PBS, NPR, and Harper's magazine. Let's focus on winning the hearts and minds of the greater number of Christian optimists who seek to build the Shining City on the Hill, not those who want to lay the groundwork for the End Times.

Everytime the Democrats criticize the situation in Iraq some Republican or mainstream pundit (Is there a difference?) demands that the Democrats present a plan of their own. So, here goes.

If we want to bring peace to Iraq and, eventually, democracy, we must split it into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia states. Iraq is a creation of imperial Britain. It was cobbled together out of three Ottoman provinces that had existed as quasi-states for centuries prior. These peoples deserve the right to self-determination after centuries of alternating autocracies, not to be shoehorned into compliance with some sort of constitutional Rube Goldberg device built to accomodate defunct colonial boundaries. (Thanks to inimitable Michael Lind for introducing me to that fun analogy in one of his writings.) Hell, if their constitution includes a filibuster provision like ours, you'll know it's messed up!

As the situation now stands, the Shia and Kurds are ready to govern themselves, and they have been for quite some time. (If anything, our occupation has set them back.) They did so for nearly ten years while we protected them from Hussein with the No-Fly Zones after the first invasion of Iraq. All we would need to do is establish more natural boundaries, create some sort of buffer zone with Sunni Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, pay as many Kurds, Sunnis, or Shias as possible to relocate back to their homelands (with funds raised from oil tarrifs), and pay off Turkey to accomodate the new Kurdish nation.

Sure, there would be unpleasantness, but certainly no worse than we can expect from here on out. I believe we could keep a small international detachment in the new Kurdish state, an American airbase in the western desert of the Sunni state, and a naval base at Basra in the Shia state. The Kurdish and Shia nations could have strictly defensive forces. We should keep the Sunni state disarmed with a contingent of reliable pan-Arab forces to be stationed there until a trustworthy regime is in place.

Just as we should have stepped in and managed the devolution of Yugoslavia before civil war and ethnic cleansing broke out, we need to be realistic about Iraq. You can't liberate a people from themselves--no matter how much we would like to pretend that they are innocents. But, we can liberate them from oppression by each other.

 

Following up on my previous post, I did a little research and found the few Democrats sought to protect us (well, at least our port workers) from the threat of "foreign-government owned" corporations. It turns out that identical companion bills (H.R.4842.IH and S.2334.IS), both titled "Port Security Act of 2006," were introduced in the House and Senate. Both declared that the "President shall prohibit any merger, acquisition, or takeover described in subsection...that will result in any entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign government leasing, operating, managing, or owning real property or facilities at a United States port." Of course, I would prefer to strike "at a United States port" and replace it with "in the United States," but that's just me. I want to protect all American workers from the threat of imported Socialism.

Anyhow, it's a start. Here are the sponsors in the Senate: Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. BOXER). Here are the sponsors in the House: Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (for herself, Mr. POE, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. NADLER, and Mr. MCNULTY).

Thanks to them! Maybe someday the Democrats will think a little bigger on this issue instead of offering up a token response by a group of Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen who just happen to represent major port facilities. But, you can be sure of one thing, they probably won't do so unless we make them. If you are represented by a Democrat in the House or Senate, please take time to raise this point with him or her. It's not a small issue.