Tag Archives: grumpy old men

Gov. Moonbeam No More still deserves re-election

476008647JS007_Gov_Jerry_Br

Getty Images

Within this past week, Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown (pictured above within this past week) both made his re-election bid official and infamously voiced his concern that marijuana legalization might lead to societal degradation caused by “potheads” (even though we’re not exactly a state or a nation of alcoholics because alcohol is legalized…).

When I cast my vote for Jerry Brown in 2010, his “Governor Moonbeam” moniker was a selling point, not a turn-off, for me.

How great it would be, I thought, to have Jerry Brown back in the saddle, making California cool again.

Since he took the reins of the state that Repugnican Arnold “Baby Daddy” Schwarzenegger ran into the ground during his too-long tenure, alas, the now-75-year-old Brown has not been Governor Moonbeam Redux.

I have not agreed with everything that Brown has done and said since he began his current term in January 2011, and Brown 2.0 has turned out to be more centrist than I’d thought he would be, but at least I don’t regret my vote for him, as I regret my 2008 vote for Barack Obama, and unlike how I could not vote for Obama again in 2012, I plan to vote for Brown again this coming November.

Brown has been a competent, if unexciting, governor of the nation’s most populous state.

While wingnuts, most of them outside of California, claim that under Brown’s leadership California still remains in a budget deficit (and face a myriad of other problems that we don’t actually face), the fact of the matter is that Brown turned Baby Daddy’s budget deficit around some time ago, and we Californians have had a sizeable budget surplus for some time now. (Look it up.)

Are we Californians better off now than we were four years ago, when the usurper Baby Daddy was still at the helm? Hell, yes, we are.

Does Jerry Brown deserve re-election? Hell, yes, he does.

Yes, it’s too bad that the moonbeam’s glow has faded, as evidenced by such things as Brown’s recent pronouncement on “Meet the Press” that he’s not big on marijuana legalization, remarking, “How many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation? The world’s pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the potheads might be able to put together.”

I believe that the science that holds that chronic marijuana use can make one “amotivational” still is considered to be fairly sound science, but still, I rather doubt that as the result of marijuana legalization, we’re all going to become a bunch of “potheads.” I mean, alcohol is legal, but not all of us are alcoholics, are we?

I support the legalization of marijuana, but it’s not such a huge issue to me that Brown’s “pothead” comment has soured me on him.

But what probably does rankle me about Brown’s “pothead” comment is that my guess is that when he was younger, he sure had his fun, but now he would wag his finger at today’s young people and deny them theirs. I hate that hypocritical bullshit coming from the baby boomers and from those, like Brown, who preceded them.

And I do hope that the 75-year-old Brown doesn’t become anything like the 77-year-old John McCainosaurus, whose every pronouncement is some variation of “You damned kids get off of my lawn!”*

*Seriously, McCainosaurus’ latest attack on Obama is the contents of an article that Obama wrote when he was in college, for fuck’s sake. McCainosaurus is peeved, you see, that the younger Obama, like the older Obama, hasn’t taken the Cold War bullshit as seriously as McCainosaurus still does.

Memo to McCainosaurus: The majority of us Americans don’t have the Cold War fetish that you do, since we’re living in 2014 and not still living in the 1950s, and more and more you come off as much like the deranged general played by George C. Scott in “Dr. Strangelove” (or the deranged general played by Rod Steiger in “Mars Attacks!”). Please die already. Or, at the very least, stop pretending that we elected you, or even that we should have elected you, as president in 2008.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clint, I forgive you

Actor Clint Eastwood addresses an empty chair and questions it as if it were President Barack Obama as he endorses Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the final session of the Republican National Convention in Tampa

Reuters photo

A disheveled and addled Clint Eastwood performs at the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention — a live-television political disaster along the lines of a sweaty Richard Nixon.

It wasn’t that long ago that I bought the Clint Eastwood-directed film “J. Edgar” on DVD. No, it’s not Eastwood’s best film, and no, as I noted at the time that “J. Edgar” was in the theaters, “J. Edgar,” as a gay-themed film, is no “Milk” (which also was scripted by gay screenwriter Dustin Lance Black) or “Brokeback Mountain.” It’s flawed, but it’s watchable.

I enjoyed Eastwood’s “Gran Torino,” too. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s worthwhile.

Even I am fairly too young to remember the “Dirty Harry” movies, so I will remember Eastwood as the director of some good films later in his life.

And I will give him a pass for his disastrous appearance at the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention last night. I will blame instead the fucktards who decided to ask him to appear.

Really, it was like elder abuse to allow the 82-year-old Eastwood to speak on the topic of politics in front of a live television audience.

Let me repeat that:

He’s 82. His mind is not what it used to be, as is evidenced by his rather halting, forgetful — I’ll say it: senile — delivery of what was supposed to be (I guess) comedy.

While an expert on film, Eastwood is about as sharp on the topic of politics* as is Britney Spears, who has a cameo in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” (it was almost as unfair to allow Eastwood to speak on politics as it was Britney).

Admittedly, I have yet to be able to get through all of Eastwood’s latest performance. I watched at least a few minutes of it on Hulu before I had to stop. It was like watching a puppy being slowly run over by a dump truck. I couldn’t bear it any longer.

Finally, again, Eastwood is an expert of film. Not of live television.

I get it, he’s Clint Fucking Eastwood, and who’s going to ask Clint Eastwood to audition for something?

But, as Rachel Maddow fairly dissects the decision to have Eastwood appear before Mittens Romney did last night, Eastwood’s performance was political tactical disaster.

Obviously Eastwood was meant to appeal to the white male set who view themselves as macho and bad-ass and to the bimbos who think that these macho, macho men actually are, well, macho.

He-man Charlton Heston, who used to shill for the NRA (and who, like Britney, also starred in a Michael Moore documentary), keeled over in 2008, and so the Repugnican Tea Party dipshits got Clint Eastwood.

But putting a doddering old white man on live national television right before Mittens was a strategic mistake of perhaps epic proportion. Sure, there are millions of Americans who are OK with the You-damned-kids-get-off-my-lawn! thing, but they already vote Repugnican Tea Party.

Millions of Americans whom we call “swing voters,” I surmise, were turned off by Eastwood’s crusty, cranky, addled performance, which can only remind them of the last grumpy old man whom they rejected, John McCainosaurus.

And instead of talking about Mittens, Americans are talking about Clint Eastwood’s shockingly bad performance.

Thanks, Clint.

Although you said last night that there are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood, you certainly didn’t just help get another wingnut elected to the White House.

It’s almost like you intentionally sabotaged the Mittens campaign.

*Eastwood’s first salvo at President Barack Obama was that the nation has too many unemployed people. I will agree with that, and, like Ted Rall, I believe that Obama should have pushed through a strong, FDR-like jobs program when he had both houses of Congress in his party’s control in 2009 and 2010, but the fact of the matter is that it was the unelected George W. Bush whose administration of the nation destroyed our economy, and the fact of the matter is that after the Repugnican Tea Party traitors regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2010 election, they’ve done nothing but oppose Obama (they would have killed any strong jobs program he had proposed) and they have done nothing themselves to counter unemployment, such as through a strong jobs program, so they need to be blamed for our continuing unemployment (and underemployment) problem, too.

But all of this is too nuanced for Dirty Harry, who simply blamed unemployment squarely on Barack Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized