Clown-Shoes Ridiculous

I hate so much about this poisonous political climate right now that I don't know where to start.

The second presidential debate was on TV tonight and a bit of a tempest developed at a local church over the description of the religion of those candidates.  These two snapshots of our horrible political climate got me thinking.

To steal a phrase from my brother, all of it is just "clown-shoes ridiculous."  

The Debate

I did not watch the debate, and that was a conscious choice.  I purposefully avoided it for the following variety of reasons:

- I know the talking points and expressed philosophical bends of each party for this election.  Those will be repeated and argued, and points will be awarded for style, poise and delivery, which is like winning the bikini competition at a science fair.  

-  I am not interested in watching people argue.  I see that everyday and, thanks to our hyper-sensitive political climate, I can participate in an argument in the grocery store or anywhere else if I just chime in to any random conversation about politics.  I can also watch as others argue heatedly while I try to order my morning coffee.

-  Everyone will repeat their favorite zingers and replay this debate everywhere I have to go to function in life.  I will hear the same arguments everywhere from public toilet stalls to private cockfighting rings.  People will argue to hear themselves talk, and I will create frown wrinkles by the dozen.

-  No candidate is a danger to our country, and I am losing patience with claims otherwise.  These claims will, nevertheless, continue to be made after the debate as I grind my teeth to dust.  Big Bird will be fine.  Sharia law will never be U.S. law.  Settle down.

-  I know how I will vote... so do you... and so does everyone you know.  There are roughly 5 people nationwide who are truly undecided.  Everyone else is looking for a song from their choir and ammunition to bludgeon the other side.  It's pointless, and especially so in light of the "theoretical" nature of the debate described below.  

- It is a theoretical debate with no basis in reality.  Candidates love to say, "If I am elected (or re-elected), I will do X,Y, and Z."  However, they present it like they could make all this happen like a king.  No one discusses things like, "Well, I would love to reform health care as I just described in my 'plan,' but, you know, we passed this particular reform by three votes on reconciliation vote, not one member of the opposition voted for it, and, well, it turns out politics IS the art of the possible after all!"

No, it's just, "I will cut X tax by Y% and the result will be jobs of the highest quality falling from the sky!"  They get to say whatever and play off every delusion.  It's frustrating because it never happens like they describe and we keep thinking it will.  

For example, one candidate wants to repeal some legislation "on my first day in office," but he won't volunteer that he can't do that when making that claim.  The public remains seemingly ignorant of the document that "We, the People" wrote before any of us were born, and so people get either: a) fired up and set to vote so legislation can be repealed on day one, or b) super offended and put off and ready to fight to "save" the legislation from "day-one death."

Reality check:  No president can repeal legislation until and unless said repeal passes both houses of Congress.  The same goes for Big Bird and Sharia law.  Let's all take a breath here.  By believing this, we look like fools.

I am a little concerned what would happen if "We, the People" got a great offer from a prince in Zaire.  I guess that could be why we are going broke.  Oh well.  

The sound you hear while watching this debate will be the collective face-palms of every civics teacher in America as the candidates ignore these things without being caught by all those former students who can now vote.  Of course, too many of us will learn about the news by facebook memes and twitter snark anyway, so maybe the sound is really our collective "intellectual curiosity" dropping like a French rifle.

When you think about it, it's pretty sad.

Tempests in my temples

I  became aware of a "controversy" at a church because the pastor mentioned the election in a mass e-mail.  The point of the message?  Vote your convictions, but don't consider any candidate to be some sort of Savior, because that is Jesus.

Well, in this political climate, those are clearly fighting words.

The fight focused on the fact that the pastor named the candidates and proceeded to "identify" that they are "Mormon" and "Christian" by their own claims.  He stated it innocently only to illustrate that it does not matter, but he must have subconsciously felt he had too much peace in his life because he mentioned the election at all.

The apology letter was diplomatic and sincere.  However, that it was necessary at all gave me the kind of headache that could drop a RINO.

The fix?  Insert that the candidates "claim" to be Mormon / Christian.  The pastor sought to assure anyone who thought this was an endorsement for a candidate that it was no endorsement for anyone but Jesus.  Even though the e-mail said just that on its face, this point required assurances by those with a taste for paste.

My six year old could have deduced that message and he can't drive legally for another 10 years (and he leaves paste alone).  The pastor said the only true savior is Jesus.  Really, what else was he going to say?  By "vote your convictions," he must have meant to say he endorses socialism and all it stands for (which, clearly, is murder).

You can probably predict the rest:  Parishioners interpreted it as an endorsement of Candidate X or Y (really, can't it be both?), and that is horrible because Candidate X or Y is clearly trying to ruin everything and slaughter our puppies.

Really, only one phrase explains this whole thing adequately for me, and I hope the illustration above brings the point home:

CLOWN-SHOES RIDICULOUS! 

My name is Joe and approve of none of this.