As a former liberal, Democrat, I spent a great deal of time and effort learning what it meant to be a good liberal. I learned all of the tenets of the religion, and I worked very hard to gain the esteem that I sought for being so. It was exhausting.

There were a number of tenets and notions that I had to accept if I wanted to gain entrance into the religion. 

The first notion I was had to learn to accept is that the United States of America is not the greatest nation on the Earth at this time. I had to learn that that 'grand experiment,' that Abraham Lincoln worked so hard to maintain has gone awry. Due to the societal constraints of the U.S., the pejorative 'you' cannot achieve success within the paradigm that they have created. This is because 'you' are a fill in the blank from whatever societal group that you happen to be classified in. The limit that I had to accept in this philosophy is that the 'they' who succeed in this country are different beings. They have been given an unfair advantage that only a government official can rectify.

I found this notion hard to swallow at the time, for I had always heard the jokes about politicians being liars and corrupt. To this, a friend of mine replied: "Who else are you going to trust?"

The second notion that I had to want to exert over others is a desire to be more wonderful than they were. This was an easy notion to implore, for who doesn't want to be wonderful? In this tenet, it's very important that we say we care. It's very important that we elect people who say they care, and it's very important that we elect people who show they care. The reason the word show is italicized in the sentence is that it's important to those that care that those they elect display a symbol of caring.

I remember an episode of Buggs Bunny in which Yosemite Sam ran around a town kissing babies to show the public that he could be a viable politician. I didn't get the joke at the time. I do now. I now understand how important it is that a politician show that he care. I do realize that a portion of a president's job is symbolic, but to what degree?

Does every politician involved in the area, both locally and federally, have to make a personal appearance at every catastrophe? When we see him speak, do we have to moved by his words? I'm not talking about his ideas. If we're moved by his ideas, that should be a qualifier, but what if the other guy is better looking? What if the other guy looks like a better politician? What if the other says that he cares about us? What if the other guy squints to portray the importance of his words, and he bites a lip in the sad moments of his presentation?

Empirical results, after all, are for pointy headed economists to blather about. In this tenet of the philosophy the means justify the means. How we get to the ends, or if we get to the ends, is fodder for others with more power than us to worry about, so we must elect those who care. The fact that we care enough to vote for someone who cares show that we care. Again: "Who else are you going to trust?"

Another philosophy one must buy is the idea of the inevitable. If you disagree with something a politician has issued or proposed, fellow liberals will argue that that idea is an inevitability that you are just going to have to learn to accept. It's inevitable that politicians will eventually become corrupt. So, if you think that a politician has acted in a corrupt or deceitful manner, then you have to accept the fact that they've all done it, or they will eventually do it. The country of America will eventually succumb to socialized medicine, therefore you may as well accept this inevitability and move on. High taxes are an inevitability, so all this blather is nice, but in the end an escalated tax rate in inevitable. They consider these responses to be excellent ammunition to those who argue against their politicians.

Another tenet one must buy into is the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are fun and exciting. Conspiracy theories are excellent fodder for a slow news day, and they're fun.  One doesn't have to learn the facts of a conspiracy.  They only need know the motives.
 

Motive is the most consistent inconsistency of the philosophy. There are no facts to suggest that George W. Bush elected to go into the Iraq War for selfish reasons, but when one factors in that George W. Bush is an oil man, and Dick Cheney is a Haliburton guy, then one plus one equals two if you focus on motive. If one factors in that Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, then two plus two equals four. If one factors in the political gain that W. would attain from the World Trade City towers falling, then it makes perfect sense that Bush would order the towers to be brought down...I guess. The most important four words in this paragraph is there are no facts. Facts aren't fun and exciting though.

One could argue that conspiracy theories abound on both sides of the aisle, and that would be correct, but the conservative philosophy does not lean on these planks as heavily as the liberal. The liberal philosophy, itself, it built on a foundation of the theoretical, and a great deal of these theoretical notions are conspiratorial in nature.

The motive is the grey theory and to be a quality liberal one must invest himself in the grey. I once had a Black Studies teacher who informed us of the problems that existed in the world, and he–of course–concentrated much of his venom for the U.S. Fair enough, it's not a perfect country, and the problems abound. What is the solution though? The teacher didn't have solutions. It was enough for him, in his portrayal of our tumultuous world, to simply recognize the problems. In a paper that I wrote for that class, I addressed the problems and posed some solutions. These solutions may have been wrong. I'm not so egotistical to say that I think I had then answers then or now, but I have a solutions oriented mind. Plus, I think the liberals deity Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an excellent method of solving problems: "If one solution doesn't work, try another."  In my paper, I posed a number of solutions. All of them were dismissed with the same theme: "Too simplistic."

The thing I knew then, and I learn more and more every day, is that liberals do not seek solutions. They only seek the proselytization of the problem. They only seek to condemn solutions as too simplistic. They also seek to condemn the character of those who pose solutions. Liberals, themselves, are too worried that the solutions they pose will be wrong, and they're also too worried that posing a solution will make them appear simpleminded. And who do you think you are to pose a solution, say those who will not pose one, you're just a simpleton from small town, America. You don't have the knowledge of the all mighty politicians.

They tell us that we don't have the knowledge to pose solutions to social issues, because we are simpletons from small town America, yet these same people have no qualms with posing solutions on issues of military and war. To my mind, social issues are issues for which the common man can pose solutions. The common man can have fact based opinions on social issues based on similar circumstances that man has encountered throughout time. In matters involving war, however, it could be argued that the common man cannot make informed statements about the issues, because they are not privy to the same intelligence reports given to generals and high ranking officials. Yet, liberals feel that they can pose informed solutions on issues of war and conflict, but that they are simply not intelligent enough to provide an idea on how to solve a social concern.

Liberals also focus on the exception to the rule. If one were to pose a solution oriented idea on a social concern, liberals would quickly point out that that solution would do nothing to help Mary Smith from Poughkeepsie, Illinois. Mary has five children, a drug problem, and a husband who will not support her in her travails. Fair enough, what's your solution? No answer. How about we develop a societal solution, such as the one I posed, and deal with the various Mary Smiths on a case by case basis? That's too simplistic.

When I was younger I used to confuse 180 degrees and 360 degrees when I would tell a story. I would tell people that their ideas were 360 degrees different than mine, when I should've said 180 degrees. I hear many adults still make this mathematical error in philosophical discussions. Liberals, however, make this error in their methodology for problem solving.

Another tenet of the liberal orthodoxy that one must buy into is that the pejorative you cannot comment on a matter. You, as a white, cannot comment on matters of race. You, as a man, cannot comment on matters concerning the choice of abortion. You, as a member of a given religion cannot comment on other the practices of religions. You, as a person without children, cannot comment on the raising of children or sending a young person to war. You, as a person who has never served, cannot comment on any matters that involve the military or war. I've even had friends tell me that due to the fact I haven't traveled as extensively as they have, I shouldn't be able to comment on world affairs. Even though their travels involved only the golden streets of tourism. This methodology provides liberals a way to dismiss an argument if they cannot defeat it.

As I say, I used to be a liberal, and I think this gives me a decent vantage point from which to leap in my understanding of them. I personally found it exhausting to be a liberal. Liberals are less inviting to the individual, unless that individual is an artist who seeks to portray a perversion of some sort. Liberals prefer that you learn your role in the world. As a liberal, you must learn your limited role in the world based on the group to which you belong. To be a good liberal, you should display shame for your role in the world and the role your ancestors played in the current state of the world. If your friends have other ideas, inform them of their role based upon whatever group it is to which they belong: American, white, and whatever religion they involve themselves in. They consider this excellent ammunition. Personally, I found it exhausting. I've found it's a lot less exhausting to learn the facts.

In the beginning scenes of The Godfather, Michael Corleone explains to his wife to be, Kate, that the president had someone killed. Kate responds that she doesn't believe that a president would kill anyone. "Now who's being naive Kate?" he asks.
 

Yeah, I thought. What an excellent burn. He laid down the law. He spoke the truth. I probably gave this too much thought when I was younger, but I didn't want people to call me naive. In fact, I wanted to be the one who called others naive. I think I can say without too much challenge, that we all attempt to be this way to a certain point. No one wants to be perceived as naive, but how far do we take this? What do we do and what do we believe to avoid being perceived as naive?

An old phrase in the police force is: "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." I'm sure it's an almost mandatory phrase beat into every cop's mind on a daily basis, but most of us don't deal with the worst of humanity on a daily basis. Most of us can provide a little leeway to our fellow man when it comes to believing in the worst or the best of them.

Having said that, I hate salespeople. To me, salespeople are some of the worst of humanity. They seek out weakness, they seek pause, indecision, and momentary lapses of belief.

I am a processor. I take people, places and things, and I process the material they've given me before making a decision on anything. I'm rarely one who makes snap judgements about anything or anyone. I like to think I'm a quick wit who takes a half a second to evaluate something, but I'm not. I'm a processor. Salespeople hate processors, and I hate salespeople.

How many of us process the people, places and things in our lives before making such a judgement about them? Before answering, you must remember that most people see processors as slow. "How could it take you more than a minute to decide what you think about that?" they ask "Isn't it obvious??

Enter objective thinking. An objectivist thinker wonders what would happen if the opposite were the case. An objective thinker pauses.  An objective thinker appears to be indecisive.  An objective thinking may appear ensconced in a momentary lapse of understanding.  In truth, an objective thinker attempts to consider a matter from all sides.

If man is causing global warming, for example, what would the temperature of the Earth be if man had never existed? A decent objectivist thinker tackles a subject matter from an angle others may not have considered.

Are UFO's landing on planet Earth? Well, why would they come here? To study our planet? How would they get here? We've studied our immediate universe, and we've determined that there are no such life forms in our vicinity...Life forms that could gather a degree of advancement to visit our planet anyway. The answer to this, say some, is that they are so much more advanced than we are. First of all, we have no proof this whatsoever, and I challenge that very idea. Due to the fact that we have no proof of their advancement, I think that the belief of their superhuman advancement comes from our own insecurities. Also, if they were so advanced why would they continually visit us? If I had the chance to travel back in time and visit the cro-magnon man, I might...once. I might even do it twice. It would be one hell of a novelty after all, but I would soon grow bored. They would have nothing to offer me.

Well, they say, I have an open mind to the belief.  The implication, therein, is that you have a closed mind. This idea strengthens their resolve on the matter. But couldn't it be said that their mind is closed to the belief that they are, in fact, visiting us, and that they are superior to us? In questioning them, in such a fashion, you're denying them a degree of valor they have in being of a minority opinion. For it is in gaining entrance into the minority opinion, and the open minded, that one feels provides them a shield against ever being perceived as naive.

The defense against being perceived as naive also focuses on being on the right side of matters. On global warming, for example, the intellectual Al Gore has said that the science is in, and that there should be no more scientific refutation of the idea that man is causing global warming. Isn't the very idea of global waming based on science?

When can we ever close the door on the objectivist thinking in science? Some of the science that is in on global warming is negative, but is it simply easier to believe in the negative aspects of any matter? Does it protect us against appearing naive to believe in the negative? Or am I on the naive side of the issue?

As for determining which side is the right side, I wrote a piece for my novel on this topic that I feel concludes this piece well.

Larry: "On which facts do you base your opinion? Whose ideas? When you hear an idea from someone you respect, or side with, are you more susceptible to running out to the streets without questioning the facts of the matter? And when you hear someone of the opposing viewpoint, do you instantly question his motives and his agendas? It's a natural inclination of all to question the information they hear, but it's also the human condition to question the people with whom they differ before even considering the facts. You're held in a prism of idea by your philosophy of life."

Dominic: "Well, I don't do that."

Larry: "Everyone says that. Everyone considers this practice something only people on the other side of the aisle do."

Dominic: "I have a new definition of intelligence I've developed just for you."

Larry: "Do tell?"

Dominic: "Intelligence is not only knowing the facts but being able to analyze the facts. The definition of an intellect is one who not only knows the issues, but he knows them well enough to provide astute analysis. A man treads a fine line in analysis however. He reaches a breaking point in which he begins to eventually overanalyze. In other words, one can be intelligent if he studies a fact for a truth, because there are basic truths in life. If a man studies a fact for too long he begins to see things that are not, in fact, there. It's equivalent to those dot imaging paintings that were so fashionable in the late eighties/early nineties. Twelve people could stand around staring at the same painting, and they could all see twelve different things. Who's right in such a situation? Who cares? They've all spent so much time and energy trying to create a truth for themselves that they've lost the basics."

What is the seminal difference between those who follow a religion and those who do not?

The human being is an intellectual being constantly in search of more. Most human beings are not satisfied with the status quo. Human beings seek a meaning of life. They seek an understanding of matters greater than they are. A quest exists beyond that to understand who is right and who is wrong.

One thing neither side will disagree with is that our universe, and everything beyond, exists in a harmony that is breath taking. The question that has existed for centuries is, how do we explain it? Some will say that the magnetic (i.e. gravitational) forces that one body exerts on another keeps a balance. Some will say that the reason that an asteroid or meteor has not penetrated the Earth’s rim is based on the dynamics of the Earth that can be explained scientifically. Some will say that God created all this and monitors it. Others will say that God created this universe to be self-servient. Some will say that God created man in His own image. Some will say that Darwin’s theory of evolution explains this. Others will say that evolution has occurred, but there are unexplained pockets of evolution that are either a result of a miracle or that they cannot, as of yet, be explained by humans.

We cannot, at this point, say with 100% certainty that one side is correct and the other side is 100% wrong. So, where does this leave us, on issue, with the two sides?

I don’t know if it is indigenous to America or not, but I think the two sides are divided by a sort of sports mentality. In professional and collegiate sports of the America of today, you have two sides of a championship game. You have the winner and an utter loser. No credit, in the American sports game of today, is given to finishing second. The Buffalo Bills, for example, made it to four straight Super Bowls, yet they are considered complete losers by some. The Atlanta Braves won fourteen straight division titles, yet they are considered losers for only winning one World Series. So, too, with the issue of who is right and who is wrong in the political arena of the religious versus the non-religious.

If you believe in intelligent design, you are a complete and absolute moron. There is no ceding to certain facts or ideas. There is my way and the wrong way. Scientific data explains everything, they say, and I can’t believe you don’t see this.

This uncompromising philosophy leaks over into the manner in which the non-religious regard the religious. If you believe in God and worship Him, you must seek simplistic solutions to your daily life. My question, after the atheists have attempted to debunk all that I believe, is: "Where is your passion formed?"

Why does my "simplistic" point of view provide you a threat so severe that you feel a need to lower my status as a human life form?

We all seek spiritual fulfillment. Christians, Muslims, the Jewish and all other religious factions seek inner fulfillment through belief in mysticism. In general, atheists and non religious folk seem to seek inner fulfillment through scientific and philosophic fulfillment, but most of these people that I’ve run across in my life have an emptiness that they cannot totally explain.

Some of these people find solace in short term releases. They argue that the religious folk need short term fulfillment in their lives to take the place of this never-ending search for fulfillment. If you did more drugs, or had more meaningless sexual activity in your life, then you wouldn’t worry so much about this search for greater answers. I think it can be said that other than the short term euphoria these solutions offer, they don’t provide anything substantive to the inner core.

In the end, the question must be asked: Why do you care? I am not an ardent believer in either side. I have questions on both sides. Both sides are flawed in their pursuit of truth. The greater question remains: Why do you care that I seek these answers in the method I do? Why do you care if I don’t believe the same thing you do? If I’m incorrect in my pursuits, why is there this ardent need to change my mind? Is it because you’ve been unsuccessful too, or is it that my chase for an answer isn’t as empty and unfulfilling as yours?

For most of my life, I have been led to believe that we conservatives are stuffy, self-righteous elitists who make fun of those less fortunate than we are. Perhaps this was true at one time. Perhaps, during the 60's, the conservatives were the loathsome creatures that are depicted in the movies and on television. Perhaps, there were Mr. Howells on Mount Olympus laughing at the less fortunate, but I’ve never seen it in the conservatives circles I run in.

On the show Curb Your Enthusiasm, however, we do see such a depiction of stuffy, self-righteous elitists who make fun of those less fortunate than they are. Curb Your Enthusiasm, in case you haven’t watched the program, is a show that depicts the reality of the daily life of Larry David. Or, at the very least, say insiders of the show, it depicts the reality David wants to see in his life. Larry David is the husband of environmental activist Laurie David.
 

On a recent episode, environmental activist and liberal extraordinaire, Ted Danson holds a party. We assume that this party is Ted Danson’s birthday party. We assume, with the setting, that the posh home is Ted Danson’s. David, and his fictional wife, arrive to the party in a limousine. I don’t see anything wrong with this on the surface, but again we are talking about liberals here. Wouldn’t it have been more conscientious for them to arrive in a Prius?

At the Danson home, Larry David makes a magnanimous gesture by beckoning Danson to allow his limo driver to enter the posh home. David explains that some of this magnanimous gesture is borne from the fact that David used to be a limo driver.

"You used to be a limo driver?" Danson scoffs. "All right, let him in, but keep him in the kitchen."

Keep him in the kitchen? These are liberals. Danson, Larry David, and I assume that Jeff Garlin is a liberal also due to the fact that he is on the show. Also, in a previous season’s episode Garlin scoffed that one of the people at another party was a conservative. Perhaps, he was only reading a line written by David, but the show advertises itself as a largely unscripted show, and that most of the lines are improvised in a framework. How could liberals demand that a laborer be kept in the kitchen? Shouldn’t he be invited into the inner throes of the party? Shouldn’t that there is no difference his class and the class of the Davids and the Dansons? Instead, he is informed of his status in their world and kept in the kitchen.

Then, in the David’s framework, the idiot, peasant limo driver can’t help but become intoxicated when left to his own devices. He can’t help but grope Danson’s wife, and David gets thrown out of the Danson home for allowing the man in.

On the surface of it, there’s nothing wrong with what Danson did. The man did become intoxicated, broke some vase or something stumbling into the room, and he did grope Danson’s wife. But shouldn’t a good liberal attempt to understand the man’s actions? What if the limo driver were a member of a minority persuasion? Would that have changed Danson’s reaction to the man? What if the man were mentally diminished in some way? He wasn’t any of these things, but he was of a lower class. Shouldn’t the Danson’s have attempted to see that the pain of not being one of them could only be soothed by imbibing alcohol?

There was nothing wrong with what happened on this show. It was an exclusive birthday party to which David beckoned Danson to allow his personal limo driver into the party, but it goes against everything I’ve been told about the difference between liberals and conservatives from the liberal perspective. Those last two words are the key to it all: "The liberal perspective." Character, as the old saying says, is what you do when no one else is looking. Granted, this was on a national broadcast, but I don’t think that anyone involved in the show believed that anyone was looking at their show from another perspective. So, they acted in their usual stuffy, self-righteous and elitist manner, and the best manner in which one can diffuse guilt for acting in such a manner is to accuse the other of doing it first before anyone analyzes you.

One of the more obscure figures in this country’s history was a man named Martin Van Buren. Not only was Van Buren the 8^th president of the United States, but he was also a founding member of the Albany Regency. This regency was a political machine that was instrumental in creating the Democrat party. He was also instrumental in electing our 7^th president Andrew Jackson.

It’s interesting to note that while the Republicans wildly claim that they are the party of Lincoln, the first major politician of Owen Lovejoy’s Republican Party, the Democrats say very little of their founder Martin Van Buren. More often than not, you hear them site Thomas Jefferson as their party’s founding father, but as we all know Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican. Few know that Van Buren was in fact a member of the New York Regency that created this splinter group called the Democrat Party. Is this a factual inaccuracy on the part of DNC chairmen and their officials, or is it a purposeful act to avoid the heritage of their party?

It could be declared a slight omission if it had not occurred over two hundred years ago, for some historian most assuredly would’ve corrected this omission if it were. If it is a more likely purposeful avoidance, then we must ask why. The first, most obvious reason occurs when one sees a photograph of Van Buren. To say that Van Buren lacked sex appeal is a grand understatement. The again, Lincoln was no beauty queen by his own admission. So, if it isn't the looks through which we honor our historical figures, what causes one to be revered and another ignored?

The day was nearly 40 years before the onset of the Civil War when Van Buren set about forming the Democrat party, and tensions over the issue of slavery had begun percolating to the surface. As we know now, this issue of slavery would nearly rip this nation apart. It would pit brother against brother, man against man, and north against south. At the time, it was causing internal strife among the two most prominent parties of the day: the Whigs and the Democrat-Republicans. The Whigs were the anti-slavery party, and the Democrat-Republicans were seen as primarily soft on slavery.

While the Whig party was anti-slavery, many in the party felt the platform was not strong enough to eventually abolish the institution of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was one of these men who eventually began to stand with the men who took to the more passionate abolitionist movement of Owen Lovejoy’s Republican party.

The Democrat-Republican party, on the other hand, faced the foreseeable threat of losing major elections in the near future. The tide was turning against them. How would they win major elections in the heavily populated, abolitionist New England territories of the north while maintaining their hold on the south? Enter Van Buren and his New York State political machine who basically proposed that they stand for nothing.

Of course, the party platform was not some Seinfeld joke of standing for nothing, but they probably theorized that there would be a political marketplace for a passionless party that would be a welcome retreat for those who feared the rising passions occurring on both sides.

This summation may seem preposterous, but when we think about the tensions of the day this approach may have been seen as a natural alternative. Van Buren and his Regency probably watched as the parties imploded and exploded over this issue and realized that this alternative may have been a necessary evil. They probably heard the people express concern for the rancor and violence, that was occurring on a small scale, and realized their alternative was viable. They probably saw the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs shouting each other down to their own demise and realized there may be a place for them. They probably believed, so say the actions of Van Buren, that what the United States needed more than anything was a little moderation. A moderate who presented a non-partisan approach to peace with a nuanced and more reasoned approach could be the call of the day.

A guy in the middle can attract the factions, for he can counter both positions by spinning his words to attract the less partisan of each party. Either that or find someone who promotes the salvation of the country first with a solution to the slavery issue "down the road" a phrase for which moderate politicians usually express such fondness. A man who speaks peace first and solution later would probably have been a very popular candidate of the day. He could've used terms like "Non-partisan" to basically loft a passionless party to the fore.

It was, indeed, a time of turmoil. Passions were running high on both sides. The next forty years would see a Civil War in this country after all, and there needed to be a calming influence on the country while the two sides decided, once and for all, how to co-exist with one another.

Moderates are a funny breed though. Most of them are intelligent enough to tell you everything that you want to hear to get your vote. The modern day terminology, developed by--and for--the Clinton campaign is spin. Once moderates get in office, however, the modus operandi changes. The story is no different with Martin Van Buren. Once in office, Van Buren took a prosouthern position on slavery, as an attempt to keep his Democrats together. He identified himself as "the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of the attempt on the part of congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia." In August 1837, he refused Texas’s offer to join the union. He feared a renewed controversy over slavery. Finally, though it is difficult to blame a president for a panic that occurs two months into his presidency, some blame Van Buren’s mismanagement and lack of confidence for the Panic of 1837 and the depression that followed. To add salt to the wound of the suffering nation, Van Buren chose the depression era as a great time to redecorate the White House.

Whenever I complain about the substance and messages of the movies I watch, I am told that it is just a movie. I am told that I have too many hang ups, that I need to relax, and that the messages I’ve derived from these movies are not there. They tell me that I’m imagining things.
 

When I hear such things, I think about the time when I purchased a brand new truck. It was a red Toyota Tacoma. Before purchasing the truck, I couldn't remember seeing a Tacoma in the same model and color before. After purchasing the truck, I saw them everywhere.

My perspective to my surroundings, over the many years of my life, has changed in a manner similar to that in that I see the effect of messages in the movies and other art forms in a manner I have not seen before.  

Nazi propogandist Joseph Goebbels methodology was to repeat the same message over and over again, until the people accepted it as a truth.  I think that the same could be said of the subtle messages placed in movies.  But, you cannot beat the American over the mind in the same manner the propogandists did in Germany.  The American impulse is to instantly rebel to someone pounding it into you.  Therefore, the best method to indoctrinating one to one's beliefs is to feed them the vile pudding in a piecemeal manner that is couched in the medium of an entertainment vehicle. 

The most prominent message movies sell to us, to my mind, is cheating. How many movies have we seen in the last twenty some odd years that involve a main character figuring out a method through which they can best cheat the system? The message, on it’s face, is a good one. The message is one that says: figure out the system and learn to succeed within it. Yet, the movie makers and screen writers seemingly find it boring to have a main character figure out the system and manipulate it from the confines of the rules within that system.

Movies are an exaggeration. Movie makers are in a constant quest to outdo those who went before them, so a simple story about a simple man succeeding within the confines of rules is insufficient to them for a plot line of their magnificent movie. The movie must go over the top. The main character must be so intelligent that he succeeds beyond the norm. He must make the system of rules and laws appear foolish in lieu of his acumen.

The result of the twenty some odd years of inundation of this notion has resulted in young kids believing that to cheat is to succeed and to cheat is to defeat the system. I can say without hesitation that it has always been the case that human beings have had a desire to cheat the system to succeed, but rarely in the history of man has cheating been diminished as much as it has today.

It’s in the movies, the tv shows, and the literature of our day the message has gone out that cheating isn’t so bad. Cheaters have qualifiers. Cheaters have defenders. The language has changed from has Johnny earned a trip to Harvard to does Johnny deserve to go to Harvard. The differences are as subtle as they are blatant. How will Johnny Doe gain entrance to the school versus all the other John and Jane’s? How does Johnny Doe compete with all the others? This is where the true cynicism of the day weighs in. For it is here that the parent’s mentality sets in, it is here that the message of our culture sets in, and it is here that the repeated messages of movies begins to set in.

The first message set forth by the culture, the movies and even some of the parents is Johnny deserves to go to Harvard. Little by little, the word earn is leaving our vocabulary and deserve is taking it’s place. Little by little the younger generation is finding less value in attaining the prestigious value of earning an accomplishment, and it’s being overshadowed by the idea of simply accomplishing it. The end justifies the means.

Since we have no idea what God thinks, we must source the Bible for our information. Since most of us do not read the Bible, we rely on others to do it for us. Since most us don’t know how to interpret the Bible, we allow others to do it for us in our various forms of religion.

First of all, the Bible was written by man, so it is in that sense subject to being flawed in one manner or another. It is also said, however, that the men who wrote the Bible were influenced by God. As a writer of fiction, my writing has been influenced by other authors. The two most prominent influences of my writing are John Irving and Raymond Carver. I’m sure that an avid reader of theirs could dissect my writing and point out parts of my writing where their influence upon me is fairly prominent, but there is a point in all of my fiction where my creativity begins to take over. There is a point where Carver and Irving are nowhere to be found. There is a point where my philosophy and my experiences in life begin to take over. Having said that, isn’t it safe to say that the men who wrote the Bible had the same delineations? I say this only to point out that my criticism of doctrine, or the interpretation thereof, should not be confused as a criticism of God.

Based upon the interpretations of the Bible I have heard, we have been led to believe that God is a forgiving God, and that if you are truly sorry, God will forgive you. With that in mind, what happens to a man such as O.J. Simpson when he steps before his maker?

Before we get to the crux of the matter, we must make a couple of assumptions. I don’t know if everyone who reads this will believe that God is of unlimited omniscience, but I do, and for the purposes of this article it’s necessary to make that assumption with me for the greater point. The second assumption, based on the first, is: you can’t fool God. A third assumption, based on the first two, is that O.J. is heartfully sorry for the sins he has committed. The final assumption I ask you to make is that O.J. was guilty of committing the heinous deeds he is purported to have committed against his wife and Ron Goldman. Again, I don’t know if everyone is willing to make that leap of faith with me, but for the purposes of this article I ask you to join me if only for a minute in this assumption.

Assuming all of this is true, O.J. sees the light when he is on his death bed. The doctor enters and informs him that it will only be a matter of moments now. In those moments, O.J. breaks down all shields, all his acting and all of his facades. He admits to it all, and he is genuinely sorry. Again, you can’t fool God. God sees into your heart, and He knows when you’re acting and when you’re saying what you have to say at any given moment to get away with something. O.J. successfully pleads his God for forgiveness, and he is taken. He steps before the pearly gates and faces his day of judgement.

I realize the rhetorical nature of this question, for there is no answer to it. We cannot know God’s will. We only have our resources, but to my mind the resources (i.e. the Bible and religion) provide as many questions as they do answers. I guess if one believes in a Purgatory, as the Catholic religion does, there might be the answer there, but is there middle ground in those God questions? Wouldn’t that promote the idea of a grey area in God’s judgement process? If He is of unlimited omniscience, why would there be a need for a Purgatory?

In regards to a question about tax collection, Jesus once said: "Pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s and pay to God what is God’s." O.J. has made no such payment to Caesar, in this case the state for his crimes, but will he pay to God what is God’s?

Those of us who were sickened by the verdict of the race sensitive jury, told one another that O.J. would see justice before it was all said and done. If not here, we said to one another, then in the next life. I even said this to others. If we are to believe what man has told us about God’s will however, is it possible that O.J. could get away with it in the here and now and in the afterlife?

                          What’s So Funny?

"Man, you got to see Up in Smoke," a friend of mine informed me. This friend of mine was a cool friend. He was hip, and everyone wanted to be his friend. "That thing is hilarious," he furthered. I saw it as my job, as a kid, to see this movie and love it as much as he did. I was probably in the fifth grade. It was an impressionable age for me. Everyone I knew loved Cheech and Chong, and most of them said that Up in Smoke was their best by far. I’m not sure if I was particularly naive, or if everyone loved the movie to say they loved the movie.

When I finally watched the movie, I didn't get it.  I tried really hard to get it, but I just didn’t see the allure of it. I didn’t want to be seen as a naive, little kid though, so I lied. I told them I got it. I even managed to memorize a few lines they gave, and I repeated them with laughter. Later on, when I watched it with friends, I made sure I was laughing in all the right places.

Robert Bork wrote of a societal phenomenon called Sliding towards Gomorrah.  In it, Bork wrote of American society’s incremental progression towards the immoral practices of the Biblican city of Gomorrah. As evidence of his thesis, he wrote of the pervasive progression of pornography. He wrote that there was a time when one could attain the label of pariah if he was seen leaving a theater that played pornographic material, the progression to video stores lessened the inhibitions of those seeking the titillation of the material, and the internet lessened it even more to a point where pornography is nearly an acceptable genre of entertainment in the modern age of these United States.

In my life, I have seen some of the same progressions in the art of comedy. What is funny is relative, of that there is no doubt, but to what is it relative? The first and greatest vein of comedy is your own experience. If a comedian, or a comedy, can tap into an experience you’ve had, he can effortlessly create something that is funny. For the comedian, or screenwriter, funny cannot be all about experience however, for the comedian cannot rely on the fact that he’s touching each individual’s wide ranging experiences. With that in mind, an artist must create funny.

What is funny though? Is there a chemistry to funny? Is there a beat to funny? Is funny all about breaking societal taboos? A famous philosopher once stated that it is easier to entertain than it is to educate.  To further this quote, it is far easier to shock than it is to entertain. 

Falling is funny. Mel Brooks once said that if you fall down a manhole, that’s funny. If I do, that’s tragedy. Slapstick material such as that enacted by the Three Stooges, the Airplane guys and Chevy Chase is universal and timeless. Everyone from the little old lady to the five year old boy can find humor in a guy falling, getting poked in the eye, or having a pie thrown in his face.

Falling will gain you a cheap laugh, however, it’s never going to gain you the label hilarious. Falling will never gain you the label revolutionary. The politically partisan critics will never label you groundbreaking with a fall, and you will never gain street cred by falling.

The question then becomes: how does one evolve the art form of comedy to suit his material and possibly change the minds of his audience to see the tragedy of his life and derive humor from it? Without having lived in the era, I can guess that Richard Pryor’s endless routines on drug use would not have worked with a 1930's audience. They may have been silenced with awe and sadness for the incidents that occurred in the man’s life, but a majority of people would not have thought him funny. In the late 70's and early 80's, however, the man was king of the comedy castle. The question that arises is: did we come down to his level, or did he come down to ours?

Many in Pryor’s inner circle claimed that the man hated white people, and I don’t think it’s much of a stretch–-based on his voluminous drug intake--to say that Pryor hated himself. He changed how we looked at our world with his comedy however, and he also changed what we thought was funny. Previous to Pryor, not many of us thought racial strife was funny. He created funny in our minds on this topic. Previous to Pryor, not many of us considered drug intake funny. He made it so.

In the course of his career, with his coarse material, Pryor gained the labels revolutionary and groundbreaking from politically partisan, cultural elites in the critical fields. They gave him the title hilarious, and even if a part of us didn’t find his material "hilarious" we kept it secret, for we didn’t want to be seen as naive, little kids or old sticks in the mud who held true to his puritanical ideals. We learned that it was funny, or we conditioned ourselves to consider it.

As for the labels "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" granted to Pryor, I cannot quibble. He almost single-handedly redefined funny, but did he change it for the better? Isn’t it every man’s goal to leave this place a better world than it was when he entered onto it?

One who broke onto the scene, on Pryor’s coattails, was Cheech Marin. Cheech once spoke about the arc of his career in comedy. He said that when he attempted mainstream comedy, he and Tommy Chong were not very successful. When they began to focus their material on drug use and sexual exploits, their careers took off. At what price though? When they eventually leave this world, can they look back on their careers and made their mark on the world, and the world is a better place because of it?

Some will argue for the legalization on drugs, but I don’t think anyone can argue that the world will be a better place because drugs are made more available. With that in mind, how does one break down the barriers of society and open the flood gates to debauchery: you make them laugh at themselves.

How does one break down the puritanical barriers on sexual promiscuity, you make them laugh. You tell them, through humor that they are nothing but sticks in the mud for believing that sexual activity should be reserved for marriage.

How does one break the powerful taboo placed on homosexuality, you make them laugh.

How many of us have engaged in promiscuous sexual activity, how many of us have injected or smoked illicit drugs into our bodies? How can we make them laugh at that, when they can’t relate to it at all?

What is the legacy of Cheech and Chong, Pryor, Carlin and the many other comedians who spoke of illicit drug use, carnal activity and general nihilism? What brought about a progression of a generation? How did risque comedy become so redefined that a newcomer to the scene, such as Cheech Marin, had to focus on drugs and sex if he wanted a career in comedy?

I was too young to understand the brand of humor of a Cheech and Chong brought to America in their prime, but peer pressure being what it is I learned that if I wanted to be seen as cool I would have to consider them funny. I learned by watching friends, my friend’s parents and my classmates. Like I said, I was young and impressionable. I wanted to learn adult humor, and I would later learn that if I was to ever be considered hip or cool I would have to be laughing myself to tears over this material.

I learned that drugs and sex were funny. Cussing was funny too after awhile. Cussing was funny at first, because it was naughty. I learned a lot in my life.  I spent a lot of time in school, and I've spent a lot of time in my various circles of life learning about our culture and our way of life.  I've learned that cussing, sex and drugs are funny because they are naughty.

"I can’t believe he described sex in such a casual, bawdy manner, or that he did drugs while there?" Rarely is a guy funny, in this day and age, if he is currently doing drugs. Most of us agree that that is a little sad. If a guy used to alter his mind with hallucinogenic substances...Oh LORD! If he did bizarre things while his mind was altered, he might be able to fashion himself a career.

In a Rolling Stone interview, the man behind the Darth Vader mask, David Prowse, once said he did more cocaine during the filming of the Star Wars movies than there is snow on Hoth. On the surface, this isn’t really that funny, but if you factor in the idea that he was a child’s icon it is hilarious. Really? Why? Is it because Prowse pulled the ultimate naughty...doing drugs while doing that?

How far can the boundaries of the shock value of comedy go? We now have Howard Stern, shock jocks daring people to have sex in churches, American Pie, Friends, Chris Rock and the list goes on. Will there be an unconscious rebellion that eventually occurs one day when the bubble cannot be stretched anymore, or will the progression continue ad infinitum?