November 3rd, 2008

wart

All pumpkins are racist. The only difference is I admit it!

As has been typical during the past few years, the Simpsons Halloween special aired after Halloween, which is pretty annoying. The opening bit, parodying automatic voting machines, was amusing, although I'm not sure how well it will hold up in reruns. (I've heard that this segment had been up on the Internet for a while, but I didn't see it until the episode aired.) The Transformers parody was rather lame, but the other two were decent. The one with Homer killing celebrities took some time to build up steam, but the commercials themselves were funny, and it became more interesting after the dead celebrities started taking revenge. And hey, Jimmy Stewart impersonations are usually amusing. I wasn't sure whether the modern Simpsons team would be able to handle a full-fledged Peanuts parody, but I think they pulled it off pretty well, despite some weird character choices. (Ralph as Pig-Pen?) The Grand Pumpkin coming to life was a nice twist, and I think they did a good job with his character. So overall, it wasn't bad as far as recent Simpsons Halloween episodes go, but the writers seem to be really reaching for ideas these days.

As for the other shows, Family Guy was good enough, but didn't have any particularly memorable jokes. I did like American Dad, although the subplot with Steve and the nasty cat was kind of bizarre. And I guess that's that, until next week.
wart

Less Bread, More Taxes!

I'm tired of people insisting that higher taxes on richer people are somehow "taxing hard work" or "taxing success." I guess I can kind of see the latter, but success is a relative term. The idea that rich people are that way because of hard work is an annoying myth, though (and not a myth in the cool sense, like the ones I write about on Saturdays). Sure, some are, but I don't think there's really a strong correlation, at least not in this country. The income tax system isn't perfect, but I see no reason why people who make more money shouldn't pay higher taxes. I mean, they can afford it, right? And, unlike Biden, I don't really think it's patriotic to pay taxes, at least not in the sense I usually think of the word. It's simply a necessary part of a well-regulated society. I guess you can say that's patriotic if you want to, but I don't see it as any more so than, say, taking showers. There's nothing particularly patriotic about that, yet it's beneficial to yourself and to society in the long run.

Personally, if I were running for president and someone accused me of taxing success, my reply would be, "We wouldn't be in very good shape if we taxed FAILURE, would we?" Which is a good indication that: 1) I should never run for public office, and 2) I've been reading Lewis Carroll recently.

Speaking of government finances, you might well have seen the commercial that insists Obama isn't ready to be president...YET. I'm not really sure why they included that last word, but hopefully it means that, if Obama loses tomorrow, McCain will support him in 2012. Anyway, the main reason I mention this is that it says Obama wants to deal with the financial crisis by spending more money. So what's wrong with that? Obviously the government can't just spend indiscriminately, but there needs to be SOME new spending to help out the economy, right? I mean, government spending was an important part of FDR's plan to get out of the Great Depression, right? But I'm not sure anyone learned from that. Okay, actually, I think a lot of people DID learn from it, but those aren't the people who are now in charge. It's sort of like the Vietnam War, which pretty much everybody I hear from seems to think was a bad idea, but a significant part of the government apparently doesn't think so. McCain definitely deserves credit for NOT being one of the people who supported the war without fighting in it, but I've heard that his dad thinks we could have won if we'd stayed in Vietnam, which might be affecting the candidate's views on Iraq. Republicans keep talking about "victory in Iraq," but, well, didn't we already HAVE the victory, in the traditional sense? The States toppled Hussein's regime and installed a friendly government. What we DON'T have is PEACE in Iraq, and it actually seems kind of crazy that people are still talking about victory as the goal. Isn't it more typical to use language to make the country sound LESS belligerent, like how we changed the Department of War to the Department of Defense? Times change, I guess.

Anyway, whether or not you agree with my assessments, if you're a United States resident who's eighteen or older, be sure to vote tomorrow!