Real Change is My Cup of T.E.A.

A few things caught my attention about yesterday's TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. First off, how very normal the attendees looked. If one were to believe Janet Napolitano, we should have been looking at a bunch of fatigues-wearing, gun-toting Aryan Nation and Ruby Ridge types. We should have also expected to see effigies of Obama being burned or hanging from a noose. Another thing that struck me was how the media coverage largely focused on reaction from elected officials (i.e. the targets of these tea parties), not what was being said at the rallies. Any attention that was drawn to the attendees contained the following: 1) these were all orchestrated by conservative think-tanks and talk radio, 2) attendees are nothing more than anti-government malcontents, and 3) the attendees fit the Department of Homeland Security's description of the "right-wing extremist". The drive-bys also had a penchant for referring to participants as "teabaggers". Use urbandictionary.com to look it up, because I'm not going to explain it here (this isn't a public high school sex ed class).

Now, I attended one of the the tea parties here on the central coast of California. There were anywhere from 1500 to 2000 people. This was just one of the seven tea parties held between Ventura and Monterey (that I know of). The crowd had people of all ages, ethnicities, and walks of life. Attendees were unfailingly polite, even when the event was over and everyone was trying to vacate the parking lot. There were no riots, no burning cars, and no one attacking the police detail. In short, we were better behaved than most California protesters (unlike the protests that followed the passage of Prop 8).

In addition to protesting higher federal taxation, we were also protesting higher state taxes and onerous environmental regulations based on incomplete or fake research. California has the seventh largest economy in the world. Why is it then that California is in tank with an ever-increasing budget gap, while we have the highest income tax rate in the nation (and the sixth highest per capita total taxation)? Our current legislators think that the solution is to increase our income taxes, our sales tax, the fuel tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, and our vehicle registration fees. On top of these increases are new taxes on services such as auto repair and veterinary care.

Why do we have regulations in our state that stifle economic growth in the name of "environmental preservation" when there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these measures actually work? The last thing California needs is the tax base leaving for places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Or, in the case of some of my wiser friends, Texas. On a side note, can I adopt Rick Perry as my governor? Between that, and having Rudy Giuliani run for mayor of Los Angeles we could really clean up California. All I'm saying is think about it.

Who's going to pay taxes to support welfare benefits and state employee retirement plans? Illegal aliens and welfare recipients don't pay income taxes and theoretically don't pay very many other taxes, either. Even supposedly recession-proof industries like engineering and health care are suffering here, thanks to an orgy of lawsuits and state-funded programs ruining any prospect of private sector survival. California, and other welfare states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York are prime examples of what the rest of the nation will become if people don't wake up and take action. The tea parties were a great first step...now we need the follow-through to bring about change that we can really believe in (without the aid of a teleprompter).

There's a Reason That It is the FIRST Amendment

I know that this is a couple of weeks old, but I have been asked to opine on Ann Coulter's closing remarks at CPAC. Small surprise, I enjoy reading Ann Coulter's weekly column, as well as her books. I find her to be both entertaining and informative. Some of my more liberal acquaintances believe that the value of her commentary is solely for the amusement of all of us mean-spirited, sexist,bigoted, homophobes who destroy the environment with our SUVs and capitalist society. However, should you doubt her claims, all you have to do is check her references (which are meticulously researched). She, like Rush, is capable of marrying information with entertainment. Bill O'Reilly is fond of lumping Ann Coulter into the same category as Al Franken and Bill Maher. I find this insulting on a few levels.

For starters, Franken and Maher's humor is not derived from wit. Any one with a pre-teenaged brother will tell you that anything from flatulence to watching either of the "Jackass" movies is good for a laugh from the adle-headed youth. Now, I will admit that I you can get a chuckle out me with some well-timed "potty humor", but it must have context! Two guys producing methane a la Terrence and Philip from South Park just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). Unfortunately for Franken and Maher, even a twelve year-old boy (and his older sisters) have limits.

Coulter, while giving a speech at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the following: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" First off, this was in the context of one of the actors from Grey's Anatomy checking himself into anger management/rehab for referring to one of his co-stars with the same word. If you actually pay attention to what she said, Ann did not actually call Edwards a "faggot". It was inferred from her statement. So, where does the bigotry really lie? Semantics aside, Coulter is not the first commentator to question (in jest or in earnest) John Edwards' sexual orientation. Watch "D.C. Land" on jibjab.com; you'll see caricatures of Edwards and Kerry in bed...and not in a Lucy and Ricky Ricardo way.

On a much larger scale, my problem with the criticism of Ann's speech is two-fold. First of all, we still live in the United States of America. One of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to say whatever we please. That is not to say that we are free from repercussions. Just ask the "Dixie Twits" what happened to their relationship with many of the country music stations that used to play their singles. While you (the audience) can be offended by what I say or write, you do not have the right to stop me from speaking or writing (with the expection of slander and libel). Then there is the hypocrisy of Ann's critics. Jesse Jackson is on record as referring to Joe Lieberman as "that Hymie". Michael Richards can call two hecklers "niggers" (more than once), and all he has to do is go on Larry King and blame it on Bush. So, as long as you're a liberal, you are allowed to use the epithets and slurs of your choice. You can even wish death on someone, as long as somebody in your audience finds it humorous.

Bill Maher inadvertently made my point the same weekend that Ann exercised her First Amendment right. While Ann was dropping verbal bombs, Bill was lamenting that al-Qaeda failed to assisinate the Vice President. This is coming from a member of the same crowd that protests our involvement in a war in Iraq because according to them, we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Considering that the enemy combatants that attack our troops are not actually uniform-wearing members of a standing army (thereby, they are technically "civilians"), can we say "Duh"?

One of the things that goes along with our Freedom of Speech is our freedom to choose that which we read, watch, or hear. If we don't "vote" with our subscriptions or viewer/listenership, publications and programs get cancelled. Unless they're on NPR, but that's government sponsored, so it doesn't count. That is why parents, rather than asking the government to monitor what is on the TV, should do their job and monitor their children's viewing habits. Besides, have to you seen what earns a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts these days? Believe me, you don't what the federal government as your television nanny. So, where do we draw the line? Is it what society deems acceptable? If so, words like "nigger", "faggot" can't be used, so you'd better start removing literary works such as The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Mel Brooks' early films and all of those Chris Rock HBO specials. They'll have to make a special section for them behind the bead-curtained doorway with the "No Persons under 18" sign.