One Great Monologue

I have to say, Sorkin had one hell of a doosie of an opening monologue for "Newsroom."  Just for my own personal benefit, I'm going to copy and paste it.  Seeing as though it centers around my own personal beliefs, and that I will be posting a great many of things leading up to my favorite holiday...  July 4th!

"Fine. [to the liberal panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!

And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so starspangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.

And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!

We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore."

To the ends that justify this posting, a personal tidbit to start off my celebration of this fine time in history...
      Not a holiday that exists will ever stir my soul greater than that of the fourth of July. How our political leaders would do best to remember the cause and quality of the meaning behind such a great day, let alone the citizens to whom it should be most pertinent. Your reprehensible greed and selfish personal interests dishonor a nation.

The election process and personal responsibility...these guys are jokes

This is not my resounding support for President Obama, but Governor Romney is a Mickey Mouse Candidate.  How the republican party continually puts forth these candy nominees is befuddling.  The Republican party has lost their way.  The Unites States is not an episode of Leave it to Beaver. 

Why is it so fashionable to let minimal resumes become candidates.  A two-year senator?  A balanced ticket governor?  When did being good with business become a per-requisite?  The country does not need to be ran like a business.  The military might of the leader of the free-world is not needing to be ran like a business.  Political leaders do not create jobs.  Political leaders need jobs and just like everyone else who needs jobs, will do or say anything to get and maintain them.  Hard work and dedication create jobs.  New businesses create jobs.  Investment in the market and in entrepreneurs create jobs.  Volatile policy  destroys jobs no matter the ideology.

Special interests of the disenfranchised do not dictate the whole of policy.  Human rights, and not biblical rights, are to be respected and that's that.  Equal rights and freedoms for all, period.  Those who do not work and contribute to this society do not deserve a larger share than they themselves are not willing to provide.  Banks did not fail because people act irresponsibly with their money.  Banks act like banks act, as with investment houses.  How about we pass laws that do not allow you to purchase a house without significant liquid capital?  How about we pass laws that do not allow you to have children if you are not able to suitably provide for them?  Didn't think so.  If political leaders won't enforce personal responsibility, why should anyone assume personal responsibility for the mess we are in.  Right, I forgot, it's wall-street's problem. 

For decades our elections are filled with punch-lines, and the citizenry is the joke.  Fact, an average of 53 percent of the total voting public votes for the president.  That 53 percent is split 51/49 on average.  Half of a half decides who becomes the leader of the free world.  Even less determines the congressional.  Disgraceful.

Roger Clemens, Bud Selig and the U.S. Gov walk into a bar

I would like to congratulate Roger Clemens for the success he has had in his trial vs. the U.S. Congress.  They say you can't fight Taminey Hall...He has, and he won.

This is not an open admission for my support of the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports.  More-or-less this is a resounding, What the hell does the U.S. Congress have to do with Major League Baseball. By extension, if he in fact lied to the panel, I applaud his effort.  As someone who is completely enamored with politics, I would like to comment with haste that the individuals involved in the questioning had a high probability for un-truthiness.  Therefore, I am glad that he may have returned the favor.

In comparison, Jamie Dimon's JP Morgan Chase just lost an estimated $7 billion.  The house gave him a rough time of it, the senate held his hand, and in the end he finances a good chuck of these election funds.  Yet somehow in the midst of the entire financial collapse, it was important enough to spend over a million to question a baseball player on steroid use.

Compare even further, look at any NFL linebacker and ask yourself if that size is natural.  Hell, look at most positions within the sport and ask yourself the same question.

What is with politicians and "sanctity."  Whether it be marriage or sport, what is it the job of elected officials to decide what is accepted or not.  If the law isn't on the books, shut up and move on.  Performance enhancing drugs, and the regulations controlling them, are up to the discretion of the heads of the particular sporting leagues.  In this case, Bud Selig gets the final word and that's that.  As Mr. Vilma found out, he who controls the sport makes the rules.  All sport is bigger than the players, but most certainly not above common law.  As long as no one in sport breaks common law, then why should there be any legal recourse.

Though, don't ask David Nalbandian about that...