By Daniel B. Kline
For the past few years Thanksgiving has been a time where many American question exactly what they have to be thankful for. Should we say thanks for the unemployment? The failing economy? Maybe offer up a big thanks to the banks foreclosing on our homes or the creditors breathing down our necks?
Perhaps we should thank the politicians whose petty sniping and party rhetoric keeps then from actually doing anything. Certainly, we should thank the Congress that can’t manage to agree on extending unemployment benefits, even though those are the only thing holding many families tenuously afloat.
If not the politicians, then perhaps we should offer up a big thanks to the folks who preach fidelity and honesty while cheating on their spouses and lying to us all. Of course, that includes some politicians, but also some religious leaders and other folks who are supposed to be paragons of virtue.
As we dole out the thanks, let’s also throw out a big thank you to the terrorists who have now made it so I need a hernia check and a rectal exam before getting on plane. Thanks for making it so we’re all suspects because nobody knows what atrocious behavior someone might attempt to commit in the name of a culture that would make a caveman think “boy, they’re a little backwards.”
We should also thank Kanye West for making it nearly impossible for anyone else to look like a jerk. He really put that beloved teenage girl who writes all her own songs and bakes cookies for her band while reading to the blind during her rare off-time (I’m guessing on the last two) in her place. Maybe next year Kanye can go after a basket of kittens or choke out a baby panda.
Thanks also must go to Bernie Madoff and the gaggle of less famous, but still equally wretched other folks who ran Ponzi schemes. Now, as I hide money under my mattress and sit up all night guarding it with a shotgun, I thank him for no longer having to worry about meetings with an investment banker or deciphering complicated mutual funds statements.
Post-Madoff, everyone has their money in gold coins, magic beans or barrels of oil. It’s like Mad Max without Tina Turner in a metal dress. Of course, while we’re saying thanks, a big thank you should go to Mad Max himself, Mel Gibson, because after his phone tirade it would be hard for my wife to get mad at anything I leave in a answering machine message.
Lastly, of course, thanks must be sent to every person who slows down to stare at an accident and the people who pretend they aren’t getting off at the exit, but then jam in front of me at the last minute. I so appreciate all the extra time in my car to ponder the great mysteries of life and I don’t at all resent your selfishness.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com and you can listen to his podcast at Worstideasever.com.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Less government, more personal responsibility
By Daniel B. Kline
Whenever government has one of those supposedly non-partisan panels look into an issue they invariably decide we need more government. The solution is never that politicians have made a mess of things and we should dismantle the bureaucracy.
Government does nothing well. We have lousy schools, roads filled with potholes, a military engaged in unwinnable wars, a bankrupt Social Security system and a horrifying health care system.
I wouldn't trust the United States government to make me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. After that simple request I'd likely end up with Congressional hearings, a special prosecutor, three years of delays, a $3 billion bill and no sandwich.
This makes it all the more shocking that the public continually turns to slight variants of this broken system. The Republicans won't be any better than the Democrats a fact proven by history, reinforced by our willingness to repeat history.
Fixing our economy, schools, roads and everything else requires a radically different approach. We need to stop moving three degrees to the right then two degrees to the left. Instead, we need serious, uncomfortable change that blows up the existing system. I’ll boil it down to two key platform points that will bring everything else into line.
First, we need to eliminate our absurdly complicated punitive tax code and replace it with a flat tax. Let’s call the first $20,000 an individual makes or the first $45,000 a family with kids makes tax free.
If you’re a family making less than $45,000 a year, the last thing you need is Uncle Sam taking a piece of the pie and you’ll only need him to give you some of it back in entitlement programs. If you actually had the money you earn there would be less need for those programs and we’re well on our way to making government smaller.
Any income above those amounts will be taxed at a flat rate. Every person, rich or middle class, will pay the same percentage dollar for dollar. There will be no deductions and we won’t be taxed twice. That means we stop taxing inheritances and corporate profits.
Any money in an estate was already taxed and corporate profits should go to shareholders, business owners and business leaders as taxable income. The government still gets its cut, but they should not get to take a slice off the top and then another when the cash actually makes it into your pocket.
The second piece of my platform will be decidedly unpopular, but it cuts to the core of our economic problems. It should be considered child abuse to knowingly have a child you cannot provide basic food, shelter and clothing for.
I’m not talking about the person who has a kid then loses his job or falls upon hard times. These are the people we need to help get back on their feet, because circumstances kicked them in the teeth – they did not knowingly create a life they could not provide for.
I’m instead referring to the unemployed teenagers and the people who barely have a roof over their own heads who somehow decide that having a bunch of kids makes total sense. Having a child is a responsibility, not a right. If you can’t reasonably be expected to meet that responsibility you are committing a crime against that child and society in general.
If you bring home a puppy that you can’t afford to feed, you will get arrested for animal cruelty. Do the same repeatedly with children and you get some of my money. It’s an absurd double standard built out of the notion that everyone has the “right” to have children and we’re racists/class snobs if we declare otherwise.
Cut the number of kids that the public has to pay for because their birth parents can’t support them and we pretty much solve all of our problems. The schools become less crowded, our healthcare system becomes less taxed, crime goes down and “Maury” gets cancelled.
Our society should have a safety net for bad luck and unforeseen circumstances. We should not, however, be paying for other people’s willful, repeated decisions to do things they can’t actually pay for.
What we’re doing doesn’t work. It’s time for something different. No more commissions, no more bipartisan panels and, please, no more studies. We need fair, logical solutions built on personal responsibility.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com and you can listen to his podcast at Worstideasever.com.
Whenever government has one of those supposedly non-partisan panels look into an issue they invariably decide we need more government. The solution is never that politicians have made a mess of things and we should dismantle the bureaucracy.
Government does nothing well. We have lousy schools, roads filled with potholes, a military engaged in unwinnable wars, a bankrupt Social Security system and a horrifying health care system.
I wouldn't trust the United States government to make me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. After that simple request I'd likely end up with Congressional hearings, a special prosecutor, three years of delays, a $3 billion bill and no sandwich.
This makes it all the more shocking that the public continually turns to slight variants of this broken system. The Republicans won't be any better than the Democrats a fact proven by history, reinforced by our willingness to repeat history.
Fixing our economy, schools, roads and everything else requires a radically different approach. We need to stop moving three degrees to the right then two degrees to the left. Instead, we need serious, uncomfortable change that blows up the existing system. I’ll boil it down to two key platform points that will bring everything else into line.
First, we need to eliminate our absurdly complicated punitive tax code and replace it with a flat tax. Let’s call the first $20,000 an individual makes or the first $45,000 a family with kids makes tax free.
If you’re a family making less than $45,000 a year, the last thing you need is Uncle Sam taking a piece of the pie and you’ll only need him to give you some of it back in entitlement programs. If you actually had the money you earn there would be less need for those programs and we’re well on our way to making government smaller.
Any income above those amounts will be taxed at a flat rate. Every person, rich or middle class, will pay the same percentage dollar for dollar. There will be no deductions and we won’t be taxed twice. That means we stop taxing inheritances and corporate profits.
Any money in an estate was already taxed and corporate profits should go to shareholders, business owners and business leaders as taxable income. The government still gets its cut, but they should not get to take a slice off the top and then another when the cash actually makes it into your pocket.
The second piece of my platform will be decidedly unpopular, but it cuts to the core of our economic problems. It should be considered child abuse to knowingly have a child you cannot provide basic food, shelter and clothing for.
I’m not talking about the person who has a kid then loses his job or falls upon hard times. These are the people we need to help get back on their feet, because circumstances kicked them in the teeth – they did not knowingly create a life they could not provide for.
I’m instead referring to the unemployed teenagers and the people who barely have a roof over their own heads who somehow decide that having a bunch of kids makes total sense. Having a child is a responsibility, not a right. If you can’t reasonably be expected to meet that responsibility you are committing a crime against that child and society in general.
If you bring home a puppy that you can’t afford to feed, you will get arrested for animal cruelty. Do the same repeatedly with children and you get some of my money. It’s an absurd double standard built out of the notion that everyone has the “right” to have children and we’re racists/class snobs if we declare otherwise.
Cut the number of kids that the public has to pay for because their birth parents can’t support them and we pretty much solve all of our problems. The schools become less crowded, our healthcare system becomes less taxed, crime goes down and “Maury” gets cancelled.
Our society should have a safety net for bad luck and unforeseen circumstances. We should not, however, be paying for other people’s willful, repeated decisions to do things they can’t actually pay for.
What we’re doing doesn’t work. It’s time for something different. No more commissions, no more bipartisan panels and, please, no more studies. We need fair, logical solutions built on personal responsibility.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com and you can listen to his podcast at Worstideasever.com.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Will host for food
By Daniel B. Kline
Conan O’Brien was a totally unknown (albeit successful and well regarded) writer when he turned down a position as head creative person for the new show that would take over David Letterman’s slot. He did so not because he thought he should be the host – that would be like me turning down Patriots tickets because I was holding out for Tom Brady’s job -- but because he wanted to become more of a performer and less of a behind-the scenes talent.
He had no specific plan to do this and no job as he had already let his current employer, “The Simpsons,” know he was not coming back. He didn’t even have a head shot and his previous on-air experience consisted mostly of being in the background of some sketches when he wrote for “Saturday Night Live.”
O’Brien wanted to perform and had dreamed of hosting a late night talk show, but he had no master plan. Even after “SNL” Czar Lorne Micheals, who was producing the new show, wrangled him a screen test for the job, he considered that at best the network might try to get him to take the backstage gig with vague promises of giving him the 1:35 hour should then “Later” host Bob Costas step down.
There was no power play as the idea of an unknown, who had barely performed at all taking over what at the time was one of exactly three network late-night talk shows was a fantasy beyond even his own realm of possibility. Conan taking over for Letterman would be the modern equivalent of “Snooki” taking over for Hillary Clinton except that unbeknownst to almost everyone, Conan had the skills for the job (and I’m guessing Snooki would not make a good international diplomat).
Of course, sometimes the implausible happens and after NBC made runs at Garry Shandling, a few other well-known comics and, probably, a few just plain famous people, O’Brien was given the job. At first even NBC did not trust this decision as they gave Conan a series of 13 week contracts essentially keeping a gun next to his head, but, ultimately, the show and it host went on to huge success.
This story makes me feel a little less absurd when I tell you I’m meant to a talk show host. I have never hosted professionally and have never even pursued that particular path as my wife is not too keen on the idea of us moving around the country so I could slowly assault the radio world.
My personal parallels to Conan are, of course undeniable. He was an unknown writer and I’m an even less known writer. He is not considered classically good looking and I am also not classically good looking.
The major difference, unfortunately, is that Conan knew Lorne Michaels and my biggest “producer” contact is the supportive, but incredibly overworked program director at a local radio station. Because of that, I have no delusions that I will be getting any sort of break, so, as they say, I plan to make my own luck.
For the next 12 months I will host anything for anyone. In addition to my podcast at WorstIdeasEver.com (listened to by tens of people each week) I will get behind the mic or in front of the cameras for anyone that will have me.
The Internet has made it possible for every crackpot who thinks he should be on the radio, do a radio show. Well, I should be and I’m the crackpot who will be.
Welcome back Conan. Thank you for showing me that the implausible can happen and that there are different paths to where you want to go.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com and you can listen to his podcast at Worstideasever.com.
Conan O’Brien was a totally unknown (albeit successful and well regarded) writer when he turned down a position as head creative person for the new show that would take over David Letterman’s slot. He did so not because he thought he should be the host – that would be like me turning down Patriots tickets because I was holding out for Tom Brady’s job -- but because he wanted to become more of a performer and less of a behind-the scenes talent.
He had no specific plan to do this and no job as he had already let his current employer, “The Simpsons,” know he was not coming back. He didn’t even have a head shot and his previous on-air experience consisted mostly of being in the background of some sketches when he wrote for “Saturday Night Live.”
O’Brien wanted to perform and had dreamed of hosting a late night talk show, but he had no master plan. Even after “SNL” Czar Lorne Micheals, who was producing the new show, wrangled him a screen test for the job, he considered that at best the network might try to get him to take the backstage gig with vague promises of giving him the 1:35 hour should then “Later” host Bob Costas step down.
There was no power play as the idea of an unknown, who had barely performed at all taking over what at the time was one of exactly three network late-night talk shows was a fantasy beyond even his own realm of possibility. Conan taking over for Letterman would be the modern equivalent of “Snooki” taking over for Hillary Clinton except that unbeknownst to almost everyone, Conan had the skills for the job (and I’m guessing Snooki would not make a good international diplomat).
Of course, sometimes the implausible happens and after NBC made runs at Garry Shandling, a few other well-known comics and, probably, a few just plain famous people, O’Brien was given the job. At first even NBC did not trust this decision as they gave Conan a series of 13 week contracts essentially keeping a gun next to his head, but, ultimately, the show and it host went on to huge success.
This story makes me feel a little less absurd when I tell you I’m meant to a talk show host. I have never hosted professionally and have never even pursued that particular path as my wife is not too keen on the idea of us moving around the country so I could slowly assault the radio world.
My personal parallels to Conan are, of course undeniable. He was an unknown writer and I’m an even less known writer. He is not considered classically good looking and I am also not classically good looking.
The major difference, unfortunately, is that Conan knew Lorne Michaels and my biggest “producer” contact is the supportive, but incredibly overworked program director at a local radio station. Because of that, I have no delusions that I will be getting any sort of break, so, as they say, I plan to make my own luck.
For the next 12 months I will host anything for anyone. In addition to my podcast at WorstIdeasEver.com (listened to by tens of people each week) I will get behind the mic or in front of the cameras for anyone that will have me.
The Internet has made it possible for every crackpot who thinks he should be on the radio, do a radio show. Well, I should be and I’m the crackpot who will be.
Welcome back Conan. Thank you for showing me that the implausible can happen and that there are different paths to where you want to go.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com and you can listen to his podcast at Worstideasever.com.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Famous people flawed like the rest of us
By Daniel B. Kline
America always seems shocked when an athlete or a celebrity turns out to be different than his public image. No matter how many times this happens, we always assume that the next famous person we perceive as a ‘good guy” will live up to that billing. And, of course, we will inevitably be let down when said celebrity or athlete turns out to be just as big of a jerk as the ones before him.
So, before the entire nation goes up in arms over the next actor, quarterback or home run hitter who we find out cheats on his wife, takes drugs or does something else bad, let me explain the obvious. Most -- not all -- but most, men do bad things based on the availability of those bad things.
If a lot of women who are not your wife forcefully want to sleep with you, then not too many guys can resist the temptation. I’m not talking about the travelling businessman who might have been able to score with the flirty bartender at his hotel, I mean the guys for whom women are offering themselves up on a daily basis.
Certainly there are some men who can resist repeated temptation, but as you can see just by looking at the pant size of most Americans, we’re not generally very good at doing that in any area. If large numbers of regular, non-famous people have affairs, do drugs, steal from their employers then why would we be surprised when celebrities do the same thing?
Nothing about playing a sport well or being talented/good looking enough to become a famous actor or singer makes you a better person. Being really good at golf obviously did not make Tiger Woods less likely to cheat on his wife. Instead, it made it easier since a certain group of women value money and fame over personality and appearance.
Without fame, Woods may not have had the temptation since nerdy guys with limited personalities and odd looks don’t tend to be the real ladies’ men. Of course, the non-famous Woods would still be rotten at the core, ready to cheat on his non-supermodel wife, but the opportunities would not be as great and, perhaps, decency would win out.
Of course, when Woods’ transgressions became public the entire nation seemed surprised because some guy who was really good at golf turned out to not be the person we imagined he was. The same shock has recently been applied to Brett Favre as we learned that he might have a propensity for sending cell phone pictures of his genitalia to attractive young women.
This surprised us because Favre plays football well and seems like a decent guy in his jeans commercials. We don’t actually know Brett Favre, but he looks rugged, plays hard and that should make him a faithful husband.
Watching someone play a sport, act in a movie or sing a song does not mean we know them. Tom Hanks might seem like a nice guy, but it wouldn’t shock me if he had a collection of hobo skulls in his basement.
I don’t expect celebrities to be any better people than I expect regular people to be and experience has taught me that any expectations should be set low. Favre’s actions don’t disappoint me because I would have been shocked if he wasn’t up to no good.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or hear his podcast at Worstideasever.com. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
America always seems shocked when an athlete or a celebrity turns out to be different than his public image. No matter how many times this happens, we always assume that the next famous person we perceive as a ‘good guy” will live up to that billing. And, of course, we will inevitably be let down when said celebrity or athlete turns out to be just as big of a jerk as the ones before him.
So, before the entire nation goes up in arms over the next actor, quarterback or home run hitter who we find out cheats on his wife, takes drugs or does something else bad, let me explain the obvious. Most -- not all -- but most, men do bad things based on the availability of those bad things.
If a lot of women who are not your wife forcefully want to sleep with you, then not too many guys can resist the temptation. I’m not talking about the travelling businessman who might have been able to score with the flirty bartender at his hotel, I mean the guys for whom women are offering themselves up on a daily basis.
Certainly there are some men who can resist repeated temptation, but as you can see just by looking at the pant size of most Americans, we’re not generally very good at doing that in any area. If large numbers of regular, non-famous people have affairs, do drugs, steal from their employers then why would we be surprised when celebrities do the same thing?
Nothing about playing a sport well or being talented/good looking enough to become a famous actor or singer makes you a better person. Being really good at golf obviously did not make Tiger Woods less likely to cheat on his wife. Instead, it made it easier since a certain group of women value money and fame over personality and appearance.
Without fame, Woods may not have had the temptation since nerdy guys with limited personalities and odd looks don’t tend to be the real ladies’ men. Of course, the non-famous Woods would still be rotten at the core, ready to cheat on his non-supermodel wife, but the opportunities would not be as great and, perhaps, decency would win out.
Of course, when Woods’ transgressions became public the entire nation seemed surprised because some guy who was really good at golf turned out to not be the person we imagined he was. The same shock has recently been applied to Brett Favre as we learned that he might have a propensity for sending cell phone pictures of his genitalia to attractive young women.
This surprised us because Favre plays football well and seems like a decent guy in his jeans commercials. We don’t actually know Brett Favre, but he looks rugged, plays hard and that should make him a faithful husband.
Watching someone play a sport, act in a movie or sing a song does not mean we know them. Tom Hanks might seem like a nice guy, but it wouldn’t shock me if he had a collection of hobo skulls in his basement.
I don’t expect celebrities to be any better people than I expect regular people to be and experience has taught me that any expectations should be set low. Favre’s actions don’t disappoint me because I would have been shocked if he wasn’t up to no good.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or hear his podcast at Worstideasever.com. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
