Dingbat humor

I stand corrected. I feared that this political season would prove to be bereft of humor. That would be a dismal prospect, for there certainly is no worthwhile humor on commercial TV. But, I am pleased to report, that the dingbat candidates have introduced a marvelous brand of humor into the campaigns. I guess we can call this brand of humor “listen to what I say but don’t believe a word of it because I’m going to contradict it in the next sentence.” You have to listen fast and loose, because any truth in any statement is fleeting.

During the Las Vegas debates, how many times did we hear this sequence: “The government is too big, too intrusive, too complicated, and must be cut back, reduced or eliminated?” Then the next sentence was: “The government should be doing more about this problem, or spending more on that problem.” Make up your mind dingbats!

It is amusing how the same people who rant about how government is so intrusive are perfectly willing to have the government dictate how we think or what we believe. If the dingbats have their way, your ideas about same-sex marriage or abortion will be rigidly controlled. They would pass laws telling you what you can believe. That is a croc! As my old grand-daddy said, “ain’t nobody gonna tell me what I can think.”

One of the other really humorous items concerns taxes. Now, this is not normally a funny subject. Nobody likes to talk or even think about taxes. But a couple of the dingbats have introduced some humor into this discussion. They didn’t intend to introduce humor into this rather serious subject, but it happened. Now, it is well known to anyone who has followed all the debates, discussions, forums, interviews or any other means used to introduce personal beliefs, that the dingbats are not great supporters of education. They also seem to demonstrate a deficiency about simple arithmetic. I’m not talking rocket science here, or even math, just simple number manipulation. They have proposed the infamous 9-9-9 plan, or a “flat rate tax plan,” Both are regressive, more onerous on the lower income groups, but their proponents just can’t seem to grasp this.. Here is a simple example: family A has a gross income of $30,000 per year; family B has one of $100,000. Both families buy $100 worth of groceries. The tax for each is $9.00. But for family A, that is .0003% of their annual income. For family B, that is .00009% of their income. What is so difficult to understand about this? Any flat rate tax hurts the lower income classes more.

“Two-Gun” Perry firmly believes that the only solution to all our problems is to support (turn loose) the “awl bidness” as they say in Texas. “Drill, Baby, Drill” is his motto. Of course if we follow his advice, in 4-5 years we might have some improvement, at least in Texas, but also a hell of a lot more pollution. But then, that’s the price one must pay for success.

Also, the head lady dingbat has chimed in with a solution to all the health care problems. According to her, we don’t need any form of government sponsored health care. The hospitals and various charitable organizations have enough money on hand that they can take care of all the indigent people. Now that would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic. Do these people think, or is this merely propaganda learned but not understood?

I suppose if you listened to FOX News all day, then you too could memorize and then repeat outrageous statements, incorrect facts or just plain lies.