Thoughts On Last Night’s South Park

Rarely does a South Park episode have me thinking about it this long into the next day, but last night’s “You’re Getting Old” has really hit me hard.  There are a lot of better critiques out there than this one, Alan Sepinwall is a favorite of mine, but I just had to find time to jot down some of my thoughts.

Put simply, this is one of my favorite episodes in a series I have been watching since I was nine years old.  South Park has changed forms many times, originally with episodes that had nothing to do with social commentary and were just out there to make us laugh, to ones that were needed when things around us weren’t all that funny, to ones that showed the absurdity of the political process.  No matter the episode I have loved them all, some more than others.  Yet I have  pretty much have been able to sit back and laugh for 30 minutes for the past 15 years thanks to South Park.

That is the reason why South Park’s episode last night has left me with an uneasy yet reflective feeling.  The theme of the episode surrounded Stan getting older and realizing that everything around him looked and sounded like crap.  And by crap, I mean literally poop.  For Stan, the things that most kids enjoyed: the newest music, the dumb summer comedies, the newest video games, lacked the joy they once did.   We were left with Stan having to deal with his parent’s divorce, moving into a new home and just staring up at the ceiling pondering why all this change was happening around him.  I too had to deal with my parent’s divorce, though later in life than Stan, all while trying to ween off the things that I found entertaining when I was younger.  That led to discovering new music, movies and literature, but also led me to dealing with people like Stan, who, no matter what, felt nothing lived up to their ideas of how it should be.  Yet, in the end, a show like South Park has stood the test of time and remained a favorite throughout everything.

So if this is potentially a goodbye, or just a way of Trey Parker and Matt Stone to share how they feel about the show, I worry that the one show that has been there for me to escape the crap parts of life may not be here much longer.  I worry that the people who are like Stan in the episode have finally worn Parker and Stone down.  And in the end, I worry what it will be like when South Park actually does end.  No doubt I will find something else to give me 30 minutes to just sit back and laugh.  But for right now, I still have episodes like last night’s that can both make me laugh and make me reflect on what a journey my life has been.

A Victory For Cat-Ladies Everywhere

On Thursday, the U.S. Tax Court allowed some, but not all, deductions for the expense of taking care of 70-80 foster cats.  Jan Van Dusen is a volunteer for the organization Fix Our Ferals and provided long term foster care for rescue cats.  Her expenses consisted primarily of payments for veterinary services, pet supplies, cleaning supplies, and household utilities.  Ms. Van Dusen claimed a $12,068 charitable-contribution deduction for the expenses on her 2004 tax return.  The IRS claimed that this was not a charitable-contribution deduction and there also existed an indistinguishable personal component to housing these cats.

The Court found in favor of Ms. Van Dusen regarding the expenses but limited the deductions to only those expenses that directly benefited the Fix Our Ferals Organization.  Some of Van Dusen’s expenses were categorically not related to taking care of foster cats and are therefore not deductible, such as the cost of cremating a pet cat, bar association dues, and DMV fees.  Furthermore, some of Van Dusen’s other expenses were not solely attributable to foster cat care and were not deductible, such as expenses for the cost of repairing her wet/dry vacuum and her membership dues at a store.  However, other expenses were attributable to the services Van Dusen provided to Fix Our Ferals. These expenses were 90% of her veterinary expenses and pet supplies and 50% of her cleaning supplies and utility bills.

You Get The Government You Vote For

I know the title of the post is a slight variation on the famous quote, but I’ve always felt the word deserve is a little too harsh.  However, as someone who often finds it hard to associate in a political party, it pains me to see people angry at the outcomes of government, yet too stubborn to try something new when given the opportunity.

One recent example of this occurred in the city I call home, Washington, D.C.  A special election took place about a month a ago which featured a Republican running for a city-wide City Council seat.  Leading up to the election, news stories were coming out left and right about corruption in the City Council:  misuse of city funds to procure “fully loaded” SUVs, potential fraud concerning a council member’s PAC, and a story involving the Mayor giving a job to someone wholly unqualified for the position because he helped the Mayor attack his number one opponent.  In sum, the city was ripe for change and it seemed like a real opportunity existed to elect someone outside of the current council makeup.  The Republican candidate offered a resume of wanting to continue the success of education reform, a return to fiscal discipline in the city, and a promise to investigate the many controversies that emerged shortly after the 2010 elections.  Yet the city decided again that a party designation is more powerful than a person and a former council member won reelection.  Comments from voters included statements such as “He is a Republican, and the fact that his party supports x,y, and z means I can’t vote for him.”  It’s sad that we now exist in a society where the party affiliation is more important that the actual candidate and especially a candidate willing to put in the work to solve the very problems the voter probably wanted solved.

National candidates face this similar dilemma.  Paul Ryan, a congressman that I respect greatly, has been panned by progressives as being too harsh in his solutions to solve the debt crisis.  His ideas may not be what is ultimately implemented, but we should at least applaud him for having the guts to actually propose something.  The alternative will be a debate between two candidates who can only muster the courage to proclaim, “We must do something about the debt.”

I guess this post is about being tired of seeing candidates who go out and try to actually do something be shot down by an electorate who doesn’t want to do much work beyond seeing what letter is next to the candidate’s name and instantly deciding what positions they stand for.  I’m sure if I said I was a Republican, people would assume I support certain positions I don’t.

I don’t necessarily blame the electorate for doing this as it is the least strenuous way to participate in politics.  But it gets frustrating to see an electorate wanting action and instead of taking a chance to elect someone with the passion to do it, they instead vote for the more comfortable choice.  Until the time that people decide it is more important to judge a candidate based on their conviction and determination and not based on how “electable” they are, I guess I’ll just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Having a Kid is Expenisve

The U.S. Department of Agriculture just released findings that it will cost a middle class parent whose child was born in 2008 $221,190 from birth to age 18.  That little guy or gal better be bringing in some good ROI if it’s necessary to shell out that kind of dough.

Should Taxpayers Really Have To Support This?

Why should the taxpayers have to support universal health care for these idiots in the UK?

Dr. Coburn’s Amazing New Bill

Dr. Coburn has introduced a bill (S 1319) that would require Congress to specify where in the Constitution they are granted the authority for the enactment of laws and other legislation.

“Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress.”

Somehow I don’t see the Democrats being too keen on enacting this legislation, even though they came to power claiming to create “the most open and honest Government in history.” I don’t see how more open you can get than requiring the Senate to show the American people where they get the authority to pass legislation. Sounds just like common sense to me!

So Can Everyone Else Be Discriminated Against?

DC Councilmember Mary Cheh (Ward 3) introduced legislation to add the homeless to the growing list of people who are protected under the district’s hate crime legislation. While no one wants to see people discriminated against, how far are we going to stratify what is considered a “hate crime?” Currently, the law 

prohibits prejudice based on the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim.”

So does that mean that if you discriminate against someone based on one of the characteristics not listed, then everything is cool?

It’s laws like these that make politicians feel good about themselves without actually solving the issue. Does Ms. Cheh honestly believe a person is going to think, “Huh, I was going to commit a despicable act against a homeless person, but since the DC City Council just passed this new hate crime bill, I guess I’ll hold back.” Instead of passing pointless legislation, they should focus on solutions that could actually reduce crime all together in the city, such as the Anti-Crime bill that is being stalled by fellow council member Phil Mendelson.