älə·ɡärkē: A digital conversation

author's note: The following is a conversation that takes place in the context of an essay. The essay is written in black text with red interludes by Mr. Joseph Dunlap and my responses to his comments in blue.

Our Republican lead House of Representatives voted 240-179 in favor of H.R. 1105, or the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015.  Then we heard through the 24-hour news cycle the false merits of repealing the Federal Estate Tax.

How is it that a majority of people will support a measure that benefits 2 of every 1,000 deaths, or 0.2% of America? Through false and misleading Republican rhetoric the lay, and often ignorant, American public are lead to believe that the Federal Estate Tax will prevent their hard earned wealth to be fairly passed down to their next of kin. In order to get closer to understanding these issues an examination is needed of the actual cost of the Federal Estate Tax, the falseness of the Republican oratory, and finally the contradictions of the fanatical Christian-Right’s supposed platform of biblical teachings with supporting a repeal of the Federal Estate Tax

If you are reading this let me make this very clear - you will not be negatively affected by the Federal Estate Tax. Not only will you not have to pay the Federal Estate Tax but there are benefits of having it. The Republican rhetoric to make you believe otherwise is misleading and makes a very clear case study on the importance and value of an educated society and the liberal arts.

Upon their passing, if a single American leaves an estate valued at $5.43 million or if an estate is left by a couple valued at $10.86 million then, and only then, will their heirs face dealing with Federal Estate Tax. However, it is important to understand that the only part of the estate that will be taxed by the Federal Government is any dollar after the $5.43 million/$10.86 million threshold. While the tax rate for any dollars after the $5.43 million/$10.86 million threshold is 40% the IRS reports that on average the effective rate is slightly above 16%.[1]

The benefit is the $246 billion incurred by the Federal Estate Tax, albeit only 1% of the USA budget, has an impact on our function as a country that if striped from the tax code will pass on a burden for 99.8% of Americans to foot an extra $246 billion [or an extra $71 toward your federal taxes for every man, woman, and child in this country]. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priories the Federal Estate Tax will cover the cost of the “Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined” with money left over.[2]

The Federal Estate Tax also taxes what economist refer to as unrealized capital gains, which in layman terms, are illiquid assets, or assets that cannot be converted into cash quickly. Interestingly enough these assets, using a variety of shelters, are often not taxed during the lifetime of their owner.[3] It was this major justification that caused congress to permanently pass, in 1916, the Federal Estate Tax, a tax method that was traditionally only used as war time fundraising. With the rise of monopolistic wealth, millionaires, and a shift of power to a minority of wealthy Americans, our congress felt it was fair to tax the estate of a group of Americans who had benefited from the protection and resources of the Federal, State, and Local Government and yet sheltered much of their wealth behind tax loopholes.

There is some legitimacy to the double taxation claim. And if the assets value were never realized in the lifetime of the owner, but were tax protected, the same laws can be passed down to the next generation when the assets are liquidated. In other words, tax the assets when converted to cash, regardless of timing, upon the owner who cashed it...not when someone dies.

Doesn’t this go against the intent of the 1916 purpose of the Federal Estate Tax? If we wait to tax the assets upon the time the owner converts it to cash or a taxable liquid asset then are we not supporting and creating an oligarchy class?

______________________________________________________________________________

It is important to point out two very important, and often under discussed issues; 1) the unproportioned use of Government by the wealthy and 2) the criticized 2012 comment by President Obama stating if you have been a success, whether in business or in life, “you didn’t get there on your own.” The two issues are interconnected and vital in framing how the Federal Estate Tax, and arguably politics, is examined.

Often societies want to examine an economic system separate and without consequence from political systems. It is important to note that while certain economic systems are often present with certain governments, correlation does not equal causation. A free market does not create a republic, nor did the republic create a free market. The two systems, due to support from equal thinking political and economic enlightened thinkers, have historical co-existed. To truly exist and prosper [economic goal of growth] while also protecting and improving order [government goal of existence] the two systems must cohabitate even when their natural goals of advancement contradict each other. This dual system works when a natural platform or overarching principals guide a society. The fight for the Federal Estate Tax calls into question our natural American principals.

These principals can be framed by the aforementioned two points. Both parties would agree that some form of protection is a justification for the existence of Government. Therefore, defense, both national and local are the roles of Government, which manifests itself through our military and police. The other agreed upon role of Government is infrastructure, most often represented through transportation [i.e. road maintenance, FAA, safety, public use]. For the sake of time it is at this point in which the question needs to be asked, who benefits from these to functions of government more, the wealthy or the poor? While it may be easy to point to the “welfare nation” or a liberal ideology of progressive social issues and immaturely and quite ignorantly claim the government overwhelmingly benefits the poor, it is incorrect. The function of Government, both directly and indirectly, benefits the wealthy. In fact, it is Government that protects and allows the prosperity of wealth to flourish. Therefore, the bourdon of keeping the Government should never disproportionally fall on the poor [in this argument the poor is simply 99.8% of America].

You put a lot of faith in what seems to be the inherent morality of a soul-less, face-less government. Why?

We have talked about this before. If morality [defined as a doctrine or system of conduct aka principles] doesn’t come from the bible [and I know you argue it can come from no other place] then it must come from the Constitution. This comes into play in my later point that American politics no longer has defined principles to stand on. But to answer your question straight on, I put a lot of faith in my soul-less, face-less government because I believe in the greatness of it. I believe in the government that was forged together as a greater whole of 13 independent colonies. The government that conquered the west. The government that made travel from ocean to ocean possible. The government that built a military that won the defining war in modern history. The government that put a man on the moon. And I also recognize a government that enslaved black Americans and counted them as 3/5th of a person, that holds back woman and minorities, that murdered Native Americans, that stole land, that interred Japanese Americans. But the “inherent morality” of that government recognized those wrongs. And is still trying to change them. To better itself. America is the greatest nation because we have the ability to look at our mistakes and stand on the principals of a constitution to make them right. This is where both parties are wrong. Inherent greatness does not mean to be infallible nor perfection. Neither does it mean that we are a broken or failed country that is not great. Our greatness has been, and will always be, our potential. And that potential is guarded by our Constitution.

______________________________________________________________________________

As President Obama said, “you didn’t get there on your own.” And no matter the cries from small businesses everywhere, a small business is not built alone. No one person is Robinson Crusoe, thrust on an island of America by yourself to survive and create a way of life. The success and growth a business hinders on several factors; location, dedication, business practices, quality goods or services, market conditions, and consumers. And even then the success of a business can be told in countless stories of support. Support that starts with the community of parents, educators, and friends that fostered the environment of ideas and ingenuity that lead to a business to be born. A key point to understand is that a business that can absolutely claim to have found success with minimal support and little to no aid from the Government will never be the business that is affected by the Federal Estate Tax. In fact, the businesses that are directly impacted by the Federal Estate Tax have to admit that the Government played a large role in their success. And more importantly any business/estate effected by the Federal Estate Tax can noy deny that they accessed and used Government at a higher rate and with more access due to their wealth and connections that it buys.

If you are making a point that rich folk are the primary recipients of government services, it wasn't supported clearly to me. The closest I thought you came to defining the support that builds oligarchs was "parents, educators, and friends"...nothing to do with government services. (Educators are private for the 1%). You could argue that the lay-folk dollars make the oligarchs rich and draw the point there. If you're saying the tax code is working for them...I mean, alright, but at one point in our nation there was no federal income tax...and taxes were the reason we started the revolution in the first place. So it's too easy to say Republicans are using false rhetoric and shackling the poor when in fact "free market economics" and a "republic" co-existed for a very short time in our history and neither currently exist. We aren’t [a] free market at all, and thanks to PACs and Super-PACs, the "republic" label is tenuous. In other words, I don't think there's a clear, absolute position on the role of taxes in American society. It's been a roller-coaster since colonial days.

Fair point.

______________________________________________________________________________

This naturally leads to the next issue, false assumptions, exaggerations, and lies that surround the Federal Estate Tax. First and foremost, and most closely impacted by President Obama’s “you didn’t get there on your own” statement is the fact that small business [again most - one could almost say nearly all - will not be affected by the Federal Estate Tax] are shielding other concerns by stating they fear that the Federal Estate Tax “takes their hard earned money” from being passed down to their appointed heirs. In truth, they are making an argument against taxes, over reaching Government, and regulations. However, while an argument can, and should, be made on those three points, making the Federal Estate Tax the fighting point and masking your discontent with those three issues by supporting a repeal of the Federal Estate Tax is not valid.

A disagreement with the factors that allow the Federal Estate Tax to exist is not a reason to attack or repeal it. It is even more inexcusable to be ill-informed in your disagreement or attacks on the Federal Estate Tax. Of all the farms and small business that exist, only 20 owned an estate tax in 2013.[4] Furthermore, the payment for estate taxes can be paid out over 15 years and are often reduced through tax loopholes and deductions. This serves as an example to shine a light on the real issue, the tax code itself, which is not an IRS issue but rather a congressional one. So a more factual rhetoric may to be attack congressional leaders, not for the Federal Estate Tax but rather for a reluctance to tackle larger more substantive issues. However, in order to do that congress will find themselves at odds with 2 out of every 1,000 voters. The same 2 that are likely to be affected by the Federal Estate Tax and who happen to be the population that funds elections.

You should address trusts. Because really, a smart person can avoid the estate tax entirely if placing their money in a trust instead.

I think that simple sentence makes my point for me. Thank you.

______________________________________________________________________________

It seems counterproductive that 998 voters would argue and defend the right for the “earned wealth” of the top 0.2% of Americans to be passed on without taxation when “earned” would hardly describe their path to wealth. To project middle to lower class struggles and earning power on a class of Americans that are so far removed from normal understanding is a hindrance for the statistical masses in America.  The fact is that a majority of the estates that are taxed are, as stated above, taxing unrealized capital gains mostly in the forms of stock and real estate in which no taxes have been paid - due to shelters, loop holes, and deductions - during the life time of the owner. Listening to many pundits argue in favor of repealing the Federal Estate Tax just highlights the disparity of understanding between average Americans, the wealthy and the top 1%. To place common blue collar value on the wealth of the top 2% of the top 1% is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.

The 99.8% are called "lay and often ignorant" in one part of the essay, but "argue and defend" with 998 votes later on [here]. Are the sheep in fact sheep, or do they get to be wolves on Election Day? You are once again flirting with feudalism, which you know I always enjoy.

I would answer by saying that in relation to the wealth, power, and resources available to the top 0.2% that the “998 voters” are lay [average] and ignorant [without knowledge or understanding of] to the life lead by the 0.2%. I can see your notion of feudalism but I would accuse those that hold the power of Lords and Kings of failing to fulfil their duties. Which as you know means a solid beheading.

______________________________________________________________________________

This danger is made evident in the swirl of Republican rhetoric that is often repeatable and catchy to hard working Americans, and easily distributed in quick segments that are favored in the 24-hour news cycle. Statements such as:

“It’s not fair to ask anybody to visit an undertaker and tax collector on the same day”

“We are tacking American’s hard earned wages.”

“The tax we collect is so small why are we bothering?”

“We can save the same amount by closing the IRS.”

“How can we tax the same money twice?”

“Why are we attacking the rich?”

While this rhetoric appeals to the pathos of the typical American a simple clear headed examination of these hyperboles show that they are thinly vailed misdirection.            

None of these statements are arguments in favor of repealing the Federal Estate Tax, rather they are clinics on argumentum ad hominem, or the evasion of an argument by attacking the opposition. Further many of the evasions are false attributions. This is not a defense for or against the Federal Estate Tax. It is an attack on the American pathos through manipulation of ethos and a removal of logos. Simply stated, too often the Republican answer to criticism or critics is to appeal to the simplest emotion through the handling of credibility by removing or manipulating logic.

Arguable the most widely used form of appealing to the emotional core of America through logical manipulation is the inconsistent and highly questionable use of Christianity as the bases of arguments or counter arguments. In a cunning move, after losing the 1976 Republican Nomination for President of the United States, Ronald Regan put together a stunning coalition of never before joined fragments of the American population in order to defeat the much more centrist and pragmatic George Herbert Walker Bush in the 1980 Republican Presidential Nomination. A surprising and unimaginable force in that coalition has been the Fundamentalist Christian Right. The Republican nomination, much like acceptance to heaven, now must run though Christ. However, the Republican use of Christianity mirrors man’s own perversion of faith in order to maintain power of Church. Any hack or false prophet can pick up a bible and use its passages to make emotional appeals to Americans to who hold those words as infallible ordained by God; doing so does not mean a principled belief in God, and/or Jesus Christ’s teachings. This manipulation of circular logic has removed real sustainable debate in favor of a divisive partisan culture that disparages the word of God and mocks lack of political understanding of the average American.

In short, if the Republican Party fundamentally believed they stood on the principals of Christianity, as expressed by Christ in the New Testament, Republicans would answer and build all political platforms to serve the teachings of Christ rather than to pay homage and service to the billionaires that bankroll the elections in this country. Due to power that decisions like Citizens United have leaved on the ultra-rich this country now prays at the altar of money. Luke 16:13 states that, “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and money.” The American Democratic Republic of our founding fathers has given way to the Oligarchy of our founding billionaire class.

American has no principle to stand on. She has turned her eyes from the principles of freedom for all, she has turned her back on the principles of God, and most of all she has turned away from the principles laid out by our founding fathers. If either party had a stable set of principles they would discover that issues like the Federal Estate Tax do not merit the time and lies it has garnered.

My principles, of humanity and faith, lead me to believe that I am here to serve. Our generation’s responsibility to is make a better American than was given to us. Our Christian responsibility to lead a Christ like life. While I cannot say that I personify that, I can say that like Peter I have failed, but like Peter, I know Christ still believes in all of us. His teachings are littered with lessons to use wealth to serve God, to share with the poor, to be humble, to be truth seeking, to avoid greed, to love, to not pass judgement, and most of all to treat others as we want to be treated.

One foundational understanding of Christianity that must be appreciated in your essay...Christians pay taxes in spite of the government not as a means of promulgating Christ's teachings of helping the poor. Christ followers are told to help the poor regardless of political circumstance. The whole "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, (Matthew 22)" and there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5). Government has a purpose (Romans 13) that is ordained by God, but in no way bears primary responsibility of the Christian metanarrative. So while progressive government offers seemingly Christian ideals, there's understandable resistance to assigning a biblical corollary to progressivism...especially if the government claims no allegiance to God.

While I agree that the progressive movement would be hesitant to assign a biblical corollary to their platform I would argue that in refers there is no reason for the Christian to not assign a political corollary to their believes. Therefore, in doing so, a realization should be made of which party closer stands for the teachings of Christ.

______________________________________________________________________________

Supporting the Federal Estate Tax is closer to standing on the principles that many Americans claim to stand on. The Federal Estate Tax mirrors the wishes of our founding fathers closer than Republicans would have us believe. The Federal Estate Tax protects our fragile experiment of a true Democratic Republic from becoming an Oligarchy that our founders fought and died against.

Our tax system is broken. And it needs to be fixed. Repealing the Federal Estate Tax is not the first step. God Bless the United States of America.

I mostly read this and thought, "Ok, he wants Christian socialism." Which is challenging because if you own the "Christian" aspect of socialism, you gotta deal with more than the economic part. 

Which brings me full circle into the political party morality arguments...Democrats are "more Christian" in their economic platforms and worldly/expedient on their social platforms ("as long as it doesn't hurt anyone"). Republicans are more wordly/expedient in their economic platforms and "more Christian" on their social platforms (inserting God into everything from schools to TV commercials to sex ed classes). The great commission in Matthew 28 was irrespective of culture or government. When mixed, I don't see any obvious, non-debatable "Christian" path forward. That's why our citizenship is in heaven (Phillipians 3:20). If gov't systems were that important to furthering the gospel of Christ, then he would have done something about government when he was here. He didn't. God uses governments to further his will when needed (see: Joseph and Pharoah, Moses, Saul, David). Or he lets it lie, but doesn't forget his people (kings of Israel, Babylonian captivity, Assyrian captivity).

Is it fair to say then that since Biblically there is no government importance to furthering the Gospel of Christ then it is futile to use Christianity as a reasoning to inherently change government? Rather, the morality of Christians would better them to be positive agents in and out of government. Therefore, is it that the separation of Church and State is not only constitutional but biblically logical?

______________________________________________________________________________

---

[1] IRS website accessed 4/17/15

[2] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2655 accessed 4/17/15

[3] ibid

[4] ibid

"As Long as they're funny" part III: Stephen Colbert

He's not Conan.

But he's funny.

And white.

And male.

Stephen Colbert is going to do a fine job as the second host of The Late Show. I notice that much of what I said in "As Long as they're funny" has been repeated by many "journalist" [it feels wrong calling entertainment columnist journalist]. Although, I can hardly use the phrase "repeated" since it was not from me these "journalist" first heard their ideas.

With Comedy Central losing it's host for the 11:30 spot, it seems all but certain that a woman should and probably will land that time slot. Jon Stewart [and his 10 Best Variety Show Emmys] probably has a say in who follows him, since the 11:00 & 11:30 time slot with The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have been so link as a one hour block of entertainment/mock-news. Further, with Craig Ferguson being passed over I do predict he will leave the 12:35 time slot and move on to bigger and better things. I still feel HBO will make a good home for him.

That is all for now. Nice and short. Just like my readers like it.

"As long as they're funny" part II: an apology to Ms. Chelsea Handler

Today Ms. Chelsea Handler wrote a post on the Huffington Post Entertainment Section. It seems that in the wake of my first "As long as they're funny" there seems to be a flurry of writing about late night TV.

FULL DISCLOSURE: the plethora of late night TV related writing has nothing to do with my post. Only in my head did my post spark a late night TV writing craze. In actuality, this all steams from Mr. Fallon's first week as host of The Tonight Show. [which AV Club gave a "C" - calling it an "emperor's new clothes" show].

I quickly want to re-visit two topics I glossed over in my first "As long as they're funny"; 1) the youth viewership & 2) Ms. Chelsea Handler.

It may have seemed that Mr. O'Brien, whom I cast as suffering alone in TBS oblivion, was failing in all regards. He is not failing, simply put, his show is funny, day in and day. It is a joy to watch his relationship with Mr. Richter and the ease that these two men work together. Mr. O'Brien's bits and interactions with guest are refreshing to watch as well. And although he does not have the same viral effect that Mr. Fallon has I did touch upon Mr. O'Brien's presence on social media. Mr. O'Brien does do very well with the younger audience. Conan, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and yes...Chelsea Lately all do well among the under 35 demographic.

But mostly, I defer to Ms. Handler's own words:

"The particular paragraph I was mentioned in was about the competition Jimmy faces for younger viewers. Depending upon whose research you look at, I share the distinction of having the youngest average viewership with Colbert, The Daily Show and Conan. So from a purely statistical standpoint how, in this paragraph, could I only be mentioned as an aside? Was it because I'm a woman?"

Let me state, I failed in my first "As long as they're funny." I know of Ms. Handler's show. I have seen Ms. Handler's show. I now several friends who fave about her books. And yet, in a post about how women should be more included I left out Ms. Handler. I did not even include her in a parenthetical sense. As I typed my [4 1/2 page! wtf] blog I know I was taking a chance by not including her. I was running long with my words and felt that by bringing up Ms. Handler I would dive further into my point about women in late night, but using the one woman who is on late night as being on E! rather than any higher viewed or power network. I did not want to use Ms. Handler to make my point. She is not a prop in my argument. She is a wonderfully funny & talented woman. So I made an editorial choice and left her out.

Ms. Handler, I am sorry.

I should have made a stronger case. As I continue to form my thesis of late night TV and continue to touch up on this topic that I enjoy, I will be sure to expand my argument with an inclusion of an "As long as they're funny" Chelsea Handler edition.

And you are right Ms. Handler, no one puts baby in parenthesis. But NBCUniversal Cable sure did hide baby on E! [which is owned by NBCUniversal Cable - where I wonder did the executives even give Ms. Handler the courtesy of putting her in a parenthesis in their Tonight Show transition Memo?].

Mr. Harold Ramis

director...
Caddyshack, National Lampoon's Vacation, Groundhog Day, Analyze That, & The Ice Harvest

and an actor...
Second City, SCTV, Stripes, Ghostbusters I & II, & Knocked Up.

Harold Ramis was arguably the most influential force in movie comedy in the last two decades of the 20th century. In doing so, Mr. Ramis influenced a slew of comedic minds which will insure his legacy well into the 21st century.

I can not say anything new or original that has not already been said through out today. I did not know know Mr. Ramis. I do not have an anecdote to add to the richness that his Mr. Ramis' story. And yet, as it was with Mr. Philip Seymour Hoffman, the death of a well know actor/entertainer has hit home for many. Although not as tragic as the death of Mr. Hoffman, many have been affected by the news of Mr. Ramis' death. It is easy to understand why, in both cases, the news that we no longer have Mr. Hoffman nor Mr. Ramis to contribute their talents, has left many, who neither knew or had ties to either man, searching for closure. Both men were giants. Mr. Hoffman with his presence and Mr. Ramis with his wit.

Ask anybody older than 30 to name a favorite comedy from the late 1970's or early 1980's. They will name one of Mr. Ramis' comedies. And although Mr. Ramis will forever be linked to the nearly untouchable streak of comedic genius he released in that span, he was so much more. And although the image of Dr. Egon Spengler is how many will forever remember him, he deserves a second, or even third look. And although he will forever be linked to Mr. Bill Murray he influenced so many others [I deeply hope this two great comedic genius of their time found a way to mend their relationship before Mr. Ramis' passing].

I would make a case that Mr. Ramis' true gift he left the world of cinema was Groundhog Day. Further, the father son scene in Knocked Up gave that movie a sense of humanity that Judd Apatow's best directorial fare deeply needed.

Although I was probably too young in the 1980's to have seen any of his films, I did. It can not be denied that many in my generation learned or at least began to ask and understand "what is funny" because we sat down and watched his films. And as we grew, the dept of his humor was more fully understood, ensuring that Caddyshack was, is, and will always be worth watching.

Mr. Ramis, age 69, died today in his Chicago-area home. According to a spokesman for United Talent Agency, the cause was complications of autoimmune inflammatory vasculties. The disease involves swelling of blood vessels.

Today his family privately morns his death. Today a generation of comedy lovers publicly celebrates his life. Mr. Ramis defined funny for many. In doing so, he will always live on.

Mr. Ramis I am glad you crossed the streams. Rest in peace.

“As long as they’re funny.”

Comedy is beautiful.

Supposedly, anything is art if it elicits emotion. Although this definition is very vague it holds up pretty well to scrutiny and criticism. While everything that elicits emotion is not art, everything that is art does cause some emotional response from the participant interacting with the art form.

Since there have been records society has placed artist on pedestals. Make us laugh, make us weep, make us think and we will applaud and celebrate you. Artist speak to a primal, and often instinctual, piece of our souls. An infant does not need to be taught to cry, laugh, ponder, explore, or to desire to feel. All of these emotions are in our DNA. As humans we seek out experiences that drive our senses to these beautiful places. Comedians not only strive to bring out our laughter but they challenge us on how we think of the world. Even in the most basic sense, the court jester or sad clown, both tragic figures in their own right, comedy causes us to pause and respect the spectacle that we are witnessing. A comedian exposes their soul in order to reach out and move our own soul. And while this is evident in nearly all art forms, there is something bold about the self-exposure a comedian will go through for a simple, or not so simple, emotion. You see, comedy is, in fact, beautiful.

Which, when all is considered, makes perfect sense why our country so naturally feels at ease going to sleep with a comedian flickering on their TV. The late night television show, an infant in the grand scheme of art forms, somehow finds itself in the American lexicon with such ease and commonality that one would think late night TV is as American an institution as baseball or apple pie. And yet, in 2014, we found ourselves without a woman on a major network’s late night programming. Although bound to be a winding road, this is the story of how CBS is poised, if they want, to break ground in American TV, comedy, & potentially in gender perception.

With the newest incarnation of The Tonight Show going live tonight [NBC 11:35 pm est] I find it fitting to make a commentary on the “late show” institution. The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon probably will not break the mold of what is the traditional late night model; monologue, sketches/comedy bits, one or two guest, musical guest, and the band [a tip of the hat to Mr. Fallon and the producers of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon for bringing the Roots, one of hip-hops greatest groups, and Philadelphia natives, into millions of American’s homes five nights a week – Mr. Fallon has made an influential change to the “late show orchestra/band” idea but that credit is pre­-The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon & therefore I will stand by my original statement, “The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon probably will not break the mold of what is the traditional late night model”].

Mr. Fallon’s closer, Seth Meyers, has a fighting chance of making a ripple of how the format looks with his version of Late Night. No matter the effort though, Mr. Meyers will also struggle to change or revolutionize how it sounds, feels, and resonates into our American homes. Late Night has, and will always be, a show aimed at, and for college age students. The show is symbolic of their transition from youth to adult hood as marked by their willingness to stay up and/or be up at 12:35 am to the years where 11:35 pm is more reasonable and will be better pandered to by whomever is holding the Tonight Show mantle. Since 1982 Late Night has seemed cutting edge and ready to revolutionize the format of late night TV. Whether it was Dave Letterman or Conan O’Brien or Jimmy Fallon the Late Night host always seemed, on the surface, to be on the brink of changing to format. But a deeper look shows they just fine tweaked a song we already know. Even with his rebellious attitude toward the late night format Mr. Letterman, due to his Late Night contract, was bound to the need for a monologue and an orchestra/band. Even when freed from Mr. Carson's production company he stayed true to the model he had grown comfortable with [to his credit Mr. Letterman's production company, World Wide Pants, did not place those same restrictions on Mr. Craig Ferguson]. Mr. O’Brien has never been shy about his respect and love for Mr. Letterman’s show & style. It is obvious then that his Late Night was a his ode to Mr. Letterman’s wilder days on Late Night. Mr. Fallon, ever the TV historian and appreciative star, worships at the altar of the comedians and pop culture icons before him would never stray too far from the mold made famous by Mr. Letterman and made mainstream by Mr. O’Brien. Both men are also adamant fans of the late, and great, Mr. Johnny Carson. By extension, Mr. Fallon’s Tonight Show will bare a stronger resemblance to Mr. Carson’s Tonight than Jay Leno’s version ever could.

Moreover, and here lays our problem, every person mentioned [and we have only touched on NBC’s late night players] are all of the following; white, mid-late 30s when they first hosted [Mr. O’Brien was a spring chicken when he first started on Late Night at age 30 while Mr. Meyers will be 40 when he starts], college educated, and television journey men. Key word…MEN. It is hard to revolutionize something when the keeper of the keys looks the same, sounds the same, and comes from the same world. In the late night world the story, although there are outliers, have similar narratives. Just look at birth places of the current crop of late night players; Mr. Kimmel [NY], Mr. Letterman [IN], Mr. Leno [NY – recently retired he will pop up I include him in this list], Mr. Fallon [NY – Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to be exact – the same birthplace of Mr. Kimmel], Mr. O’Brien [MA], Mr. Stewart [NJ], Mr. Colbert [SC], Mr. Maher [NJ], Mr. Meyers [IL], and Mr. Ferguson [Ireland]. Seven of ten men born in the eastern United States. Six of those ten in the North Eastern United States. All six in New York or Massachusetts. Two of the ten in the mid-West and of course, one immigrant. A white Anglo-Saxon immigrant. We could spend more time here examining the other similarities between these men, but for the sake of time and your boredom let us not.

Let me now say, that I am not trying to blend these ten men in one mold, each is unique in their style, humor, delivery, definition of funny, comedic priorities, and what they deem important to relay to their audience. My larger point is to say that in order to break the mold that is late night TV the mold need not be broken on the set, but rather by who is placed on that set, and therefore, what is brought to the set.

I stand behind the choice of Mr. Fallon to hold the keys to The Tonight Show. He will do a great job. He will bring the show into our homes, and while our parents & grandparents made comment of Mr. Carson’s monologue, guest, and the legendary invite to the couch, our generation will speak of Mr. Fallon’s musical talent, willingness to make us laugh, and his comfort with his guest. This point being, The Tonight Show will be a cultural institution not because it’s supposed to be, as it was under Mr. Leno, but it will be a cultural institution because it will again EARN its place there [see my future post on SNL]. Mr. Fallon will do well in holding on to a great American television institution as did Mr. Allen, Mr. Paar, Mr. Carson, Mr. Leno [say what you will – he did not break The Tonight Show, he just lived for twenty two years under Johnny’s shadow and the stench of his backdoor entry into what many, including Mr. Carson, thought should be Mr. Lettermen’s show], and ever too briefly Mr. O’Brien before him.

In fact, I believe Mr. Fallon will hold on to The Tonight Show for a long while. And when it is time NBC will be ready to pass along the torch, not to the next TV man in line, but rather to the most qualified funny PERSON [imagine Ellen DeGeneres hosting The Tonight Show…let it sink in]. Unfortunately, Mr. Meyers is an veteran comedy man of NBC [in fact a year older than his lead in, Mr. Fallon] and unless Mr. Fallon fails at 11:35 pm [I find it hard to imagine – his style is easier to translate to 11:35 pm than Mr. O’Brien’s was in 2009 and he does not have Mr. Leno lurking at 10:00 pm] Mr. Meyers will more than likely be 55-60 before NBC lets go of Jimmy. At which time NBC will want to go younger [although not at both time slots – 11:35 will go to a mid-30's to late 40's established comedian/host/writer with a "brand" to bring to The Tonight Show – also I can see Mr. Fallon bringing back the “guest-host” in his later years to test run different host in his spot].

Which, finally, leads to me explain how CBS can break ground and actually make late night TV interesting and competitive. David Letterman is now 66 and with his contract good through 2015, I can see him retiring after the frenzy of a new Tonight Show host is over and the late night waters are stable. As the elder statesman of late night and a well-respected comedian of his generation, his retirement will bring dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of stars wanting to pay their respects. He can, although his modesty and apparent dislike for formalities might prevent this, milk his retirement and ride out as the number one late night show. This will mean that CBS will need to replace their 11:35 pm host for The Late Show.

It is here that I will break to say, or better said, forewarn, that it gets zany from here on out.

Let us assume, that CBS [and Dave Letterman who produces both his show and The Late Late Show] does not choose Mr. Ferguson as the replacement in the 11:35 pm CBS time slot. We are now looking at a situation in which two brand new host are needed. Both will rival the Fallon/Meyers block as well as Mr. Kimmell who has a growing and passionate following and Mr. Colbert [a genius] on Comedy Central.

[Ready for crazy pants here?] Mr. Stewart has as solid lock on 11:00 pm both in a 0.7 ratings ["According to in-home viewing figures from Nielsen Media Research for the week of Feb. 3-7. Ratings refelect "live plus same day" date from Nielsen Media Research unless otherwise noted. Season-to-date figures are averages of "live plus seven day" data except for the two most recent weeks, whch are live plus same day."" - tvbythenumvers.com] and more importantly culturally. In fact Mr. Stewart’s 0.7 [ tvbythenumvers.com] stands pretty well against most of his competition. However, Conan O’Brien’s Conan is suffering a 0.4  [ tvbythenumvers.com] and cultural banishment. His online following is strong and present but he is a cultural shadow of what he once was when hosting Late Night on NBC. This should be righted. Mr. O’Brien is both immensely gifted and passionate about his craft. He deserves to be in the cultural awareness. He was scorned by NBC and passed over for a show that should have been his, The Tonight Show. Who else, I mean really, who else can possibly and rightfully step into Dave Lettermen’s Late Show than someone who both idolizes Dave Letterman and share a similar story and back ground with NBC. In short, Mr. O’Brien should return to 11:35 pm by replacing Mr. Letterman in 2015.

Which, finally, leads us to the forward thinking and easily obvious choice at 12:35 am. CBS will hire a woman to host the Late Late Show in 2015. Mr. Ferguson is talented, funny, and genuine [if you have not seen his heartfelt eulogy to his father see it now part one  & part two . No really. Stop. Go see it now. Then finish reading this...actually...watch this too . I said Mr. Colbert was a genius, now let me add, deeply human & simply a good person]. The natural move would be to give Mr. Ferguson a freer, more open, and less censored space to do his show. Mr. Ferguson is a gifted story teller and comedian and has done a wonderful job turning the traditional monologue on its head. 12:35 pm is not allowing him to expand to his full potential nor does it fully utilize his talents. A venue like HBO would be perfect for him [which after seeing what HBO does in April with John OIiver I may recant this or write a whole other blog on it].

So. We finally end up where we started. CBS is poised, if they want, to break ground in in American TV comedy, & potentially gender perception. Mr. O’Brien will offer a perfect foil to Mr. Fallon and a wonderful lead-in and mentor to the host of the Late Late Show [Mr. O’Brien’s foil to Mr. Fallon may be expanded on at a later date. I feel like I have a bit to say about it…we shall see]. For anybody struggling to think of how well a woman can do hosting a major network late night show I; 1) ask that you smack yourself, 2) go to the interweb and type “women of comedy”, & 3) enjoy the free education. 

I will start by saying I am going to fall short here, but the list of women that can brought up to prove that if they would have been placed as a host of a late night show, that they too would draw huge audiences and would have had an impact of changing what is the late night show. Their impact would staggering. Let me list just ten to make a point; Lucille Ball [I should just stop there. Ms. Ball would have been a perfect late night host. Goodness.], Carol Burnett [just look at what she did with her variety show], Tina Fay, Amy Poehler, Ellen DeGeneres, Janean Garofalo, Betty White, Bea Arthur, Jane Curtin, and Gilda Radner. The list of young funny women in comedy right now is growing daily. It makes sense to want a woman as a late nigh host. As a major channel [the big four; ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC] you have everything to gain. And to show how loved a woman in television can be I point back to the wonderful and talented Ms. Lucille Ball. While pregnant on The I Love Lucy Show America did not turn away from the show, rather they became fascinated. “Little Ricky” was not just Lucy’s baby, it was America’s baby. Imagine for a second, the comedic gold that would come from growing older, year by year with a female host of a late night show. As silly as it sounds, how much of an impact could having a woman on TV, with the spotlight on her, go through a pregnancy and child rearing in front of a national audience. For a country that is behind in its pay, treatment, and respect for women in the work place, a female late night host can create small steps in the bridging some of these gaps.

And for anybody who is having a knee jerk reaction to the thought of a woman hosting one of the late night institutions remember “as long as they’re funny” is all that really matters.

Oh…one last thing…

Dear CBS,

Just make sure her pay is not 77% of Mr. Meyers.  

Isn't comedy beautiful? 

Commitment-phobia: Why Shy Away from Cleaning the Bay? by Payton Brown

February 2^nd, 2014: A brief issued by 21 states was issued in support of the appeal by American Farm Bureau (AFBF), The National Association of Homebuilders and other groups. The AFBF, et al. appeal was filed on January 27^th, 2014 and may be arguing the same or similar talking points as their lost 2010 suit against the EPA for regulating nutrient loading into tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Some articles on the matter are linked: The Washington Post, The Bay Journal, Farm Futures. And now that we’re caught up a little…

There is no doubt that it is well within the rights of the AFBF, et al. to appeal the ’10 court decision upholding the EPA’s plan for the Bay and the policies of the EPA to protect the Chesapeake Bay. If upheld, the plan for the Bay will likely influence national policies that regulate the environmental impact on other bodies of water in the US. The plan positively affects markets (tourism, fisheries) within the states in the watershed and, in turn, whomever participates in those markets (e.g. potentially the whole nation). This, falling under the commerce clause (Article I, section 8 of the Constitution) is a huge justification for the Clean Water Act, which the EPA’s plan for the Bay is based under.

The AFBF, et al. argues that markets, such as development and agriculture, may be negatively affected more than others by the plan. This is because they contribute a significant amount of non-point source nutrient pollution entering the Bay. And it is the EPA’s hope to cut this pollution back and to not exceed a watershed’s total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants. TMDLs are standards created  for the EPA by modeling nutrient loading; these models traditionally use parameters and processes such as water flow and efficiency of nutrient cycling. And nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorous primarily) is the main cause of the relatively recent decline in the Bay (e.g. algae blooms, dead zones, functional extinction of eastern oyster, loss of natural nursery grounds).

The EPA points out that the suit against them and following appeal concerning the plan for the Bay is slightly out of place. This is because EPA plans are made available to the public for consideration and comments before it is enacted. I have even seen that they have made changes to their plans based on public input, even since I have become somewhat aware of my political surroundings (e.g. changing of EPA’s carbon emission policy for powerplants). Everyone could have had a say before 2010, so what is the larger reason for the appeal?

It could simply be easier for opponents to let the EPA make a plan and have it deemed unconstitutional, and repealed, thus setting a precedent for little or no EPA involvement in indirectly influencing land use. Suing and appealing for repeal of the plan seems like it could be a quick(ish) and dirty way of getting what AFBF, et al. wants (relaxed restrictions on non-point source nutrient pollution). Especially if AFBF, et al. tried to give their input and to compromise but did not get the deal they wanted or are willing to settle for.

More largely, I think a disparity exist between the value different groups place on not only the markets that depend on the waterways, but the aquatic ecosystem itself. I say this because in a similar brief, counties within the Bay watershed support AFBF’s appeal. These counties are not in Maryland or Virginia, the states that are home to the Bay. Spatial distance from the adored estuary decreases the importance of its revival and the success of markets that depend on it. Additionally, temporal distance decreases this; I have the benefit of hearing wondrous stories of a Bay where you could see your toes in chest deep water, a Bay where you could practically pluck soft shell crabs from eel grass beds because the water was so clear.

Others are not so fortunate.

And the dilemma resides here: how does one inspire value for something they have not seen or touched? My generation has never seen a healthy Bay. People in the watershed and throughout the country that oppose the EPA’s plan more than likely did not grown up with the dynamic & charismatic Chesapeake at their back yard or directly depended on the estuary.

Can we expect the Bay to be “saved” by distant third parties or by the increasingly disconnected upcoming generation? Does a general appreciation and value put into the natural world provide sufficient reason for the nation to support the EPA here? Probably not.

Finding the balance of EPA regulation could be achieved through these appeals. Perhaps the EPA recognizes rigidity in its plan and provides some flexibility. Alternatively, the AFBF, et al. could be silenced by another loss and the EPA proceeds as it pleases. None the less, pursuing the route of EPA regulation via the CWA and TMDLs looks far less reckless than resting the responsibility of cleaning up the Bay on the future generations would be.

Managing Editor's Mission Statement

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Mission Statement: to create a space that welcomes open & honest observations, ideas, beliefs, & discourse. The Writing on the Wall, here on FreeRevolt, is meant to be a sharing of a wide breadth of thoughts to be placed for the world to make its own. We welcome the words of many topics from a wide variety of authors, each with their own perspective and background.

FreeRevolt is open and accepting of all peoples. We support, believe in, and advocate for equality for all. 

There can be no truth by allowing any denial or repression.

FreeRevolt is not a news source & therefore may editorialize. You may even find conflicting opinions. As America was built on this discourse, we welcome the challenge along with the growth, mutual agreement, and agreed disagreements to be left on the floor. In this challenging space lies not only truth, but a path forward. While it may be difficult to work in that gray space it is only from that place could a true America and her constitution be born.

...and in the begining

"No one will pluck you out of obscurity."

This is a mission to put the sword to the grindstone; to get out words, express ideas, and share with the world our interconnection.

Politics. Pop Culture. Sports. History. Travel. Food. Drink. Spirit.

Where ever we are at the moment we will hope to capture it, express it, and share it.

This is the writing on the wall. A foreshadowing of where we will be by our expression of where we are now.

Today there is one. Soon may there be many.

Our truth and a search for the greater truth will be the graffiti to fill that wall. Maybe one person reads this. Maybe millions. Probably somewhere in the middle.

Until tomorrow. May we be true.