Archive Listing
October 6, 2012 - September 29, 2012

Monday, December 12, 2011

BACK OFF, BOZOS. I'm being assailed because all I want at the moment is to defeat Obama. Peter claims I never talk about the issues. Skinny Devil says if the Republican candidates can't solve the economic problem, it doesn't matter who wins. Helk promises that his own love of chickens is proof of the greatness of HIS generation. Douglas Rain insists that the millennials are smarter than I give them credit for.

Phooey. They're all idiots. Why? Because their whole consciousness consists of me, me, me in the now, now, now timeframe. I've written hundreds of thousands of words about the real issues. They're not going to be fixed in 2012. People keep hammering me about the "Greatest Generation," a term I didn't dream up and never subscribed to. They weren't smarter or braver than the generations that came after. They failed completely as parents. Because their chief virtue was one that can't be passed along, can't be taught. Patience.

They had a different sense of time. The Depression, The War. Horrible events that ingrained in them a willingness to keep working for an outcome that would be decades in the making.

I, too, have a different sense of time. Odd, given that I'm working for what may not transpire until long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil. But that's one of the few blessings age can bestow on you. Patience.

This time -- 2012 -- all we can do is stanch the bleeding. Defeat Obama. None of our candidates is any good. No matter which one you back, the only consistent credential is "not Obama." I didn't make that state of affairs. It just is.

The good news is that there are potential reformers in the wings. People who can do what needs doing. Bobby Jindal. Marco Rubio. Sarah Palin. Chris Christie. Paul Ryan. Eric Cantor. And (if you must) Rand Paul. But they're not ready yet. They need experience, they need to grow into the role we will ask them to play. They are the future. Note that they're not repeats of the past. Only one fat old white guy among them. The others include an Indian, an Hispanic, a woman, and a semi-orthodox Jew, as well as a young midwestern white guy and the obligatory crazy white guy.

I'm not telling you who to back in that future race. The basis for my hope -- as opposed to all of you in the "it's fucking over" crowd -- is that there are no young Democrats boasting equivalent credentials. In other words, if we can survive the current crisis, we can absolutely save the country we love.

Four more years. Time for the Millennials to learn something about life, others, and the need for balls. Unlike most of my critics, I'm not talking End of the World here. I'm talking triage.

We can still be the shining city on a hill. But it's going to take time. And it's important to remember The Mission. Which for the moment is throwing Obama out of the White House. Sorry if that's too small an objective for the more grandiose among you.

Sorry. I've said that a lot in this post. Except that I'm not. Not sorry at all. I'm what you need to hear. Whether you know it or not. Because I'm smart. And patient.

Learn or lose. The first option is a lot more fun.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

WHY BE SO NASTY?  The so-called Greatest Generation is gone. Their direct heirs are the Boomers, which you kids should really refer to as the Biggest Generation. They're getting old now, but they're not going to go quietly. Occupy Wall Street? Hell. If you knew anything, you'd Occupy the Senior Lobby. But you've been had. They've done to you and you haven't a clue. They're smarter and far better educated than you, which they engineered in the name of bolstering your self-esteem, and they absolutely will not surrender their Social Security benefits, their Medicare reimbursements, their outrageously inflated union pensions, or their ultimate Parthian shot -- the contempt they feel for the fools who imitate their worst moments at a time when the "beloved kids" should be fighting like hell for their own lives and the lives of their children. They're laughing at you.

Friday, December 09, 2011

PART TWO. Hi, nite owls. Thought I'd break into the office and post while the grown-ups are asleep.

I've been in deep seclusion working on a project so top-secret, even The Boss doesn't know about it. And to keep it secret I haven't answered any of his calls or emails in the last two weeks. On the off chance I spill the beans "in the heat of conversation," as George Lowe put it. Secrecy is paramount.

Here's part 3 of that date list thing I was doing a while back. Was it worth the wait? Probably not.

23. 1917. Russian Revolution. Shammadamma.

24. 1500 BC. I think that's a bit early for Greece. Egypt? Something happen in Egypt? Akenaton? Big Bang?

Not a lot going on this decade. The start of something called "Mycenaean civilization." Should I know about them? The domestication of ferrets begins. And the "Biblical Exodus, according to Simcha Jacobovici in the earliest suggestion of the documentary Exodus Decoded." Is that the consensus? 1500 BC? K.

25. 1912. Titanic sinks.

26. 1916. WWI something or other. Let's find out.

Wilson wins reelection. Cubs play their first game (and they win!). Margaret Sanger starts killing unborn black babies. Rasputin dies. Some stuff in China. I'm stumped on this one.

27. 1588. England the Spanish Armada and sends them home with red butts. The beginning of British sea power? Sounds right. Let's say it is.

28. 1929. Black Tuesday: stock market crashes.


29. "Two thousand and one million B.C.". It's a whole thing.

30. 1348. Black plague. Started by dead Chink rats in catapults, right?

31. 1607. Jamestown. Looking it up, I just now learn that this is not the same as Roanoke. Jamestown was the first colony that took. Guess my brilliant quip comparing National Geographic's obsession with Roanoke to The History Channel's obsession with Hitler and UFOs will have to wait.

32. 1877. No clue.

Holy hell, this year was jam-packed. First up: The Compromise of 1877. Turns out Rutherford B. Hayes, current remembered only as the best name to use in a joke about obscure US presidents, was significant right from the very start of his administration. I could explain why this is, but I'm not... it has something to do with reconstruction. It's all very... look, I could explain it, but it's all very intricate and there's lots of extenuating... details. Your time is valuable, and it's late. Suffice to say, it's historic and the fact that no one at all remembers it shows the shameful state of education in this country. Or maybe every teacher in the last 50 years made the same choice I just did to skip it because it's complicated and these little bastards don't care anyway (Hall.B.19).

And that's just January. After the first half the year, which includes the surrender of Crazy Horse, the first Westminster Dog Show, and the first Wimbeldon, there's a massive railroad strike that gets so out of hand that, according to the synopsis in Wiki's 1877 entry, a sympathy strike in St. Louis "briefly establish[es] a Communist government" and Hayes has to call in federal troops to wrap it up. Dude!

(the page on the St. Louis strike looks to be only lightly paraphrased from A People's History of the United States and is begging for a "neutrality questioned" tag, but I don't have the time. Secret project and everything)

Then some lucky sumbitch discovers both moons of Mars inside a week of each other, Crazy Horse is killed, and to cap the year off, Thomas Edison invents the effing Phonograph. No big deal!

I have never been taught or exposed to any of this, and that is bullcrap. There's been an eighty-year gap in every history class I've ever had, jumping from Appomattox straight to Black Tuesday, with maybe the Titanic mentioned if I was lucky. Nary a word (other than "Carpetbagger") on Reconstruction, WWI only ever brought up to explain why WWII had the II. Bogus.

TOMORROW, OR WHENEVER: Part 4? Who knows.

PRESIDENTIAL OCTAGON 2. I had to chuckle at this National Review Corner entry by Michael Walsh:


Which brings me back to my own recent post on the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, his growing popularity in the polls, and the opposition that's being expressed inside the Beltway. The few comments were mostly interesting, although the last and longest one is typical of the muddled thinking I was talking about, long on know-it-all condescension and short on comprehension. (It's never a good sign when a comment is longer than the post it's commenting on and still seems not to have understood that post.) A sample:


Sigh. I never said or intimated that Gingrich wasn't an insider. Of course he is. That's why I said I was smelling a rat. As to my definition of insiders being "flat out wrong," not so fast, kemo sabe. I wasn't in this case referring to the official Republican Party power brokers but to the incestuous inside the Beltway community of those who spend most of their time in the DC community, talking with others in the DC community, and forming their sense of the politically possible via the view from DC. Why I said: "I get it. Gingrich has enemies. He isn't a nice guy. He's stepped on a lot of tender Beltway toes." [boldface added]

The people I cited, with the exception of Imus (who I excepted in the post), do speak -- more openly than professional politicians can -- for a variety of viewpoints within the official Republican powerbase, from the intellectual elite, like Krauthammer, to the Tea Party rebels, like Steyn and Ingraham.

That's what was so interesting to me and the basis of my principal point, that this is going to be an exceptionally nasty, dirty, and repellent presidential election campaign. Obama is going to start in the gutter and plunge lower from there. Why, therefore, are mouthpieces from every part of the conservative Beltway crowd ganging up on Gingrich in a transparent attempt to give us Romney as the nominee instead?

A point just reinforced by the Corner piece above.

I was hoping for some useful inferences from the data, not supercilious lectures. (Yeah, I know "insiders don't give a crap what [my] opinion is." What's your assessment of the sum of 2 + 2? I'm sure it will be equally educational.) You see, I'm thinking that a lot of the voters in the crazed right-wing flyover population are seeing something the insiders -- however you define them -- don't see: that if what we're looking at is a bare-kuckle brawl, then we want the best bare-knuckle brawler we can find on our side.

Us crazed flyover types nobody listens to don't get invited to debate politely on TV, we're not asked to the cocktail parties where our mortal political enemies fill our wine glasses and offer us exquisite canapes, and there's a point at which we stop parsing the distinctions between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo conservatives, and even (dammit) quasi-RINOs. We just want Obama OUT.

We survived Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. And, yeah, they were bad, more than one of them corrupt as hell. But we don't think we can survive four more years of Obama. He's in a category all by himself.

My bet is that people who are now flocking to Gingrich aren't at all ignorant about his flaws, faults, and liabilities. After flirtations with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, they're done with well meaning amateurs. They're ready to hire themselves a professional gunfighter. They don't want to take a chance on Will Cain from High Noon. They want the Man with No Name. Even if, and perhaps especially if, he's considered too ruthless and quick on the trigger for the civilized tree-huggers of government and media. What ordinary people can see that the illuminated ones apparently can't see is that Gingrich has come from the nowhere of "no chance in hell" to a lead in the polls, and he's done it all alone, with a very well publicized absence of media cheerleaders and professional campaign staff, all of whom also wrote him off months ago. But they've seen him draw... and they know he's fast. Fast with a gun. (Speaking metaphorically, of course, for the benefit of you politically correct mavens of diction who think Anglo-Saxon words are vile and Latin words are equality-inducing, just like the ancient Romans.) Bang! They want a Bang! moment or a hundred in the presidential debates, because nobody anywhere has ever taken this phony on and peeled away his layers of lies. Face to face. In the arena. What they absolutely, positively can't wait for. Simple as that.

I suppose it's too simple a point for someone who calls himself  "Chevalier de Johnstone," or even "Reince Priebus," to stoop to comprehend. Far better to nitpick and posture... and then lose amicably, like gentlemen, in the end because a weak but genteel dauphin is the enemy of a slutty Joan of Arc. (I know I won't have to explain the unstated first half of the analogy to a "Chevalier.")

The opening bell isn't that far away, folks. Do you really have no strong opinions you wish to share about the ring? Or shall we go on pretending that this political war for our lives is an academic debating society?

Time's yours.

Thursday, December 08, 2011

I'VE DONE REVIEWS FROM TIME TO TIME. I don't know how many of you subscribe to the Netflix streaming service, but I'd appreciate some input from those who do. I've been toying with the idea of setting up a website dedicated to reviews and recommendations of Netflix offerings. Their own descriptions and ratings are, well, uninformative, and it's even difficult to find what all is available. You're more or less hostage to a rotating set of recommendations by genre, based on what you've already watched. Plot synopses are truncated, sometimes in mid-sentence, and cast lists are confined to one or two names. The search function is also fairly primitive. It's almost as if they're trying to hide how much good stuff there is, from Brit, Canadian, Aussie, and even short-lived American TV series we don't get to see on cable to all kinds of movies that never made a splash in theaters.

I'll give you one movie example today, although I can give you other examples in other categories if you ask for them.

In the Action genre I found a 2008 movie called Exit Speed. According to the viewer ratings, which is all Netflix offers, it got three stars, which almost all their Action movies do. I watched it on a hunch because the pitiful descriptive blurb mentioned a bus and bikers. How bad could it be? (We all know the answer to that question. It could be completely unwatchable.) Here's the setup:


That's about all you'll get from Netflix, except that the cast includes Lea Thompson and Desmond Harrington (Who? He's Jennifer Carpenter's sleazy cop boyfriend in Dexter.) No mention, for example, of Fred Ward or the real female lead, Julie Mond, who comes across as a tougher, leaner version of Scarlett Johansson. Who never goes topless once.


Not promising, right? Wrong. This time, somebody knew what he was doing. Or more than one somebody (Director Scott Ziehl and Writer Michael Stokes to name two.) The movie has roots in many others, including Speed, The Road Warrior, and Zulu, but the real foundation of the script is a clever modern twist on the old "Bronx Bomber Crew" ensemble casts so pervasive in World War II movies: you know, the Italian, the Irishman, the Jew, the Puerto Rican, the Alabama farmboy, the Boston Brahmin, etc, all overcoming their differences in the face of extreme peril. The outcomes of those movies were predictable, but they were also satisfying because there's truth in the stereotype of American commonality transcending real cultural differences.

That's why this movie is more than an ordinary bloody shoot'em up. The bikers are just Road Warrior evil, but among the bus passengers we have a female fugitive from an army court-martial, a grieving loser who's never seen his four-year-old son, a fired (with cause) high school football coach, a non-English speaking (presumably illegal) Mexican handyman, a vegan video-gamer, a con-artist drifter and his streetwise ex-biker moll girlfriend, and a soccer mom. And Fred Ward as the plainclothes MP tracking down the fugitive war vet.

The expository characterizations are minimalist but effective, and based on your knowledge of the action genre, you size the characters up quickly, like targets in a shooting gallery, and wait to see them fall over one by one for their sins. But then they start changing on you, revealing more of themselves, both talents and tenderness, and by the time the ones who fall do fall, you are sorry every time. Predictable? Yes. But satisfying nonetheless.

It's not trying to be ugly and gory for the sake of being ugly and gory. The violence is violent but it's appropriate rather than leering, voyeuristic violence. None of the bus passengers takes death or killing lightly. They are human beings in grave danger. And so the script becomes to a much higher degree than usual in such movies a parable of good versus evil, with some surprisingly touching and idiosyncratic turns along the way. The vegan video-gamer has become a competitive archer as a result of her gaming obsession, but she cannot aim arrows at people. Her transition is obviously a "yes!" moment, but the way it's effected is the antithesis of action movie cliches. I despise spoilers but there's an equally turnabout scene where you hurt more for the killer than the killed. Enough said. Well done.

Netflix viewers give it three stars, probably because of an insufficiency of arterial spray. I give it five stars, with a special call-out to the editor, Marshall Harvey, who kept up a nervewracking action pace without losing any of the human moments that make you care about the characters.

No, it's not Citizen Kane. Very few movies are. And, yes, it's predictable, formulaic, and a definite B-movie. But as B-movies go, it's the best I've seen in quite a while. If that means anything.


So what do you think of my Netflix site idea? Is it worth pursuing? If it is, what's the best way to go about setting it up and organizing it?

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

THANKS TO WILL & APOTH. I was being solemn about the state of our youth when commenters Will Ashbless and Apotheosis started talking about the most elemental of all toys, including "stick" and "cardboard box," about which they may have been reminded by this. It's true that those of us who grew up before minivans, child seats, and multimedia electronics often made do with simpler entertainments. I, too, had forts that existed only in my imagination in the woods out back, although I had quite an arsenal to defend them with, depending on whether I was a Revolutionary soldier, a sheriff, or a secret agent at the time.


Let me hasten to say this isn't a cultural essay. I'm just wondering what any of you look back on and remember the most fondly. I've always been suspicious of the exaggerated nostalgia practiced by elders on kids: "Back in my day, we smeared soot eyes on a white sock from the ragbin and made it into a puppet. By golly we performed the entire second Shakespeare folio that way, and we remembered it all by heart, too."

I am not playing that card. There have always been cool toys, and most of us had some of them, if not all the ones we wanted. But I'm curious abut what you think back to that might be different from what your own kids will experience.

For me it's grand old American bicycles with coaster brakes. The picture up top is the closest I could come to the one I had, which was slightly more voluptuous. Note the absence of brake and clutch levers on the wide Harley-esque handlebars. There was only one gear and stopping the thing was a function of backing the pedals into reverse so that the rear wheel could no longer turn unimpeded. The faster you were going, the longer it took to stop, and the more muscle power. Fair enough. "English" bikes with front and rear brake levers on the handlebars were for girls. (But neither girls nor boys were wearing kneepads, elbow pads or styrofoam Faberge eggs on our heads in those days. Just saying.)

So. What we discovered is that if, like me, you had a big country driveway that was mostly compacted dirt populated by miscellaneous loose pebbles, you could create fantastic skid patterns by stomping on the coaster brakes while dramatically changing direction. You got points for the curl of the resulting skidmark and for not falling off en route. The latter criterion frequently resulted in a net point deduction, skinned knees, bloody noses, and what we would come to know (as future motorcyclists) as "road rash." I did a complete 180 one time and didn't completely wipe out: the bike tipped over at the last but I was still standing. And you should have seen that swoosh in the driveway dirt. A high point of my youth.

I won't tell you about our pre-Knievel attempts to use a six-inch wide two-by-ten and an orange crate to jump as far as "that tree there," because people my age need to preserve some dignity...

What do you remember? It doesn't have to be all guy stuff. Just what makes you smile in recollection.

N.B.: December 7th isn't just Pearl Harbor Day. It's my grandfather's birthday. This year I prefer to honor the day by remembering the time when he was still alive.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

DUMBERER AND DUMBEREST. I'm starting to smell a rat. Everybody on the inside is working overtime, even double-overtime, to tell us how awful and unspeakable Newt Gingrich would be as the Republican nominee. George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, the National Review Gang, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Senator Tom Coburn, and even Don Imus AND his Cain-loving toady Bernie McJerk. I get it. Gingrich has enemies. He isn't a nice guy. He's stepped on a lot of tender Beltway toes. He's cut some corners in the past. You might not want to invite him to your wife's birthday party.

But is anybody else seeing the irony? It is Republican insiders (excepting Imus, who's just senile) who are leading the charge against him, and their preferred argument is that he's a Washington insider who shouldn't be acceptable to the Tea Party folks. Huh? Since when have George Will and Charles Krauthammer approved anyone favored by the Tea Party crowd? Aren't they the ones who keep telling us that the presidency isn't a job for well-intentioned amateurs? They certainly disposed of Herman Cain in a hurry and with prejudice.

My wife suggests that all these Gingrich opponents must know something and we should consider ourselves warned. Maybe she's right. She frequently is.

Still. My suspicion cilia are on alert, standing up and waving their tiny hands. Things I'm getting tired of hearing: "Yeah, he's the smartest guy in the room, but he never knows when to shut up." "He's never had an unspoken thought." "He's not really a limited government conservative; he's a big government conservative if he's a conservative at all." "He's a detestable human being."

Interesting, too, that the Democrats are exhibiting schizophrenic behavior. Barney Frank claims Gingrich is his dream Republican candidate. Pelosi is threatening him with Ethics Committee blackmail. If Frank wants Gingrich as a candidate, why advertise that preference to Republican primary voters? If Pelosi thinks she can do him in later, why try to scare him out of the race now? Hmmmm.

Let's all take a breath here. I'm not even going to libel Romney, other than to point out that he took offense at an interview by Bret Baier of Fox News, who merely asked questions Romney will be asked a thousand times before the nomination and/or the election will be decided.

But I will ask some questions. Is Romney the smartest guy in the room? Not when Gingrich is in the room. And which do you prefer? Romney who can't answer a straight question about RomneyCare, or Gingrich, who's "never had an unspoken thought." and "never knows when to shut up"? Is Romney, former governor of Taxachusetts, a true believer in limited government, more credible as a conservative because his political career consists of a single term as governor and many more years of running for office? And is Romney, for sure, NOT a detestable human being, unlike almost all other politicians, because his personality consists of good hair, tallness, and a car dealer's smile?

I'm just posing questions here. Because I have a very clear vision of what the 2012 presidential campaign will be like. It will be ugliness incarnate. Obama cannot run on his record. He will run instead the dirtiest campaign since Harry Truman's whitewashed 1948 bid, which was as nasty as it gets until Obama 2012 gets underway.

Who will you want then? When the negative ads powered by a billion media dollars start rolling out across the electoral landscape. Will you want a thin-skinned office-seeker whose chief claim to fame is a profitable Olympics and a budget-busting healthcare mandate? Or will you want Mike Tyson in a fat, old-guy suit drawing on a lifetime of harsh ring tactics to go toe-to-toe with an opponent everyone but Alan Colmes concedes is not in his brainpower league?

Sure, Gingrich will get bloodied in the ad wars. Who thinks Romney wouldn't? He's already wearing RomneyCare like an ox-yoke, and he's too prideful to pull his head out of the harness. And who doesn't think the man who can't shut up will not counterattack with pitiless documentation of the multifarious and disgraceful scandals of the Obama administration? A right cross and deadly uppercut (or three) for each wild left look. Here''s a new mantra for you in considering how the 2012 election will go: WHAT WOULD ROMNEY DO? I'm thinking he'll open his eyes in shock and awe like the Runaway Bride. Gingrich? Laura Ingraham dismissed him on Imus this morning as a tubby cross between a Cabbage Patch doll and Chuckie the horror movie nemesis. When I think of Obama's Mussolini pose I kind of like the Chuckie imagery. (Funny how fat was okay when conservatives were clamoring for Christie...)

Who out there thinks presidents have to be nice guys? We've had a few but hardly the majority. Ever notice that all Bill Clinton's friends eventually got thrown under the bus? That LBJ so bullied and intimidated those around him that even his doting biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts that he held staff meetings -- a la Louis XIV -- on his regal toilet?

And when is it exactly that we started insisting on nice guys to look out for our interests against the thieves and crooks who populate Washington, DC? Wasn't there a time when we needed Andrew Jackson to batter his opponents into submission? Or George Bush with his bullhorn on the rubble at Ground Zero? Or... oh forget it.


Forget everything I've said. Think of this instead. Why do all the insiders suddenly want Romney, who acts more like Mr. Greenjeans or the star of a Nickelodeon series about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police than a president of the United States? Why?

And can you think of any possible reason why the two or three smartest conservatives in the conservative movement keep bashing a man they just as repeatedly describe as "the smartest man in the room"?

Me? I can't think of any. Although it is interesting how many of them are writing columns criticizing Obama for "class warfare" campaign rhetoric they contemn as causing "envy."

Envy?

Forget I said that too. None of them have any desire to be the smartest man in the room. Or woman. You know what I mean.

Monday, December 05, 2011

[COMMENTS] IF YOU HAVE A MOMENT TO REPLY...? UH, SURE. When I look back at my best or at least most provocative and interesting posts, I generally find few comments. Oddly, the bigger ideas are generally ignored in favor of more topical subjects, as if big ideas can never be more than analogies in need of reduction to a more practical framework.

That's fine. People seize on what they seize on. T'was ever so. But then I'm asked for new explanations of ideas I've written about abundantly, if not always in the most topical of terms. Sometimes I'm in the mood to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes I'm not. Today, not.

Here are some posts that might deal with questions I've been hearing of late. At worst, they'll sharpen your questioning to a level that doesn't require me to recreate the universe and all of history to provide context for my views.



Did I mention the Jesus Factor? Oops. I guess I did. Maybe this made me think of it today. With friends like Howard Portnoy, who needs enemies? Who is it exactly who wants to string up Tim Tebow for being too good to be true (Billy Graham & family bad, Ahmadinejad okay)? When did being an evident innocent become a mortal sin? When the world is so full of thugs and killers and haters who don't pray on the sidelines but preen and pose and perorate on the field of play...

I also thought of this.


Billy Budd isn't the United States. No way. We don't let ourselves get strung up for other people's sins. No way.

(To whom it may concern: Billy Budd was a thing called a novel, written by an ancient American ne'er-do-well named Herman Melville who was inconsequential because nobody at Beloit College has ever heard of him or knows half the words he uses. They're all bravely pointed at the future unimpeded by baggage from the past.)

Are we clear? Helk? Skinny Devil? Just trying to helkhelp.

Back to Archive Index