The church shooting today that left a Baptist preacher dead was just the latest in a series of church shootings, that have occurred over the last several months, but so far in this case the name of the gunman, now in the hospital from a self-inflicted knife wound to his throat, has not been released. It's believed though that he lived in an upscale neighborhood, though it is unknown whether he actually knew the preacher he killed.
What is remarkable about this story is how the congregants reacted. The first shot from the gunman struck the preacher's upraised Bible, resulting in shards of paper spraying out in all directions, giving the appearance of what one witness described as flying confetti. He and others went on to say they thought it was some kind of skit. An assistant pastor at the church said he heard what sounded like firecrackers.
People's minds react in strange ways when confronted by the unexpected. It's hard to wrap your mind around the proposition that somebody could just casually stride up the aisle in a church, during a service, and shoot the preacher point blank. But that's what happened, and when it became obvious what was going on, several of the parishioners in attendance tackled the gunman, resulting in two of them receiving non-life threatening stab wounds, which resulted in one of them being hospitalized.
I'm going to guess this has something to do with a job loss and possible home foreclosure, and he might have heard something from this minister to make him think he was unsympathetic to his plight. A marital break-up is also a possibility. I'm not trying to play a game of blame the victim for any of this, but the point is, there is going to be a lot of this going on over the next couple of years, or at least over the course of this one. There are a lot of people in jams, and when people get desperate, they do crazy things. A lot of times they might well subconsciously seek out a symbolic target. I'm going to be interested in seeing how this plays out and exactly what its all about.
Like I said, people's minds work in strange ways when faced with bizarre and tragic events. I find myself hoping the preacher was messing with the guys wife or was up to something similarly shady, because otherwise, its nothing but a senseless, seemingly random atrocity that makes no sense whatsoever. But, unfortunately, a great lot of the time things like this happens, that's precisely what it is.
Senseless and random. We want to have an explanation for everything. It's just in our natures, but oftentimes the chaotic nature of these kinds of events just defy rationality whether we like it or not.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
To The Last Drop
It’s made with the highest-quality, ethically sourced 100% arabica beans. The magic is in a proprietary, all-natural process that we spent years perfecting. We microgrind the coffee in a way that preserves all of their essential oils and flavor. No other coffee company takes this step, and it makes all the difference.
After closing down several stores and scaling down future store openings in the face of declining profits, Starbucks has now come up with what seems to be a desperate plan to stop the bleeding. They are now going to be selling breakfast sandwiches and instant coffee.
In the meantime, they deny there are plans to sell franchises of the Starbucks brand as they recently did with their other chain, Seattle's Best, on the grounds that they want to retain control of the company's image and brand. I guess they are hoping they won't end up going down with the ship, but something tells me they still haven't quite acclimated to the idea of being the rats that desert it on its way down. If they go down, they are going to go down fighting until the bitter end.
There has even been what seems to be a socialist inspired suggestion that the company might allow for some form of worker control, but I don't see that going anywhere soon, even though the company is getting desperate for answers and the employees are starting to lose patience.
Still, who knows? By the time its all over with, they might turn the company mascot into a live-action cartoon television marketing character like Ronald MacDonald.
I just think this is a sure indication of how grim the overall economy has become. Here we have a company that made a success story out of selling what is basically coffee based beverages, for four dollars and more a cup, about to go under. So, what do they turn to? Instant coffee, a beverage that acquired popularity with people too busy to either take the time to perk that morning coffee at home or to stop for a cup to go at the local diner.
Instant coffee, for a dollar a buck-at Starbucks. The real irony is pretty obvious if you've ever priced a eight ounce jar of instant coffee in comparison to say a 32 ounce can of regular brand name coffee such as Folgers or Maxwell House. Believe me, the regular coffee is far and away your better value. Yet, Starbucks claims their instant coffee is just as good as the regular coffee. Some people who tested it seem to like it, with one woman actually claiming the instant coffee was better because it wasn't quite as strong.
Seeing as how manufacturing instant coffee is a tedious and expensive process, and seeing as how the rise in demand is likely to push the price upwards, I just don't think this is a very good long-term strategy.
After closing down several stores and scaling down future store openings in the face of declining profits, Starbucks has now come up with what seems to be a desperate plan to stop the bleeding. They are now going to be selling breakfast sandwiches and instant coffee.
In the meantime, they deny there are plans to sell franchises of the Starbucks brand as they recently did with their other chain, Seattle's Best, on the grounds that they want to retain control of the company's image and brand. I guess they are hoping they won't end up going down with the ship, but something tells me they still haven't quite acclimated to the idea of being the rats that desert it on its way down. If they go down, they are going to go down fighting until the bitter end.
There has even been what seems to be a socialist inspired suggestion that the company might allow for some form of worker control, but I don't see that going anywhere soon, even though the company is getting desperate for answers and the employees are starting to lose patience.
Still, who knows? By the time its all over with, they might turn the company mascot into a live-action cartoon television marketing character like Ronald MacDonald.
I just think this is a sure indication of how grim the overall economy has become. Here we have a company that made a success story out of selling what is basically coffee based beverages, for four dollars and more a cup, about to go under. So, what do they turn to? Instant coffee, a beverage that acquired popularity with people too busy to either take the time to perk that morning coffee at home or to stop for a cup to go at the local diner.
Instant coffee, for a dollar a buck-at Starbucks. The real irony is pretty obvious if you've ever priced a eight ounce jar of instant coffee in comparison to say a 32 ounce can of regular brand name coffee such as Folgers or Maxwell House. Believe me, the regular coffee is far and away your better value. Yet, Starbucks claims their instant coffee is just as good as the regular coffee. Some people who tested it seem to like it, with one woman actually claiming the instant coffee was better because it wasn't quite as strong.
Seeing as how manufacturing instant coffee is a tedious and expensive process, and seeing as how the rise in demand is likely to push the price upwards, I just don't think this is a very good long-term strategy.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Dice Man Goeth
Sunday, March 1st, 2009, was the debut of the latest season of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, in which Donald Trump, allegedly genius billionaire businessman, fired the one and only reason I was half way thinking of giving the show a chance.
Of course, I guess you could say Trump had valid reasons when he fired Andrew Dice Clay.
The Diceman was playing for the charity known as Standup For Kids. Evidently, he took exception to his Brooklyn pals seeing him on the tube baking cupcakes in a funny little baker's hat. Clay has his values, after all. As seen in the following clip, image is everything to him.
Now if Trump had focused the contest on, say, who could make the best prank phone calls, Andrew Dice Clay would have probably won hands down.
Of course, I guess you could say Trump had valid reasons when he fired Andrew Dice Clay.
The Diceman was playing for the charity known as Standup For Kids. Evidently, he took exception to his Brooklyn pals seeing him on the tube baking cupcakes in a funny little baker's hat. Clay has his values, after all. As seen in the following clip, image is everything to him.
Now if Trump had focused the contest on, say, who could make the best prank phone calls, Andrew Dice Clay would have probably won hands down.
Monday, March 02, 2009
What Kind Of Gun I Am
Surprisingly, I seem to be the same kind of gun as Lemuel Calhoun from Hillbilly White Trash, from whom I got this. Seeing as how he is a gun expert, and I'm most assuredly not one, I guess that's good.
Well, after answering that I would prefer to go to the opera than the races (assuming this meant NASCAR races-if it meant thoroughbred races, that would be different story), I would think I would have ended up something like a Derringer or whatever. I really figured I would nail something off the wall when I answered that I would prefer to be stranded on a desert island with Martha Stewart as opposed to Paris Hilton (though this would be for what should be obviously practical reasons). Maybe one of those old-fashioned muskets or ball and powder loads circa Daniel Boone.
Then again, my answers were so all over the map, I'm kind of surprised they have a gun that would suit my personality at all. I guess I might strike some as the Saturday Night Special type, or maybe even a cap gun or bb gun. Now that would have been embarrasing.
A Turd In A Candy Wrapper Is Still A Turd
In order for a business to succeed and prosper long-term, it has to provide a service which people want or need, it must do so at a competitive price, and it must by all means provide quality merchandise and service. It must stand by its product, and honor the good faith investments of its customers. It still might fail due to a variety of factors, but those businesses with the most successful business models tend to be the most adaptable.Why then are so many newspapers going under? Could it be they are trying to be all things to all people? That might arguably work with a very limited type of commodity, but for the most part, targeted marketing is king.
General Motors learned early in its history that, in addition to assuring quality product, they were obliged to reach out to various segments of the population if they were going to thrive. Thus, they produced three different models. The Chevrolet was geared toward the working class. Pontiac was designed to be the automobile of choice for the middle class and upwardly mobile. The Cadillac was considered a rich man's car.
Guess which one has now been discontinued? And so it goes. These are hard times, and a business that doesn't adapt will likely go the way of the Saber-toothed tiger. Without a steady supply of Mastodon on which to feed, his most striking features becomes not only obsolete, they are rendered impractical.
But you don't just do something for the sake of doing something. The e-reader proposal is meant to save newspapers from extinction by marketing modern technology, but I think its proponents are missing the point. The problem isn't the delivery system, it's the product meant for consumption.
There is a reason why Bill O'Reilly reined so long as the number one cable news analyst, and why Rush Limbaugh is still the number one radio broadcaster, while people like Brit Hume and other hard news-focused analysts are relegated to the much lower rated afternoon and early evening hours. The reason for the popularity of the pundits is only partially to do with conservative politics, and this is especially true of O'Reilly, who is actually not all that conservative on a good many issues. In fact, he is on balance quite moderate, certainly in comparison to Limbaugh.
What is it, then? I hold that it is due to the fact that you know exactly where they stand on any given issue, and they don't pretend to be objective about anything. Objectivity, after all, while a worthy goal for which to aim, is nearly impossible to achieve. Fairness is somewhat more attainable, if but in small doses.
Remember, newspapers by nature in origin were always partisan. It was only over the last century that the innovation of objectivity in hard news was adopted as a business model, but by its nature it was always doomed to a limited shelf life.
Niche marketing will be the new order of the day, and it will be the business model which will achieve the longest lasting success. The old underground papers of the past are going to be the major success stories of tomorrow. They will thrive in print. They might even do a respectable business by way of e-reader.
The newspaper business is not dying. It's just experiencing growth pains. It went through a period of puberty when it decided it should "grow up" and act more adult, and in the process it became a commodity produced in a sterilized environment which betrayed few signs of intelligent life, which was found more often than not, ironically, in the pages of the editorial sections. Even the "hard-hitting investigative reports", what few there were, seemed to betray a bias. They still do.
That's why newspapers are doomed to thrive only as niche markets. Yes, this means they will produce limited profits, individually. By definition, niche markets cater to a limited audience. By the way, this audience will mostly be comprised of adults. Few if any newspapers are read by high-school and grade-school children, and so another way for the newspaper industry to pull itself up by its bootstraps might be to discontinue this canard that they are a "family newspaper". Families don't read newspapers. People read newspapers. Another one of life's ironies is doubtless that a loosening up of the censorship standards of language and expression would actually increase readership among the young.
For a reporter to declare, "During a raucous meeting at City Hall, Mr. Jones cursed the mayor in foul language which we can not print here and threatened violence on his person", is asking for trouble.
For a reporter to say, "During a raucous meeting at City Hall, Mr. Jones called the mayor a 'stupid motherfucking son-of-a-bitch' and threatened to 'kick your ass from one end of this god damned hall to the other'", is something else-it is actually reporting the news.
See the difference? In the first example, unless you are personally involved or know or are related to Mr. Jones or the Mayor, you are unlikely to care enough to read on. In the second case, you want to read on to see what happened.
Unfortunately, newspapers are still mired in the sensibilities of a by-gone era. This, in addition to the thinly disguised bias masquerading behind a veneer of objectivity in hard news coverage, is why so many papers are in trouble, and even the New York Times is barely hanging on for dear life.
The wave of the future is the old underground papers, like Cincinnati's City Beat.
When the old dinosaurs finally fall by the wayside, they will be there to take up the slack.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Where To From Here
The tea party protest pictured here in Lansing Michigan was just one of many that transpired Friday across the nation. Inspired by the rant of Rick Santelli on CNBC, a grassroots organization opposed to the wave of spending by the Democratic Congress and the stimulus program of Barak Obama, in addition to the bailout package, have converged in cities across the nation to engage in peaceful protests.To get that last point across, one site advertising a tea party in Los Angeles listed the following advice-
“Few simple rules, :
NO: breaking the law (e.g., loitering, vandalism)
NO: violence (physical or verbal)
JUST: good cheer & a positive sense of public engagement & a smile.”
All of which begs the point-do they even get the point of what the original tea party was all about? Can you imagine the original participants of the Boston Tea Party taking seriously any admonitions from officials to refrain from dumping tea on the grounds that it is bad for the environment, and might even discolor the water? Of course not. Yet, this was precisely what happened in Iowa.Granted, this is a young movement, and might well grow into something big over time, and I would be the last to encourage violence or destruction of property, which actually would be counterproductive. In fact, the resultant higher prices on goods would possibly result in even more money in the coffers of the federal government. 
Like children, the movement should grow, but also mature, and work toward not destruction, but simply to affect prices in the opposite direction. It's actually quite simple. SAVE-DON'T SPEND!
Unfortunately, that is a hard lesson for children to learn, to say nothing of putting it into practice. Still, I'm afraid that all of us are going to have to make some serious sacrifices in the way we live if we really expect to affect needed change. A few hundred or thousand people here and there engaging in a symbolic act of dumping tea while chanting slogans and waving signs is all well and good, but like all protests, it must be followed with decisive action. Let's call it, well, fiscal discipline?
/>All of us are going to have to make some serious sacrifices in the way we live if we really expect to affect needed change. Otherwise this protest movement, like so many others, will just be hijacked by a few loud-mouths who will in the end accomplish nothing but serve to rally some people to a cause that in the long run will be seen as one chasing a fantasy, but willing to do nothing to really change anything.
Beware The Evil Leprechaun
Gold might be more stable and secure now than it was in 1980, but just be sure you know what you're doing, regardless of the hype. Gold will probably be a safe investment over the next four years, for the simple fact we are going to experience sluggish economy recovery beginning at the end of this year, or the beginning of the next one. Since the dollar is going through a period of devaluation, gold is king once more, until the next period of significant economic recovery-again, more than likely not until roughly four years from now.
And then-
Translation-there will probably be a massive sell-off as folks diversify their investments once more. Watch the stock market closely over the next couple of years. A good rule of thumb is, once the Dow inches back above or close to the 9000 mark, that might be the best time to diversify while you still have a chance to increase your profit margins.
And incidentally, you should plan on diversifying soon. This is actually a good time to buy stocks, at least theoretically, as most of the more dependable stocks would seem to have no place to go but up. Still, take it slow for now. By the time the year is over with, there could well be more big name companies that tank, and one sudden disruption in any given number of areas could see many of them could evaporate overnight.
And by all means, buy some gold-a moderate amount. Don't imagine for one minute its going to remain at current prices, or rise even higher, and stay put. You might think you've got a pot of gold now, but if you aren't careful you could end up holding an empty bag.
Also, when buying gold, look to things like Canadian Maple Leafs, South African Kruggerands, and other such issues that remain stable in price. They don't rise in price with the gold market, but neither do they crash. Thus, they are a safe investment.
Personally, I wouldn't touch a gold fund with a ten foot pole. The current line is that gold is far undervalued since the 1980 debacle and allowing for current rates of inflation, it has a ways to go yet to catch up to its true value. That sounds reasonable, but then they try to sell you the song-and-dance that once it gets to that level it will stay there.
It will stay there until the next major sell-off, and then it will go down, maybe not as low as it has been typcically over the last three decades, but low enough that if you have a lot of money tied up in it you could lose your shirt.
Still now, for sure it is a good investment, like all things, in moderate measure.
And then-
Translation-there will probably be a massive sell-off as folks diversify their investments once more. Watch the stock market closely over the next couple of years. A good rule of thumb is, once the Dow inches back above or close to the 9000 mark, that might be the best time to diversify while you still have a chance to increase your profit margins.
And incidentally, you should plan on diversifying soon. This is actually a good time to buy stocks, at least theoretically, as most of the more dependable stocks would seem to have no place to go but up. Still, take it slow for now. By the time the year is over with, there could well be more big name companies that tank, and one sudden disruption in any given number of areas could see many of them could evaporate overnight.
And by all means, buy some gold-a moderate amount. Don't imagine for one minute its going to remain at current prices, or rise even higher, and stay put. You might think you've got a pot of gold now, but if you aren't careful you could end up holding an empty bag.
Also, when buying gold, look to things like Canadian Maple Leafs, South African Kruggerands, and other such issues that remain stable in price. They don't rise in price with the gold market, but neither do they crash. Thus, they are a safe investment.
Personally, I wouldn't touch a gold fund with a ten foot pole. The current line is that gold is far undervalued since the 1980 debacle and allowing for current rates of inflation, it has a ways to go yet to catch up to its true value. That sounds reasonable, but then they try to sell you the song-and-dance that once it gets to that level it will stay there.
It will stay there until the next major sell-off, and then it will go down, maybe not as low as it has been typcically over the last three decades, but low enough that if you have a lot of money tied up in it you could lose your shirt.
Still now, for sure it is a good investment, like all things, in moderate measure.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Dollhouse-Count Me In
What would you pay for a person who could be absolutely anything you wanted him or her to be, a person who could be programmed to do anything you wanted, an individual whose memories of everything they did would then be erased forever? That is the premise behind Dollhouse, a show by Josh Whedon, the former creative genius behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly. It stars Eliza Dushku, formerly the star of Tru Calling. In this show she plays Echo, who in an attempt to escape her past agrees to have her true memory and identity erased, thus becoming the “Active” who is the central character of the show.
The Dollhouse, as it is known, is illegal, to say nothing of unethical, and a doggedly determined FBI agent is determined to find it and shut it down. First, he has to prove its existence to his skeptical and even derisive fellow agents.
Sure, the program has its obvious flaws. For example, anyone with the money can hire an Active to perform any task they want or need. The flaw here is, how many people who could afford such a high fee could also be trusted to keep the details of the operation secret? It seems to me that it would be better to hide the true nature of the Dollhouse from the clients. All they need to know is these people can perform the needed tasks beyond any ordinarily reasonable expectations. On the other hand, many of the tasks involved are illegal to begin with.
The procedure is fraught with danger. The various personalities grafted onto the Actives are real ones, and along with their talents, they are also replete with their own sets of weaknesses. Unfortunately, there is a rogue Active on the loose, one inadvertently imprinted with the memories and personality of a murderous maniac. After wreaking havoc on the operation, murdering all the then current Actives with the exception of Echo, whom he spared for some unknown reason, he then escaped. He is still on the loose, awaiting the opportunity to strike.
It’s hard to explain my liking for this show, other than I can see where it has potential to be something really special and exciting, providing it lasts long enough to develop its potential.
Eliza Dushku is delicious in the role of Echo, whose true identity and motivations are unknown as of now, though she seems to retain some slight trace of her original personality which manifests in flashbacks during periods of unexpected stress when certain projects start to go wrong. As the Dollhouse is under assault from two different fronts, from the rogue Active as well as from the one lone FBI agent determined to shut down the operation, we can expect these moments of unexpected duress to come with some degree of frequency.
As an aside to those of you-well, both of you-who read my novel Radu, which I still hope to have published and eventually become a screenplay or a mini-series, I think I’ve found my Grace Rodescu. Eliza is certainly in the top ten of my picks to play the character on screen.
I’ll say no more for now, as words can really not do it justice anyway. Watch the video I’ve provided at the beginning of the post. If it succeeds in whetting your appetite, the Dollhouse is on Friday nights at nine.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Jindal Apparition
Chris Matthews wasn't the only person muttering under his breath when Bobby Jindal stiffly walked out onto the stage to deliver the Republican response to Barak Obama's State of The Union address Tuesday night. He was just the only one unfortunate enough to be overheard by a television audience as he did so into an open mike-supposedly accidentally. I say supposedly, because I do have a sneaking suspicion it was done purposely. Had it truly been an accidental occurrence, Matthew's utterance might have been more like my own-
"What in the fuck was that?"
Matthews defended himself by saying it was his response to the stagecraft, not an expression of dismay at the idea of Jindal's predictable reply. Indeed, the stagecraft, for want of a better word, set said stage for what was to follow-a distracting tone accentuated by stiffly karate-like chops of both hands that in total served to distract in almost full measure from the message of Jindal's words, and has in fact been compared to the Saturday Night Live character, perennial candidate Tim Calhoun. The sing-song, faux folksy voice and smile has also been compared to Kenneth the Page in 30 Rock.
Since this appearance, which has been panned on a bi-partisan basis, it seems, by Republicans as well as Democrats-and even by many of the same people who
criticized Matthews for his open-mike utterance-much speculation has been offered as to Jindal's future intentions, and prospects. As such, much digging has went into the Louisiana Governor's background. Of all the things unearthed so far, perhaps the most interesting is an account, written by Jindal himself, of an exorcism of a female friend in which he took part, and in fact seems to have played a pivotal role.
Unfortunately, the entire article in the New Oxford Review is not available to any but subscribers, but thankfully the opening portion which is available tells you a great deal about Jindal. It might even hint slightly at the origins of the "demoniac possession".
Though she had not said anything, I knew something was wrong. Susan and I had developed an intimate friendship; indeed, our relationship mystified observers, who insisted on finding a romantic component where none existed. I called her after the University Christian Fellowship (UCF) meeting -- UCF is an Inter-Varsity Christian group composed of undergraduate and graduate students. Though the interdenominational group's weekly program of songs and prayers had produced the usual emotional high among most members, Susan had left the meeting in a very sullen mood. I asked her to join a group of us who were attending a Christian a cappella concert to be held on campus that same evening.
Despite our intimacy, Susan and I had not spent much time together this past year. We had succumbed to pressure from our friends and decided we should not be so emotionally interdependent without a deeper commitment. To be honest, my fears of a relationship and the constraints of commitment had kept us apart; our friends' objections merely provided a convenient excuse. Still, I felt comfortable asking her to come to the concert, and she accepted the invitation. Though Susan appeared composed throughout the concert, her sudden departure in the middle of a song convinced me otherwise and affirmed my earlier suspicions.
There was no doubt in my mind that I had to leave my friends and follow her outside. I was not exactly sure what I would do or say, but I knew I had to run after her. I found that she had not gone far, but was sobbing uncontrollably outside the auditorium. Since we had been very careful to avoid any form of physical contact in our friendship, I was not sure how to respond. My inaction and her sobs produced a very awkward situation. Fortunately, a female friend who followed us out was able to comfort Susan with hugs and soothing words of reassurance; her quick action was in stark contrast to my paralysis. Once Susan had regained her composure and fell silent, I knew I had to intervene. The female friend meant well, but did not know Susan well enough to provide the advice Susan was sure to seek.
Not even knowing the cause of this raucous scene, I asked Susan if she would like to talk, and volunteered to walk her home. Wanting to avoid any additional embarrassing scenes, I thought it best to remain in silence while we walked. I dared not cause another emotional outpouring until we were safely behind closed doors. When we finally reached her dorm room, I promptly sat Susan on a bed and placed myself in a chair located several feet across the room. This physical arrangement was hardly conducive to the love and support I was supposed to be providing, but I was too scared and unsure of myself to get any closer.
Jindal's article, the rest of which is unavailable, supposedly goes on to relate how he encouraged the girl to recite certain Bible passages, many of which contained the affirmation that Christ is Lord. She was unable to repeat the phrase, but after so long, after evidently passing out, she recovered and seemed to be "healed". She even smiled and asked what happened.
This seems to be the kind of story that almost seems tailor made to go into the annals of political folklore, much like Washington's chopping down the cherry tree, or Lincoln's walking several miles to return loose change, or William Henry Harrison's log cabin and hard cider days. Only this might be considered the perfect story to appeal to the Republican Christian conservative base, but unfortunately not much of anybody else.
Not that this account disqualifies him in my view, at least not on the face of it, but it does suggest several points.
One, those of strict religious beliefs tend to be also the most ideological and immovable. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation, but the fact that he would openly write something like this, even in a subscription web-site, suggests that he is very devout, or very deluded-or possibly very self-serving and manipulative. In fact, Jindal's parents are apparently devout Hindus who did not approve of his conversion to the Catholic Church, right about the same time he inexplicably changed his name to Bobby after one of the boy characters in the old Brady Bunch series. What to make of all this?
The problem with Jindal is, this history will be enough of a distraction, without the added problem of a false and insincere sounding speech delivery. Some would even call it phony. I would be one of them. Naturally, you can put this down, possibly, as a certain discomfort at appearing on the national stage for the first time, giving a response to the President of the United States, a man with yet high poll approval numbers-still over 60%-and who is obviously a gifted speaker. Barak Obama is a man who, despite the very real opposition against him, most people want to succeed.
There was nothing wrong with the words of Jindal's speech. The problem was, there was nothing new about them, nothing to invigorate or excite. The red meat thrown to the GOP faithful, still so relatively close on the heels of a solid election defeat, left the rest of us cold.
But, in the final analysis, it wouldn't have mattered regardless. Jindal failed in his mission the second he stepped onto the stage. Everything that followed, the mannerisms, the phony smile and wooden yet sing-song, deliberate folksy voice accentuated by the hand chops, all of which served to make him appear robotic, just sealed his fate, one it would have been hard enough to extricate himself from regardless of how well he spoke.
Many people are going to take exception to my view of Jindal's speech. If so, I would suggest you look at it this way.
Suppose Sarah Palin had been chosen instead of Jindal to give the rebuttal speech. Suppose she was the one who strolled out from the back of the stage, only in her case, she wore nothing but high heels and a semi-see through gown which drew attention to the shadowed genital area, under the kind of stage lighting that forced you to keep your attention focused despite yourself on her body-your eyes drinking in first her waist, and then her hips, thighs, etc.
From that moment on, it wouldn't matter what she said, would it? Of course not. Whatever she had to say at that point, no matter how relevant, valid, or well said, would be lost. Nevertheless, if what she said came across as wooden, phony, and insincere, it would most certainly be noted by her detractors. Why? Because delivery is everything.
Jindal's delivery was like that. Horrid, without any sex appeal, or any other kind of appeal. And it all started to go wrong the minute he walked out onto the stage.
And that smile, as he was walking out on the stage. That ghastly, horrid smile. Were you in your home and suddenly see this creature appear from the shadows, you would have to think, here is a dangerous man.
Indeed, Bobby Jindal is a dangerous man. Not because he is religious, or ambitious, or shallow, or insincere, or even because of his ability or lack thereof.
He is dangerous because he just isn't ready for the prime time so many people would seek to thrust upon him. That's just the problem. By the time the GOP party establishment is through with him-and also by the time they're through with Palin, for that matter-he, and she, will have turned into pale and hollow caricatures of their true selves, their individual talents and ethics sublimated to the ideological dogma of the party elites that from this point on are on the hunt for the proper image to present to the public-not the true face of the candidates with all their appeal, along with their true convictions and ideals-but a mere projection of the Republican Party, or more aptly put, the image the Party wants you to buy.
In this case, they seem to have their work cut out for them. In both cases, they will most assuredly work to co-opt the message and persona of the candidates to their own benefit, before the candidates have the slightest opportunity to make the party their own.
In both cases, as in all such cases, buyer beware. You don't necessarily always get what you pay for.
"What in the fuck was that?"
Matthews defended himself by saying it was his response to the stagecraft, not an expression of dismay at the idea of Jindal's predictable reply. Indeed, the stagecraft, for want of a better word, set said stage for what was to follow-a distracting tone accentuated by stiffly karate-like chops of both hands that in total served to distract in almost full measure from the message of Jindal's words, and has in fact been compared to the Saturday Night Live character, perennial candidate Tim Calhoun. The sing-song, faux folksy voice and smile has also been compared to Kenneth the Page in 30 Rock.
Since this appearance, which has been panned on a bi-partisan basis, it seems, by Republicans as well as Democrats-and even by many of the same people who
criticized Matthews for his open-mike utterance-much speculation has been offered as to Jindal's future intentions, and prospects. As such, much digging has went into the Louisiana Governor's background. Of all the things unearthed so far, perhaps the most interesting is an account, written by Jindal himself, of an exorcism of a female friend in which he took part, and in fact seems to have played a pivotal role.
Unfortunately, the entire article in the New Oxford Review is not available to any but subscribers, but thankfully the opening portion which is available tells you a great deal about Jindal. It might even hint slightly at the origins of the "demoniac possession".
Though she had not said anything, I knew something was wrong. Susan and I had developed an intimate friendship; indeed, our relationship mystified observers, who insisted on finding a romantic component where none existed. I called her after the University Christian Fellowship (UCF) meeting -- UCF is an Inter-Varsity Christian group composed of undergraduate and graduate students. Though the interdenominational group's weekly program of songs and prayers had produced the usual emotional high among most members, Susan had left the meeting in a very sullen mood. I asked her to join a group of us who were attending a Christian a cappella concert to be held on campus that same evening.
Despite our intimacy, Susan and I had not spent much time together this past year. We had succumbed to pressure from our friends and decided we should not be so emotionally interdependent without a deeper commitment. To be honest, my fears of a relationship and the constraints of commitment had kept us apart; our friends' objections merely provided a convenient excuse. Still, I felt comfortable asking her to come to the concert, and she accepted the invitation. Though Susan appeared composed throughout the concert, her sudden departure in the middle of a song convinced me otherwise and affirmed my earlier suspicions.
There was no doubt in my mind that I had to leave my friends and follow her outside. I was not exactly sure what I would do or say, but I knew I had to run after her. I found that she had not gone far, but was sobbing uncontrollably outside the auditorium. Since we had been very careful to avoid any form of physical contact in our friendship, I was not sure how to respond. My inaction and her sobs produced a very awkward situation. Fortunately, a female friend who followed us out was able to comfort Susan with hugs and soothing words of reassurance; her quick action was in stark contrast to my paralysis. Once Susan had regained her composure and fell silent, I knew I had to intervene. The female friend meant well, but did not know Susan well enough to provide the advice Susan was sure to seek.
Not even knowing the cause of this raucous scene, I asked Susan if she would like to talk, and volunteered to walk her home. Wanting to avoid any additional embarrassing scenes, I thought it best to remain in silence while we walked. I dared not cause another emotional outpouring until we were safely behind closed doors. When we finally reached her dorm room, I promptly sat Susan on a bed and placed myself in a chair located several feet across the room. This physical arrangement was hardly conducive to the love and support I was supposed to be providing, but I was too scared and unsure of myself to get any closer.
Jindal's article, the rest of which is unavailable, supposedly goes on to relate how he encouraged the girl to recite certain Bible passages, many of which contained the affirmation that Christ is Lord. She was unable to repeat the phrase, but after so long, after evidently passing out, she recovered and seemed to be "healed". She even smiled and asked what happened.
This seems to be the kind of story that almost seems tailor made to go into the annals of political folklore, much like Washington's chopping down the cherry tree, or Lincoln's walking several miles to return loose change, or William Henry Harrison's log cabin and hard cider days. Only this might be considered the perfect story to appeal to the Republican Christian conservative base, but unfortunately not much of anybody else.
Not that this account disqualifies him in my view, at least not on the face of it, but it does suggest several points.
One, those of strict religious beliefs tend to be also the most ideological and immovable. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation, but the fact that he would openly write something like this, even in a subscription web-site, suggests that he is very devout, or very deluded-or possibly very self-serving and manipulative. In fact, Jindal's parents are apparently devout Hindus who did not approve of his conversion to the Catholic Church, right about the same time he inexplicably changed his name to Bobby after one of the boy characters in the old Brady Bunch series. What to make of all this?
The problem with Jindal is, this history will be enough of a distraction, without the added problem of a false and insincere sounding speech delivery. Some would even call it phony. I would be one of them. Naturally, you can put this down, possibly, as a certain discomfort at appearing on the national stage for the first time, giving a response to the President of the United States, a man with yet high poll approval numbers-still over 60%-and who is obviously a gifted speaker. Barak Obama is a man who, despite the very real opposition against him, most people want to succeed.
There was nothing wrong with the words of Jindal's speech. The problem was, there was nothing new about them, nothing to invigorate or excite. The red meat thrown to the GOP faithful, still so relatively close on the heels of a solid election defeat, left the rest of us cold.
But, in the final analysis, it wouldn't have mattered regardless. Jindal failed in his mission the second he stepped onto the stage. Everything that followed, the mannerisms, the phony smile and wooden yet sing-song, deliberate folksy voice accentuated by the hand chops, all of which served to make him appear robotic, just sealed his fate, one it would have been hard enough to extricate himself from regardless of how well he spoke.
Many people are going to take exception to my view of Jindal's speech. If so, I would suggest you look at it this way.
Suppose Sarah Palin had been chosen instead of Jindal to give the rebuttal speech. Suppose she was the one who strolled out from the back of the stage, only in her case, she wore nothing but high heels and a semi-see through gown which drew attention to the shadowed genital area, under the kind of stage lighting that forced you to keep your attention focused despite yourself on her body-your eyes drinking in first her waist, and then her hips, thighs, etc.
From that moment on, it wouldn't matter what she said, would it? Of course not. Whatever she had to say at that point, no matter how relevant, valid, or well said, would be lost. Nevertheless, if what she said came across as wooden, phony, and insincere, it would most certainly be noted by her detractors. Why? Because delivery is everything.
Jindal's delivery was like that. Horrid, without any sex appeal, or any other kind of appeal. And it all started to go wrong the minute he walked out onto the stage.
And that smile, as he was walking out on the stage. That ghastly, horrid smile. Were you in your home and suddenly see this creature appear from the shadows, you would have to think, here is a dangerous man.
Indeed, Bobby Jindal is a dangerous man. Not because he is religious, or ambitious, or shallow, or insincere, or even because of his ability or lack thereof.
He is dangerous because he just isn't ready for the prime time so many people would seek to thrust upon him. That's just the problem. By the time the GOP party establishment is through with him-and also by the time they're through with Palin, for that matter-he, and she, will have turned into pale and hollow caricatures of their true selves, their individual talents and ethics sublimated to the ideological dogma of the party elites that from this point on are on the hunt for the proper image to present to the public-not the true face of the candidates with all their appeal, along with their true convictions and ideals-but a mere projection of the Republican Party, or more aptly put, the image the Party wants you to buy.
In this case, they seem to have their work cut out for them. In both cases, they will most assuredly work to co-opt the message and persona of the candidates to their own benefit, before the candidates have the slightest opportunity to make the party their own.
In both cases, as in all such cases, buyer beware. You don't necessarily always get what you pay for.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Survey Says-
Some long-time readers of this blog might remember a post I did some time ago in which I did my own ranking of presidents.
Well, lately C-Span commissioned a ranking of presidents by professional historians, which they and others seems wont to do on a fairly regular basis. My reaction-you could do a Family Feud audience survey on the rankings of American presidents that would be as valid as this most recent one of historians commissioned by C-Span. Really, it's all over the place. If you can make heads or tails of the criterion by which they judge former chief executives, please explain it to me.
Sure, there are some surprises, such as Reagan's listing in the top ten, at in fact the number ten spot, but for the most part, it's about what you would expect. Or, well, maybe not, if you are going for possibly the most important criterion of all-objectivity.
It is ludicrous in the extreme for, for example, John F. Kennedy to be placed in the top ten at number six. It is just as ludicrous, if not more so, for Woodrow Wilson to be in the top ten at number nine. Richard Nixon's spot is pretty well where you would expect it to be, in the lower numbers, though granted perhaps a tad higher than he deserves as well at number twenty-seven. In the meantime, here we have John Adams at number seventeen. Abe Lincoln is at the top of the list, where he usually is. Historians tend to automatically put him there without really giving it a lot of thought.
So why exactly do I single out these presidents-Kennedy, Wilson, Nixon, Lincoln, and Adams? Well, it is because all of these presidents had one very important thing in common. More than other chief executives, they tampered with civil liberties. In some cases-hello, Mr. Lincoln-they suspended them altogether. This, to a historian, should be of the utmost concern, and certainly worthy of some note.
Adams did it with the passage of the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which sought to curtail freedom of speech and the press, particularly as it applied to criticisms of his administration. Yet, he gets a pass, despite the fact that this is to all intents and purposes the defining event of his administration.
Lincoln did it as a wartime measure, under the guise of national emergency, by also curtailing press freedoms and by suspending habeas corpus. He gets a pass today, and perhaps this is understandable, but he sure didn't get a pass by a great many of his contemporaries, who skewered him mercilessly over the issue.
Wilson went after anyone who openly spoke against America's involvement in world War I. Yet, he gets a pass, probably because of his domestic economic reforms, but mainly no doubt due to good intentions in helping form the League of Nations, practically the only one of his Fourteen Points in the aftermath of the war to be adopted by the European community. Even at that he failed (thankfully) to convince Congress to allow the US to join the first major international body. He also failed at restraining the excesses of the victorious allied nations of the Triple Entente.
Kennedy-what can you say, other than this man was little more than a common criminal who used the CIA in an illegal manner to overthrow regimes not to his liking, engaging in assassinations and attempts at such. And that's not all. Acting on the urgings and encouragement of the Attorney General, his brother Robert-who has over the years morphed from a savage, ruthless punk into a personage nearly as deified as his presidential brother-wiretapped anyone whom they deemed a potential threat, including but not limited to Martin Luther KIng Jr. They also violated the civil liberties of alleged Mafia figures, including one man whom they kidnapped and forcibly threw out of the country without a trial or hearing.
Yet, he gets a pass because so many middle-aged, and for that matter younger and older historians get all misty-eyed (and in some cases they probably get a woody to boot) over the myth of Camelot-which, by the way, doesn't say a hell of a lot for their historian credentials.
Nixon-maintained a secret enemies list, spied on his enemies, and even corrupted the Justice Department in order to prevent investigation and prosecution of individuals involved in the Watergate break-in.
Strangely, he has jumped up nine notches from the last presidential rankings. Why is that? Well, he founded the EPA, which is all the rage these days amongst the chattering classes who want to do something about global climate change, he paved the way for normalizations of relations with China, and he did finally do something about that pesky Vietnam War, after all. But we've always been aware of those things. Did professional historians just now catch on to their historical significance? I find that hard to believe.
What I don't find hard to believe is the ranking of George W. Bush at number thirty-six in the rankings. Granted, he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the top ten, and maybe not even in the top twenty-but 36? I ranked him at eighteen, and though this is tentative, and there is hopefully nowhere for him to go but down-36? This is obviously not an objective poll, for a variety of reasons, one of the most important to do with the subject of this post-the record on civil liberties.
One of the most valid and yet as far as I'm concerned still the most obviously and unfairly exaggerated complaints of Bush Jr.s tenure of office, is the way the Bush Administration abused civil liberties. Bush's enemies point to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and, most especially, to the passage of the Patriot Act as the defining moments of his presidency in terms of abuse of office and the usurpation of powers by the executive branch.
Or at least, that used to be the case. Now, the major complaints against him remain most of the other same old stuff he has always been roundly criticized for-the war in Iraq, the deficit, out-of-control spending, America's standing in the world, torture of terrorism suspects, etc. Added to all of this lately is of course the current financial meltdown, which he only deserves, by the way, a significant and yet still relatively small amount of the blame for.
The point to all this being, I have an idea you are going to hear less and less about his alleged abuses of civil liberties, such as they are. After all, there is a new game in town, a new face of hope and change who is, I have an idea, ready and willing to step into the same federal infrastructure George Bush inhabited and, in some cases, built and expanded. Thus far, the most far-ranging vision Obama has truly exhibited in earnest is his sudden change of heart and decision to support the Telecommunications Bill that granted immunity to phone companies charged with illegally wiretapping customers as a service to the federal government. Obama's most vociferous supporters questioned his about-face on this, and even displayed concern, and criticism. For a day or two, that is, before they decided they would just shut the hell up about it.
You might infer from this that the prospect of the Unitary Executive suddenly doesn't seem like such a horrible one after all.
Thus you have men whose presidential terms are marked by such abuses high in the rankings, and in the case of Adams, you have a relatively high ranking and respected president whose presidency is all but solely defined by it. Well, and by The Adams Chronicles, a favorite amongst historians, and no this is not a facetious statement. Suspiciously close to father John in the rankings, just two notches below him is son John Quincy Adams, another well-intentioned president who accomplished absolutely nothing of note, whom these same historians nevertheless inexplicably placed at number nineteen. So who is the sole occupant of the number eighteen position, between the Adams father and son?
George H. W. Bush.
It's almost like by their putting Bush Senior between them, they were childishly saying-
"Hey Bush Junior, you ain't nowhere near as good as your dad, like John Quincy was almost as good as his. Your dad's at number eighteen. You're eighteen too-eighteen notches below him that is, nyahh, nyaah, nyaa."
Bill Clinton, another president with some minor criticisms for abuses of civil liberties of his own (he too supposedly maintained an enemies list and was alleged to use the power of the Treasury Department to harass enemies by engaging in unfounded tax audits) amongst his myriads of other short-comings, also raised inexplicably in the ranks, from somewhere in the twenties to number fifteen.
The idea of presidential rankings has justifiably been compared to a parlor game. Recently, a group of historians were invited to contribute to another such function. Any qualified historian could participate, but from all of those who seemingly rushed in excitedly to engage in this bit of academic posturing, it seems this was the result pertaining to the standing of one George W. Bush-
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
Only between one and two percent of these professional historians ranked the presidency of Bush a success. Most of the ones who ranked him a failure but did not rank him at the very bottom, nevertheless ranked him in the bottom five, along with Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, and Andrew Johnson, whom they apparently hate for not razing the south in the aftermath of the Union victory in the Civil War. In fact, it seems as though one of the typically lower ranking presidents, Millard Fillmore, had to be unceremoniously booted from his well-worn position from the bottom five. He is typically blamed for inflaming passions between southern secessionists and northern abolitionists who wanted to contain the spread of slavery, and thus creating the conditions that led to the Civil War. But, they already have Buchanan and Pierce to hate for that, one more is just overkill. Make room for Junior.
Yes, I am being somewhat facetious, but serious too. I think that is exactly how these people think. If we can't justify putting him at the very bottom where he belongs, because we need to maintain the appearance of objectivity, let's at least make sure we tag him in the bottom five. Unfortunately for this cabal, the majority of the barely more moderate participants assured Junior would average out to 36, though still in merely the bottom ten.
Me, I placed Bush in my rankings at number 18 for a reason. I placed him one notch under John Adams at 17 and one notch above John F. Kennedy at 19 (I put Kennedy this high solely for his work promoting the space program). I placed Clinton, Wilson and Nixon at 28, 29 and 31 respectively. Lincoln I placed at number 2, second only to George Washington. This is because when I went to work doing my rankings, I set about being as objective as possible, and in all these cases I have listed in this post, one thing stood-all these presidents had problems adhering to the highest of standards when it comes to the the enforcement of and protection of civil liberties. In all regards they failed the test miserably, and only in the case of Lincoln was this ameliorated by extreme conditions which arguably warranted his policies in this regard. Even at that, it served to put him below Washington in my rankings.
The other two groups were both lowered significantly in my own rankings due to their policies in this regard. The gap between the two is explainable as a matter of greater accomplishment, integrity, and/or political or other hardships endured during tenure of office both by those within the higher ranked group, and those who fell in between the two groups.
Still, of course, it's a parlor game, with little meaning, other than as an exercise in either partisanship or, in my case, objectivity. If I were to do my list over, it would be different in some regards. Reagan would go from eleven to nine. Coolidge would probably be somewhere between twenty and thirty, but still not as high as he could have been had he not allowed his adherence to ideology to prevent him from doing just a couple of things differently. FDR would be lowered, but still in the top ten. Same with cousin Teddy. Jackson would go down from an already low twenty-four to an even lower thirty something ranking, as would partner-in-crime Van Buren, whom I last put just a notch above Clinton at twenty-seven. Clinton would also go down, Nixon would go up, etc. Harding would rise higher, maybe even into the top twenty. See, it is really too subjective to ever qualify as objective, something you can only aim for, but will find exceedingly difficult to achieve.
Two things I'm pretty sure of though that would remain the same were I to do my rankings over.
George W. Bush would probably stay at eighteen, or maybe just a tad lower.
George H.W. Bush would probably stay at thirty-six, or thereabouts.
Well, there is a third thing.
Professional historians are mostly full of shit.
Of course, so are most presidents, who are after all politicians deep down? Are they all basically the same, maybe different only in some cases by small degrees? Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you might appreciate the following video montage of each president morphing into his successor, in order from first to last.
If nothing else, it could be a good way to teach your kids the presidents in the right order.
Well, lately C-Span commissioned a ranking of presidents by professional historians, which they and others seems wont to do on a fairly regular basis. My reaction-you could do a Family Feud audience survey on the rankings of American presidents that would be as valid as this most recent one of historians commissioned by C-Span. Really, it's all over the place. If you can make heads or tails of the criterion by which they judge former chief executives, please explain it to me.
Sure, there are some surprises, such as Reagan's listing in the top ten, at in fact the number ten spot, but for the most part, it's about what you would expect. Or, well, maybe not, if you are going for possibly the most important criterion of all-objectivity.
It is ludicrous in the extreme for, for example, John F. Kennedy to be placed in the top ten at number six. It is just as ludicrous, if not more so, for Woodrow Wilson to be in the top ten at number nine. Richard Nixon's spot is pretty well where you would expect it to be, in the lower numbers, though granted perhaps a tad higher than he deserves as well at number twenty-seven. In the meantime, here we have John Adams at number seventeen. Abe Lincoln is at the top of the list, where he usually is. Historians tend to automatically put him there without really giving it a lot of thought.
So why exactly do I single out these presidents-Kennedy, Wilson, Nixon, Lincoln, and Adams? Well, it is because all of these presidents had one very important thing in common. More than other chief executives, they tampered with civil liberties. In some cases-hello, Mr. Lincoln-they suspended them altogether. This, to a historian, should be of the utmost concern, and certainly worthy of some note.
Adams did it with the passage of the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which sought to curtail freedom of speech and the press, particularly as it applied to criticisms of his administration. Yet, he gets a pass, despite the fact that this is to all intents and purposes the defining event of his administration.
Lincoln did it as a wartime measure, under the guise of national emergency, by also curtailing press freedoms and by suspending habeas corpus. He gets a pass today, and perhaps this is understandable, but he sure didn't get a pass by a great many of his contemporaries, who skewered him mercilessly over the issue.
Wilson went after anyone who openly spoke against America's involvement in world War I. Yet, he gets a pass, probably because of his domestic economic reforms, but mainly no doubt due to good intentions in helping form the League of Nations, practically the only one of his Fourteen Points in the aftermath of the war to be adopted by the European community. Even at that he failed (thankfully) to convince Congress to allow the US to join the first major international body. He also failed at restraining the excesses of the victorious allied nations of the Triple Entente.
Kennedy-what can you say, other than this man was little more than a common criminal who used the CIA in an illegal manner to overthrow regimes not to his liking, engaging in assassinations and attempts at such. And that's not all. Acting on the urgings and encouragement of the Attorney General, his brother Robert-who has over the years morphed from a savage, ruthless punk into a personage nearly as deified as his presidential brother-wiretapped anyone whom they deemed a potential threat, including but not limited to Martin Luther KIng Jr. They also violated the civil liberties of alleged Mafia figures, including one man whom they kidnapped and forcibly threw out of the country without a trial or hearing.
Yet, he gets a pass because so many middle-aged, and for that matter younger and older historians get all misty-eyed (and in some cases they probably get a woody to boot) over the myth of Camelot-which, by the way, doesn't say a hell of a lot for their historian credentials.
Nixon-maintained a secret enemies list, spied on his enemies, and even corrupted the Justice Department in order to prevent investigation and prosecution of individuals involved in the Watergate break-in.
Strangely, he has jumped up nine notches from the last presidential rankings. Why is that? Well, he founded the EPA, which is all the rage these days amongst the chattering classes who want to do something about global climate change, he paved the way for normalizations of relations with China, and he did finally do something about that pesky Vietnam War, after all. But we've always been aware of those things. Did professional historians just now catch on to their historical significance? I find that hard to believe.
What I don't find hard to believe is the ranking of George W. Bush at number thirty-six in the rankings. Granted, he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the top ten, and maybe not even in the top twenty-but 36? I ranked him at eighteen, and though this is tentative, and there is hopefully nowhere for him to go but down-36? This is obviously not an objective poll, for a variety of reasons, one of the most important to do with the subject of this post-the record on civil liberties.
One of the most valid and yet as far as I'm concerned still the most obviously and unfairly exaggerated complaints of Bush Jr.s tenure of office, is the way the Bush Administration abused civil liberties. Bush's enemies point to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and, most especially, to the passage of the Patriot Act as the defining moments of his presidency in terms of abuse of office and the usurpation of powers by the executive branch.
Or at least, that used to be the case. Now, the major complaints against him remain most of the other same old stuff he has always been roundly criticized for-the war in Iraq, the deficit, out-of-control spending, America's standing in the world, torture of terrorism suspects, etc. Added to all of this lately is of course the current financial meltdown, which he only deserves, by the way, a significant and yet still relatively small amount of the blame for.
The point to all this being, I have an idea you are going to hear less and less about his alleged abuses of civil liberties, such as they are. After all, there is a new game in town, a new face of hope and change who is, I have an idea, ready and willing to step into the same federal infrastructure George Bush inhabited and, in some cases, built and expanded. Thus far, the most far-ranging vision Obama has truly exhibited in earnest is his sudden change of heart and decision to support the Telecommunications Bill that granted immunity to phone companies charged with illegally wiretapping customers as a service to the federal government. Obama's most vociferous supporters questioned his about-face on this, and even displayed concern, and criticism. For a day or two, that is, before they decided they would just shut the hell up about it.
You might infer from this that the prospect of the Unitary Executive suddenly doesn't seem like such a horrible one after all.
Thus you have men whose presidential terms are marked by such abuses high in the rankings, and in the case of Adams, you have a relatively high ranking and respected president whose presidency is all but solely defined by it. Well, and by The Adams Chronicles, a favorite amongst historians, and no this is not a facetious statement. Suspiciously close to father John in the rankings, just two notches below him is son John Quincy Adams, another well-intentioned president who accomplished absolutely nothing of note, whom these same historians nevertheless inexplicably placed at number nineteen. So who is the sole occupant of the number eighteen position, between the Adams father and son?
George H. W. Bush.
It's almost like by their putting Bush Senior between them, they were childishly saying-
"Hey Bush Junior, you ain't nowhere near as good as your dad, like John Quincy was almost as good as his. Your dad's at number eighteen. You're eighteen too-eighteen notches below him that is, nyahh, nyaah, nyaa."
Bill Clinton, another president with some minor criticisms for abuses of civil liberties of his own (he too supposedly maintained an enemies list and was alleged to use the power of the Treasury Department to harass enemies by engaging in unfounded tax audits) amongst his myriads of other short-comings, also raised inexplicably in the ranks, from somewhere in the twenties to number fifteen.
The idea of presidential rankings has justifiably been compared to a parlor game. Recently, a group of historians were invited to contribute to another such function. Any qualified historian could participate, but from all of those who seemingly rushed in excitedly to engage in this bit of academic posturing, it seems this was the result pertaining to the standing of one George W. Bush-
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
Only between one and two percent of these professional historians ranked the presidency of Bush a success. Most of the ones who ranked him a failure but did not rank him at the very bottom, nevertheless ranked him in the bottom five, along with Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, and Andrew Johnson, whom they apparently hate for not razing the south in the aftermath of the Union victory in the Civil War. In fact, it seems as though one of the typically lower ranking presidents, Millard Fillmore, had to be unceremoniously booted from his well-worn position from the bottom five. He is typically blamed for inflaming passions between southern secessionists and northern abolitionists who wanted to contain the spread of slavery, and thus creating the conditions that led to the Civil War. But, they already have Buchanan and Pierce to hate for that, one more is just overkill. Make room for Junior.
Yes, I am being somewhat facetious, but serious too. I think that is exactly how these people think. If we can't justify putting him at the very bottom where he belongs, because we need to maintain the appearance of objectivity, let's at least make sure we tag him in the bottom five. Unfortunately for this cabal, the majority of the barely more moderate participants assured Junior would average out to 36, though still in merely the bottom ten.
Me, I placed Bush in my rankings at number 18 for a reason. I placed him one notch under John Adams at 17 and one notch above John F. Kennedy at 19 (I put Kennedy this high solely for his work promoting the space program). I placed Clinton, Wilson and Nixon at 28, 29 and 31 respectively. Lincoln I placed at number 2, second only to George Washington. This is because when I went to work doing my rankings, I set about being as objective as possible, and in all these cases I have listed in this post, one thing stood-all these presidents had problems adhering to the highest of standards when it comes to the the enforcement of and protection of civil liberties. In all regards they failed the test miserably, and only in the case of Lincoln was this ameliorated by extreme conditions which arguably warranted his policies in this regard. Even at that, it served to put him below Washington in my rankings.
The other two groups were both lowered significantly in my own rankings due to their policies in this regard. The gap between the two is explainable as a matter of greater accomplishment, integrity, and/or political or other hardships endured during tenure of office both by those within the higher ranked group, and those who fell in between the two groups.
Still, of course, it's a parlor game, with little meaning, other than as an exercise in either partisanship or, in my case, objectivity. If I were to do my list over, it would be different in some regards. Reagan would go from eleven to nine. Coolidge would probably be somewhere between twenty and thirty, but still not as high as he could have been had he not allowed his adherence to ideology to prevent him from doing just a couple of things differently. FDR would be lowered, but still in the top ten. Same with cousin Teddy. Jackson would go down from an already low twenty-four to an even lower thirty something ranking, as would partner-in-crime Van Buren, whom I last put just a notch above Clinton at twenty-seven. Clinton would also go down, Nixon would go up, etc. Harding would rise higher, maybe even into the top twenty. See, it is really too subjective to ever qualify as objective, something you can only aim for, but will find exceedingly difficult to achieve.
Two things I'm pretty sure of though that would remain the same were I to do my rankings over.
George W. Bush would probably stay at eighteen, or maybe just a tad lower.
George H.W. Bush would probably stay at thirty-six, or thereabouts.
Well, there is a third thing.
Professional historians are mostly full of shit.
Of course, so are most presidents, who are after all politicians deep down? Are they all basically the same, maybe different only in some cases by small degrees? Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you might appreciate the following video montage of each president morphing into his successor, in order from first to last.
If nothing else, it could be a good way to teach your kids the presidents in the right order.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Hard Choices
I watched Obama's speech before Congress tonight, and though there are a lot of things there to talk about, I want to focus on just one thing that will probably get lost in the overall flood of promises, warnings, and rhetoric. In a way this is understandable given the depths to which to the national economy has sunk, and the very real problems we have relative to energy, the housing crisis, banking, credit, Wall Street, mortgages, and the by now seemingly permanent dire straights of our medical system. Add to all of these problems, as if they were not bad enough, the steadily increasing job loss, and the fact that we are, to all intents and purposes, still bogged down in the fighting of a war on two fronts, with a deficit now over a trillion dollars per year.
Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that, were this one particular topic thrown out there on its own, it would result in an overwhelming flurry of outrage and possibly even outright rebellion. Yet, tonight, it was mentioned only in passing, and seemed to elicit not so much as even a sneer from the Republicans in attendance, and even went unremarked by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in his later response on behalf of the GOP.
What I am referring to-and I am taking the time leading up to it because I am trying to make sure I get the point across just exactly how seriously wrong this is-is the idea that education should be reformed to such an extent that, to paraphrase Obama, it should begin "from birth".
Now of course, I don't take this too literally. Naturally, he is being euphemistic to the point of hyperbole, and I am not trying to suggest that Obama wants the government to snatch everybody's kids practically from their mother's breasts, or from their hospital cribs the minute they are born, and begin a lifelong process of indoctrination which would amount to a massive kind of brainwashing that not even George Orwell could have envisioned.
Still, it's hard to see how what he proposes isn't too far removed from that. His words were, again paraphrased-
"Those are the most formative years of a child's development."
He is meaning, apparently, the years from the age of two to four. By the age of five practically every child in the country has been subjected to some form of kindergarten and/or pre-school of some form or another, if in many cases not before that time.
There are tempting reasons to support such proposals, of course. There always are. The earlier a child can begin an education at a state sanctioned facility, the sooner both parents are relieved of a considerable amount of time that is the natural burden of child care, and can then pursue their own individual careers, without the draining costs of baby-sitters or expensive day-care centers.
And, doubtless, if run efficiently and correctly, and with all of the needs of the child in mind, this could indeed result in a much better education for the average child-at least as you would measure education according to purely technical terms. In purely clinical terms, yes, we can in this manner potentially turn out not only far more high school graduates, but also college graduates as well. We would no doubt as a result be far more competitive in the world economy, against such nations as India and China, for just two examples.
But just exactly what are we giving up in the process? Well, that's an easy answer. We are giving up our freedom and independence in the long haul, because if you think for one minute that early childhood education is not going to involve mind manipulation and indoctrination with a heavy dose of political correctness thrown in for more than just good measure, you are sadly mistaken. The Democratic Party, working in conjunction with the powerful teacher's union, the NEA-which all but controls their agenda on education issues, and is influential on others-will see to that.
We will go from a nation that believes in individual freedom to a nation of guaranteed rights. That is a bigger deal than it sounds at first glance. Of course we are now a nation of guaranteed rights, but we are entering a period where these guaranteed rights will be expanded far beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The problem is, the more guaranteed rights there are, the less liberty there will be by definition. And its a safe bet, even a sure bet, that an early childhood education is not going to focus on an appreciation of individual rights and freedom. Individual dignity, yes, but that's a different thing altogether. It's a fine line, but it becomes a lot easier to walk that line, and eventually phase into crossing over it completely, when you're a nation of trained seals, as opposed to a nation of free people.
We as a people need to demand that our elected officials begin a really serious discussion about this prospect. I say it's a big mistake, no matter how well intentioned some might be. In competing with India, China, and Europe, is it necessary to morph into a carbon copy of them? If so, maybe we're better off just letting them fight it out amongst themselves, and then stepping back in just in time to take the spoils. This time, by the way, we should keep them.
If this thing goes too far-and eventually, it's all but guaranteed that it will go too far, over time-what it amounts to is that all children will first be wards of the state, which will be responsible for everything from their education to their health care. The state, not parents, will decide what values children should be taught. Before too many years have passed, the state will very possibly be the controlling entity of children's lives.
Parents will be no more or no less than their state-approved guardians. They will be accountable to the State-not the other way around.
I don't think we want to go down that road, but it's just around the corner. Once we head too far down that road, there might be no turning back.
Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that, were this one particular topic thrown out there on its own, it would result in an overwhelming flurry of outrage and possibly even outright rebellion. Yet, tonight, it was mentioned only in passing, and seemed to elicit not so much as even a sneer from the Republicans in attendance, and even went unremarked by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in his later response on behalf of the GOP.
What I am referring to-and I am taking the time leading up to it because I am trying to make sure I get the point across just exactly how seriously wrong this is-is the idea that education should be reformed to such an extent that, to paraphrase Obama, it should begin "from birth".
Now of course, I don't take this too literally. Naturally, he is being euphemistic to the point of hyperbole, and I am not trying to suggest that Obama wants the government to snatch everybody's kids practically from their mother's breasts, or from their hospital cribs the minute they are born, and begin a lifelong process of indoctrination which would amount to a massive kind of brainwashing that not even George Orwell could have envisioned.
Still, it's hard to see how what he proposes isn't too far removed from that. His words were, again paraphrased-
"Those are the most formative years of a child's development."
He is meaning, apparently, the years from the age of two to four. By the age of five practically every child in the country has been subjected to some form of kindergarten and/or pre-school of some form or another, if in many cases not before that time.
There are tempting reasons to support such proposals, of course. There always are. The earlier a child can begin an education at a state sanctioned facility, the sooner both parents are relieved of a considerable amount of time that is the natural burden of child care, and can then pursue their own individual careers, without the draining costs of baby-sitters or expensive day-care centers.
And, doubtless, if run efficiently and correctly, and with all of the needs of the child in mind, this could indeed result in a much better education for the average child-at least as you would measure education according to purely technical terms. In purely clinical terms, yes, we can in this manner potentially turn out not only far more high school graduates, but also college graduates as well. We would no doubt as a result be far more competitive in the world economy, against such nations as India and China, for just two examples.
But just exactly what are we giving up in the process? Well, that's an easy answer. We are giving up our freedom and independence in the long haul, because if you think for one minute that early childhood education is not going to involve mind manipulation and indoctrination with a heavy dose of political correctness thrown in for more than just good measure, you are sadly mistaken. The Democratic Party, working in conjunction with the powerful teacher's union, the NEA-which all but controls their agenda on education issues, and is influential on others-will see to that.
We will go from a nation that believes in individual freedom to a nation of guaranteed rights. That is a bigger deal than it sounds at first glance. Of course we are now a nation of guaranteed rights, but we are entering a period where these guaranteed rights will be expanded far beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The problem is, the more guaranteed rights there are, the less liberty there will be by definition. And its a safe bet, even a sure bet, that an early childhood education is not going to focus on an appreciation of individual rights and freedom. Individual dignity, yes, but that's a different thing altogether. It's a fine line, but it becomes a lot easier to walk that line, and eventually phase into crossing over it completely, when you're a nation of trained seals, as opposed to a nation of free people.
We as a people need to demand that our elected officials begin a really serious discussion about this prospect. I say it's a big mistake, no matter how well intentioned some might be. In competing with India, China, and Europe, is it necessary to morph into a carbon copy of them? If so, maybe we're better off just letting them fight it out amongst themselves, and then stepping back in just in time to take the spoils. This time, by the way, we should keep them.
If this thing goes too far-and eventually, it's all but guaranteed that it will go too far, over time-what it amounts to is that all children will first be wards of the state, which will be responsible for everything from their education to their health care. The state, not parents, will decide what values children should be taught. Before too many years have passed, the state will very possibly be the controlling entity of children's lives.
Parents will be no more or no less than their state-approved guardians. They will be accountable to the State-not the other way around.
I don't think we want to go down that road, but it's just around the corner. Once we head too far down that road, there might be no turning back.
Monday, February 23, 2009
I'd Hit That Once
She would probably know it too, but I doubt she'd throw my cell phone out of my 1000 dollar a week rented Lambourghini if I got a call from Paris Hilton or whoever the hell it was that called Rihanna's boyfriend Chris Brown on the night that he did-well, whatever the hell it was he did here.
If I had to guess I would say he probably got her down on the ground and wiped all the cosmetics off her face with a dirty, dry, rough cloth. Don't worry folks, I think she'll live. The LAPD, those paragons of virtue and ethics amongst all civil servants, are upset that the preceding photo was released to TMZ and have issued a statement urging cooperation in tracking the source of the leak. In the meantime, of course, they were all too quick to affirm that, yes, this is Rihanna from the night in question.
According to reports, she could be heard screaming on the 911 call. Now, I can tell you from experience, when a woman starts screaming, that is serious business which could in some cases have profoundly serious consequences. Just like we all know that no woman ever lies about being raped or abused, we also know that no woman would ever fake screaming, crying, or having an orgasm.
According to reports, a bystander who witnessed the events of the night made the 911 call. No one knows yet who this person is. The poor person is probably too traumatized to even think about heading to the nearest or highest paying tabloid to sell the rights to his or her story, and by reason of this must needs stay in seclusion.
Now of course Chris Brown has been arrested. His lawyer is Mark Garagos, which means it is a serious charge. He might in fact spend up to nine years in prison, just for the threats he probably uttered in the heat of the moment. He's lost his endorsement deal with Wrigleys and he ain't going to be wearing any milk mustaches anytime soon. And, of course, several radio stations have announced that they will be boycotting his songs.
Hey, I know. Why don't we take him out somewhere in the woods and hang him?
But seriously, folks-
A great many people suddenly seem to have turned against this previously "squeaky-clean" nineteen year old rapper.
Well, except maybe for Rihanna.
I have no idea how many people have been to her MySpace page and left messages of support and condolence. Who knows, maybe one of these days she might get around to reading a few of them. I smell a publicity stunt. I also smell a great deal of hypocrisy.
Clarence Thomas. Michael Tyson. Michael Jackson. Kobe Bryant. OJ Simpson.
Chris Brown-the latest black guy its cool to hate.
You know, just to take the edge off.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Ingmar Guandique
Although I am far from totally convinced, to say the least, the Washington Post seems confidant that the man in the above photo is the long sought after murderer of Washington intern Chandra Levy, who went missing sometime apparently in the early morning hours of May 1st, 2001, her decomposed remains (basically by the time they were found a group of bones) discovered in the vicinity of the Klegle Mansion in Rock Creek Park more than a year later. Her disappearance was all the talk on the cable news channels for months, up until the time it, and virtually everything else, was overshadowed by the events of 9/11. The controversy served to end the Congressional career of Democratic House member Gary Condit, the blue dog Democrat from her district in California with whom Levy had been carrying on an affair for some time.
The news media, and for that matter, it seemed, the DC Police, focused on Condit to the exclusion of practically any other potential leads or suspects. To this day, in a section detailing the timeline of the main events relating to the mystery, Chandra Levy's own home newspaper, The Sacramento Bee, seems overly obsessed with the Condit connection.
Yet, Ingmar Guandique assaulted two different women in Rick Creek Park right around the time of Levy's disappearance, for which he is now serving time in prison. Upon his release, under normal circumstances he would be facing deportation, being that he is an illegal immigrant from El Salvadore. Below is his home. Charming as it might seem, it is actually a small house with no running water or electricity, in an area where work is scarce.
As a young child, he lived through a period of revolution in his country, a period of violent upheaval during which his father was kidnapped and murdered, his body found some days later.
Guandique made his way to America by way of the Mexican border through the aid of a coyote-a person who for a fee smuggles undocumented immigrants into the US. Many who know him claim he has a violent nature, including his former girlfriend and her mother with whom he lived for a brief period, and who ordered him out of the premises. He himself claims that he will tell himself to attack if he sees a person with something valuable in a secluded spot, but that he always feels bad afterward. Yet, he has consistently denied having anything to do with Levy's death or disappearance.
A former cellmate claims Guandique admitted to killing Levy, but on the other hand, yet another claims he told him that Gary Condit himself paid him twenty-five thousand dollars to murder Levy, having approached him on the street in his car out of the blue with the proposition. The police decided there was nothing to the story.
Now, in the aftermath of the Post series, the police have taken a second look at Guandique, and decided that he is their man after all, even though former assistant DC Chief Gaynor is satisfied Guandique was not involved-this based not just on his opinion, but on the opinions of the seasoned detectives under him who had questioned and investigated the hapless and obviously troubled immigrant.
My question is, why now? How can they be so sure? What do they have in the way of evidence they did not have before, and how could they have acquired it?
There is something funny about this investigation. For one thing, the Post articles assert that the police, in searching Levy's computer, made a mistake in assuming she had been searching for Klingle Mansion in Rock Creek Park. According to them, she was merely searching the general area of Rock Creek Park, evidently looking for various different places good for a walk or a jog. Klingle Mansion was just listed at the top of the page on which she searched, as it is the headquarters of the Park.
The only trouble with that explanation is, at that particular time, Klingle Mansion was not the headquarters or offices of Rock Creek Park. Klingle Mansion, at the time Levy disappeared, was nothing but a storage building. Why would a storage building be listed at the top of the page for a Park as the headquarters of its administrative offices-unless of course it was then also used as a park rangers outpost? This would seem not only plausible, but likely.
This brings me to my main point. I never considered Gary Condit to be involved with Levy's disappearance, and was mystified by the narrow focus of attention on the Congressman. There were always so many questions. I wasn't bothered that those questions were never answered, so much as I was bothered that they were never asked.
Chandra Levy was a young woman of twenty-four who in addition to carrying on an illicit affair with a Congressman who was a married father of two children roughly her own age, was also an intern for the Justice Department, specifically for the Bureau of Prisons.
Her goal was to seek a career in law-enforcement or in some other aspect of public life, but somewhere alone the way her goals were derailed. For whatever reasons, her internship ended, and earlier reports hinted that she was not happy about it. The question becomes then, who did she know at the Bureau of Prisons? Is it possible she might have threatened somebody with the power of her Congressman boyfriend? Why was her internship ended so abruptly, according to most reports well before it was due to end?
She was already supposed to be on her way home sometime soon with "big news". Why then did she take the time to go to Rock Creek Park, and who did she intend to meet there, if anyone? Did she have something on somebody that she unwisely attempted to use as leverage in a vain attempt to keep her position, maybe even possibly gain a promotion in the process?
I realize that there are many people who go way off the rails in their attempts to solve mysteries, and I don't want to come off that way. I have read everything imaginable about this case. I have seen examples where it was blamed on some wild, nonsensical conspiracy involving the Unification Church. Recently, I came across this Geo-Cities website. Here, Chandra Levy has morphed from a lowly intern to a modern day Mata Hari, with seemingly unlimited access to all levels of classified information. and in this capacity came across information about the future 9/11 attacks and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy MacVeigh's connections to government agents and Islamic terrorists, among other things. Naturally, since Gary Condit was a ranking member of the House Intelligence Sub-Committee, she used her feminine wiles to get him to tell her all the secrets that he had privy to.
Oh yeah, and lest I forget-Chandra Levy was an undercover operative for a rogue branch of the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
Yeah, I know it all sounds ridiculous, because it is, but conspiracy theories are only unhinged when they lose all sense of perspective and veer into the realms of the absurd. That doesn't prove the absence of a conspiracy, it only proves the need for common sense and rational perspective.
There was nothing earth-shattering at work here, just, quite possibly, the case of a woman who went too far to get what she wanted and crossed the wrong person.
Of course, it might even be more simple than this. It could very well be that a young illegal immigrant from El Salvadore happened across the unwary Levy and assaulted and killed her, possibly raping her in the process. It could actually be that her body went undiscovered for so long due to a simple fluke in procedure, as the police claim. They were told to check within a certain distance off the paths, yet somehow this was interpreted as meaning to search so far off the actual roads. It could well be that the glaring public spotlight on Gary Condit, fueled by media speculation and sensationalism-and the desire of prosecutors to make a name for themselves by bringing a corrupt politician to justice-caused them to overlook the possible complicity of the young Guandique.
Chandra Levy's parents seem satisfied at the prospects that the case might finally be solved, which is understandable, and have stated their desires that Chandra's killer not be executed, but spend the rest of his life in prison, with no comfort or amenities. To me, that would be far more against the spirit of Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment than putting a murderer to death, which is my favored option, providing the proof of guilt is more substantial than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It should in fact be applied only in those cases where there is certainty of guilt beyond all doubt.
As far as I can see, as of now this case doesn't reach either threshold. I could be mistaken, and I certainly won't go out on a limb and say that, as the case unfolds, I won't be convinced of Guandique's guilt. I really wouldn't be surprised at his guilt under ordinary circumstances, given the apparent nature of this young man, who even from his prison cell sent sexually suggestive notes and pictures to a woman, an insurance agent whom he had only seen in an advertisement. He is obviously troubled and violent. He was in the vicinity at the time in question. He would at first glance seem to be the perfect suspect.
But, why now, after all this time?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A Troop Of Monkeys Angrily Throw Their Feces
When I first saw this cartoon by New York Post editorial cartoonist Sean Delanos, I thought The New York Post
was under the delusion that the Stimulus Bill was written by former Republican President George Chimpy MacFlightsuit Bu$Hitler, so imagine my surprise when the Left was outraged-outraged, I say-at the insensitivity of such an insult to a man who, after all, has a website named in his honor-The Smirking Chimp. Come to find out, they seem to think-or so they say-that the cartoon was a racist jab at Obama. The Post itself, in their published response, seems to think it is nothing more than an excuse by the Left to give them a hard time. Following is the text of their full explanation-
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
(The End)
The most pertinent part of the above is in bold, which I wanted to point out, because most leftist blogs and websites that touch on the explanation seem to be somewhat selective as to the parts they deign to reproduce.
The hard truth of the matter is, Obama did not write the Stimulus Bill. Of course he had a great deal of input into it, but by and large the actual writers of the bill were the Congressional Democrats, as wild and vicious a troop of monkeys as ever existed and who are, unfortunately, alive and well as we speak. Have no fear, I have no doubt they shall be around for some time to come yet, ready and most eager to tear off the face of reasoned public discourse as they set about ripping to shreds the very fabric of our Constitution. By the time it is all said and done, Obama's Presidency might well be as much their victim as the rest of us, it's bloody carcass torn to pieces by their wild primal urges long before the Republicans even begin to whet their appetites over it's bleeding and battered form.
Even yet, while The Huffington Post and other leftist outlets wail, and while they along with Al Sharpton and Spike Lee call for protests and boycotts, others line up to angrily throw their feces at what they perceive as the purveyors of veiled and not so veiled insults. The LGBT activist group GLAAD is up in arms over the same cartoonist's work throughout the years, and have even put up a page in which Delonas satirized the gay community.
Is it any wonder why Americans are too "cowardly", in the words of Attorney General Eric Holder to have a real dialogue about race? Who wants to deal with this kind of thing constantly? Now Eric Holder wants us to work towards integration in all aspects of our lives. He wants us to think about how we spend our weekends, and who we spend them with. Well, Eric, I know where I spend mine, which happens to be anywhere where I can get a break from this kind of crap. Sorry, dude, but me, I like to enjoy what little time I have to do so. We spend enough time walking on eggshells in our working, school, and public life. When it comes time to socialize with our friends and family, we want to be around those with whom we feel comfortable and with whom we can relax. This stuff just doesn't cut it. And, by the way, aren't you supposed to be fighting actual crime? What's this? Is the Attorney General's office suddenly The Ministry Of Public Niceness?
It's not all dire. Even The Smirking Chimp has somewhat of a reasoned, balanced view of this monkey business, in which the blogger states we should be less quick to hurl charges of racism at every perceived transgression, real or imagined, and insist on a higher standard of proof before we make such charges.
David Patterson, the Governor of New York, has issued a statement to the effect that he accepts the Post's apology, while unfortunately calling for greater care in editorial practices, in his own call for "dialogue" that kind of misses the point.
According to him-
"It might be a time to open up a dialogue on just where that line is, where good clean fun and degradation are."
The point he misses of course is that editorial cartoons are not supposed to be about "good clean fun", while many times degradation is a worthy aim. Different strokes for different folks.
Patterson though has had his own set of problems lately. He has fallen in the polls, to the extent he might find himself the loser in a primary contest against any strong candidate, one such as Andrew Cuomo, who is reportedly mulling a run against the currently unpopular Patterson. Patterson has taken a hit over the debacle with Caroline Kennedy, dissatisfaction with Patterson's own appointment to replace Hillary Clinton in the US Senate, and his refusal to deal with New York's current budget woes by raising taxes or borrowing money.
Many Democrats see him as little more than a clown, a buffoon chosen by Elliot Spitzer (whom Patterson replaced in the wake of the former Governor's own sex scandal) as an Affirmative Action candidate to help shore up Spitzer's support among the black and disabled voters. Many prominent Democrats see Patterson as clearly over his head and are working round the clock to find a suitable replacement to run against him.
Otherwise, if Patterson manages to eke out a victory in the primaries, he might lose the general election to those racist Republicans.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Watchmen-Coming Soon To A Theater Just A Little Too Close For Comfort
Back sometime during the 1980’s, DC Comics purchased from Charlton Comics the rights to a string of superhero characters formerly featured in the Mighty Comics/Radio Comics line, after yet another failed attempt to make a success of publications featuring the characters in the Archie Adventure Series division.
Alan Moore, a successful and innovative writer, submitted a story idea that utilized these characters for a proposed limited edition series. The editorial department approved the project, but then convinced Moore to develop his own original characters for the series. After all, they had paid a high price for the rights to the Charlton characters, and didn’t want to waste what potential they might have. This was back in the day when most publishers followed the formula “once a character is dead, he stays dead”. Of course, if a way could be devised that made it possible to explain a character’s seeming return from the dead, they would relax this policy, but in this particular case, there was no possibility of any such explanation which would be acceptable-even, or maybe especially, in the DC universe of comics characters.
Using the old Chalton characters as guidelines and inspiration, he developed the characters of The Comedian, Doctor Manhattan, Silk Specter, Night Owl, Ozymandias, and Rorschach. These, however, were more than just knock-off cheap imitations of what others might say were, for the most part, cheap knock-off imitations. The concept behind these characters, and the story of The Watchmen, set the comic book world on fire and established a whole new genre of dark, brooding, angst-ridden, misogynistic, and even nihilistic characters guided not by the principles of fairness, justice, and the American way, but by might makes right and the ends justifies the means.
Now, after two decades of failed attempts and projects stalled for a variety of reasons, including an ultimately successful lawsuit filed by Fox Studios against Warner Brothers, The Watchmen is due for cinematic release in March of this year. The hype behind this project though has befuddled the mass of theatergoers who see the trailers for the film. The hype of course is perhaps understandable, but the marketing has ventured into the realm of the inexplicable and the bizarre. In addition to the action figures, there is Night Owl Coffee, already hailed as a potential future collector’s item. There are Rorschach ski masks. And that's not all.
Not only does Doctor Manhattan have his own lunch box, but since the blue-skinned character appears in the movie fully nude he also has, of all things, his own blue condom
Though these blue Watchmen Condoms will doubtless prove to be collectors items also, please be advised-condoms for your average geek comic book fan, of course, will by necessity come in three sizes-
Small, extra small, and “What the fuck do you need me for?”
There are those who are not enthralled with the project, precisely to a great extent because of this crass commercialization. Among these you can include Alan Moore himself the writer of the original series, a long haired and bearded writer who claims to worship an ancient Roman snake god, and who in fact cursed the project. He refuses to work for DC comics any longer, or for Marvel, over what he feels is the over-commercialized aspects of the comics business of today. He claims that they exist now solely to provide storyboards for Hollywood, which he feels has ruined the comics industry.
There are also those who feel the series is suited more for development as a television mini-series than as a feature film. Frankly, I disagree with this. The movie is basically somewhere in the neighborhood of two and a half hours long, which should be somewhere around the time it would take to read all twelve comics which comprise the original limited series that was first published during the period of 1986-1987.
Others claim the story has a hidden leftist agenda, but I tend to think that is a lot of bunk, or at least is greatly exaggerated. Had DC published the series during the Carter, Johnson, Clinton-or Obama-years, it would doubtless have played up to and against the political, economic, and social situations relevant to the time in question. The point, at least the major point, to the series was an aim toward what the author felt was relevance and, perhaps more importantly, realism. It was about the reality that he saw as the underbelly and even the sewer of humanity. In this world, man’s higher aspirations were not so much denied, as rendered irrelevant to the overall scheme of things, a pretentious facade that held out a false hope of salvation and worth.
What could possibly motivate a hero to fight for the likes of this? There had to be a motivation that went beyond the long-held standard clichés. Otherwise, it amounted to nothing but regurgitated fairy tales and myths told for purposes of restraint of mankind’s darkest, deepest urges. It would be one thing to tell such stories for such purposes. In the universe of the superhero, however, it would be something else again to live that story. The motivation could not be satisfactorily explained as an aspiration to nobility. After so long, the idealism would wear thin, and ultimately wear off, and the hero could only continue if powered by other darker, more sinister inner drives. This then is the world of The Watchmen.
It was a world of an alternate universe, in which the presence of costumed superheroes had changed the landscape of history in significant ways. Yet, it is a dark world, and these are dark heroes, if you can even call them heroes. Their strength is that of brutal force and courage, but they are plagued with weakness and, to a degree, contempt for the humanity that they do not serve and defend for altruistic reasons so much as aid for their own self-interest, the exercise of power and ego fulfillment. They are in fact disliked, even hated, by the average person. They are free moral agents with few admirable personal qualities, and many flaws and weaknesses. The Comedian was a rapist and murderer who in this parallel universe was actually the true assassin of President Kennedy. Doctor Manhattan, though he does not act in a criminal or even an unethical manner, is nevertheless more of a soulless monster and misanthrope with no emotional attachment to anything living. Yet, his drive to learn and understand the humanity that he left behind emotionally, long before he ever temporarily does so physically, is reflected in his relationship with the Silk Specter, who, in his absence, begins a new relationship with Night Owl, a middle-aged, overweight, impotent tech wizard. The Silk Specter learns that she is actually the daughter of The Comedian, who at one time attempted to rape her mother, the original Silk Specter.
Rorschach, though a hero who fights ostensibly on the side of good, is a psychopathic brute and cold-blooded killer to whom no limitations applies in his quest to find the answers he seeks. It will be this same unrelenting determination that will ultimately prove his undoing.
Ozymandias, a high-powered business executive in real life, is a megalomaniac to whom human life is dispensable in his drive to achieve the ultimate goal of victory over, ironically, an even greater evil, a force whose existence makes even the sacrifice of millions of innocent lives inconsequential. It is easy for him to make that choice, for as he sees it, that force is humanity itself.
The story itself was so compelling, so gripping, that it changed the face of the comics business forever. It is unlikely to have that effect on the movie business, aside possibly from future superhero films. It might be a sleeper hit, possibly in time considered a cult classic. It will undoubtedly recoup its investment. It might even be a major hit. Undoubtedly, many of the myriads of comics fans will be pleased, though maybe a great many of them will not be. Judging from the reactions of many who attended the latest ComicCon, and who viewed the first seventeen minutes of the film along with other selected highlights, it seems promising.
The question becomes, will it move the bar and expand the superhero movie franchise beyond the current niche market. Only time will tell. My feeling is that it might well be a victim of its own hype as much as the Watchmen become the victims of their own all too human weaknesses. Changing the comics publishing industry is one thing. Changing the superhero movie franchise is a different matter, as there are certain forces at work there which are not so easily transformed. Even under the best of circumstances, it is still, after all, a niche market. This role of the dice might well expand that market. It’s a worthwhile gamble, and if it succeeds, it would encourage other similar projects and experimentation. Of course, there would be consequences in the form of considerable controversy far above and beyond what might be experienced by the comics industry.
There are those of us who like our heroes to be something we ourselves can never hope to be-role models for our children, not so much perfect as aiming towards the perfection most of us have long ago realized was far beyond human capacity. Many of us will decide that The Watchmen is a movie we should not take our children to see. Beyond the fantasy elements, it is far too much like the real world. It is a little too much like ourselves.
That may be too much reality to cram into a two-and-a-half hour film.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Chimps Are Wild Animals Too
Animal experts are baffled over chimp attack.
Okay, let me give it a shot. Some fool decided that because this wild animal could be trained to do things that a trained tiger couldn't come close to even thinking about doing, that somehow made him less of a wild animal, and thus exponentially less dangerous. Which, this is a view that has a good deal of merit as long as the wild animal can remain placid at all times, but where the theory falls to pieces is when you add into the equation the fact that, by definition, wild animals are unpredictable and thus there is no way you can depend on any of them, no matter how seemingly well-trained and well-behaved, remaining placid and obedient on command.
Add to this the fact that the ape had absolutely no natural fear of humans, was getting old, was sick with Lyme Disease, and had just recently been given Xanax in warm tea-without a prescription at that-and you have a disaster in the making. To sum up, you have a woman without a face who is probably not at all feeling lucky to be alive, and a dead chimpanzee, shot by the policeman who shot him as he forced open the door to his cruiser.
Yes, it's sad, and tragic, but it is by no means a mystery. This ape had been in a TV pilot, as well as commercials for Coca-Cola and Old Navy. He also appeared on the Maury Povich Show. Povich probably will never know how lucky he is. Look at Travis, the chimp in question, smiling in the above photo. Cute, isn't it?
Not really. When animals smile, as a general rule, they do so without showing their teeth, which they do mainly either as a defensive measure when they feel threatened, or when they themselves are ready to attack. The only animal that I know of that is an exception to this rule is a breed of dog-the Irish Setter. Most animals, including apes, take the showing of teeth as a threat. This ape was obviously trained to smile for the cameras, but that might have been interpreted by the ape as a sign that aggression is acceptable within limits. Does he really look natural doing that? Maybe he does, as long as you don't see him as jovial. It is never good for a wild animal to learn not to fear humans or for humans to treat them with deference. That is pouring fuel on the fire. Eventually, much like a child, they are going to throw tantrums. Of course, before they really lose it, also much like a child, they will test the limits. Well, this ape surpassed the test of his limits, such as they were, with flying colors.
This is not the first time this has happened. A chimp attacked a man not too long ago and also ripped off a large part of his face, including his nose, and one of his testicles. The man barely survived the encounter and has had to endure several surgeries to repair the damage to his face, which will never completely heal. He wears a prosthetic nose.
These animals are seriously aggressive by nature. Bear in mind, apes are the closest kin among animals that human beings have, and chimps are among the closest of all. It has been postulated that humans and chimps have an aggressive nature which is pretty much descended from the same source. That is just the problem with people who treat them like children. Travis was fed lobster, steak, and Italian food, by his owner, whose friend was the victim of the assault.
You can take the ape out of the jungle, but he's still going to be an ape. I hope nobody else has to learn that lesson the hard way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)