This is what I've been trying to do with this public space. If something in current events catches my eye, I try to relate it to the underlying principles involved rather than discuss the personalities involved and the daily wear politics. I do that for a couple reasons. First: My politics are too obscure and too extreme but my principles are about as mainstream as it gets. Secondly: That kind of comment on current affairs involves a fair amount of prediction and I'm always wrong in the short term.
On top of that, this kind of thing has the shelf life of a mayfly
That being said; let's go.
There are things involved with the Kavanagh hearings that need said and understood. Because I worked alone for years I have listened to pretty much every major set of Congressional hearings for the last 30 years or so. These particular hearings have been a near travesty. Kavanaugh is a bald-faced liar. I've never seen anything like it. That's in addition to his record on the bench just being an outrage. The man has literally spit in the eye of anyone earning less than the one percent. He, literally, has no appreciation of what being an average American is all about. That leads to the real point.
He worked for Ken Starr for 3 years and was the lead author of the Starr report which looked like a 50's porn novel written by a Sunday School teacher you wouldn't want around your kids. It really kind of explains his behavior around women. The guy's a creep.
He was an upper echelon participant in the GW Bush administration. The truth is that group was engaged in criminality on a global scale. They ALL escaped prosecution because they had created such big problems we just couldn't afford that type of spectacle while trying to fix that mess. That's why they have tried so desperately to hide the details of his participation. Who the hell ever heard of the National Archives being blocked from releasing public information on the basis of party affiliation?
The gentlemen's agreement was: They would be allowed to serve out their careers and retire in obscurity. The first violation of that agreement was the appointment of the torturer Gina Haspel to head the CIA. The second violation was the elevation of Bolton. Those two could and would be credibly prosecuted at the Hague. The latest outrage is trying to appoint this cipher to the Supreme Court.
It's entirely possible Trump simply doesn't understand the concept of a gentlemen's agreement. It's possible his advisors just chafe under the silent recognition of the criminality of the Bush people and themselves. It's possible a lot of these people don't understand the crimes they committed. Who knows but this guy is totally unacceptable for those reasons and it's a damned shame this sleazy sexual abuse had to come to light. It's just weird this is the only thing that gets republican's attention.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Monday, September 3, 2018
Let's Remember What Really Happened.
We were talking about the turn of the new millennium and how brief it seemed between now and then. The tumult of current events seems to overshadow all the things in between. We lose perspective. We count the current presidency in days and forget that history is actually composed of decades, at least. We tend to forget. We tend to forget. Some people just never do know.
Where to begin without covering a thousand pages with fact and conjecture? I think a lot of things we face today began with the Reagan administration so let's go back 30 or so years to the flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers. I can see a lot of eyes glazing over but ya gotta start somewhere and nothing happens overnight.
The flagging of the Kuwaiti tankers was seen as supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. What it really was, was the rental of the US military by the Saudis and Big Oil. It was also a genuine mistake that, as predicted, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and decades of regional instability. I could tell you about millennia of hatred between the Arabs and the Persians, read Iranians but all that would do is point out the common American mistake of having no clear idea of what actually motivates most of the rest of the world. We paint, haphazardly, with a broad brush of willful ignorance usually dipped in simple greed. We faithfully imitate the British Empire, right down to the willful ignorance and the greed.
Old habits die hard. During the Cold War, there was a default justification for interference in things that actually weren't our business. After all, we had the geo-political thingy to consider. In most cases, it's easy to see now that was just nonsense. That was then, this is now. The important thing to understand is; at no point in history have the affairs of Iraq had any impact on the peace and security of the United States. The only duty of the government of the United States is to address things that actually affect our peace and security. Violating that dictum negatively affects the peace and security of the United States and the World. We sure have proved that.
The flagging of the tankers and, by the way, giving the Iraqis nerve gas, convinced them we were allies. Silly boys. They actually came to the Bush people and asked if we'd mind if they took over Kuwait. The response was, " Local issue, why would we care?" That's a fact. You can look it up. So, the Iraq touring company went to Kuwait and were really surprised when we demanded the show close on the road.
Only 9% of the American public opposed the first Gulf War. A friend of mine who happened to be a veteran asked me what I thought of it at the time. I observed it was the dumbest thing I'd ever seen but now we were committed, we had better win. It was something new. We were no longer constrained by the Soviet threat. The Russians were incapable of response or meaningful opposition. The men of the Bush 41 administration, steeped in the Cold War, were simply not up to the challenge of a free hand.
We didn't win by any American definition and Bush 41 paid an immediate price for that in the following election. It wasn't the "economy, stupid" as Bill would have us believe. It was, just as Cheney and company thought. Bush Sr was seen as weak and ineffectual for leaving Saddam Hussein in place.
There were two other elements that weren't discussed. The Soviet Union was as dead as Casey's nuts but a large portion of their remnant economy depended on arms production and export. The Iraqis had the world's fourth largest military armed to the teeth with Russian weapons. Russia and the United States were the leading arms merchants to the world. The whole thing was an advertisement for the Russian 'brand X' against the American brand. That didn't work out so well for the Russians.
The other thing that went unnoticed was instead of addressing some Cold War related, geopolitical aim we were suckered into supporting Saudi regional aims that had absolutely nothing to do with our peace or security. That was a monumental mistake which is still playing out in deadly fashion.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Well, as I've said before, most conspiracies are really confederacies of dunces. This is not an exception to that rule.
I'm trying to call to mind the proximate casus belli for our invasion of Iraq either time. Oh, that's right. There were none. Both times it was an irrational act. In point of fact if we were going to attack some country other than Afghanistan for 9/11 it should have been Saudi Arabia but realistically the only goal was to kill Bin Laden and smash Al Qaeda. It's part of our willful ignorance that we don't understand the importance of faction and Islamic regional sects. We don't know these things because we insist on being lumbering fools.
I'm going to be blunt. Cheney and company thought the reason they lost power to Clinton was the failure to remove Saddam. They were right but that doesn't mean they were justified. At that time GW's presidency was on the rocks. He was known to be an ineffectual minority, illegitimate President lacking in gravitas. He did get his tax cut. Without the 9/11 attacks, he certainly would have been a one-term president. Our outrage was co-opted. To this point at least a million innocent people have been murdered and a volatile region of the world has been plunged into chaos that will last for several generations. Guys like Bolton see this as driving the eventual agenda. That's outright bullshit and will see no more success than that kind of thinking ever has. He's wrong and it will lead to further chaos.
Why bring this up? Well, it's fun to point out I was right. Everyone likes that. Trump is doing terrible things to us domestically and that is certainly dangerous but at this point, it seems temporary.
It's good to remember that he hasn't murdered anyone, at least not in great numbers. It's really doubtful if he'd be allowed to employ the military. His criminality, so far, has been strictly domestic. The public is making a list and checking it twice to make sure his predations are immediately repealed.
Our public life moves slowly. That's a good thing. Education will triumph over ignorance and racism will be forcefully corrected. Classism will be addressed. We will learn to not judge progress by only success for the wealthy. The coming, decade-long, prosecutions will inform the malefactors.
We will emerge on the other side imperfect but having progressed. That's the idea.
The kids are pissed. They can't understand why anyone would tolerate this bullshit. They'll calm down but they won't forget.
Now, a year after I wrote the above, Trump is being allowed to dabble in foreign policy. It's an unmitigated disaster as anyone could have foreseen.
Two years later Trump's incompetence has killed at least 100,000 U S citizens.
Where to begin without covering a thousand pages with fact and conjecture? I think a lot of things we face today began with the Reagan administration so let's go back 30 or so years to the flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers. I can see a lot of eyes glazing over but ya gotta start somewhere and nothing happens overnight.
The flagging of the Kuwaiti tankers was seen as supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. What it really was, was the rental of the US military by the Saudis and Big Oil. It was also a genuine mistake that, as predicted, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and decades of regional instability. I could tell you about millennia of hatred between the Arabs and the Persians, read Iranians but all that would do is point out the common American mistake of having no clear idea of what actually motivates most of the rest of the world. We paint, haphazardly, with a broad brush of willful ignorance usually dipped in simple greed. We faithfully imitate the British Empire, right down to the willful ignorance and the greed.
Old habits die hard. During the Cold War, there was a default justification for interference in things that actually weren't our business. After all, we had the geo-political thingy to consider. In most cases, it's easy to see now that was just nonsense. That was then, this is now. The important thing to understand is; at no point in history have the affairs of Iraq had any impact on the peace and security of the United States. The only duty of the government of the United States is to address things that actually affect our peace and security. Violating that dictum negatively affects the peace and security of the United States and the World. We sure have proved that.
The flagging of the tankers and, by the way, giving the Iraqis nerve gas, convinced them we were allies. Silly boys. They actually came to the Bush people and asked if we'd mind if they took over Kuwait. The response was, " Local issue, why would we care?" That's a fact. You can look it up. So, the Iraq touring company went to Kuwait and were really surprised when we demanded the show close on the road.
Only 9% of the American public opposed the first Gulf War. A friend of mine who happened to be a veteran asked me what I thought of it at the time. I observed it was the dumbest thing I'd ever seen but now we were committed, we had better win. It was something new. We were no longer constrained by the Soviet threat. The Russians were incapable of response or meaningful opposition. The men of the Bush 41 administration, steeped in the Cold War, were simply not up to the challenge of a free hand.
We didn't win by any American definition and Bush 41 paid an immediate price for that in the following election. It wasn't the "economy, stupid" as Bill would have us believe. It was, just as Cheney and company thought. Bush Sr was seen as weak and ineffectual for leaving Saddam Hussein in place.
There were two other elements that weren't discussed. The Soviet Union was as dead as Casey's nuts but a large portion of their remnant economy depended on arms production and export. The Iraqis had the world's fourth largest military armed to the teeth with Russian weapons. Russia and the United States were the leading arms merchants to the world. The whole thing was an advertisement for the Russian 'brand X' against the American brand. That didn't work out so well for the Russians.
The other thing that went unnoticed was instead of addressing some Cold War related, geopolitical aim we were suckered into supporting Saudi regional aims that had absolutely nothing to do with our peace or security. That was a monumental mistake which is still playing out in deadly fashion.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Well, as I've said before, most conspiracies are really confederacies of dunces. This is not an exception to that rule.
I'm trying to call to mind the proximate casus belli for our invasion of Iraq either time. Oh, that's right. There were none. Both times it was an irrational act. In point of fact if we were going to attack some country other than Afghanistan for 9/11 it should have been Saudi Arabia but realistically the only goal was to kill Bin Laden and smash Al Qaeda. It's part of our willful ignorance that we don't understand the importance of faction and Islamic regional sects. We don't know these things because we insist on being lumbering fools.
I'm going to be blunt. Cheney and company thought the reason they lost power to Clinton was the failure to remove Saddam. They were right but that doesn't mean they were justified. At that time GW's presidency was on the rocks. He was known to be an ineffectual minority, illegitimate President lacking in gravitas. He did get his tax cut. Without the 9/11 attacks, he certainly would have been a one-term president. Our outrage was co-opted. To this point at least a million innocent people have been murdered and a volatile region of the world has been plunged into chaos that will last for several generations. Guys like Bolton see this as driving the eventual agenda. That's outright bullshit and will see no more success than that kind of thinking ever has. He's wrong and it will lead to further chaos.
Why bring this up? Well, it's fun to point out I was right. Everyone likes that. Trump is doing terrible things to us domestically and that is certainly dangerous but at this point, it seems temporary.
It's good to remember that he hasn't murdered anyone, at least not in great numbers. It's really doubtful if he'd be allowed to employ the military. His criminality, so far, has been strictly domestic. The public is making a list and checking it twice to make sure his predations are immediately repealed.
Our public life moves slowly. That's a good thing. Education will triumph over ignorance and racism will be forcefully corrected. Classism will be addressed. We will learn to not judge progress by only success for the wealthy. The coming, decade-long, prosecutions will inform the malefactors.
We will emerge on the other side imperfect but having progressed. That's the idea.
The kids are pissed. They can't understand why anyone would tolerate this bullshit. They'll calm down but they won't forget.
Now, a year after I wrote the above, Trump is being allowed to dabble in foreign policy. It's an unmitigated disaster as anyone could have foreseen.
Two years later Trump's incompetence has killed at least 100,000 U S citizens.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Random Thoughts On The Movies
A very good friend of mine owns a family bar and a family restaurant. I haven't seen him in 20 years. I would be welcomed like a long lost relative and also then treated as if I had been there yesterday, to this day. Our acquaintance caused me, one time, to comment, that you can't make friends. You have friends if you deserve them. I digress but the memories are so pleasant it's hard not to comment.
So, the movies. At that place, at that time, Wednesday evening was Movie Night. The owner of the local video store would bring over 3 new releases and we would watch one or all of them depending on the time we had. They all played but we had individual curfews. How late we were allowed out. That evening the first video was "The Terminator". I don't know what your first impression was but the thing is riveting. It was highly touted as futuristic/science fiction. Time travel, cyborgs, real Galaxy Magazine stuff. About 2/3's of the way thru I began to realize it was actually an old-fashioned monster movie, a lot like Frankenstein or Nosferatu. I kept that thought to myself and enjoyed the mayhem. "I'll be back."
In that connection, someone asked what movie gave you nightmares as a kid. Hell, I grew up in the 50's and 60's. No movies; the evening news gave me nightmares. Forty years later the sequel to "The Terminator". depicted a nuclear explosion at a playground. That scene gave this middle-aged man nightmares.
Now, everyone is fascinated with zombies. It's just stupid. In the late 80's and 90's people loved Anne Rice and vampires. I never got that either but my kids (late teens, early 20's) loved it. One day, I came in after work and they were watching "Near Dark". In the course of maybe 15 minutes of conversation, I was exposed to 15 minutes of the movie I had dismissed as just more vampire nonsense. I went on about my business but I noticed I kept thinking about the snippet I'd seen. That always indicates to me I've seen something of artistic value that might be revisited. I watched the movie the next day. It scared the living bejesus outta me. Lestat and all that gothic crap still seems like just crap to me. Sorry, Anne. If I want chewing gum for my eyes I prefer Anne Perry.
The thing about 'Near Dark" was it's just so naturalistic in its settings. So contemporary. You can actually see yourself having a beer in some hole in the wall bar in the sticks and a bunch of people come in and murder everyone and you're helpless. It still gives me the shivers.
A few years later TV Guide published a list of the scariest horror films of all time. "The Terminator" and "Near Dark" made the list. Everyone likes their thoughts confirmed. "The Terminator" was a science fiction movie. "Near Dark" was a vampire movie. Nah, they are true horror movies and though my mind runs to "Bringing Up Baby" or 'The Front Page", I recommend them both.
Movies. I just had occasion to rewatch "David Copperfield". It made me think about the fact that as a vaudevillian, W C Fields always traveled with a trunk of books. He spent an entire career imitating Mr Micawber. Who better to play Micawber in the movie? That made me think of what we think of as quintessential Bogart. If you read Hammett, you realize Bogart was just taking stage direction right down to the smallest gestures. It testifies to Bogart's power as an actor and his belief in Hammett's vision and it's testimony to Hammett's talent. Interesting. Like everything else, the more you know the more interesting something is.
I was thinking about authors and the movies made of their work. You can always tell how much the movie makers loved the novel they're working on. "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey is a good example of this. I think it's one of the 10 best contemporary novels. You can tell by watching that Fonda, Newman, Remick, et al just loved the book and wanted to be as true as possible to what they loved. I watched "Nobody's Fool" years ago. If you're an older guy it's just really great. If you're from a small town, it's great. It captures the rough and tumble and love of life-long relationships to a word. To a touch. Watching that movie got me to read Russo's novel. I can't remember having done that before. I normally read the novel and then make a point to see the movie. Most people do, I expect. I discovered why the people made the movie. The novel is great but the screenplay is so much kinder to the characters. It made me love the movie even more. I recommend both. I liked Benton's touch so much better. He polished the rough edges off of Russo and so doing brought out and enhanced the beauty of the grain.
I just had occasion to rewatch the 2010 version of "True Grit". That's been made twice from a novel. John Wayne bought the film rights as soon as he read the book. Eventually, the character of Rooster Cogburn earned the Duke his only Oscar for a specific performance. I think the Cohen Brothers did a better job with the Charles Portis novel. I can't ever fault the Duke but it's pretty obvious Jeff Bridges read the book pretty closely.
In the spirit of random thoughts, I was thinking about "Big Jake". I love John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in the movies. There is a scene in that movie where Wayne realizes O'Hara is in agreement with and instructing his more rigid nature. He looks at her and says, " Is this the way you want it?" to which she replies, " These men should get exactly what they have asked for." I actually get that. My wife can look at me and instruct me to do the exact opposite of what anyone overhearing would think. I just like that little moment. Been there, done that.
Sometimes the more you know, the dumber something is. Here's something in the westerns, which I love, westerns that is. A couple desperadoes will rob a bank and high-tail it out of town with a posse a couple hundred yards behind them. Who saddled the horses that fast? If you left a horse saddled all day it wouldn't be fit to ride. On top of that, how far are you going to ride a horse at full gallop? Not far. The old adage is: Run on four, walk on two. it could never happen that way.
Another thing. A man the size and weight of John Wayne would not have ridden a quarter horse. At least not far. He's too big. If he wanted to ride all day he'd be on a plow horse. Traditional cowboys were all little, wiry guys. On top of that, about a third of them were black because it was one of the few jobs open to them. Oral histories will tell you that but written history wasn't open to black folks back then.
Here's another thing. I really like the movie, " McClintock" but I was at a loss to see how it was made even then and it certainly couldn't be made now. It's sometimes, violent misogyny throughout is kind of jarring. It wasn't until I learned it was a conscious remake of "Taming of the Shrew " that I got it. If the Bard can do it, so can the Duke. I guess.
Did you know that a silencer won't work on a revolver? The side blast from the cylinder wouldn't and can't be suppressed. Not only would it be just as noisy it would probably burn hell outta your hand if you tried it. Well, it's just the movies but you'd think people would know that. I don't know why I add that except it just annoys me.
Speaking of things that annoy me. I watched "The Day Before Yesterday" a bit ago. It has a few deliberately mean, comic moments. I'm sorry but the news reporter getting nailed with the billboard is funny. You would think it would be instructive but if recent hurricanes are any indication, apparently not.
Now, this movie postulates global warming triggers a new ice-age. That's hilarious. It just don't work that way. In the process of this immediate freeze over the climatologist's kid gets trapped in the New York Public Library with a few friends. Meantime, some sort of tidal wave they can't explain has brought a North Atlantic freighter to just outside the door. They're inside burning books to try to stay warm. Outside is a freighter with probably several thousand tons of fuel oil equipped to handle North Atlantic conditions. It doesn't occur to them to not burn the books that would show them how to light the boilers and pretty much go wherever they needed. Luke! Go to the ship! And by the way, call your Dad's cell phone.
That's something that's changed a great deal in recent years. I love film noir and mysteries but now I keep noticing that so much of some plots depend on the character being out of touch with his office or other characters. I find myself saying, "For God's sake, just call his cell!" In that vein, you gotta wonder if Perry Mason's answering service wasn't clairvoyant. He gets all his calls at just the right time and in obscure places.
So, the movies. At that place, at that time, Wednesday evening was Movie Night. The owner of the local video store would bring over 3 new releases and we would watch one or all of them depending on the time we had. They all played but we had individual curfews. How late we were allowed out. That evening the first video was "The Terminator". I don't know what your first impression was but the thing is riveting. It was highly touted as futuristic/science fiction. Time travel, cyborgs, real Galaxy Magazine stuff. About 2/3's of the way thru I began to realize it was actually an old-fashioned monster movie, a lot like Frankenstein or Nosferatu. I kept that thought to myself and enjoyed the mayhem. "I'll be back."
In that connection, someone asked what movie gave you nightmares as a kid. Hell, I grew up in the 50's and 60's. No movies; the evening news gave me nightmares. Forty years later the sequel to "The Terminator". depicted a nuclear explosion at a playground. That scene gave this middle-aged man nightmares.
Now, everyone is fascinated with zombies. It's just stupid. In the late 80's and 90's people loved Anne Rice and vampires. I never got that either but my kids (late teens, early 20's) loved it. One day, I came in after work and they were watching "Near Dark". In the course of maybe 15 minutes of conversation, I was exposed to 15 minutes of the movie I had dismissed as just more vampire nonsense. I went on about my business but I noticed I kept thinking about the snippet I'd seen. That always indicates to me I've seen something of artistic value that might be revisited. I watched the movie the next day. It scared the living bejesus outta me. Lestat and all that gothic crap still seems like just crap to me. Sorry, Anne. If I want chewing gum for my eyes I prefer Anne Perry.
The thing about 'Near Dark" was it's just so naturalistic in its settings. So contemporary. You can actually see yourself having a beer in some hole in the wall bar in the sticks and a bunch of people come in and murder everyone and you're helpless. It still gives me the shivers.
A few years later TV Guide published a list of the scariest horror films of all time. "The Terminator" and "Near Dark" made the list. Everyone likes their thoughts confirmed. "The Terminator" was a science fiction movie. "Near Dark" was a vampire movie. Nah, they are true horror movies and though my mind runs to "Bringing Up Baby" or 'The Front Page", I recommend them both.
Movies. I just had occasion to rewatch "David Copperfield". It made me think about the fact that as a vaudevillian, W C Fields always traveled with a trunk of books. He spent an entire career imitating Mr Micawber. Who better to play Micawber in the movie? That made me think of what we think of as quintessential Bogart. If you read Hammett, you realize Bogart was just taking stage direction right down to the smallest gestures. It testifies to Bogart's power as an actor and his belief in Hammett's vision and it's testimony to Hammett's talent. Interesting. Like everything else, the more you know the more interesting something is.
I was thinking about authors and the movies made of their work. You can always tell how much the movie makers loved the novel they're working on. "Sometimes a Great Notion" by Ken Kesey is a good example of this. I think it's one of the 10 best contemporary novels. You can tell by watching that Fonda, Newman, Remick, et al just loved the book and wanted to be as true as possible to what they loved. I watched "Nobody's Fool" years ago. If you're an older guy it's just really great. If you're from a small town, it's great. It captures the rough and tumble and love of life-long relationships to a word. To a touch. Watching that movie got me to read Russo's novel. I can't remember having done that before. I normally read the novel and then make a point to see the movie. Most people do, I expect. I discovered why the people made the movie. The novel is great but the screenplay is so much kinder to the characters. It made me love the movie even more. I recommend both. I liked Benton's touch so much better. He polished the rough edges off of Russo and so doing brought out and enhanced the beauty of the grain.
I just had occasion to rewatch the 2010 version of "True Grit". That's been made twice from a novel. John Wayne bought the film rights as soon as he read the book. Eventually, the character of Rooster Cogburn earned the Duke his only Oscar for a specific performance. I think the Cohen Brothers did a better job with the Charles Portis novel. I can't ever fault the Duke but it's pretty obvious Jeff Bridges read the book pretty closely.
In the spirit of random thoughts, I was thinking about "Big Jake". I love John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in the movies. There is a scene in that movie where Wayne realizes O'Hara is in agreement with and instructing his more rigid nature. He looks at her and says, " Is this the way you want it?" to which she replies, " These men should get exactly what they have asked for." I actually get that. My wife can look at me and instruct me to do the exact opposite of what anyone overhearing would think. I just like that little moment. Been there, done that.
Sometimes the more you know, the dumber something is. Here's something in the westerns, which I love, westerns that is. A couple desperadoes will rob a bank and high-tail it out of town with a posse a couple hundred yards behind them. Who saddled the horses that fast? If you left a horse saddled all day it wouldn't be fit to ride. On top of that, how far are you going to ride a horse at full gallop? Not far. The old adage is: Run on four, walk on two. it could never happen that way.
Another thing. A man the size and weight of John Wayne would not have ridden a quarter horse. At least not far. He's too big. If he wanted to ride all day he'd be on a plow horse. Traditional cowboys were all little, wiry guys. On top of that, about a third of them were black because it was one of the few jobs open to them. Oral histories will tell you that but written history wasn't open to black folks back then.
Here's another thing. I really like the movie, " McClintock" but I was at a loss to see how it was made even then and it certainly couldn't be made now. It's sometimes, violent misogyny throughout is kind of jarring. It wasn't until I learned it was a conscious remake of "Taming of the Shrew " that I got it. If the Bard can do it, so can the Duke. I guess.
Did you know that a silencer won't work on a revolver? The side blast from the cylinder wouldn't and can't be suppressed. Not only would it be just as noisy it would probably burn hell outta your hand if you tried it. Well, it's just the movies but you'd think people would know that. I don't know why I add that except it just annoys me.
Speaking of things that annoy me. I watched "The Day Before Yesterday" a bit ago. It has a few deliberately mean, comic moments. I'm sorry but the news reporter getting nailed with the billboard is funny. You would think it would be instructive but if recent hurricanes are any indication, apparently not.
Now, this movie postulates global warming triggers a new ice-age. That's hilarious. It just don't work that way. In the process of this immediate freeze over the climatologist's kid gets trapped in the New York Public Library with a few friends. Meantime, some sort of tidal wave they can't explain has brought a North Atlantic freighter to just outside the door. They're inside burning books to try to stay warm. Outside is a freighter with probably several thousand tons of fuel oil equipped to handle North Atlantic conditions. It doesn't occur to them to not burn the books that would show them how to light the boilers and pretty much go wherever they needed. Luke! Go to the ship! And by the way, call your Dad's cell phone.
That's something that's changed a great deal in recent years. I love film noir and mysteries but now I keep noticing that so much of some plots depend on the character being out of touch with his office or other characters. I find myself saying, "For God's sake, just call his cell!" In that vein, you gotta wonder if Perry Mason's answering service wasn't clairvoyant. He gets all his calls at just the right time and in obscure places.
Star Wars was a shift in the way science fiction was made. There's been reams expended on how it changed the genre. Here's what I noticed when I first saw it that set it apart. Greasy fingerprints around the light switches. Ever before that the future had been very well maintained, groomed and dressed. Uniforms were, well...uniform and freshly laundered and pressed. I think the future will actually be a cross between Star Wars and Spaceballs and parts of it will smell pretty bad. The idea that men or women for that matter, will ever commonly wear clothing that zippers up the back is just stupid.
As you can see I really enjoy the cinema. After all, it's only a movie.
As you can see I really enjoy the cinema. After all, it's only a movie.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
The Deep State
That is obviously a pejorative catch-phrase but in a way, there is such a thing. It's interesting that it's almost impossible to get a definitive number for Federal employees. The numbers range from 2.7 million to 2.1 not counting the military or the Post Office. The Federal government is second only to Walmart as an employer. That's a little disturbing but not the point right now. I couldn't find an overall percentage for the Federal workforce. (Probably just too lazy to deduce the figure.) But employees of all governments nationwide are reported to be 17% of the overall workforce. On a side note, the Federal Budget accounts for about 22% of the GDP. That's understandable.
So, what's the "Deep State"? Each partisan administration appoints about 15 thousand upper and mid-upper level administrators outside of Civil Service. There's no set figure for that either. It's a process that takes about 2 years. These people set the tone and overall philosophical direction of the government in harmony with the philosophy of the Chief Executive. I don't think it's partisan here to point out the Trump Administration was unprepared for this detail of actually governing and that has slowed the process. They were heavy on philosophy and light on the nuts and bolts. They do seem to be coming up to speed.
The government is a fantastically complex 4.5 trillion dollar a year enterprise. Apart from any philosophy, it takes an extensive group of skilled, educated people to just keep the lights on and manage the paperwork. They may or may not have certain philosophical ideas but they do have a detailed sense of what actually works and how to make it work in the real world. They have to have detailed ethics and contact with and adherence to established practice. They constitute the so-called, "Deep State". In other countries and cultures, these people are known as apparatchiks. The political appointees are known as "nomenclatura". My point is, it's a common and necessary development.
In our case, the problem, as seen by some, is when politics collides with that entrenched sense of ethics and utility. In other words, " That's wrong and it won't work." Idealogues don't like to hear that and we are seeing that conflict play out. Hence the pejorative connotation. Something that's making things worse right now is these career people know not just utilitarian things but what's legal and what isn't.
It's not uncommon for political operatives of either party to discover the reason things that seem obvious to them have not been done in a particular way is because they are simply illegal.
This administration has a lot of complete newcomers to government by design. A good deal of the problems we are seeing have more to do with a lack of experience and information than inherent dishonesty. It's always been true that a little knowledge or a lack of knowledge can lead to a lot of trouble.
Politics aside, I don't think we're seeing some deliberate "deep state" resistance. I think it's natural given the circumstances but those being resisted do have to blame it on something.
So, what's the "Deep State"? Each partisan administration appoints about 15 thousand upper and mid-upper level administrators outside of Civil Service. There's no set figure for that either. It's a process that takes about 2 years. These people set the tone and overall philosophical direction of the government in harmony with the philosophy of the Chief Executive. I don't think it's partisan here to point out the Trump Administration was unprepared for this detail of actually governing and that has slowed the process. They were heavy on philosophy and light on the nuts and bolts. They do seem to be coming up to speed.
The government is a fantastically complex 4.5 trillion dollar a year enterprise. Apart from any philosophy, it takes an extensive group of skilled, educated people to just keep the lights on and manage the paperwork. They may or may not have certain philosophical ideas but they do have a detailed sense of what actually works and how to make it work in the real world. They have to have detailed ethics and contact with and adherence to established practice. They constitute the so-called, "Deep State". In other countries and cultures, these people are known as apparatchiks. The political appointees are known as "nomenclatura". My point is, it's a common and necessary development.
In our case, the problem, as seen by some, is when politics collides with that entrenched sense of ethics and utility. In other words, " That's wrong and it won't work." Idealogues don't like to hear that and we are seeing that conflict play out. Hence the pejorative connotation. Something that's making things worse right now is these career people know not just utilitarian things but what's legal and what isn't.
It's not uncommon for political operatives of either party to discover the reason things that seem obvious to them have not been done in a particular way is because they are simply illegal.
This administration has a lot of complete newcomers to government by design. A good deal of the problems we are seeing have more to do with a lack of experience and information than inherent dishonesty. It's always been true that a little knowledge or a lack of knowledge can lead to a lot of trouble.
Politics aside, I don't think we're seeing some deliberate "deep state" resistance. I think it's natural given the circumstances but those being resisted do have to blame it on something.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
A Thousand Points of Light
That was Bush 41's idea. He was trying to sell his idea of a "kinder, gentler conservatism". It was a tacit admission he thought most people found the bombast and bullshit directed at the poor and working classes by the Reagan people to be offensive and corrosive. Who are we to disagree? It was an admission Bush knew we had been moved from making war on poverty to damned near making war on the poor. Bush acknowledged Reagan's "Voo-Doo" economics had turned the working class into the working poor. Somehow, Reagan was able to sell devastating economic stagnation as some sort of success for genuinely bad ideas. As it turned out, Bush 41 couldn't repeat that kind of "success".
Before I go further, it's necessary to point out there were a lot of reasons for that stagnation that Reagan had no control over or responsibility for. The problem with Reagan was that very few of his ideas or actions did anything but make it all worse. Ignore the rhetoric and just look at the stats. I know we have a generation who think Reagan was their kindly grandfather but statistics and results don't lie. It's all there in bold print and it runs thru the fine print like black crepe.
Bush was trying to continue the "voo-doo" myth by building up the Angels of our better nature. He was trying to encourage private entities to take up the slack in what the financially crippled government just was no longer willing to do. All of that to protect the violence the Reagan people had done to the tax code.
To be honest we did a pretty good job. Working people of all intermediate classes had no tax cuts but they did step up charity. We had no relief of our burden we just accepted additional burdens while the upper tax brackets were significantly reduced. Burdens on the economically most productive shrank. Try as we might, conditions definitely deteriorated.
Now we face an official assault on the least among us that doesn't seem to have precedent. It's both gross and subtle. Even Reagan never attacked the hungry. Even Reagan never tried to elicit cheers for the idea of the poor dying in the streets. What sense does it make to attack a simple appeal to charity? There are wheels within wheels even in Heaven just as there are wheels within wheels in Hell or republican party politics.
Well, that's all pretty bleak but the response is encouraging.
There was an attack on and a cut in federal funding for Meals on Wheels. It's been privately funded far beyond what the feds were doing.
There has been an attack on civil liberties across the board. I just read contributions to the ACLU have increased five-fold.
A powerless individual can't be attacked without some sort of Go Fund Me page providing more than enough for their defense.
The children taken into custody at the border have fully funded defenses. Though why they need some sort of defense is a mystery to me.
Look, my point is; here we are, perfectly capable of providing for the things we see that need done. The things I've pointed out are the exceptional cases that have drawn attention. But what about the mundane? Didn't we used to have a government where we all worked together to relieve the exceptional and the mundane? Why do we pay ever more to have a government that doesn't extend help to all? That's not the idea. The government is not supposed to make enemies of some segment of society whether they be rich or totally deprived.
This is America. We encourage the exceptional and support the less fortunate. We've proved for two centuries that model works best.
Get with the program! We're all points of light. How brightly can you shine?
Before I go further, it's necessary to point out there were a lot of reasons for that stagnation that Reagan had no control over or responsibility for. The problem with Reagan was that very few of his ideas or actions did anything but make it all worse. Ignore the rhetoric and just look at the stats. I know we have a generation who think Reagan was their kindly grandfather but statistics and results don't lie. It's all there in bold print and it runs thru the fine print like black crepe.
Bush was trying to continue the "voo-doo" myth by building up the Angels of our better nature. He was trying to encourage private entities to take up the slack in what the financially crippled government just was no longer willing to do. All of that to protect the violence the Reagan people had done to the tax code.
To be honest we did a pretty good job. Working people of all intermediate classes had no tax cuts but they did step up charity. We had no relief of our burden we just accepted additional burdens while the upper tax brackets were significantly reduced. Burdens on the economically most productive shrank. Try as we might, conditions definitely deteriorated.
Now we face an official assault on the least among us that doesn't seem to have precedent. It's both gross and subtle. Even Reagan never attacked the hungry. Even Reagan never tried to elicit cheers for the idea of the poor dying in the streets. What sense does it make to attack a simple appeal to charity? There are wheels within wheels even in Heaven just as there are wheels within wheels in Hell or republican party politics.
Well, that's all pretty bleak but the response is encouraging.
There was an attack on and a cut in federal funding for Meals on Wheels. It's been privately funded far beyond what the feds were doing.
There has been an attack on civil liberties across the board. I just read contributions to the ACLU have increased five-fold.
A powerless individual can't be attacked without some sort of Go Fund Me page providing more than enough for their defense.
The children taken into custody at the border have fully funded defenses. Though why they need some sort of defense is a mystery to me.
Look, my point is; here we are, perfectly capable of providing for the things we see that need done. The things I've pointed out are the exceptional cases that have drawn attention. But what about the mundane? Didn't we used to have a government where we all worked together to relieve the exceptional and the mundane? Why do we pay ever more to have a government that doesn't extend help to all? That's not the idea. The government is not supposed to make enemies of some segment of society whether they be rich or totally deprived.
This is America. We encourage the exceptional and support the less fortunate. We've proved for two centuries that model works best.
Get with the program! We're all points of light. How brightly can you shine?
Thursday, June 28, 2018
What Have You Done?
I believe in open borders. I believe our country has been made great by the concept of open borders. I know I'm right. The evidence is all around us from sea to shining sea.
I'm an American. I don't admit of fear, nor apprehension or hesitation. The majority of us are that way.
Our founding documents do not say, "All Americans." They do say "All men." Some sort of citizenship is not a precondition to all of our inalienable rights. But if you will insist, I have a question for you.
Exactly what the fuck have any of you ever done to earn your "citizenship" except to be dumb shit lucky enough to be born here? What deserts have you crossed, what rivers have you forded holding your children? What uniformed authorities have you confronted? Don't bother telling me about your military service. Lately, we've been deporting not just veterans but disabled veterans. I can't imagine what genius came up with that but there it is. If that doesn't tell you the entire idea of exclusion is bullshit there's just no point in talking to you. You can stop reading now. This is too advanced for your brand of citizenship.
Lately, I've been reading about what people go thru to appear at our southern border with their children or just by themselves. I highly recommend that reading. These people are not murderers or drug dealers or gang members. Nor are they any member of some class infesting us in some racist wet dream. To say that from the greatest pulpit in the country is shameful on an order that can't be adequately described. It certainly can't be adequately condemned.
The truth is, just one of these individuals, families, mothers or children is worth 10 of those who would pervert our national promise and values.
So, exactly, what have you ever done?
I'm an American. I don't admit of fear, nor apprehension or hesitation. The majority of us are that way.
Our founding documents do not say, "All Americans." They do say "All men." Some sort of citizenship is not a precondition to all of our inalienable rights. But if you will insist, I have a question for you.
Exactly what the fuck have any of you ever done to earn your "citizenship" except to be dumb shit lucky enough to be born here? What deserts have you crossed, what rivers have you forded holding your children? What uniformed authorities have you confronted? Don't bother telling me about your military service. Lately, we've been deporting not just veterans but disabled veterans. I can't imagine what genius came up with that but there it is. If that doesn't tell you the entire idea of exclusion is bullshit there's just no point in talking to you. You can stop reading now. This is too advanced for your brand of citizenship.
Lately, I've been reading about what people go thru to appear at our southern border with their children or just by themselves. I highly recommend that reading. These people are not murderers or drug dealers or gang members. Nor are they any member of some class infesting us in some racist wet dream. To say that from the greatest pulpit in the country is shameful on an order that can't be adequately described. It certainly can't be adequately condemned.
The truth is, just one of these individuals, families, mothers or children is worth 10 of those who would pervert our national promise and values.
So, exactly, what have you ever done?
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Obscurity and Absurdity
This is an incredibly busy society and culture and a lot goes on that just isn't noticed much or it just wouldn't go on. Sometimes, if you have your profitable little niche, keeping a low profile might be a good idea. If you're in the entertainment industry that might seem counter-intuitive. You wouldn't think there could be such a thing as 'too much attention' but there is. The idea of 'say whatever you want about me, just spell my name right' only goes so far.
I think the "Duck Dynasty" guys are a good example. Here they were, laboring on in relative obscurity. The average person was pretty much indifferent to them. In terms of the overall market, their record cable numbers were paltry but they did manage to generate hundreds of millions in ad revenues. Then one of these guys emerged in the mainstream media and said some outrageous shit. They spelled his name right. The content of his remarks didn't matter. The attention did. People associated his name and the name of the show with the network and started just skipping past the network, in total, in the endless surfing, in general because of that negative connotation. Absurdity.
It's thought the show was dropped like a hot potato for some bullshit, PC reason. Nah, they saw the numbers and realized the objectionable bullshit was a poison pill that had generated too much of the wrong attention. So much of what we are tempted to see as politics is just the simple operation of capital. Ahem. Back to capitalism.
Laura Ingraham is kind of having the same problem. Until recently, it's safe to assume not many had the slightest idea who she is. She's kind of a poor man's Ann Coulter. If you have a rudimentary education her brand of fallacious, circular reasoning is, patently absurd. The problem she's having is people are beginning to associate and identify those who advertise on her show with her less than attractive message.
I'm beginning to think this is the dynamic at work in bi-annual elections. Rather than motivating dissatisfaction the people in power are probably just attracting too much attention. It's pretty easy to make the case that the average political message, no matter the source, doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It's the republican's bad luck their message is being increasingly identified with crying children and bankers lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. That could be a little hard to overcome.
I think the "Duck Dynasty" guys are a good example. Here they were, laboring on in relative obscurity. The average person was pretty much indifferent to them. In terms of the overall market, their record cable numbers were paltry but they did manage to generate hundreds of millions in ad revenues. Then one of these guys emerged in the mainstream media and said some outrageous shit. They spelled his name right. The content of his remarks didn't matter. The attention did. People associated his name and the name of the show with the network and started just skipping past the network, in total, in the endless surfing, in general because of that negative connotation. Absurdity.
It's thought the show was dropped like a hot potato for some bullshit, PC reason. Nah, they saw the numbers and realized the objectionable bullshit was a poison pill that had generated too much of the wrong attention. So much of what we are tempted to see as politics is just the simple operation of capital. Ahem. Back to capitalism.
Laura Ingraham is kind of having the same problem. Until recently, it's safe to assume not many had the slightest idea who she is. She's kind of a poor man's Ann Coulter. If you have a rudimentary education her brand of fallacious, circular reasoning is, patently absurd. The problem she's having is people are beginning to associate and identify those who advertise on her show with her less than attractive message.
I'm beginning to think this is the dynamic at work in bi-annual elections. Rather than motivating dissatisfaction the people in power are probably just attracting too much attention. It's pretty easy to make the case that the average political message, no matter the source, doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It's the republican's bad luck their message is being increasingly identified with crying children and bankers lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. That could be a little hard to overcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)