All Things In Their Place

 Civilizer

It’s been a popular lament amongst the nation’s columnists and talking heads that these past 7 and a half years have been a long strange trip - we suffer a catastrophic terrorist attack in two major cities on the same day, manage to blow all of the international goodwill engendered by that terrorist attack, the Vice President basically sets up a shadow government and does all kinds of shit with everything from intelligence agencies to land use laws, the nation’s first MBA president and his party’s Congress spend so recklessly that our military and budget are stretched too thin, the dollar plummeted in value, and then a bunch of greedy Wharton bastards on Wall Street did something weird with mortgages and in so doing launched a bowling ball from a sling right into the economy’s balls, leaving it on its knees and gasping pathetically.

And I can’t say I entirely disagree, but there was one thing, one incident that scared me when it happened and never really stopped scaring me, and I had to actively force myself to just not think about it anymore.  Because you can fix an economy.  You can fix Iraq (right?).  You can reconstitute the military.  Cheney has to leave so you can, uh…fix all that stuff that he did (right??).  But when you find that your country is mobilized not by a faltering economy, not by the war in Iraq, not by a Vice President committing what are probably impeachable offenses, but a half-second clip of boob during the Super Bowl halftime show, man, how the hell can you reasonably expect all that stuff will get done?

 

 

 

Did your kids see this?  Sorry, they’re gay terrorists now.

 

 

 

I can’t really think of anything else that made the entire country just look stupid.  People like to act like Iraq was this catastrophic blunder, but let’s not forget that for all the talk of Cheney and his orcs “stovepiping” intelligence and Rumsfeld’s idiotic “modern army” occupation plan, Saddam Hussein had a track record of exactly the stuff we used as a justification for war.  It’s not like we framed Nelson Mandela. 

But the way we absolutely went out of our minds when Janet Jackson’s breast popped out, the rest of the world must have looked at us like “What are they, a bunch of 10 year-olds?  Puritanical 10-year olds?”  Usually I’m the first guy to throw a star-spangled middle finger at the international community, but when they’re mocking us with good reason, man, that’s embarrassing.  And that whole Super Bowl fiasco gave them plenty of good reason.

That’s why I feel all warm inside about the ruling that came down yesterday from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed the indecency penalty levied against CBS by the Federal Communications Commission.  Don’t get me wrong - if I had kids, I’m sure I wouldn’t be thrilled about trying to watch a game with them where men beat the living hell out of each other and get paid salaries that exceed those of teachers, firemen, and most doctors and have the purity of the moment ruined when Janet Jackson’s boob goes rogue.  But I was pretty pissed when the country failed to act even a little adult about it, and the media acted like it was a newsworthy event on the order of the Kennedy assassination, and then the FCC treated CBS like they ran a 30-minute NAMBLA infomercial instead of a Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake duet.

So thank you, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for restoring just a little of my faith in our public institutions.  And especially for using some of my favorite scolding words, “arbitrary and capricious,” when doing so.

 King Civilizer

Death Magnetic album cover’s out! 

Get it?!  It’s magnetic filings, pulling together in the shape of a coffin, which is where you go after death!  Metal!

 Civilizer

Hey kids, thinking about turning down that college scholarship to pursue a lucrative career in the cross-border drug trade?  Well here’s a pretty good reason to reconsider:  if you follow through on that narco-trafficking idea, there’s a chance a Mexican drug lord unaccustomed to hearing the word “No” will insist that you climb aboard a second or probably third-hand “makeshift” submarine to smuggle cocaine up the Pacific coast of Mexico and the United States.  And the words “makeshift” and “submarine” are two words that do not belong together under any circumstances.

 Civilizer

“Surrogates.”  Anybody remember when these people became indispensable to the election cycle?  Anybody?  I seem to recall a time when a candidate was running for office, and he or she was all you really heard from.  Maybe there was a spokesman, the coffee-swilling guy wearing an iffy suit who acted as campaign manager, but that was it.  Other politicians would toss in some criticism or some platitudes from the sidelines, but election coverage was basically an anchor saying “And here is Governor Clinton giving a speech on health care,” and they’d play a clip (that one probably laden with STD-related information), and there might be some analysis.  That would be it - anchor, clip, talking head.  Now, when I turn on MSNBC, CNN, whatever, it’s like I’m watching “Where Are They Now, Politics Edition.”  Gee, I wonder what Geraldine Ferraro’s been up to…hey, there she is!  Wesley Clark, wonder if he’s still really into sweaters…hey, he’s on TV talking about Obama!  “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, last time I heard from him he was fathering babies out of wedlock…well shit, there’s Jesse!  (And I guess he’s really into projecting, because why else would a serial philanderer want to cut an as-far-as-we-know faithful family man’s balls off?)

Can anybody out there in the political arena explain to me the benefit of surrogates?  I’m assuming they are to act as proxies, getting in front of a camera and spouting a candidate’s message when the candidate himself or herself can’t be there because they’re in front of a different camera.  All right - then tell me if this concept sounds like a good idea:  take a person who is somehow engaged in politics, peripherally (an academic, business person, etc) or directly (another elected official or a former elected official), give them some talking points, and put them on live TV.  Keep in mind this person doesn’t work for the candidate, probably doesn’t entirely agree with the candidate, has been involved in national politics for several years which means they probably have a rather large ego, and is probably, at least in part, acting as a surrogate to raise his or her own profile, even if it’s at the expense of the candidate.  Certainly, nothing can go wrong there!

The only time you hear about a surrogate is when they biff it, go off script, and say something that embarrasses the candidate.  Otherwise, they’re wasted air.  Jesse Jackson wasn’t getting much attention as an Obama surrogate until he casually remarked that he’d like to castrate the guy he is supporting.  Wesley Clark was bopping along just fine until he said that John McCain’s POW experience isn’t necessarily presidential experience.  No one remembered Phil Gramm even existed until he piped up with this “mental recession/nation of whiners” clunker.  Samantha Power wrote a critically acclaimed book about a sorta-important topic (genocide), and no one paid a lick of attention to her until she called Hillary Clinton a “monster.” 

Does having a bunch of surrogates line up behind you really mean anything?  If you’re on the fence about a candidate, does Geraldine Ferraro casting her lot with Clinton make up your mind?  These aren’t people who can persuade by force of personality - if they were, they’d be running themselves (or in Ferraro’s case, they wouldn’t get creamed in the general).  They’re people who might have a few things to say about a given issue, but not a one among them is really going to pull votes.  Probably the only surefire surrogate from that respect would be Jesus, and that guy had a bad habit of speaking his mind when falling in line would have made his life a lot easier.  Good at staying on message, though.

 Civilizer

A question: phrasing a personal responsibility speech by telling a room full of black youths that they’re not as good as they think they are at rapping or balling, “forgetting” to tell a ballroomfull of Democrats at a speech to help retire Hillary Clinton’s debt, putting his kids on Access Hollywood, saying it’s “embarrassing” that Americans vacationing in Europe can’t speak European languages…is Barack Obama not only shifting his ideology to more conservative, but his comportment to more prickish?  I swear, after reading this stuff, I am seized by the urge to slap a #8 sticker on my car.

From Ted Forstmann, quoted in The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Forstmann’s argument about the present crisis starts with the money supply. After Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Reserve pumped so much money into the financial system that it distorted the incentives and the decision making of everyone in finance. He illustrates this with what he calls his “little children’s story”: Once upon a time, when credit conditions and the costs of borrowing money were normal, the bank opened at 9:00 a.m. and closed at 5:00 p.m. For eight hours a day, bankers made loans and took deposits, and then they went home.

But after 9/11, the Fed opened the spigot. Short-term interest rates went to zero in real terms and then into negative territory. When real interest rates are negative, borrowing money is effectively free – the debt loses value faster than the interest adds up. This led to a series of distortions in the financial sector that are only now coming to light. The children’s story continues: “Now they [the banks] have all this excess money. And they open at nine, and from nine to noon or so, they’re doing all the same kind of basically legitimate things with it that they did before.”

So far, so good. “But at noon, they have tons of money left. They have all this supply, and the, what I would call ‘legitimate’ demand – it’s probably not a good word – but where risk and reward are still in balance, has been satisfied. But they’re still open until five. And around 3:30 in the afternoon they get to such things as subprime mortgages, OK? And what you guys haven’t seen yet is what happened between noon and 3:30.”

 Civilizer

Wesley Clark was absolutely right.  Right, right, 2+2=4 right, Copernicus over Ptolemy right.  And Barack Obama, while right to refuse to apologize or disavow (except through a spokesman), wasn’t entirely right - Wesley Clark’s comments were not “inartful.”  Not at all.

Here’s what the General said:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, ‘I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-’

Bob Schieffer: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ‘ -it publicly.’ He hasn’t made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer:I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
That last part about the fighter plane is what has really gotten Clark in trouble this week, primarily because it has been fresh water drizzled onto the parched lips of the post-Democratic primary 24-hour news media.  I mean, you can only squeeze so many broadcast days out of analyzing Michelle Obama’s appearance on The View, right?  And hey, here’s an actual surrogate saying something that can be misconstrued as controversial!  Let’s beat this one to death all week, all those in favor say ”Aye!”

Well let’s take that last quote:  “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”

He’s right.  It’s not.  Let me tell you what John McCain getting shot down in a fighter plane means, what John McCain getting taken as a prisoner of war means, what John McCain refusing to leave the Hanoi Hilton even though Charlie is opening the door unless the rest of his men came with him:  it means John McCain has gigantic balls.  Gigantic balls matched only by a sense of honor and duty not likely present in very many of his contemporaries in the Congress.

Now, I like duty and honor.  And frankly, when it comes to picking a candidate, I can be very ball size-oriented.  It bothers me that Barack Obama had a civil conversation with Bill Clinton recently and asked for his help on the campaign trail.  Doing that instead of saying “Hey, go fuck yourself you race-baiting Dixie lech, half the state of Ohio thinks I’m a gay Muslim because of you” is, to me, symptomatic of a ball size deficiency.  So I’m in no way dismissing the fact that John McCain’s conduct during his imprisonment, and in fact his entire military record, is something to be honored.  I think he’s a bad. ass.

But the fact remains - courage, the kind of courage required to sustain one’s self throughout such an ordeal, does not automatically translate into the requisite executive aptitude necessary to be the President of the United States.  For Clark to point that out is blunt, certainly.  Military service, especially the kind that leaves a man unable to lift his arms all the way above his head because he has been tortured by the enemy, has been so elevated in this country’s culture as to be sacrosanct.  When a person utters anything other than unqualified praise, then, it’s risky.  But you have to look beyond context in this particular circumstance, and get right to content.  That’s why Clark’s comments, when you shake off the politically-charged environment in which they were uttered, weren’t “inartful,” much less wrong.  They were simply correct, and worth listening to.  If you want to promote McCain’s executive credentials, you can point to his time in the Senate working with past Presidents, or running his Senate office, or handling foreign relations matters.  But you don’t get to say the guy can govern because he’s a tough son of a gun and not expect that rationale to be challenged by anybody with the capacity for critical thought. 

 Civilizer

Chalk up the Zimbabwe “elections” as yet another nail in the coffin of the United Nations’ credibility.  Zimbabwe’s best chance yet for meaningful change mangled by widespread coercion and intimidation, a people beset for generations by corruption-fed poverty and dictatorship, and the U.N. “regret[s] that the election went ahead in these circumstances.”  Now that’s inspiring.  My heart went a million miles an hour, reading the full text of the statement. 

These people desperately need intervention, and the U.N. can’t even come up with a finger-wag, instead opting for the sorrowful shake of the head and tongue-cluck.  What’s the matter folks?  Leave your balls in Kosovo?  Zimbabwe is yet another example of a humanitarian failing on this planet, and all your blue helmets are cleaner and shinier than the one worn by Peyton Manning’s backup.

 Zimbabwe, along with Darfur, is yet another shining example of the concept of national sovereignty being an absolute crock.  My stance on the issue might be slightly impolitic, but we really ought to be splitting democracies into 2 categories:  Real and Rubber Stamps For Dictators.  Real ones, like those in America and Western Europe, you may notice, are often hotly and bitterly contested.  A tremendous amount of power and influence (and therefore $$$) hangs in the balance.  And yet, even when the situation becomes chaotic (see Bush v. Gore), you don’t see any coups, leaders refusing to step down, or voters forced to pull a lever at gunpoint.  That’s what’s called “political stability,” and if a country has it, then by all means, U.N., let that country handle its own affairs.

And then there’s countries like Zimbabwe.  For God’s sake, Mugabe is sending goon squads into a flea market over there with orders to find people who lack the telltale red-dyed finger proving that they voted, and to force them to vote for Mugabe.  It’s called Operation: Red Finger.  Stable countries like the United States have to guard against what I have come to call “South Carolina tactics” - slanderous robocalling, push polls, anonymous fliers claiming that Barack Obama eats children - and over in Zimbabwe, the government rapes people.  Now, again, political correctness be damned, that’s when you send in an international force of people with tanks, guns, fighter planes, and the Active Denial System, and you go all Pantera on the resident concubine-raping, statue-erecting, aid-diverting tyrant’s ass.  

What could possibly be the argument for standing to the side when this is happening?  “The people have spoken”?  Bullshit, the people have spoken the way a ventriloquist’s dummy has spoken - forced to say what the guy with his hand up its ass makes it say.  “Countries must be allowed to conduct their own affairs?”  Yeah, and a guy should be allowed to do what he wants in his own house, but if he starts hitting his wife and dealing guns and crack out of his garage, it’s probably not out of line to get the cops over there and have them chuck a tear gas canister or two into the rumpus room.  

My point is that dictators are interested in one thing - staying in power.  The push for democracy in vogue as of late might pressure them to have elections, but you can bet the farm they’re going to do everything in their power to manipulate that election, up to and including making some poor shopkeeper vote to keep them in power by putting a knife to his wife’s neck.  “International pressure” is a sham these days, because worse-than-shit countries like Russia and China, permanent members of the Security Council, will always find a way to prop up an evil regime as long as they can get at their natural resources and/or destabilize U.S. influence in the region.  China, for example, recently took the extraordinary step of condemning the Zimbabwe sham election, but just a couple months ago had no problem shipping weapons and ammunition to Mugabe’s government.  You can bargain, cajole, and sanction all you want, but a guy that refuses to play by the rules of international law only truly responds to one thing: force, the same thing that keeps him in power. 

Robert Mugabe has governed at the point of a gun for long enough.  Let’s see how the bastard likes it when there’s one pointed at him.

One year, 150 posts, one comment from a bona fide MIT genius, 3,032 hits from people searching “middle finger” alone, and thousands of man-hours saved worldwide from people who stopped thinking about important issues once they read this blog and just let me do it for them.

Been a good year.  Tell your friends.