Simple Solutions

My painfully simple solutions to everything include the following:

1) Foreclosure crisis. Clearly the government should take the money it spent on stimulus, TARP, all that, and just buy the houses directly from the troubled homeowners. House underwater? We'll give you time to pay it back--by tearing out all the parts of the house and selling them at flea markets. Then you have no mortgage owed, government gets housing space that can be sold onto the market over time, and the banks unload their bad mortgages. Win win win, I say!

2) Illegal border crossings from Mexico. Set up signs at our border area that say "Welcome to Canada" and feature the Canadian flag and plenty of people playing hockey and eating poutine and talking with accents. The border crossers will think they went too far, and turn back south to go to "America".

3) Border drug gangs. See, one of the reasons for the immigration is people trying to escape the drug gangs. This is terrible! (The gangs, not the people escaping them) I propose we announce a total reversal on the drug war, and say that cocaine is totally legal and the government wants to buy a lot of it for our troops in Afghanistan to hand out to kids since candy isn't as popular as it used to be. Then, when the drug gangs come to the high school gymnasiums where the buy is "going down", DEA agents swoop in and arrest them all. An elaborate ruse!

4) North Korea going Krazy. Just have our president pretend to be a leader of an entirely different country (we can give it a neat name, like "East Obamastan") and tell Kim Jong Il that we want to have a big summit to discuss an alliance against those awful Americans. Jong will be so excited, he probably won't even try to find East Obamastan on the map (and if he does, we can just say it's "back there near India" and that should suffice), and he'll come to the summit at the Hilton Garden Inn and then get swooped in on by DEA agents (fresh from catching border drug gangs). The crowning moment will be Obama removing the turban and beard, James Bond villain style. Of course he wont' want to get photographed in that getup or it'll give Glenn Beck a field day.

New Rules for Debates

One of the things most frustrating about watching televised debates is that they're so carefully staged that you rarely see anything worthwhile. Sometimes, a candidate is completely retarded--see, O'Donnell, Christine--or a bit out there--see, Stockdale, John, 1992 VP debate--and you get some good memorable show. Sometimes a candidate makes the mistake of walking into their opponent's trap--like in 1988 when Dan Quayle made a comparison of himself to JFK, giving Lloyd Bentsen a chance to tear him apart with "you're no Jack Kennedy!" At that, Quayle was too stunned to have any witty retort ready.

But usually, it's simply moderators asking common questions, and candidates using canned responses. If the question is a particularly tough one--such as, "how can you cut taxes, have no real spending cuts, and still keep the deficit low?"--the candidate will use a fluff response like "get rid of waste!" which of course implies that his/her opponent just loves waste too much to cut it. Or if the question is pointed--"how do you explain your family values stances with the time you spent at that orgy?"--the candidate simply doesn't answer the question--"I think the issues of the economy are more important, which is why I favor tax cuts..."

How to make the debates a better test of a candidate?

1) Let candidates ask questions to each other directly. The moderators are too concerned with being fair and don't want to be seen favoring one side over the other. The candidates, on the other hand, will definitely ask the toughest questions to one another. It'll give viewers a chance to see how they'd respond to direct confrontation.

2) Require the moderator to keep pressing if the question isn't answered. If the candidate tries to weasel out, then it's "I repeat my question. You will answer it or you will say "I don't know'."

3) Make it a challenge--the answers to the questions could have rules. Like "your answer must be done in haiku form." "Your answer must rhyme." "You have to work the words 'Roman Empire', 'grass skirt', and 'tumbleweeds' into your answer, coherently."

4) Add a bit of civics quiz to see if these people know much about the jobs they seek. Not just "can you name a recent Supreme Court case" but "can you name the nine justices on the Supreme Court" or "can you name at least three secretaries of state" or "name one country we're not allied with but used to be" or "tell me what NATO stands for".

5) Have a fake assassin stage an attack and see how the candidates react to the threat. It'd be telling if one tries to wrestle the assassin to the ground and the other tries to hide behind his wife in the audience.

6) Show off their talents, by asking each candidate to do an impression of their opponent. This can be educational, by getting each candidate to demonstrate what they think their opponent's arguments are really like.

7) Instead of boring suits, ask the candidates to show up dressed as their favorite historical figure or rock star. Yes, that might mean seeing Barbara Boxer dressed as Paul Stanley from KISS, but we'd also see Sarah Palin do her best Meat Loaf impression.

8) Install a laugh track and have it going after every line, even the ones not intended to be funny.

Rise of the Ignoramus

Ah, Christine O'Donnell, if she didn't exist some satirist would have had to invent her. After her lovely performance at the televised debate on Wednesday, I'm sure her blinded supporters are telling her that she did a fantastic job.

That's because her supporters are insane.

The best part of the debate was the simple question of what recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings she disagreed with. After all, as a Senator she would have a vote on approving candidates for the federal bench (besides the Supreme Court, hundreds of other federal judgeships open up from time to time). Her comical answer--to ask the moderator to "name some" for her, only to be told that "no, you have to do that" as if O'Donnell were a second grader, then for O'Donnell to respond that she's sorry, she'll have to list some on her "website" the next day--showed clearly that this woman can only answer questions that she was specifically coached for. In other words, no independent knowledge outside of what her handlers were giving her.

Now, most Senators are pretty dumb, but generally they can think on their feet. Let's say your mind draws a blank on that Supreme Court question--and you're a "conservative" (put aside for a minute whether it's "conservative" to have these radical notions for how you want to destroy government institutions and impose religious law, as some nuts like O'Donnell do). Just take one of your issues--say, school prayer--and say "I have a problem with the current stances that the Supreme Court has taken on school prayer." Of course, this requires knowing that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled on that issue in a way that diverges from what the religious party wants, and O'Donnell may not be aware of that.

So where is all this support coming from? After all, O'Donnell is likely to get at least a third of the vote here. Surely, some of that is protest votes--people are pissed with the way things are going these days, and pissed with the way the Democrats are handling things. It's natural to gravitate towards the harshest critics of the party in power. And some probably feel that whatever lack of qualification O'Donnell has, she'll at least be a reliable GOP vote, and that trumps all else. (I hear Democrats make the same argument when they defend their own crooks and idiots)

But there's also this idea that her lack of qualifications in themselves are pluses. Her "witch" ad made a point of her not going to an Ivy League school. Picture for a minute listing that on your resume--that "I didn't go to an Ivy League School". What job would make that a plus?

The thing is, most people don't like "elitists". And by "elitists" we mean "people who think they're better than me but aren't". Invariably, this is because the "elitists" have all their credentials and such, and DISAGREE WITH MY POINT OF VIEW. That is key--you don't hear the O'Donnell supporters complain about what an elitist George Bush Sr. is, or William F. Buckley for that matter (both men well born Ivy Leaguers). Yet, Obama is considered an elitist by them, despite his much more hardscrabble upbringing (and having finally paid off his school loans just a few years ago). There's simply no doubt that if Obama had political opinions closer to Clarence Thomas he'd be considered just a smart guy by these same critics. (And to be fair, the liberal critics of Thomas would be just as harsh on Obama, calling him a "sellout" or worse)

But there seems to be something damaging about wearing ignorance as a badge of honor and treating credentials as negatives. Don't we want our smartest and most experienced running things? Shouldn't conservatives at least want the smartest conservatives representing them? And maybe an Ivy League degree shouldn't be the sole determinant of intelligence and qualification--but why should that be a negative, either? And how can anyone hold up a proud ignoramus as someone they want making decisions that will affect them in Washington?

I'm Not Saying...

I have learned that you can really get away with saying anything so long as you qualify your statement by first saying that what you're saying is not what you're actually saying. Yes, that seems confusing, so here are some examples:

1) "I'm not saying all children should have their vocal cords ripped out before they're allowed on airplanes, but something has to be done about those little monsters." See, you're not really endorsing involuntary throat surgery--just puttin' it out there!

2) "I don't think that every German family should be driven from this neighborhood, but I wouldn't exactly call the ACLU if someone were to do that." See, you're not a racist! You just don't want to get in the way of other peoples' racism.

3) "I'm not saying that my marriage to you has been the lifestyle equivalent of a gaping head wound, but it's about time we put an end to this." The important thing is that your marriage is NOT a gaping head wound! The "not" is key here.

4) "I am in no way endorsing the use of poison on my co-workers, but they might want to sniff their coffee carefully before they piss me off any further." A warning or a threat? Who knows!

5) "I'm not saying the president is a secret muslim socialist weasel, but you try and explain why he wants to raise the estate tax!" See, the speaker here is raising the possibility that there could be some other reason for Obama's estate tax policy, aside from being a secret muslim socialist weasel.

6) "I'm not saying Christine O'Donnell is about as intelligent as a slime mold, but if I had to count on her or the slime mold to form an intelligent sentence let's just say I'm going to get out my Mold-to-English dictionary." Okay, this time you're basically calling O'Donnell a moron. Shame! She's obviously very intelligent since Bill Maher doesn't put idiots on his show. Only the top intellects can go head to head with Ricky Shroeder.

Anatomy of a Commute

After a month and a half, I've become pretty good at analyzing the intricacies of my daily commute from SW DC to the heart of God's Country (Fairfax, VA). The drive out is about a half hour, the drive back about forty five minutes and rather than listen to the radio like a normal person I coast alone with my thoughts.

Thoughts of murder!

See, the northern Virginia commuter is an odd combination of jerk, moron, and incompetent, and they all gather for little Idiot Conventions on Route 50 twice a day. Unfortunately for me, my drive takes me right through the heart of these conventions. Let me break down each part of the drive out to Fairfax each day:

1) Hop onto the 14th Street Bridge. Avoid the rightmost two lanes as long as possible, since these are backed up with clods who thought the GW Parkway wouldn't be a total mess. Every single day it has been a total mess, starting well before 7 AM. Either they're all first time commuters, or they never learn.

2) Get onto Washington Ave, and avoid the far right lane since that disappears with very little warning and people don't like merging taking place in front of them. Then, merge onto 50 West, taking care that no idiot bikers are using the trail that inconveniently bisects the on-ramp.

3) 50 West is generally smooth, unless you are lucky enough to be behing a Metrobus. Did you know that Metrobus is one of the few companies that hires its drivers directly from insane asylums? I like that they want to do something for the criminally insane, but it'd probably make more sense to give them office jobs instead of commanding a several ton vehicle down highways with no fear of job loss (thanks, labor unions!).

4) From Patrick Henry Drive to Annandale Road in Falls Church, you go through what some call "Seven Corners" (I haven't counted the corners, I'm too busy cursing and weeping) and which I call "the seventh circle of hell". On the way out in the morning, it's usually not too backed up, but in the evenings it gets clogged with suburban bastards who all decided this is the best spot to drive through. I'm not sure why it's so congested--there's nothing but strip malls, big box stores, and despair here. No landmark or metro stop, in fact, population here shouldn't exist. But it does.

5) Once out of the seventh circle of hell, it's relatively smooth past the Beltway, with most lights staying green for a while, and the reverse nature of the commute giving you a chance to whip by while you see the eastbound lanes sitting like a parking lot. You then pass through "Fairfax Circle" which is a pointless exercise in road construction. It's not really a circle--Route 50 goes straight through it--and would have been better constructed as a normal intersection since now it's a jumble of confusing lights.

6) About a mile past the circle, there's a fiendishly clever speed trap, where during key times of day a sign flashes that the speed limit is down to 25 mph. For those of you unfamiliar with this road, Route 50 is a six lane (three in each direction) highway here, and it is about impossible to keep any vehicle under 25 mph for any real length. Hence, the cops here have had an easy time bringing in extra money for the county so they don't have to raise taxes to pay for their lousy roads.

7) On the way back in the evening, GPS comes in handy with it's "traffic" function, so you can tell whether the 14th Street Bridge is completely clogged or whether you're better off taking Constitution through town. This can add time to the commute, but at least you can see the White House and monuments and curse at stupid tourists and joggers on the way in.

And that's the commute. Could be worse--could be going in the direction of most of the traffic (east in the mornings, west in the evenings--meaning not just more congestion but the sun directly in your eyes), and could be far greater distances as some co-workers face. But I'd certainly rather be doing this in a train.

I Do Nazi The Point

I'll admit to being a longtime history nerd, and was always fascinated by military history in particular. It's easy to understand why--gather a bunch of 8 year olds and give them toy guns, and they'll be plotting out intricate battlefield scenarios in short order, but if you ask them instead to re-enact the signing of the Magna Carta they will beat you over the head with your own powdered wig. (Yes, I know that powdered wigs were long out of style by the time of the Magna Carta).

My own mother, a Jesse Jackson Democrat who believed there are no winners in war--except for the half of the armies that come out on the winning side--tried to discourage playing war by not buying us toy guns. This was easily remedied by finding sticks in the woods that were shaped like rifles. Yes, the instinct to shoot and kill is inborn!

As an adult, I don't play war anymore. But apparently a number of adults do! A candidate for Congress in Ohio (state motto--"It's Not Kentucky But it Might as Well Be") has had some photos of his war re-enactments surface, and while this might earn some minor sniggers in other circumstances, it turns out that this guy was dressed as--and playing at--a Waffen SS officer. Oops! So much for the Jewish vote!

Of course, he could have mitigated the problem by saying that he had to play the bad guys, because in re-enactments someone has to (after all, we can't all be George Patton), and that dressing a part for a re-enactment is really no different than acting (except without really an audience). I can't help but wonder if they could have eliminated the whole controversy by just asking someone to videotape the whole thing and say you're putting it together for a movie. Like a documentary on grown men with too much time on their hands.

French Spy Films

One neat thing about Netflix is their recommendations for movies based on your previous rentals. For example, they might say "because you liked Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon, we recommend Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (since all three had Humphrey Bogart). Of course, when you rent things as diverse as "Barbarian Queen" and "Gettysburg" you never know what sort of recommendation they'll send you--there's a lot of daylight between a cheap B-picture featuring scantily clad warrior women, and a film like Barbarian Queen. (Yes, I know the warrior women in "Gettysburg" weren't all that scantily clad)

Sometimes the recommendations are just weird--because you liked "Dr. Strangelove" and "Friday After Next", they recommend "Herbie Goes Bananas". But sometimes they strike right on the money--as when I was recommended to view a film called "OSS-117: Lost in Rio".

The OSS-117 films are, far as I can tell, a French series taking place in the '50s and '60s with a secret agent who's a bit of a spoof on Sean Connery's James Bond role. The protagonist is incredibly arrogant, bigoted, a dry-witted--much like Connery's Bond. His insensitivity to foreign religions and cultures, his love of France and whoever happened to be President of that country at the time, and his complete unawareness of things happening around him combine to make this secret agent enjoyable to watch.

Unlike most spoofs, "Lost in Rio" (and the other one I've seen, "Cairo, Nest of Spies") avoided pure pratfalls and retreads (as the Austin Powers series sadly fell victim to) and actually stuck to a plot with twists and cleverness. While not the most hilarious films I've ever seen, these are a delightful romp and worth the time to view them.