Again With the Omens!

The 1970s were about a lot of things--terrible home decor, mustaches, and of course children who were the spawn of Satan. While "Rosemary's Baby" first warned us of this scourge in 1968, the Satan-child fears reached the zenith with the 1976 documentary "The Omen". There, we learned that evil little kids could really wreck a birthday party with dead nannies and babboon attacks.

Now, putting myself in the shoes of Ambassador Thorne, what would I have done if I discovered my son was actually the spawn of the Devil? In the documentary, Thorne was shot by police before he had a chance to stab the kid to death, which really sucks because they were British police who don't normally carry guns. And not to go off on a tangent, but what's up with that? The only reason not to run from the cops is because they tend to get all shootey on you. I figure with a British cop the only downside of running is that they might throw their fish and chips at you.

But yeah, let's say I'm sitting out on my patio enjoying tea and crumpets and some investigative reporter warns me that my kid is really Satan-spawn, and then just as he's finished telling me this he gets mysteriously vaporized by lightning or eaten to death by crows. I think I'd then turn to my rascally kid and say "okay, Devil-boy, you know what this means. You're cleaning that up!" Then we'd be off to Vegas because he might be good at manipulating a roulette wheel.

See, one thing they never tried with the Damien kid is the idea of negotiating with him. After all, is being the Devil an inborn thing, or learned behavior? I'd like to think it's partly both, and maybe there's some positives that can come from unholy power.

Apes Should Run This Country

There was a period in the late '70s and early '80s--which I refer to as the Dark Ages of culture--when the craze was apes dressed as humans and doing terrific things. There was "BJ and the Bear" (don't make the mistake of Googling that!), about a southern trucker and his "best friend Bear"--Bear being the name of his ape pet who made funny facial expressions and occasionally got BJ out of jams. There was "Every Which Way But Loose" and its sequel, "Any Which Way You Can", where Clint Eastwood played a barefist boxer with a pet orangutan that made funny facial expressions and occasionally got Clint out of jams. Then in the '80s there was "Mister Smith" about an ape that could talk and was somehow President of the United States. This killed the Ape Era.

Now, some might say the Ape Era died a natural death, because there was only so much audiences could take of seeing apes in funny human-like situations. However, keep in mind that the American public is made up of complete morons (case in point--"According to Jim"). So I have a far more sinister theory involving the highest levels of the American Government.

See, the Ape Era crossed a threshhold when they made the show about the Ape President, because it was quickly decided by President Reagan and Tip O'Neil--two notorious crooks who collectively were far less smart than the average ape--that if the American public got used to seeing an ape in the Oval Office--even if it were only in a bad sitcom--then it wouldn't be long before we decided to elect actual apes to Congress and the presidency. Because then there'd be the embarrassing revelation that a herd of apes would hardly do worse running our government than our current leaders.

I ponder this as I think about the fact that we still don't have a debt limit deal, because no one has the guts to touch entitlements or military spending or our sacred mess of a tax code. At least monkeys throwing darts at a bulletin board might have a chance of getting something right once in a while.

In 2012, I'm voting for Mister Jingles.

Classic Biker Films

If movies have taught us nothing else--and they haven't--they have taught us that all the highways of the West are clogged with villainous biker gangs that roam from town to town, terrorizing the uptight older folks and preppies who have nothing to protect them except for a corrupt and incompetent sherriff. Normally you'd think the National Guard would be called out when such insurrectionary groups create mass mayhem, but let's not dwell on that. Instead, let's dwell on what makes an ideal biker film:

1) Must be produced by the esteemed studio "American International Pictures", somewhere between 1966 and 1973.

2) The bikers should look like beatniks, and have chicks in them (bikers refer to their broads as "chicks") who wear a lot of eye liner despite spending their days riding bitch on the back of a hog.

3) Whenever they're riding, or punching, or drinking lots of beer out of cans that are simply labelled "beer", the bikers must have surf music playing. Why surf music? Why not?

4) When anyone gets punched, it will look a lot like bright red paint got smeared everywhere. My theory is that bikers are actually artists who carry their paint with them, and this gets spilled constantly during fights.

5) Within every biker gang is one undercover guy, usually a returning Marine from 'Nam, who infiltrated the gang in order to exact revenge upon the second in command who wronged the undercover guy's woman in some way.

6) Townsfolk never just show up in a mass with their shotguns and unload a torrent of buckshot at the bikers, ending the adventure prematurely. This is because they're hoping the bikers are only passing through and won't hassle anyone. This is a big mistake. Bikers never just "pass through".

7) When anyone on the road in their car or truck is being menaced by the bikers, they never seem to take the easiest step which is smash into them because Bike vs. Large Vehicle = Dead Biker. Instead, they run themselves off the road, and get menaced, perhaps beaten and robbed, and usually some young woman dies in the process, leading her husband to infiltrate the gang and get revenge (see 5, above).

8) There is never a traffic jam on any highway, because that might cause the biker gang to decide it sucks sitting out in the hot sun in heavy leather and sweating and stuff.

9) We never see the biker gang taking their bikes in for emissions inspection, but we must assume that they do at some point since any cop pulling them over and not seeing the emissions approval will run them in.

The glorious era of the biker film, as noted, ended about forty years ago, but there is good reason for a revival. I'm thinking a great indie film called "Bikers Vs. Truckers" that could feature a running battle across the southwest. Such a film could really capture the modern American spirit.

But hey, the studios have better projects to work on, like Transformers 4. May they all rot in hell.

Don't Trust Anyone Named Grover Who Isn't A Muppett

My problem with people who have strong political ideologies is that their rigidness means they have an answer before they even know what the question is. There's something about a person who says "all we need is a government program to fix this" or "no tax increases under any circumstances, ever" that just makes me wonder if they bother to ever approach a matter with an open mind. Sadly, the answer is likely no, and that brings us to Grover Norquist.

Norquist is the head of a group called "Americans for Tax Reform" and they have requested that Republican candidates for office sign a pledge that promises to never vote for a tax increase--and defines "tax increase" to mean not just raised rates but the elimination of any deduction or other calculation that would increase government revenue. (The pledge allows the elimination of a deduction if there is a corresponding rate drop or new deduction to off-set it--the key here is that the government can never act to increase its own net revenue) Hundreds of Republicans serving in Congress today have signed this--thereby signalling to voters that they cannot be trusted to use their personal inclination against higher taxes and instead have to be bound by the pledge. This is idiocy.

Consider for a minute that Congress voted to drop the tax rate to a flat rate of 1%, with the first $100K of everyone's income excluded (if that sounds familiar then congratulations, you remember the early 1900s when the first federal income tax was enacted--it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, later requiring the 16th Amendment to enable federal income taxes). Let's also assume Congress gets rid of Social Security, Medicare, defense spending--pretty much everything it does and reduces the deficit to make up for this huge drop in revenue. Then China decides to attack us via Mexico (like Red Dawn, but with better acting). An emergency session of Congress is called for.

Whoops! Can't raise taxes, these idiots signed a pledge! They owe fealty to a man named Grover! Oh, who could have forseen this calamitous turn of events???

See, it's fine to be in favor of lower tax rates and smaller government--it's a perfectly legitimate political philosophy, and really the only difference between the center left and center right in this country is a matter of degree. And it's perfectly fine for the GOP in this current budget fight to push for less--or even no--tax increases as a matter of principle (whether this is good policy, or even realistic since there's a Democrat in the White House). What is just plain stupid is that anyone would sign a pledge that eliminates judgment and flexibility in any circumstances, or otherwise requires the signer to violate it later.

It's a shame that when Mr. Norquist first presented this pledge to Republicans, they didn't just laugh him out of the room. It has served to do nothing but make the GOP look like rigid ideologues unfit to govern.

Bachmann's Husband

During this time of wondering if the 535 fork-and-spoon operators that make up the U.S. Congress are about to destroy what's left of the world economy, there's one question on everyone's mind--is Michele Bachmann's husband gay?

The presidential candidate's husband, Marcus, is particularly controversial because his profession is providing psychological counselling to turn gay people straight. See, gay people apparently have some sort of psychological disorder that makes them sexually desire their own gender, and moreover, this is a terrible thing so Marcus Bachmann had dedicated his working life to help get the gay out of people.

As it happens, Marcus Bachmann also now stands accused of being gay himself, since he's set off people's "gaydar". What is this, you ask? Apparently, people can be deemed gay due to how they walk, talk, and generally carry themselves--which to be fair is about as scientific as Bachmann's anti-gay therapy. Those who cheer this simply because they are offended by Bachmann are not helping matters--do we really want to give credence to this idea that effeminacy has a direct link to homosexuality? I don't really see how the gay acceptance movement gets anywhere by lending weight to mocking stereotypes--even if used against this guy. I imagine some closeted homosexuals around the country seeing this guy being mocked for how he walks and talks are probably cringing.

And moreover, what should it matter if Bachmann is gay? If he actually is a closeted homosexual, then I just feel sorry for him--imagine having to stomp down your inner feelings because you're in an environment where such feelings are considered sinful and deviant, in need of "fixing". And if Bachmann was more a John Wayne type (or Rock Hudson, if you will), would that make his destructive "therapy" any more credible? It's not the hypocrisy that makes such beliefs wrong, it's the beliefs themselves.

As someone who wants to become the most powerful person on earth, Michele Bachmann should be called to task on her and her husband's beliefs regarding a not insignificant number of Americans. But a tactic that seems a little too close to gay-bashing isn't the way to do it.

Heat Wave Solution

With summer temperatures projected to cross the three figure mark this weekend, my building decided Saturday was a good day to close the pool for no reason. Grrr, anger! Though, for years I had lived pool-less, so I should be able to deal. It'd be nice if the Potomac were clean and had a nice beachfront, but the Mayor isnt' taking my calls so we'll have to make do.

Sadly, we often hear of a number of heat-related deaths each summer, generally among the older and more A/C-lacking population. This confuses, flummoxes, and confounds me, particularly because my retirement plan involves a great deal of unexplained poverty and rotten kids who won't get off my lawn and won't drop me off in an air conditioned supermarket with a lawn chair. But wouldn't this be a great project for Boy Scouts, or some other civic group? Locate elderly and sickly people who don't have working air conditioners, and on hot days (anything over 90 degrees at least) drop them off at libraries, shopping malls or major train stations? These places are all kept cool during the hottest part of the day, so it seems a shame to swelter in a hot apartment when there's somewhere safer to be. Plus, they get to socialize! (Except in the library, where they should be reading and not making shrieking noises)

When evening comes and these places close up (except I guess the train stations, which should run pretty late) the Boy Scouts can come scoop up their charges, and drop them off at a nearby bar or Starbucks, one of those late night ones. By the time the management tells them to buy something or get the hell out, the summertime temperatures should have cooled off significantly.

Well, you know where I'll be in retirement.

Worst 20th Century President

Growing up, it was considered common knowledge that John Kennedy was one of our greatest 20th Century presidents, cut short in his prime just before he was able to end segregation and poverty and bring freedom to the world. This is because I was surrounded by hippies who had their heads up their asses--JFK was an overrated fancy-pants who dragged his feet on a civil rights movement that was taking place with or without him (his successor LBJ actually got on board that train), his bungling of Cuba in the Bay of Pigs directly caused the missile crisis the following year, and he got things rolling in Vietnam in a way that destroyed the following two presidencies. I shudder to think what another term might have done with that clown at the helm.

A writer for Foreign Policy Magazine seems to agree, and takes it a step further to say JFK was "the worst" of our 20th Century presidents. This is a harder sell--after all, Woodrow Wilson got us into another unnecessary war, and was our most segregationist president of that century. But my vote still goes to FDR for the following reasons:

1) Picking a war with Japan that could have been avoided. We cut off their oil supplies as a protest against their war in China--keep in mind we didn't have any issues with European powers invading that country (hell, only forty years earlier we were among those invaders). Continuing to work diplomatically with Japan may have emboldened moderates like Prime Minister Konoye, and worked out respective spheres of influence in Asia. Playing hardball at a time when the U.S. was trying to support the British against Hitler was stupid and provocative--it put Tojo in power and forced Japan to choose between economic and military ruin or war with us.

2) Happily handing over to Stalin everything he wanted, including half of Europe, when Stalin was heavily dependent on Allied aid. Since the whole war started over Polish sovereignty, giving all of Poland, plus everything else behind the Iron Curtain, to a dictator who could teach lessons in cruelty to Hitler, made WWII a sort of hollow victory and was the proximate cause of the Cold War. The argument that he "had no choice" sort of rings hollow--Stalin had no choice but to fight Hitler, and the Allies had the upper hand in the alliance.

3) Refusing any help for Jewish refugees from Hitler. FDR did not allow Allied planes to target rail links to the death camps, despite the fact that these targets were in their flight paths on their normal bombing runs, and he refused to allow open immigration of refugees into U.S. territory (or use any diplomatic pressure on the British to take in the refugees). FDR apologists argue that he had to do what he could to win the war, but none of these possible moves would have hampered the war effort in any meaningful way (unless you argue that Nazi bullets used on innocent people meant the bullets couldn't be used against Allied troops). Sadly the Italians while Mussolini was still in power did a better job protecting Jews than FDR did. The only plausible argument for FDR on this score is that he couldn't believe the information he was getting about the fate of the Jews in Europe.

4) Intentionally targetting civilians with firebombing. While in Europe the Americans' bombing efforts were limited to military targets (airfields, rail links, bridges, factories), we used firestorms against the Japanese on their home islands. The firebombings of Tokyo killed far more people than the atomic bombings would, and these weren't "collateral damage"--it was our intention to kill and terrorize the local population so that they would go to the polls and vote against the war. Oh wait, this was a dictatorship and they wouldn't be voting at all? Whoops! I guess we're just killing innocent civilians for the lolz! This actually didn't help us win the war--any more than Hitler's bombings of London and Coventry made the British want to end the war. It just emboldens the population, and kills a lot of noncombatants. We execute war criminals for that sort of thing. Of course, only the winner gets to do that. The only counterargument for the firebombings is that FDR thought at the time that it would cow the Japanese into surrender, and that it would take something more awe-inducing (like the atom bombs) to actually do this. But the firebombings themselves turned out to be pointless mayhem and unjustifiable with the light of history--and it is with that light that we judge past presidents.

5) Civil liberties. Who was our only 20th Century president to round up tens of thousands of American citizens and their families, seize their possessions and homes, and put them in holding camps far into the interior of the country, with no trials, etc.--only because of their race? Yep, that civil libertarian FDR! Any Japanese-American who doesn't hate that guy really needs to read more. And wartime censorship was notorious in a way that would make Michael Moore blush if he weren't a stupid moron.

6) The Counterargument. I won't go into the economic and domestic policy arguments, since there's still a lot of argument as to the effects of these policies, as well as the fact that these policies ran the gamut. Some revisionists argue that his policies prolonged the depression (and caused the "double dip" in 1937, though contractionary monetary policy also takes some blame), others argue it had no real effect (as unemployment was still around 20% at our entry into WWII), and of course those on the left believe he lifted us out of it or at least helped prevent it from getting worse. None of that can be proved--not without an alternate reality where those policies never happened--and it will always depend on your economic standpoint. I'll credit him though with the fact that he took office at a horrible economic time, and tried pretty much everything--and a lot of it did have a good effect (rural electrification, creation of deposit insurance). He was no great civil rights leader for the black population--since his coalition was dependent on segregationist votes--but his presidency wasn't a step back either. So he gets a wash on domestic policy.

FDR apologists will also say that he recognized the threat from Hitler, and did everything possible to get involved in the war despite isolationist sentiment at home. This is true--a different-minded president may have stayed out of it (as I argue Wilson should have in the first war--though in the first war, blame for who was responsible was a lot more muddied than in WWII) until forced into the conflict by Britain's collapse. But once that decision was made, his bunglings made things more destructive and longer than they needed to be, with a worse outcome than we otherwise might have gotten. We did not need to fight Japan--and we did not need to give Russia control of Europe up to the Elbe (at least, without anything in return). We did not need to insist on "unconditional surrender"--a policy that prevented anti-Nazi plotters in the German high command from getting support within the Army to overthrow Hitler and sue for a negotiated peace. We also might have prevented some of the millions of death camp fatalities, and certainly did not need to target enemy civilians in our own attacks. And it's not hard to imagine that another U.S. president could have successfully fought Hitler without making all those mistakes.

With the "Monday morning quarterbacking" of history, it leaves little doubt that FDR did more damage than any other 20th Century president. So why do we have a memorial to this monster?