Cocktailhag, the blog

Yesterday Glenn Beck compared health care reform to, among other things, the New Deal (which is only scary to his Social-Security drawing audience, natch..) and, get this– Pearl Harbor.  Now, really.  Obama has nearly three years left in office; what, in heaven’s name, is Beck going to invoke next?   Not that anyone in his audience would know better, but Beck may be burning his cataclysm candle at both ends.  Fortunately, there still are other cataclysms out there to be mined for their awesomeness, but Hiroshima was, after all, the greatest thing since sliced bread to most righties and ought to be repeated as soon as possible, the Depression is already back, thanks to Bush channeling Coolidge and Hoover, and most of his audience thinks that the Civil War was a good thing, except for its unfortunate outcome.   There are only so many world-changing horrors to go around, you know; it’s only prudent to conserve them.  The latest, most pathetic teabagger shindig, which drew dozens of lumpy and unattractive Americans to Washington to wave their misspelled signs, ought to be a warning to Fox News….  ”Armageddon, and so forth”,* can only happen once, and afterward cable coverage is likely to be spotty at best.

Now, Roger Ailes has once again circled the wagons around its craziest (and that’s saying something) host, having long since chosen the loyalty of the deluded quarter or so of Americans who will believe absolutely anything over the increasingly skimpy fig leaf of “real journalism” that used to somewhat unsuccessfully cover Bill O’Reilly’s overeager naughty bits, but the pin in the grenade has been pulled.  Fox has improvidently used up all the best material available, taking out its BS bazooka to vanquish tiny, centrist gnats, when someday, the Democrats might actually try to do something truly “progressive,” and then where will they be?  I’ve always been deeply skeptical of the notion that Obama is playing multi-dimensional chess, but if he’s driven the right this cuckoo by governing somewhat to the right of our last successful Republican President, Bill Clinton, he now faces an enemy that’s already used up its ammo.

But since a couple of off-year elections have been declared earth-shattering triumphs for the roundly and deservedly repudiated right, they are all rubbing the fronts of their trousers in anticipation of further victories yet to materialize, a spectacle that is, to say the least, less than appealing to the viewing public.  They can beat their flabby chests and bray, but don’t they, at some point, have to, well, offer something, anything, to the electorate?  Like their corporate paymasters, all they can do is darkly intone that really, really bad things will happen if they aren’t given the reins of power, but they don’t even bother to concoct any good outcomes from such an unlikely scenario.  Over time, this will definitely be a problem, since the wine they’re drinking invariably increases the desire but diminishes the performance, something Shakespeare once pointed out, but that sort of elitist wisdom tends to be pretty much lost on people who think the earth is 6000 years old.

November, 2010 is still eight months away, but the Republicans seem to think it’s next week, and are behaving accordingly.  They have their judges, they have their media, and they definitely have their “math,” just like Karl Rove did in 2006, but they’ve yet to offer any tangible reason that they shouldn’t be in rubber rooms, rather than running Washington.  Maybe they’ll think of something, but I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Obama may be lame, and a terrible disappointment to those who elected him, but at least he chose the right enemies.  This bunch simply doesn’t know the difference between what’s important and what doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, nor do they care….  About the only thing that could save them is another Pearl Harbor, but, oops, they already used that one up.  So, Glenn, we survived Pearl Harbor, apparently twice now.  What else have you got?

*actual quote from America’s Greatest President, Ronald Reagan

UPDATED BELOW:

I don’t know how many Hag readers have access to “Savage Love,” Seattle Stranger editor Dan Savage’s excellent nationally syndicated sex advice column, but he has a favorite acronym he uses with writers in hopelessly doomed relationships: DTMFA, which, if you haven’t guessed, stands for Dump The Mother Fucker Already.  He only says it when he means it; the partner in question is so selfish, perverted, or malevolent that the only possible solution is to, well, hit the road, Jack.  Although no butt plugs, gender confusion, poop, or cuckoldry is involved, which makes my advice kind of boring compared to Savage’s, there’s one dysfunctional relationship that I can no longer leave alone.  With apologies to Dan, here’s the evidence for a big, fat DTMFA:

Dear Dan,

I’ve been in this BDSM relationship for a long time; it started out where I was the dom, since I’m the bigger and bossier one, but over time my squeeze has jumped into the driver’s seat and hit the gas. At first it was kind of hot; I got to get my kinks for rough play without everybody finding out about it, and he got to whip whoever he wanted, which usually were the same people I wanted to whip anyway.  Trouble is, over time he started going to the clubs without me and putting the bills on my VISA anyway, and worse, he got me into situations where I repeatedly got whipped back for his shit, when I wasn’t even there to enjoy it in the first place.  Now, I’m deep in hock and and 86′ed from all of our favorite haunts, and he’s still in the clubs a’whuppin,’ while I’m not getting so much as a reach-around.  Finally, I said something… not anything too bad, mind you, but just a little reminder of who’s paying the bills and dealing with all the fallout of his fun, and he totally went ballistic, and sent all his “friends” out to trash me.  What should I do?  If I dump him, I might get some of my old friends back, but the backlash from his buddies that always hated me anyway will rip me a new one, perhaps literally.  Your advice would be appreciated, because now if I want to keep the peace I’m going to have to let him do some stuff that even I’m uncomfortable with.

Offered Bitch All My Ass and Couldn’t Orgasm

Dear OBAMA and CO:

DTMFA.

Unfortunately, international relations are, forgive the pun, stickier than sex columns and the “relations” of Obama and co. vis a vis Israel are necessarily more complicated.  I understand that having Israel around makes kicking Habib ass look, to some people, almost virtuous, and without them, Iran/Contra, the Iraq war(s), and 9/11 might never have happened, but would we really call any of those things good?  In short, the US/Israel “special relationship,” endlessly touted by the political right, Sarah Palin, and the Senator from Tel Aviv Joe Lieberman, is a lose/lose for both parties involved, but they just can’t quit each other, because they have their darkest traits in common: militarism, land stolen from indigenous people, and a bizarre desire to control everything in their path by force, since they are, in their own minds, the bestest ever.  Both use slaughter and human rights abuses against their chosen victims for political gain at home, and neither would be so successful at such a worthy endeavor without the other.  I don’t claim to have the influence that Savage Love has, but if this little missive from one of the Jewish lobby’s evidently less diplomatic spokesmen doesn’t persuade the Obama Administration to DTMFA, I honestly don’t know what will. (h/t HuffPo)

When it comes to tyrants who have dismantled their nation’s democracies and thrown their political opponents in jail, like Hugo Chavez, President Obama hugs them with both arms. And if you’re a Middle East dictator, like King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who brutally oppresses women and won’t even let them drive a car, for goodness sake, the President of the United States will bow down to you (you get the same treatment if you’re the Emperor of Japan). But if you’re the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Middle East’s only fully functioning democracy, and America’s most reliable ally, the President will sic his Secretary of State on you if you don’t follow everything he demands. Who does President Obama think the Israeli Prime Minister is? His poodle? (Would that he were; poodles, at least, can be put to sleep).

This is scandalous behavior, and over a non-incident. (1600 housing units?  That sort of thing probably won’t happen again in these parts as long as I live, and even in boom times would have been, well, newsy.)

Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in Jerusalem, as should Arabs. And had the Israeli government announced that it was preventing Arabs from living in any part of the Holy City that they choose, I would have written an equally scathing column criticizing that xenophobic decision. (That’s so flat out delusional that I’m literally and uncharacteristically at a loss for words. Did Karl Rove write it?)

During Obama’s Presidential campaign, I was asked to serve as a national co-chair of Rabbis for Obama. I turned it down. First of all, I was amazed that the candidate wasn’t going to be on any calls with the Rabbis who signed up, with the campaign saying he was too busy. Ah, so you want to just use the Rabbis and not show them basic courtesy and respect? Second and more importantly, I had a strong inkling that President Obama would treat Israel this way. Bullying them, pushing them, pressuring them, into peace deals that compromised their security. (Never trust a clairvoyant; especially one who happens to be an asshole.)

And make no mistake about it. Splitting Jerusalem, as it had been split up until its unification during the Six-Day War, is the single gravest risk to Israel’s security. Just imagine a Palestinian capitol, with Palestinian forces only miles away from Israel’s Knesset and government buildings. The Palestinian Authority has very little control over its own security forces and especially its people, with huge numbers supporting Hamas over the PA. Would Israel really sign a suicide pact to put all the organs of its government within easy striking range of Palestinian rockets? Haven’t we seen this happen already with Sderot and Gaza? Can anyone even imagine the consequences if Sderot became Jerusalem? (More ridiculous pants-wetting, to feebly justify an international crime.  The entire world condemns the 1967 land grab this bloodthirsty nebbish calls “unification.”)

But all this is beside the point. Israel is not one of America’s 50 states. (Tell Joe Lieberman that; he and Connecticut would be duly surprised.)  It’s a sovereign nation. For President Obama and Secretary Clinton to treat Israel with such disdain, and handle its elected officials as if they are naughty school children, is disgusting. I would like to see a single other example of an international leader subjected to the kind of public berating that has taken place between Hilary and Bibi over the past few days. It’s beneath the office of the President and the Secretary of State.( You tell ‘em.)

And please don’t give me the tired arguments about how much America does for Israel. America gives Egypt billions in aid each year. Yet, Obama showed Hosni Mubarak extensive courtesy when he visited Cairo, even though Mubarak is a dictator who has for decades rejected America’s call for democratic reforms.

I could print this execrable and lengthy screed by Rabbi (!) Schmuley Boteach in its entirety, but will refrain from doing so because the DTMFA buzzer went off before the first paragraph was over.  Your country and mine thank you, Rabbi Boteach, for finally giving us something even the hag, and if he were here, Dan Savage, couldn’t overlook.  Time to hit Craigslist, Israel, you’ll have to get your kinks elsewhere.

UPDATE: The right’s former darling, Gen. David Petraeus, has really stepped in something lately, first with his dismissal of the arguments against DADT, but worse, with the Israel lobby, when he had the temerity to call the sky blue; i.e., that Israel’s apartheid policies aren’t so great for American security.  To wit:

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute “insufficient progress” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.

The General’s assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.

Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point, Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then fall into line.

DTMFA!

Lord, but have we been hearing a whole lot about “freedom” lately, and how “government” is its enemy. This message which would have been considered by our lately revered but strategically unremembered founders to be something of a slap in the face, but in today’s climate of unabashed corporate ownership of both our “free” press and our “elected” officials, it has to be about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.  You would literally have to be, well, almost David Gregory to believe such a thing, unless you’ve suffered a head injury or something.  I suppose that the dreary repetition of huge, unaccountable corporations once again fleecing the taxpayer and consumers for one thing or another simply becomes too repetitive too contemplate at some point, much less get too aroused over anymore.  Politicians ignoring the wishes of their constituencies and instead serving the interests of, say, Goldman Sachs on the economy, Exxon and Halliburton on foreign policy, and  the other one or two wealthiest and most connected monopolists on every other subject on down was depressing enough when the side that openly promoted that was winning; now, it’s a stark illustration that without a freedom-destroying “government,” we’re in a heap of trouble.

The overlords who have elbowed aside democracy with their money are quite aware that the thing they have going is too good to be true in a nominal Democracy, and although the US is kind of big compared to what they’re used to overthrowing, it’s not unmanageable if you take your time at it.   Which they have.  At least in the media, what few interests with coins to rub together who might actually challenge corporate power on behalf of the vast majority, mainly lawyers and unions, are routinely chastised for upsetting the natural order of things, where Goliath is, you know, supposed to beat David.  And, now that they’ve managed to recast the Tea Party of yore into a made-for TV event generously sponsored by the modern equivalent of the British East India Company, I’d say that the years were well spent.

In this way, the Beckian attacks on “progressivism” are as transparent as they are politically necessary; the last time the American Government was as wholly owned by a plutocratic elite as it is today, with the widespread poverty and suffering that entailed, a lot of screwed-over people realized that at least they still could vote and spent several decades putting a stop to it.  As a result, from the end of WWII to the early seventies, Americans enjoyed the most widespread prosperity of any nation in history, and the very notion of an astronomically wealthy ruling class in a country like ours became an anachronistic aberration, as Americans perhaps descended from servants could afford to travel and tour the abandoned palaces of the Astors and Vanderbilts without shedding too many tears of sympathy about the income tax and the Servant Problem.

In the end, and this concept is not exactly new, a democratically elected and more importantly, directed,  government is our only bulwark against  corporations so wealthy that they can buy governments, and people so wealthy that they can at least rent them.  FreedomWorks, Fox News, and the Koch and WalMart heirs know this, but the followers they must dupe don’t, at least so far, so a more than usually desperate mop-up operation has ensued.  But really…  even the Astorbilts only had three or so houses, and they were a lot more tasteful than, say the best of John McCain’s seven.  (Or was it eight?)  They may also have had their private cars, but they did still take the same railroads, in some cases having actually built them, which would today be considered both vulgar and vaguely socialistic.  But even if you’re a regular Fox watcher, wouldn’t you still notice the unflattering differences and equally unflattering similarities between the superrrich of then and those of today, a realization which might prove inconvenient to the People Who Matter?

Well, yes, and that’s what everyone from Chief  Justice (!) John Roberts to simian nincompoop Sean Hannity has figured out, and damned if these worthies are going to let such socialist rigamarole get a toehold in our discourse.  Once that evil “government” has been well and truly drowned in the bathtub, the “malefactors of great wealth,” as that commie “progressive” Teddy Roosevelt called them, won’t have to waste their money anymore putting on tawdry and divisive shows each election year, and you can bet they have great ideas about what to spend it on.  It ain’t charity.

If not government, what do we realistically have, against such overwhelming odds and money?  Cole Porter may offer a clue.

After you, why, should I take the time to try?

That’s what they’re counting on.

It seems that Moody’s, one of the insightful bond rating services that notoriously rated Wall Street junk AAA in the years leading up to the crash, is finally getting tough.  Not with the banksters, though, but with the US, UK, and other governments, who, according to this infallible oracle, face structural debt that must be addressed, even at the risk of damaging such irrelevant minutia as “social cohesion.”  Naturally, the countries in the worst danger are the US and UK, and the ones across the world in the most trouble are those that embraced Reagan/Thatcherism most ardently; Moody’s cryptically mentions the socialist, redistributive “Nordic Countries” as those in the best shape to hang onto their AAA ratings, tiptoeing around the “why” of this mysterious phenomenon that would appear to fly in the face of 30 years of economic orthodoxy.

What was it that made the US and UK, who both have slavishly followed the Randian model of creating a capitalist paradise, soon have to start shopping for the governmental equivalent of payday loans to finance basic services?  Could it be the feudal extremes of wealth and poverty that strain the social safety net and choke off public investment to further enrich an overclass of wealthy layabouts?  Could it be reckless and unpaid-for military adventurism?  Could it be the rampant anti-unionism that has gutted society’s bedrock, the strong middle class?  Could it be the dominance of the Murdoch press?  Nah.  The answer of course, is that “social cohesion” is going to have to be flushed down the toilet so the rich can keep up with the, uh, other rich.  The smart money is in riot gear and more prisons.

I think this explains why the economic right is doubling down so in its misinformation campaigns; they see trouble coming and are desperate to lay the blame anywhere other than where it belongs.  It started during the Bush years, when any fool could have seen that the upward transfer of wealth and incontinent military spending was going to create a fiasco; the government quietly, and later proudly, began creating a repressive infrastructure that would be needed to keep an increasingly two-class society from boiling over.  Of course, the multiple wars, the loaded, Nazi-tainted term, “Homeland Security,” the routine and savage attacks on dissenting politicians and members of the press, and the explosion of extrajudicial spying and detention called to mind der Fuhrer a bit too much, so ol’ Jonah Goldberg was at the ready with his farcical piece of nitwit propaganda, “Liberal Fascism.”  Why not?

Then, when the Bush economic policies produced just the disaster that any sentient being could have predicted, and no amount of wingnut prosecutors and rigged voting machines could stem the tide of popular revulsion at the theft that had been committed, Plan B was implemented after the 2008 elections.  Fox News hired essentially the whole propaganda arm of the defeated administration and gave Glenn Beck his chalkboard, and Liz Cheney, William Kristol, and Dick Armey, among others, fired up their newly minted government in exile to make sure that the most larcenous of their policies would be aggressively marketed to dumber Americans, most of whom worked in the media.

Since the elections of 2006 and 2008 had made clear the unwelcome fact that even No Child Left Behind hadn’t made Americans quite dumb enough yet to vote themselves into serfdom, they had to de-emphasize somewhat the gay-bashing and bible-thumping in favor of going all in for plutocracy, which was what really mattered all along.  Thus, the teabaggers were systematically riled up to equate government sanctioned theft by the wealthy from everyone else with “freedom,” and the handily packed Supreme Court was forced to fast-track its plans to tilt the playing field further toward the luxury boxes with the notorious and audaciously misnamed “Citizens United” decision.

Bringing up the rear, typically, was ol’ Texas, which rightly perceived that this book learning thing was getting out of hand, and had to rush through new “academic” standards for textbooks.  The wingnut charlatans on the board, some of whom had already been sent packing by the voters, had neither the time nor inclination to obsess over creationism, abortion, and such, and instead stuffed in such blatantly desperate measures as sanctifying Reagan, “free enterprise,” and the gold standard, a gesture that proved unintentionally revealing…   Who cares about murdering babies when money is involved?

Count on the right to leap on Moody’s threat  as the latest justification for further cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while sticking the rest of us for more and taking away what measly services we still receive from them.  In fact, Rep. Paul Ryan’s little proposal does just that, while further increasing the deficit, to boot.  What would Moody’s think of that idea?  Better yet, what would Ingrid or Sven think?  Not much, I’m betting.

Many attempts have been made by movie writers/directors/producers to tell the truth about the tragic, unnecessary Iraq War while making it a financial box office success. Making significant dollars means large numbers will see the movies and hear the important truth messages. The two latest, Oscar winning The Hurt Locker and the just released Green Zone while making the most recent successful attempts so far, will probably fail at their profit goals and have little political impact. This weekend Green Zone starring Matt Damon took in $14.5 million while its box office competitor, Alice in Wonderland starring Johnny Depp made $62 million. (See Green Zone movie reviews here)

Damon with his Paul Greengrass’ Bourne movie triumphs can compete with Depp’s star power. What he can’t overcome is Americans’ reluctance to face the truth about American made wars and our military “heroes.” It just so happens that tonight Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg launch their latest HBO passion project, The Pacific (in ten parts) trying to show the reality of war and “bringing history’s lessons to modern audiences, especially those lessons that resonate with today’s war-weary Americans,” says Hanks. It probably will resonate, but is unlikely to change many minds.

Since the inception of moving pictures, Hollywood has struggled with how to portray the men and women who go to war on behalf of their nation and then discover war’s horror realities that will alter the participants lives forever. It’s a herculean task for movie makers to condemn war and the war mongers who create it while making heroes of mostly innocent pawns who carry out the missions. Some succumb to ignoring the mongers or making “heroes” of those who don’t deserve it. Others blame the “troops” ignoring those who sent them to risk their lives under the false pretense of national “defense.”

Having served in the Air Force from 1963-1991 as a public affairs officer, I watched how our military “heroes” went from scum after Vietnam to true heroes in the First Gulf War. I worked hard to make that perceptual change. I can see now that success which came about because our military became superb professionals at the art of war, using the latest weapons from the very profitable war machine makers, significantly contributes to confusing American voters on the question of why we are creating enemies and wars and the terrible consequences that result.

It isn’t easy for average Americans to praise the “troops” while condemning their wars. That means they would have to accept that all that deadly sacrifice is sadly only contributing to the power and money brokers who never suffer and gloat with glee and greed over their success. When Hollywood or those “terrible lefties” attempt to tell them the truth, it is too painful to hear so they seek solace in the propaganda of those responsible for putting them into this emotional dilemma and ruining millions of lives including ones that touch them.

The only way to ease this dilemma is to face up to the power of the M$M-Congressional-Military-Industrial complex and the cruel irony of the name of the organization responsible for conducting our wars, the Department of DEFENSE.

Politics is framing. As long as we call our military pawns “heroes” just because they are called on to “DEFEND” us, keeps far too many Americans confused suckers. And that is just what our war monger profiteers want and need. They do it with framing that creates false fears. Their success will lead to the ultimate collapse of the American Empire.

I’m not the first to suggest that the DoD be renamed the Department of PEACE. It would be a very important first step in using political framing to the disadvantage of the complex. The second is to stop using HEROES. Our most important heroes should be those who want to overpower the complex. Until that happens, our downward economic and political spiral will continue unabated.

Time to turn the clocks, not redemptively back, but assaultively forward.  Just when the light started making my alarm clock irrelevant for the first time in months.  Admittedly, I always thought it was neat that 4th of July fireworks didn’t start until the decadent hour of 10pm, but that was before Old Age came along.  These days, Daylight Time seems both an annoyance and a hoax.  Maybe I should move to Phoenix, like the rest of the cocktailhags did long ago, and miss out on this tomfoolery.

In Jessica Mitford’s hilarious memoir of her time in the Communist Party, “A Fine Old Conflict,” she outlines the indignities great and small suffered by Americans who, for one reason or another, were “premature anti-fascists,” and thus subject to the long arm of the law for decades thereafter.  A product of an eccentric and famous upper class British family, she landed in the US a young widow with a newborn daughter, her first husband, Winston Churchill’s nephew Esmond Romilly, having been killed in action in the RAF in 1941.  She managed to nail a job with the OPA as a “sub-eligible typist,” (“the wartime shortage of clerical workers was so severe that the applicant for a government job was taken into a room with a typewriter and a washing machine; if she could identify the typewriter, she was hired…”)  There she met her future husband, Robert Treuhaft, and together they became Communist thorns in the side of racists, chiselers, HUAC, and the FBI for the rest of their lives, happily.

Though the book deserves a full Book Saloon at some point, what brought it to mind today was the the multiple incidents in which “Decca,” as she was known, was drummed out of the most menial jobs because of her party affiliation, and later denied a position as a Distinguished Professor with the University of California for refusing to sign a loyalty oath; this after her book, “The American Way of Death,” had made her  an internationally famous author and muckraking journalist.  UC students would therefore be denied the privilege of learning from this remarkable woman because, y’know, she used to be a commie. (Alert Hag reader Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel points out that it was San Jose State, not UC, that leveled the boom on Decca; my apologies…)  She was dead before California finally rescinded its McCarthyite loyalty oaths in 2008.  Enter Glenn Beck:  (h/t newshounds.us)

Standing in front of his trusty chalkboard, “Professor Beck” first complained that FDR was “surrounded by people who were communists” before sneering that John Sweeney, the former president of the AFL-CIO removed the anti-Communist clause from the union by-laws. Unions, of course, are one of Beck’s regular scapegoats. “Question,” Beck said, pretending he was “only asking.” “Why would you need to repeal this old law on your by-laws… of your union unless there was some new demand or desire for communists to join your ranks?”

“Now let me take you to California,” Beck said self-importantly. He was referring to a 2008 bill that, he said, “amazingly, allowed communists to teach in school, to become schoolteachers in California. Oh, and public employees would no longer have to take an oath of office which reads in part, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic.” His voice rising, Beck added, “And I do further swear or affirm that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise that now advocates the overthrow the government of the United States or the State of California by force or violence.”

“Why would you want people to stop taking that oath? Who wouldn’t want that taken, especially by teachers, other than people… looking for social justice?” Beck asked accusingly, before moving on to suggest that it was all somehow related to the fact that unions are big supporters of President Obama.

It’s sad how little we learn from even the most embarrassing elements of our past.  Now that McCarthy has been rehabilitated by Coulter, Beck, The Texas Textbook Commission, you name it, can ol’ J. Edgar be far behind?  Of course, Beck is either too craven or stupid to know the difference between the communism he deplores and the fascism he is unwittingly supporting, but he would benefit a bit by reading some of Mitford’s work; on civil rights, economic justice, peace, women’s rights, and nearly everything else she was right more often than FOX News has been in its dismal 15-year run as the voice of American Fascism.  Mitford was something Glenn Beck will never be; a true American patriot.  Would that she were alive today to eviscerate this doughy nitwit with her scathing humor;  ”The Fine Old Conflict” goes on.

Some longtime friends and clients of mine in North Portland, as we were in the design phase of putting a second story addition on their house, found a place a couple of blocks away, right on the bluff, and got a great deal on it in the aftermath of the boom.  Literally, they would have had to fight off eight flippers had the house gone on the market six months sooner, but the flippers were gone, and they bought it and sold their other house instead of adding on.   Sitting on an enormous lot on a broad boulevard with 40′ setbacks and giant street trees, the place felt like a park, and the house was a large 1940’s “colonial” with big rooms, coved ceilings, lots of light, and a view of Forest Park and the harbor, which may be a Superfund site but it’s pretty at night.

Like most houses of that era, though, the kitchen had only a narrow doorway to the dining room, and the kitchen itself was a Partridge Family era masterpiece in brown and gold, with a fluorescent dropped ceiling, Formica, and everything.  I had the doorway widened to an arch to match others in the entry, extended the hardwood floors through it, and designed white-painted cabinetry that was probably a bit more traditional than the original 1940’s style, but I thought would age better, especially with granite counters and fancy stainless steel appliances thrown in.  Unbeknownst to me, the owners went out and picked the coolest granite I’d ever seen, literally slices of a petrified stream bed, and I liked it so much I ended up using it in another house later.  It’s nice to have others do one’s shopping for them.

The other problem the house had was that the stairway, though wide and filled with light from above, was enclosed at the bottom by a door and wall, in a dark hallway that was further shut off from the entry by another door; there were so many doors in one spot that when opened they all banged each other, and the place was darker than a tomb.  Because the stairway wall was load-bearing, we had to put in a large header to open up its last few steps, but the effect was well worth it; now you can see the view from the den in the back of the house, and the hall feels big and gracious.  The door into the entry is now another arch, and the stairway even sports a newel and a bit of an open railing to match upstairs.

When I was growing up, we always laughed at the relentlessly upbeat statements that came from the old Soviet Union, where even disasters were turned into triumphs, and leaders, statues, and the names of places themselves switched magically as fashion and leadership  required, which usually worked out better for the places renamed than the people thus discarded.  One never assumed that an honest transfer of power had taken place, nor were the myriad other rosy scenarios to be believed.  We probably never knew the whole story, but most likely life for the average commie (unlike at Lake Wobegone, all commies are assumed to be average) was pretty close to what we all thought it was, and pretty much the opposite of what we heard from Pravda.  In short, it was a dreary, if not impoverished life, where a few oligarchs controlled the masses through a robust police state and propaganda machine while they pursued their imperial dreams into eventual bankruptcy for everybody.  Thanks to St. Ronnie, such a thing could never happen here, which is certainly reason enough to put his pancaked mug on the $50, where most of the rabble won’t ever see it at the rate we’re going.

What was most sinister about the Soviet system, though, was its Orwellian addiction to rewriting history simply because, well, it could.  Thus, the foibles great and small of the current cabal in power could be transformed into an immaculate arc of righteous progress against the pure evil of its every opponent, whose name and face must immediately be wiped from every street sign, monument, or book, to be replaced by those in favor, whose health often would then become a topic of conversation.  Outside of weapons, one of the best industries to be in would have been statue making, and I’m sure that the commie system produced its fair share of little Richard Cheneyovs to take advantage of this.  (The commies invented no-bid contracts, you know…) Book printing would have been something of a gold mine too, since every few years whole libraries would have to be replaced to protect the next generation from the dangerous ideas and subversive people recently laid to rest (the latter more literally than the former), no doubt drawing the attention of some little Rupert Murdokovitch, who would definitely have liked the lack of competition, anyway.

Well, now that we already have the shady elections, compromised media, widespread poverty, bloated military, gulags, and unaccountable ruling class, what’s really left to “win” from the commies but their curious approach to history?  Someone needs to think of the children, and fortunately, in Texas, they are, using their singular power to rewrite all Americans’ textbooks to exalt Jesus, Phyllis Schlafly, and Ayn Rand, not necessarily in that order.  Move over, Abe Lincoln, Jefferson Davis just brought back the Fairness Doctrine, and the Contract with America has now officially kicked the New Deal’s sorry ass to the curb where it belongs.  This new American Ministry of Culture has leapt boldly into commie territory, its Commissars hastily declaring who’s up and who’s down in public school textbooks, because the craziest members of the State Board of Education have been involuntarily retired by the notoriously crazy-friendly Texas voters, and only have 10 months to cut and paste.

Just like Krushchev banging his shoe, these chicken-fried Stalinists are not being at all shy about how many statues they still have to pull down; separation of church and state, the Great Society, Imperialism (the word, not the thing, of course), and best of all the Recent Unpleasantness we used to call Civil Rights, which children might as well henceforth learn hasn’t amounted to much beyond a lot of “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes.”  In their place, the heroic doings of the Heritage Foundation, The National Rifle Association, the Moral Majority, and going back a bit, Stonewall Jackson, will step into the footlights beside the one true God besides Jesus, Free Enterprise, accompanied by stirring “country and western” music.  Seriously.

Please, Texas, secede already.  We’ll risk the children being left behind.

You know, you really have to hand it to the Republicans.  They started out with a plan that was seemingly so audacious and unlikely to succeed that Democrats never saw it coming, much less moved to counter it.  Selling plutocracy to the rubes, via a systematically concentrated media, has turned out to be like taking candy from a baby, minus the crying;  the guys who once obsessed over commies and fluoride in the water have moved on to crazier and crazier things, but this time they are treated as, well, sane.  Worse, regardless of such ephemera as elections and such, they are assumed to be in charge of the government by nearly all members of the media, even in exile.  Win or lose, Republicans dominate the talk shows and the evening news;  the vast majority of their unpopular policies are treated as holy writ, which Democrats blaspheme at their peril.    But now that we’re pretty sure that Bush never won either election honestly, this seems to me to be a rather astonishing departure from reality, and surely a grave disservice to the long-suffering audience.

But why not?  The media rapture over Republicans never ebbed after Reagan, particularly since he got rid of that pesky Fairness Doctrine and annoying public service obligations that had heretofore made it awkward for media outlets to simply join the government in looting the treasury and bombing the planet.  Whether they were doing any good or not is neither here nor there; the point is that they were doing well, very well.  The ultimate effect of Reagan’s efforts to “deregulate” the media was in fact the opposite; the idea was to concentrate the media into fewer and fewer wealthy hands, who could certainly be relied upon not to rock the boat when the rising tide rolled in, as it did.  Like a tsunami.

Of course, the inconvenient part was that all the policies the righties had dreamed up were, putting it delicately, unlikely to succeed, and lo and behold.  Now, if I were Tom Friedman, Bill Kristol, or Liz Cheney, I’d be nervous as a whore in church on Meet the Press, but as luck would have it, everyone else on the set all embraced the same dumb ideas you did, so it’s easier to sell such inanities than it would be, say, on the subway.  Consequently, we have landed in something of a pickle: the minority party and the media have together become so deeply divorced from reality, in lockstep, that they can no longer tell any semblance of the truth without making asses of themselves.

Fortunately, they approach this problem by lying even more extravagantly, to a point where a five year old would question their credibility.  Victory in Iraq?  Nostalgia for Bush?  (maybe they meant neuralgia…)  Socialism?  Fascism?  Perhaps it was different when Bush’s absurd claims about the distribution of his tax cuts were wanly accepted and repeated ad nauseam; the real world consequences, and they’ve been dreadful indeed, of the much crazier stuff that happened afterward continue to unfold, and the media that equally bears responsibility is as invested in “looking forward” as John Yoo.   Thus, they make even bigger asses of themselves, and the “credibility” of the media is but a corn-dotted turd from that predictable and noisy orifice making its final circle.

One really does wonder when premature announcements of “victories” at home and abroad, always from the same source, will finally begin to ring hollow inside the Washington bubble, as they have outside it for several years.  In this important way, the right is reaping the downside of its own success…  you can only fool all of the people some of the time, and that time has passed.