OffHisMeds has had fun with some of the pronouncements of President Obama and sundry of his Minions in the past 100 or so days, not the least reason for which is that the subjects themselves seem to have tapped a vein of rhetorical stupidity as deep and wide as the Democrat Party; which is to say that while it covers an enormous amount of surface area, it is shallow in the extreme. Democrats can mine this vein by doing for rhetoric what they do for policy: exploit that which is near the surface, then move on. Just as they have for generations strip-mined the Economy without regard for the damage to the Economy, they strip-mine the English language without regard for any damage to the English language.
Our current favorite is the phrase "the horse is already out of the barn", first used by Janet Napolitano to justify her decision to impose no travel restrictions on Mexico to prevent the spread of the Swine Flu to the United States, a phrase repeated the next day by President Obama. With this simple utterance, Napolitano and Obama legitimized the fantastical notion that, having already allowed a handful of Mexicans infected with the Swine Flu into the U.S., there would be no greater spread of the disease if we then allowed an unlimited number of Mexicans with Swine Flu into the U.S. There is, of course, no explanation that would allow this statement to make any sense, and neither Napolitano or Obama offered any. Thus unmolested by reality much less the Media, Barack Obama made "the horse is already out of the barn" the official disease control policy of the United States.
If you're wondering how clichés became policy in the modern era, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the goings-on of the Democrat Party. The phrase "the horse is already out of the barn" is the embodiment of the modern Democrat's rhetoric: it is all-purpose, vague, cynical, fatalistic and unchallengeable - at least by the standards of interrogation employed by today's Media. It is also - at least until the elections of 2010 - undeniably true. And inasmuch as it was used to such good effect for the Swine Flu crisis, I look forward to President Obama and Top Democrats regurgitating this line to explain any number of wrong-headed policy decisions they have made, or will make in the future, including:
- The $1.2 Trillion dollar "Stimulus" bill - The money's committed, even though most of it won't be spent for at least four years. If the Economy recovers before then, there would supposedly be no reason to spend the money. That won't stop Democrats from spending it.
- Supreme Court appointees - Let's face it: Considering the battalion of liberal Supreme Court Justices so fond of legislating from the bench that have been appointed in the past twenty years, including David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy to name but a few, the horse is indeed out of the barn; particularly considering that all of these were appointed by Republicans.
One other thing: as regards jurisprudence, Democrats have another name for "the horse is already out of the barn". It's called "precedent". Never was such a word that could so strike fear into the hearts of freedom-loving people, but Democrats cherish it like their first-born.
- Amnesty for twenty million Illegal Immigrants - After all, they're already here, and the Democrat Party is busy counting them in the Census. Once they're counted, they're in; and it probably doesn't hurt that "the horse is already out of the barn" is the official immigration policy of the Republican Party, giving Obama all the cover he needs.
- Killing ethical government - This is a twofer. Any President that can simultaneously push through the cabinet appointment of the biggest assortment of tax cheats in history while going unchallenged on his assertions of conducting government in an open and ethical fashion has done for ethical government what The Media have done for ethical reporting.
- Health Care reform - Obama's already made a $675 Billion "down payment", and everybody knows that you can't default on a down payment. It's too bad Democrats don't as readily appreciate the virtue of "down payments" when it comes to managing the Mortgage crisis as they do when formulating Health Care policy.
- Decimating our Intelligence Agencies - Obama has already released all the damaging information he can, reversed all of the policies that allowed our intelligence agencies to be effective, made every damaging statement possible, and apologized to the world for the so-called excesses of our intelligence community, effectively criminalizing them in the process. Shades of Jimmy Carter and the Church committee.
- Bankrupting the nation - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Revenue Sharing and twenty million government employees not only aren't going anywhere, Obama and the Democrats have proposed the massive expansion of all of them, collectively the Black Hole that is government spending. Physicists understand that as a Black Hole grows larger its gravitational pull increases. Democrats are immune to this insight.
Having thus elevated "the horse is already out of the barn" from a simple cliché to a policy fait accompli, President Obama will no doubt use it with the regularity with which Democrats think up new ways to spend your money or deprive you of your freedoms; which is to say all of the time.
The cynical aspect of OffHisMed's character also suspects that, rather than being a simple and effective rhetorical device, this is a premeditated and madly effective political strategy. Pre-emption, after all, is the Democrat's stock and trade; and what is this phrase if not the perfect manifestation of Pre-emption? Ronald Reagan famously said that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Democrats - backed by a compliant Media - foist these policies on a weary public already suffering from information overload, and before you know it, they become a permanent part of our existence.
Should Democrats be ashamed of themselves for so abusing the Public Trust? Of course they should; but that's not going to stop them. After all, "the horse is already out of the barn".
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Tom Hanks and Ron Howard Give Islam The DaVinci Code Treatment
MEE!: Middle Eastern Entertainment
RH: Ron Howard
TH: Tom Hanks
MEE!: Fresh on the heels of "The DaVinci Trilogy" comes the first big-screen action-adventure set in the Muslim world. The movie is called "Infidels and Crusaders", and it's brought to you by that Dynamic Duo, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Welcome gentlemen.
RH: That, that's only a working title. No final decision has been made.
MEE!: Right, got it. Guys, before we get to your new movie, give us a refresher on the first three "DaVinci" code movies, "DaVinci Code", "Angels & Demons", and "Benedict's Revenge".
TH: Well Hafez, they were collectively a fascinating experience. As you know, what started out as a straightforward thriller using the Catholic Church as a backdrop came to be the first serious treatment of the inherent evils and contradictions of Catholicism.
MEE!: Many Catholics have taken exception to your portrayal of Catholics in those movies. Why pick strictly on them? Why not go after, say, Lutherans, Presbyterians or Jews? Is "Infidels and Crusaders" an attempt to balance the scales? Spread the misery around a bit, so to speak?
RH: Now, I don't think our movies "picked on" Catholics per se. What we did was hold a mirror up to the Catholic Church. If they didn't like what they saw, well, that's something they need to look into.
MEE!: But you didn't exactly make an effort to show Catholics sympathetically, now, did you?
TH: I think we did. For example, we tried to strike a balance between Evil Priests and Good Priests. That's why we had at Good Priests in each movie, and made one of them a central figure torn between his loyalty to the Catholic Church and his conscience.
MEE!: Actually, didn't you only have one Good Priest in all three movies?
RH: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Well, now that you mention it, I think you're right.
MEE!: And in "Benedict's Revenge", wasn't the Good Priest really a Transgendered nun infiltrating the priesthood so as to expose Catholicism's connections with Afrikaner Revanchists attempting to overthrow the government of South Africa and reclaim their nukes so they could bomb Palestinian Refugee camps?
RH: Well, technically that's true, but we did show, I think, a sympathetic portrayal of Pope Benedict in that movie.
MEE!: You had him rising from the Dead and haunting the College of Cardinals. He called himself "The Eater of Souls" and "Satan's Whore". How exactly was that a sympathetic portrayal?
RH: Ah ha ha ha ha. You know, when you put it that way, it sounds really bad, but as you'll recall, in the penultimate scene, Pope Benedict saw the error of his ways and repented.
MEE!: But only after you had him kill all the Cardinals by spewing acid from his mouth.
RH: There was some nuance in that scene that I don't think you're giving us credit for, but hey, we're here to talk about the new project.
MEE!: Right, right. Tom, tell us how you prepared for the three different roles that you played in the movie, as the Prophet Mohammed, his Son-In-Law Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the modern day role of Yusef Islam, previously known as Cat Stevens.
TH: Well Hafez, for starters, I converted to Islam.
MEE!: From what, may I ask?
TH: From what what?
MEE!: From what religion did you convert to Islam?
TH: Well, technically, I didn't practice any formal religion at the time of my conversion, but the Muslim faith is very specific on that point. If you accept Islam, whatever religion you did or did not practice prior was that of the Infidel anyway; so, they basically made no distinction.
MEE!: Did you adopt all Islamic customs?
TH: I did, I did indeed. I took seven wives, observed the dietary restrictions, prayed, stoned an unrighteous woman, made the Hajj, the whole schmeer.
MEE!: Tom, "the whole schmeer" is a Yiddish expression, no? As a Muslim, isn't that going to get you into trouble with some of the more conservative elements within Islam?
TH: Well technically, I'm not still a practicing Muslim.
MEE!: How, technically, are you not still a practicing Muslim? Prayers? Fasting? Observance of holy days?
TH: Well, most of the above.
MEE!: What happened to the wives?
TH: Funny story. In the Muslim faith, a man can divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" seven times. Is that crazy or what? So, I was talking to Ronny about my dilemma once we had wrapped the location shoot in Jordan before heading back to the studio, and Ron was like "Tom, there's some symmetry here; seven wives, seven denials each; just say "I divorce you" 7 times with all seven of them present and get it over with, and I'm like "Ronny, I don't think it's that easy", and he's like "we're on a schedule here".
MEE!: So, what did you end up doing?
TH: Well first I gave Ronny my "crazy eyes" look and said "Shut Up!" seven times to see if that would make him go away. Then I punched him in the arm.
RH: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
TH: So then I decided to divorce them all individually, and man, that was hard; very emotional.
MEE!: What happened to your wives?
TH: (Shrugs his shoulders) I dunno. I guess they went back to their families.
MEE!: Tom, you didn't pay real close attention during portions of your religious instruction, did you?
TH: Well, I'll admit I didn't pick up every nuance, but it still was a very powerful spiritual experience that I will carry with me throughout my life.
MEE!: Ron, did the religious authorities for Islam give you as much trouble as the Catholics for things like locations, etc?
RH: Well Hafez, as you know from the "extra features" we put on the "Da Vinci Code" boxed set - available for only $29.99 at Walmarts - we go into great depth about the obstacles the Catholic Church threw up to keep these movies from being made. I mean, no flash pots in the Sistine Chapel? It's not like we were under-insured or anything.
In fact, it was largely their negativity that forced me to take a closer look at the underlying evil that plagues the Church: things like their refusal to acknowledge that Jesus could have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, their obsession about interfering with a Woman's Right To Choose, the demonization of Lucifer and of course the whole Ten Commandments thing.
I mean, I'm a Christian myself, and it hurts me to have to investigate these things.
MEE!: Really. When was the last time you went to a religious service?
RH: Beg pardon?
MEE!: Never mind. I understand there were some difficulties getting to film on location for many of the scenes in "Infidels and Crusaders".
TH: Can you believe it? There was no talking to those people on some issues. We actually had to build an exact duplicate of Mecca on a backlot in Mexico. Fortunately, it's now a big tourist draw and we expect to recoup a lot of our investment through that. Seems they also had some difficulties with the fight scenes in and around the Ka'bah during the ritual stoning of the devil, and the car chase through the streets of Jeddah. It was a nightmare. Fortunately, CGI cures a thousand ills, as the Prophet once said.
MEE!: Casting soft-core porn actress Fatima Tumescent as Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet was a bold move. What was your vision?
RH: Well, we wanted there to be some integrity between the character we created and the historical figure. Using Fatima not only lent some consistency to the narrative, but allowed us to take a certain creative license as well.
MEE!: How's that?
RH: For example, in the "DaVinci" Trilogy, one of the themes was where Jesus impregnated Mary Magdalene, who was a Harlot. The dynamic there appeared to be the Redemption of a Harlot through sex with God, but it was REALLY about the redemption of Jesus by having sex with a Harlot. It was a metaphor about Catholicism's relationship with the world.
MEE!: You've lost me. How do you tie that back to "Infidels and Crusaders"?
RH: Ah ha, ha ha; well, there's some details to work out on that one. I'm taking a page out of Orson Wells' book and getting a ton of stuff on film; it's that whole "act like there's midgets running between your legs" thing he did with Huston. We'll figure out how to use it later.
MEE!: Tom, tell me about the love scenes between you and Fatima; how did you prepare for them?
TH: First of all, the whole abaya thing was an obstacle. How to make love to a woman while she has clothes on? We were respectful of Muslim modesty, I think; struck just the right balance between being faithful to the material and our artistic vision while not sacrificing the authenticity that genuine Muslim beliefs and doctrine bring to the whole deal.
MEE!: So, not to give too much of the plot away, but will "Infidels and Crusaders" be as hard on modern day Muslims as The DaVinci Trilogy is on Catholics?
TH: Ha, ha, ha, ha ha. NOT!
RH: Ha, ha, ha. Yeah, what Tom said. What, do you think, we're crazy?
MEE!: Gentlemen, having made this movie, any concerns about a Fatwa?
TH: What's that, like a ritual or something?
RH: Yes, it's a declaration by religious elders, generally a curse or death sentence. Very mystical. We used several in the movie. Very "Raiders Of The Lost Ark", if you know what I mean.
MEE!: And are you not worried that there will be a Fatwa against you? I mean, there's pretty much no convention of Islam that you don't defile.
RH: Now, I thing that's a bit harsh. After all, in the end, the Mahdi arrives to strike down the Infidels and drive them all out of the Middle East. Besides, a number of prominent clerics cut a pretty sweet deal with us. Three have Producer credits, and we split ten points of Backside between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to get the movie made on location.
MEE!: Will that cut into profits?
RH: (Hanks and Howard both laugh). Not too much. The Backside is mostly net after Distribution and Marketing costs, and our lawyers were NOT Arab, if you know what I mean. Ah ha ha ha ha ha.
MEE!: So, are you stereotyping Jews now?
TH: As one of my ex fathers-in-law used to say "never bite the hand that feeds you, and never under any circumstances bite anybody's left hand". I never quite got the entire meaning of that.
MEE!: Gentlemen, thanks very much for your time. Would you mind if I slip out the back entrance?
RH: Sure, no problem.
MEE!: We'll see you later then.
TH: Inshallah.
MEE!: Whatever.
RH: Ron Howard
TH: Tom Hanks
MEE!: Fresh on the heels of "The DaVinci Trilogy" comes the first big-screen action-adventure set in the Muslim world. The movie is called "Infidels and Crusaders", and it's brought to you by that Dynamic Duo, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Welcome gentlemen.
RH: That, that's only a working title. No final decision has been made.
MEE!: Right, got it. Guys, before we get to your new movie, give us a refresher on the first three "DaVinci" code movies, "DaVinci Code", "Angels & Demons", and "Benedict's Revenge".
TH: Well Hafez, they were collectively a fascinating experience. As you know, what started out as a straightforward thriller using the Catholic Church as a backdrop came to be the first serious treatment of the inherent evils and contradictions of Catholicism.
MEE!: Many Catholics have taken exception to your portrayal of Catholics in those movies. Why pick strictly on them? Why not go after, say, Lutherans, Presbyterians or Jews? Is "Infidels and Crusaders" an attempt to balance the scales? Spread the misery around a bit, so to speak?
RH: Now, I don't think our movies "picked on" Catholics per se. What we did was hold a mirror up to the Catholic Church. If they didn't like what they saw, well, that's something they need to look into.
MEE!: But you didn't exactly make an effort to show Catholics sympathetically, now, did you?
TH: I think we did. For example, we tried to strike a balance between Evil Priests and Good Priests. That's why we had at Good Priests in each movie, and made one of them a central figure torn between his loyalty to the Catholic Church and his conscience.
MEE!: Actually, didn't you only have one Good Priest in all three movies?
RH: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Well, now that you mention it, I think you're right.
MEE!: And in "Benedict's Revenge", wasn't the Good Priest really a Transgendered nun infiltrating the priesthood so as to expose Catholicism's connections with Afrikaner Revanchists attempting to overthrow the government of South Africa and reclaim their nukes so they could bomb Palestinian Refugee camps?
RH: Well, technically that's true, but we did show, I think, a sympathetic portrayal of Pope Benedict in that movie.
MEE!: You had him rising from the Dead and haunting the College of Cardinals. He called himself "The Eater of Souls" and "Satan's Whore". How exactly was that a sympathetic portrayal?
RH: Ah ha ha ha ha. You know, when you put it that way, it sounds really bad, but as you'll recall, in the penultimate scene, Pope Benedict saw the error of his ways and repented.
MEE!: But only after you had him kill all the Cardinals by spewing acid from his mouth.
RH: There was some nuance in that scene that I don't think you're giving us credit for, but hey, we're here to talk about the new project.
MEE!: Right, right. Tom, tell us how you prepared for the three different roles that you played in the movie, as the Prophet Mohammed, his Son-In-Law Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the modern day role of Yusef Islam, previously known as Cat Stevens.
TH: Well Hafez, for starters, I converted to Islam.
MEE!: From what, may I ask?
TH: From what what?
MEE!: From what religion did you convert to Islam?
TH: Well, technically, I didn't practice any formal religion at the time of my conversion, but the Muslim faith is very specific on that point. If you accept Islam, whatever religion you did or did not practice prior was that of the Infidel anyway; so, they basically made no distinction.
MEE!: Did you adopt all Islamic customs?
TH: I did, I did indeed. I took seven wives, observed the dietary restrictions, prayed, stoned an unrighteous woman, made the Hajj, the whole schmeer.
MEE!: Tom, "the whole schmeer" is a Yiddish expression, no? As a Muslim, isn't that going to get you into trouble with some of the more conservative elements within Islam?
TH: Well technically, I'm not still a practicing Muslim.
MEE!: How, technically, are you not still a practicing Muslim? Prayers? Fasting? Observance of holy days?
TH: Well, most of the above.
MEE!: What happened to the wives?
TH: Funny story. In the Muslim faith, a man can divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" seven times. Is that crazy or what? So, I was talking to Ronny about my dilemma once we had wrapped the location shoot in Jordan before heading back to the studio, and Ron was like "Tom, there's some symmetry here; seven wives, seven denials each; just say "I divorce you" 7 times with all seven of them present and get it over with, and I'm like "Ronny, I don't think it's that easy", and he's like "we're on a schedule here".
MEE!: So, what did you end up doing?
TH: Well first I gave Ronny my "crazy eyes" look and said "Shut Up!" seven times to see if that would make him go away. Then I punched him in the arm.
RH: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
TH: So then I decided to divorce them all individually, and man, that was hard; very emotional.
MEE!: What happened to your wives?
TH: (Shrugs his shoulders) I dunno. I guess they went back to their families.
MEE!: Tom, you didn't pay real close attention during portions of your religious instruction, did you?
TH: Well, I'll admit I didn't pick up every nuance, but it still was a very powerful spiritual experience that I will carry with me throughout my life.
MEE!: Ron, did the religious authorities for Islam give you as much trouble as the Catholics for things like locations, etc?
RH: Well Hafez, as you know from the "extra features" we put on the "Da Vinci Code" boxed set - available for only $29.99 at Walmarts - we go into great depth about the obstacles the Catholic Church threw up to keep these movies from being made. I mean, no flash pots in the Sistine Chapel? It's not like we were under-insured or anything.
In fact, it was largely their negativity that forced me to take a closer look at the underlying evil that plagues the Church: things like their refusal to acknowledge that Jesus could have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, their obsession about interfering with a Woman's Right To Choose, the demonization of Lucifer and of course the whole Ten Commandments thing.
I mean, I'm a Christian myself, and it hurts me to have to investigate these things.
MEE!: Really. When was the last time you went to a religious service?
RH: Beg pardon?
MEE!: Never mind. I understand there were some difficulties getting to film on location for many of the scenes in "Infidels and Crusaders".
TH: Can you believe it? There was no talking to those people on some issues. We actually had to build an exact duplicate of Mecca on a backlot in Mexico. Fortunately, it's now a big tourist draw and we expect to recoup a lot of our investment through that. Seems they also had some difficulties with the fight scenes in and around the Ka'bah during the ritual stoning of the devil, and the car chase through the streets of Jeddah. It was a nightmare. Fortunately, CGI cures a thousand ills, as the Prophet once said.
MEE!: Casting soft-core porn actress Fatima Tumescent as Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet was a bold move. What was your vision?
RH: Well, we wanted there to be some integrity between the character we created and the historical figure. Using Fatima not only lent some consistency to the narrative, but allowed us to take a certain creative license as well.
MEE!: How's that?
RH: For example, in the "DaVinci" Trilogy, one of the themes was where Jesus impregnated Mary Magdalene, who was a Harlot. The dynamic there appeared to be the Redemption of a Harlot through sex with God, but it was REALLY about the redemption of Jesus by having sex with a Harlot. It was a metaphor about Catholicism's relationship with the world.
MEE!: You've lost me. How do you tie that back to "Infidels and Crusaders"?
RH: Ah ha, ha ha; well, there's some details to work out on that one. I'm taking a page out of Orson Wells' book and getting a ton of stuff on film; it's that whole "act like there's midgets running between your legs" thing he did with Huston. We'll figure out how to use it later.
MEE!: Tom, tell me about the love scenes between you and Fatima; how did you prepare for them?
TH: First of all, the whole abaya thing was an obstacle. How to make love to a woman while she has clothes on? We were respectful of Muslim modesty, I think; struck just the right balance between being faithful to the material and our artistic vision while not sacrificing the authenticity that genuine Muslim beliefs and doctrine bring to the whole deal.
MEE!: So, not to give too much of the plot away, but will "Infidels and Crusaders" be as hard on modern day Muslims as The DaVinci Trilogy is on Catholics?
TH: Ha, ha, ha, ha ha. NOT!
RH: Ha, ha, ha. Yeah, what Tom said. What, do you think, we're crazy?
MEE!: Gentlemen, having made this movie, any concerns about a Fatwa?
TH: What's that, like a ritual or something?
RH: Yes, it's a declaration by religious elders, generally a curse or death sentence. Very mystical. We used several in the movie. Very "Raiders Of The Lost Ark", if you know what I mean.
MEE!: And are you not worried that there will be a Fatwa against you? I mean, there's pretty much no convention of Islam that you don't defile.
RH: Now, I thing that's a bit harsh. After all, in the end, the Mahdi arrives to strike down the Infidels and drive them all out of the Middle East. Besides, a number of prominent clerics cut a pretty sweet deal with us. Three have Producer credits, and we split ten points of Backside between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to get the movie made on location.
MEE!: Will that cut into profits?
RH: (Hanks and Howard both laugh). Not too much. The Backside is mostly net after Distribution and Marketing costs, and our lawyers were NOT Arab, if you know what I mean. Ah ha ha ha ha ha.
MEE!: So, are you stereotyping Jews now?
TH: As one of my ex fathers-in-law used to say "never bite the hand that feeds you, and never under any circumstances bite anybody's left hand". I never quite got the entire meaning of that.
MEE!: Gentlemen, thanks very much for your time. Would you mind if I slip out the back entrance?
RH: Sure, no problem.
MEE!: We'll see you later then.
TH: Inshallah.
MEE!: Whatever.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Christopher Buckley, Meet David Brock
It's not every day OffHisMeds gets to witness a scion of Conservatism throw his Party under a literary bus, much less his parents. I am referring of course to recent actions by Christopher Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. About six months ago he voted for Barack Obama, quit National Review, and read Republicans out of polite society, famously claiming that he had been "fatwahed by Conservatives". Now he has published a book about his parents, father William F. and mother Pat, that finishes the job, according to a review by Kyrie O'Connor of Buckley's book "Losing Mum and Pup: A Memoir". And while the review is no doubt skewed by O'Connor's gleefully vengeful Liberalism, there's little doubt that her portrayal of Buckley is accurate.
In the review, she condenses Buckley's portrayal of his parents as petty, rude substance abusers, practicing Parenthood only two or three points this side of Child Abuse, denying him sufficient praise, being supremely indifferent to his well-being and essentially concerned only for themselves. Adjectives abound: vain, volatile, inattentive, caustic, as do the negative characterizations. O'Connor even manages to compare the Buckley’s to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, those other prototypical Bad Parents, at least by the orthodoxy of the Democrat Party.
And it's funny how O'Connor chose to compare the Buckley's to the Reagan’s in the Bad Parenthood department, when she went to the trouble of also describing the Buckley’s as "right-wing Kennedys". Say what you will about the Buckley’s, but neither young Christopher nor the Reagan kids' lives were one long sordid tale of drug addiction, child-abuse, rape, suicide, murder and the accidental death of themselves and others due to carelessness, as was the case with the Kennedys. It's curious that with that upbringing, none of the Kennedy kids have so narc'ed their parents, but such is the hold the Establishment has on those with ambitions to move up the social ladder - Buckley included - and their prospects are firmly in the hands of the Democrats who constitute that Establishment.
O'Connor describes the book as a laugh riot, including amongst other things "funny/creepy scenes of coffin purchases". Based on that description alone, I can accept that the portrayal of Buckley and his parents was skewed at least partially by her juvenile delight in disemboweling the reputation of the patriarch of Conservatism. That lack of perspective on O'Connor's part might cause you to question her interpretation of Buckley's book, but for a number of factual items in the review, and a long excerpt Buckley published in the New York Times. For example, in the realms of creepiness, isn't it genuinely creepy to observe a son putting out a book on his parents - good, bad or indifferent - with them both so recently deceased? A cynic might proclaim it base Opportunism, such as was practiced by Ron Reagan, Jr., who - once his old man had succumbed to Alzheimer’s - made a career of "Outing" his parents with insights that could not for the most part be disproven, given his mother's reticence and his father's infirmity. Both Buckley's and Reagan's opportunism leave their parents' advocates to sort out reality from their sons' skewed perspectives.
Another type of cynic - I'm thinking of Kyrie O'Connor, Barack Obama or any of the other Credentialed Liberals devoted to the criminalization of the Republican Party - might see Buckley's motives as Payback, and she might not be too far off the mark. With "Pup" (William F. Buckley, Jr.) in the grave barely a year, it's hard to fathom motives for writing this book other than Payback, Opportunism, or some combination of the two. I mean, what was the big hurry? Five years from now, Buckley would still be around; his parents would still be dead, and they would all be just as famous as they are now. Plus, he would have had the opportunity to exploit the beneficial leavening that time bestows on the reputations of all famous people after their death so as to lend his story some perspective. If Buckley had approached this project from the perspective of a loving and loyal son, he would have observed some "period of mourning", if you will, and numerous details he might have left out altogether.
He didn't do either. In fact, he cranked this book out with such lightning speed that one might be forgiven for thinking that he had it mostly written before his parents kicked. The lurid details are not lacking either. He goes on at length describing his mother as a pathological liar and his father as somebody who would rather be on safari than at his son's sickbed. In the latter instance, Buckley plays the part of Tiny Tim, and William F. is Scrooge. He blathers on about the dozens of “scolding — occasionally scalding — letters” he wrote to his mother for her “serial misbehavior over the years”, demanding apologies for one perceived slight or another, then feeling bad for having written them. He finishes the story by telling how his mother verbally abused her granddaughter’s girlfriend, and then congratulates himself for not writing her another letter to complain about it.
Given the pattern OffHisMeds sees evolving, might one also be forgiven for believing that the omission on Buckley's part was intentional since he intended to write a book about it? I might have given him props for feeling bad about those letters after he wrote them, but for the fact that the admission is so in keeping with his overall narrative as a Recovering Conservative only just now getting in touch with his feelings; the fact that the subject makes for juicy Best Seller reading material probably didn't hurt either, never mind the propriety of the revelations.
Buckley also takes a page out of Bob Woodward's book, describing how on his last visit to his comatose mother and mere minutes after he ordered her life-support disconnected, that he took her hand in his, and said "I forgive you". We must, of course, take Buckley's word for the fact that this conversation ever took place, just as we must take Woodward's word for having gotten a comatose Bill Casey to divulge his intimate knowledge of and involvement in the Iran-Contra affair to - of all people - Bob Woodward. From my perspective, the only difference between Woodward and Buckley is that Woodward at least had the decency not to harass an immediate family member on their deathbed, nor demand an apology, much less order the plug to be pulled before he'd had the conversation, real or fictional.
And while Buckley portrays this as a tender, almost spiritual moment, and one in which he contemplates the whole of his mother's life, what I can't get out of my head is Buckley instructing his doctor to kill his mother, then finding catharsis in forgiving her before the last heartbeat, as if it was terribly important to mouth those words after he’d cut off her oxygen, but before she actually died. Call me crazy, but I can paint a vengeance scenario out of that little bit of psychodrama as readily as I can a humanistic one. For the truly self-absorbed though, there's probably little difference.
What did it for me was the story O'Connor relates from the book wherein Buckley "refuses to honor Pup's carefully crafted burial plans, opting for something that, for once, pleases him alone and not them". While O'Connor didn't describe the exact manner in which Buckley does not honor his Father's wishes, it was hard to fathom any circumstances for not doing so that reflected well on him unless William F. had insisted on Pentagrams, Beatle's music played backwards and Piss Christ to replace the altar crucifix. Anything less would make Buckley a font of ingratitude. It would make him a coward. More than anything else, it would make him the passive-aggressive Hump we have seen come to the fore since the death of his father.
Curiosity having gotten the better of me, I then read Buckley's account of the event in the nine page excerpt from the book published in New York Times. From his own account, the "refusal" was to not inter WFB's ashes along with his mother Pat's in a large crucifix in the garden of Buckley's estate, on the grounds that any future owners of the house might not want a large crucifix in their garden. This is also a conversation he felt compelled to have with his father before he died, upsetting him in the process.
Classy.
One could drive oneself crazy contemplating all the options Buckley did not consider in handling the matter: a) moving the crucifix if he did sell the property; b) leaving the crucifix but reinterring the ashes elsewhere; c) shutting his yap and saying nothing to his father. I mean, this is the guy who doesn’t believe in God, so it’s not like WFB is going to catch him in a polite lie from the Afterlife.
If the Buckley's are to be credibly charged with being bad parents, it would no doubt be in raising a son of such questionable values that seems hell-bent on making them look as bad as possible, post mortem. That does beg another question, though: why would he write this book and play the selfish, conflicted twit, inexplicably dancing on his parents' graves at the height of his literary reputation? In explaining why this book even exists, one might charitably assume that the creative well had run dry, and that, in a panic, he grabbed for the closest material at hand. For me, a more plausible explanation is that Christopher Buckley had what I call "a David Brock moment". Brock, of course, was the investigative reporter for The American Spectator who did so many of the exposes' on the Clinton's various scandals in the 90s, right up until the moment that he repudiated it all, joined the other side, and then became a committed anti-Republican. He was lionized by the Establishment for his betrayal, and promptly became a fixture in the rabid left Blogosphere.
Ron Reagan, Jr., of course, did much the same thing, albeit that he had not a lick of writing talent, as Buckley and Brock do in abundance.
To rationalize going off the reservation, Brock concocted this fantasy that his arch-conservative publishers had exerted some kind of mysterious mind-control that caused him to write all of those pieces on Whitewater, Troopergate, and sundry other scandals-du-jour of the Clintons. After his repudiation, Brock also came out of the closet, making one suspect that his motivation for switching sides - in addition to not getting any literary props or invitations to the juiciest Beltway parties - was that he had done the math and concluded that his Conservative advocacy was seriously cutting into his romantic prospects. Ditto with Ron Reagan, Jr., I think, again minus the whole talent thing.
It only remains for Chris Buckley to complete a similar career arch. He's already trashed the Republican Party and alienated himself from Conservatism, not to mention many of its most prominent personalities. His every action has been pre-emptive, his claims to victimhood notwithstanding. Were Buckley to come out, he would at least have lent some consistency to his narrative, a consistency that - so far - just ain't there.
Based on a lifetime of observation, I've often maintained that there is nothing with a greater potential for worthlessness than the son of a rich man. Christopher Buckley has proven that in spades, and if God has a sense of humor, his son will be writing an expose' about him sometime in the hopefully distant future. Ironically, Buckley proclaimed at least three times in the short nine page excerpt that he didn't believe in God. So did Peter in the garden of Gethsemane.
I wonder if he'd appreciate the irony?
In the review, she condenses Buckley's portrayal of his parents as petty, rude substance abusers, practicing Parenthood only two or three points this side of Child Abuse, denying him sufficient praise, being supremely indifferent to his well-being and essentially concerned only for themselves. Adjectives abound: vain, volatile, inattentive, caustic, as do the negative characterizations. O'Connor even manages to compare the Buckley’s to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, those other prototypical Bad Parents, at least by the orthodoxy of the Democrat Party.
And it's funny how O'Connor chose to compare the Buckley's to the Reagan’s in the Bad Parenthood department, when she went to the trouble of also describing the Buckley’s as "right-wing Kennedys". Say what you will about the Buckley’s, but neither young Christopher nor the Reagan kids' lives were one long sordid tale of drug addiction, child-abuse, rape, suicide, murder and the accidental death of themselves and others due to carelessness, as was the case with the Kennedys. It's curious that with that upbringing, none of the Kennedy kids have so narc'ed their parents, but such is the hold the Establishment has on those with ambitions to move up the social ladder - Buckley included - and their prospects are firmly in the hands of the Democrats who constitute that Establishment.
O'Connor describes the book as a laugh riot, including amongst other things "funny/creepy scenes of coffin purchases". Based on that description alone, I can accept that the portrayal of Buckley and his parents was skewed at least partially by her juvenile delight in disemboweling the reputation of the patriarch of Conservatism. That lack of perspective on O'Connor's part might cause you to question her interpretation of Buckley's book, but for a number of factual items in the review, and a long excerpt Buckley published in the New York Times. For example, in the realms of creepiness, isn't it genuinely creepy to observe a son putting out a book on his parents - good, bad or indifferent - with them both so recently deceased? A cynic might proclaim it base Opportunism, such as was practiced by Ron Reagan, Jr., who - once his old man had succumbed to Alzheimer’s - made a career of "Outing" his parents with insights that could not for the most part be disproven, given his mother's reticence and his father's infirmity. Both Buckley's and Reagan's opportunism leave their parents' advocates to sort out reality from their sons' skewed perspectives.
Another type of cynic - I'm thinking of Kyrie O'Connor, Barack Obama or any of the other Credentialed Liberals devoted to the criminalization of the Republican Party - might see Buckley's motives as Payback, and she might not be too far off the mark. With "Pup" (William F. Buckley, Jr.) in the grave barely a year, it's hard to fathom motives for writing this book other than Payback, Opportunism, or some combination of the two. I mean, what was the big hurry? Five years from now, Buckley would still be around; his parents would still be dead, and they would all be just as famous as they are now. Plus, he would have had the opportunity to exploit the beneficial leavening that time bestows on the reputations of all famous people after their death so as to lend his story some perspective. If Buckley had approached this project from the perspective of a loving and loyal son, he would have observed some "period of mourning", if you will, and numerous details he might have left out altogether.
He didn't do either. In fact, he cranked this book out with such lightning speed that one might be forgiven for thinking that he had it mostly written before his parents kicked. The lurid details are not lacking either. He goes on at length describing his mother as a pathological liar and his father as somebody who would rather be on safari than at his son's sickbed. In the latter instance, Buckley plays the part of Tiny Tim, and William F. is Scrooge. He blathers on about the dozens of “scolding — occasionally scalding — letters” he wrote to his mother for her “serial misbehavior over the years”, demanding apologies for one perceived slight or another, then feeling bad for having written them. He finishes the story by telling how his mother verbally abused her granddaughter’s girlfriend, and then congratulates himself for not writing her another letter to complain about it.
Given the pattern OffHisMeds sees evolving, might one also be forgiven for believing that the omission on Buckley's part was intentional since he intended to write a book about it? I might have given him props for feeling bad about those letters after he wrote them, but for the fact that the admission is so in keeping with his overall narrative as a Recovering Conservative only just now getting in touch with his feelings; the fact that the subject makes for juicy Best Seller reading material probably didn't hurt either, never mind the propriety of the revelations.
Buckley also takes a page out of Bob Woodward's book, describing how on his last visit to his comatose mother and mere minutes after he ordered her life-support disconnected, that he took her hand in his, and said "I forgive you". We must, of course, take Buckley's word for the fact that this conversation ever took place, just as we must take Woodward's word for having gotten a comatose Bill Casey to divulge his intimate knowledge of and involvement in the Iran-Contra affair to - of all people - Bob Woodward. From my perspective, the only difference between Woodward and Buckley is that Woodward at least had the decency not to harass an immediate family member on their deathbed, nor demand an apology, much less order the plug to be pulled before he'd had the conversation, real or fictional.
And while Buckley portrays this as a tender, almost spiritual moment, and one in which he contemplates the whole of his mother's life, what I can't get out of my head is Buckley instructing his doctor to kill his mother, then finding catharsis in forgiving her before the last heartbeat, as if it was terribly important to mouth those words after he’d cut off her oxygen, but before she actually died. Call me crazy, but I can paint a vengeance scenario out of that little bit of psychodrama as readily as I can a humanistic one. For the truly self-absorbed though, there's probably little difference.
What did it for me was the story O'Connor relates from the book wherein Buckley "refuses to honor Pup's carefully crafted burial plans, opting for something that, for once, pleases him alone and not them". While O'Connor didn't describe the exact manner in which Buckley does not honor his Father's wishes, it was hard to fathom any circumstances for not doing so that reflected well on him unless William F. had insisted on Pentagrams, Beatle's music played backwards and Piss Christ to replace the altar crucifix. Anything less would make Buckley a font of ingratitude. It would make him a coward. More than anything else, it would make him the passive-aggressive Hump we have seen come to the fore since the death of his father.
Curiosity having gotten the better of me, I then read Buckley's account of the event in the nine page excerpt from the book published in New York Times. From his own account, the "refusal" was to not inter WFB's ashes along with his mother Pat's in a large crucifix in the garden of Buckley's estate, on the grounds that any future owners of the house might not want a large crucifix in their garden. This is also a conversation he felt compelled to have with his father before he died, upsetting him in the process.
Classy.
One could drive oneself crazy contemplating all the options Buckley did not consider in handling the matter: a) moving the crucifix if he did sell the property; b) leaving the crucifix but reinterring the ashes elsewhere; c) shutting his yap and saying nothing to his father. I mean, this is the guy who doesn’t believe in God, so it’s not like WFB is going to catch him in a polite lie from the Afterlife.
If the Buckley's are to be credibly charged with being bad parents, it would no doubt be in raising a son of such questionable values that seems hell-bent on making them look as bad as possible, post mortem. That does beg another question, though: why would he write this book and play the selfish, conflicted twit, inexplicably dancing on his parents' graves at the height of his literary reputation? In explaining why this book even exists, one might charitably assume that the creative well had run dry, and that, in a panic, he grabbed for the closest material at hand. For me, a more plausible explanation is that Christopher Buckley had what I call "a David Brock moment". Brock, of course, was the investigative reporter for The American Spectator who did so many of the exposes' on the Clinton's various scandals in the 90s, right up until the moment that he repudiated it all, joined the other side, and then became a committed anti-Republican. He was lionized by the Establishment for his betrayal, and promptly became a fixture in the rabid left Blogosphere.
Ron Reagan, Jr., of course, did much the same thing, albeit that he had not a lick of writing talent, as Buckley and Brock do in abundance.
To rationalize going off the reservation, Brock concocted this fantasy that his arch-conservative publishers had exerted some kind of mysterious mind-control that caused him to write all of those pieces on Whitewater, Troopergate, and sundry other scandals-du-jour of the Clintons. After his repudiation, Brock also came out of the closet, making one suspect that his motivation for switching sides - in addition to not getting any literary props or invitations to the juiciest Beltway parties - was that he had done the math and concluded that his Conservative advocacy was seriously cutting into his romantic prospects. Ditto with Ron Reagan, Jr., I think, again minus the whole talent thing.
It only remains for Chris Buckley to complete a similar career arch. He's already trashed the Republican Party and alienated himself from Conservatism, not to mention many of its most prominent personalities. His every action has been pre-emptive, his claims to victimhood notwithstanding. Were Buckley to come out, he would at least have lent some consistency to his narrative, a consistency that - so far - just ain't there.
Based on a lifetime of observation, I've often maintained that there is nothing with a greater potential for worthlessness than the son of a rich man. Christopher Buckley has proven that in spades, and if God has a sense of humor, his son will be writing an expose' about him sometime in the hopefully distant future. Ironically, Buckley proclaimed at least three times in the short nine page excerpt that he didn't believe in God. So did Peter in the garden of Gethsemane.
I wonder if he'd appreciate the irony?
Friday, May 8, 2009
MS150 Chronicles 2009, Pt III
SUNDAY - THE RIDE
As a follow up to Part II, wherein I described the mystery of women routinely getting in and out of the Rest Room faster than men, I mentioned the number of steps they have to go through that most men do not. My friend Sheila Weitzel replied back and added the following: check makeup/reapply lip gloss/brush hair. Now, whether you consider these a single step or three separate steps, it still only serves to deepen the mystery.
To recap, the Riders have all survived the Deluge and formed the World's Largest Caravan from Houston to LaGrange; think Noah after the flood, only instead of an Ark, we all drive to the Promised Land in SUVs. I have gotten in my obligatory rips on people who start from Rhodes Stadium, and thrown in a gratuitous slap at Southwest Airlines for only serving peanuts on their flights.
On to the Ride. When last I wrote, the MS150 pack had just left LaGrange. The first 12 miles were - not unexpectedly - rolling hills, lots of Riders, and - unexpectedly - not a single Bluebonnet. I stop at the first rest stop, breaking with tradition, grab some food and Gatorade, and keep on peddling. Maybe the Bluebonnets are up ahead. Another dozen miles, and I'm in to Rest Stop II. It's another quick refill, and I'm soon turning back onto the course.
As I depart from Rest Stop II, I swear I hear a cop say "watch out for ice straight ahead". It's 75 degrees and the sun is shining. It's another alternate universe moment, and I'm already a little suspicious because of the misdirection I'd gotten from the traffic cop back at the Start. After about a quarter mile, I come upon the roadkill remains of a possum. It occurs to me that the cop might have been referring to that, but if so, now I've got to come up with a synonym for possum that sounds like "ice". I give up after about fifteen minutes, even though there's not much else to occupy the mind, and figure that cop was messing with me too. Of course, it's not like they're not entitled. As housebroke as Cyclists generally are, there's still 10,000 of us and only a couple hundred of them, and I couldn't help but notice that many Cyclists are also hard of hearing, the cops having to repeat themselves at every stop.
Of course, that might have been the wind.
I skip the next Rest Stop, and I'm in to lunch at Bastrop. It doesn't look like there was much attrition because folks had to drive themselves to LaGrange for the start. A quick bite, a recharge on fluids, and I'm off once again. I'm now halfway through Sunday, and beginning to have doubts about my training regimen, particularly the strategy of relying on yard work for the endurance part. As innovations go, this is not paying off. And is it just me, or are the uphills all going at 6.5 mph? I check my speedometer. I check the people around me. The uphills are all going at 6.5 mph, but the people around me are not.
I'm hearing "on your left" a lot more than in year's past. If you've never ridden in an organized bicycling event, "on your left" is Cycling shorthand for either a) I am passing you and want you to be aware of my presence, b) I am coming by you at a high rate of speed with my seven identically dressed friends, imitating a pace line on the Tour de France, or c) please get the hell out of the way, you are blocking the road for everybody else who - while not out here to compete - would like to go faster than your conversation-friendly pace of 10 mph.
The first type of shorthand is the accepted norm for charitable cycling events, seeing as how we're all amateurs and out there to have a good time. It is one of but a number of safe riding practices that every MS150er is expected to learn. In year's past, I've said "on your left" as much as I've heard it, being about in the middle of the pack, bike speed-wise speaking. I'm not saying "on your left" so much this year.
The second type of shorthand is unfortunately more typical than it should be, despite the admonitions of the MS150 Poobahs in countless e-mails reminding us all that it's a ride, dammit, not a race. This is lost on many Peletoniers, by the way. With their matching helmets, jerseys, pants, riding gloves and - dare I say it - Underarmor - they are the lovable rogues of the charitable bike ride: snobby, indignant, and with a not-so-modest sense of entitlement. I swear, they even bark out "on your left" with the slightest of French accents. I half expect to see some surly Frenchmen with clipboards accosting the Pelontiers at the Rest Stops, demanding urine samples and insisting on accompanying them into the Port-O-Can to verify their authenticity.
The third type of shorthand is from people like, well, me, but in my defense, thousands of other riders as well. I've been amused and then bemused for years about the folks that ride side by side, having a nice conversation, never having learned from their Daddies (or Driver's Training), that slow moving vehicles should be in the right hand lane. They also were impervious to the sundry admonitions of the Riding Community and MS150 instructions about bicycle etiquette, so this year, it seems that there are more "Two-And-Three-Abreasters" than in year's past, just chatting away, and generally occupying the entire lane of traffic. Of course, that might be because they've got more to talk about than last year, what with the Saturday ride being cancelled and all. But how much could they do with that? "Bummer man; Saturday was cancelled". "I know; Bummer". I mean, that's about it. How exactly do you stretch that conversation starter from LaGrange to Austin?
Either way, everybody's good natured about the interruptions, and the ride just flows. I've still not seen any more Bluebonnets, but I also haven't see a flashing light nor heard a siren the entire time; so, if no Bluebonnets is the price to be paid for no casualties, that's good enough by me. That starts me on another line of thinking, though: I wonder if the Determinists would get on my case for assuming that there is some Greater Power that would subject the Riders to a little inconvenience like no Bluebonnets in return for protecting them from serious injury? This thought sustains me for the next few miles, with the Right side of my brain contemplating the philosophical implications, and the Left side taking care of the actual business of riding my bike.
Figuring that there are no Determinists that are going to debate me on the point, I direct my attention back to the Ride, and paying attention to the Uphills. No worries; I have always made up time on the downhills, pedaling furiously so as to gain momentum at least part of the way up the next, tiresomely inevitable hill. That hasn't worked today, because in addition to my lack of training, there is The Wind. The freaking, inescapable wind. OK, I got that out of my system. Everybody else had to deal with it, and not once did I hear anybody else cursing under the breath, as I did several times.
THE HOME STRETCH
I catch the second last rest stop, and get a pleasant surprise from one of the numerous volunteers. "Only 17 miles to go", she says. This is balm to my psyche, as I thought I had 27 miles to go, having been told the course was 80 miles long back at the start, when in fact it was only 70. Good thing, too. There was a raging debate among my body parts, and the vote ten miles back was 3 to 1 to get in a SAG van, hoof it to the final Rest Stop and hope my Hasher friends never found out. It's bad enough that I'm going to have to endure some ribbing for blowing off the Hills at Buscher State Park, as they will be immune to my argument that in so doing, I removed myself as an obstacle for the more accomplished riders, and thus, have been virtuous.
But, fair is fair. I gig several of them for starting from Rhodes Stadium in Katy, but I don't even have that to fall back on this year, what with all the rain cutting Day One out of the equation entirely.
I hit the last Rest Stop, as I think most Riders do, not because it's necessary, but because it's the last milestone. Folks are relaxed, cheerful, and enjoying their last respite before the final 10 miles. Soon enough, I'm on my way, bombing down the downhills, and slugging up the uphills. Finally, I've climbed the last hill just past the freeway, and now I'm heading downhill and downtown. Thankfully the last mile is the fastest mile, and requires almost no effort; or at least it feels that way. I've got to admit that the cheering folks at the end - which you can hear from a long way away - certainly put some starch back into your legs. Soon enough I'm riding down that long chute with people on both sides, cheering for all the world like we've all just won the Tour de France. I slide over close to the left side and do a rolling series of high-fives with them, causing - however briefly - a moment of consternation for a photographer, close to the left side, but between me and the Finish Line. He's got nowhere to go, but I do, so I jump back to the center, cross the line, turn the corner, and gratefully get off my bike.
I hand my bike directly to a kid of sixteen who explains very carefully that I should remove any personal possessions I don't want to lose, remove my pedometer, empty my water bottles, and to please remember that my bike is on the trailer named Chicago White Sox. It's disconcerting being told what to do by a 16 year old, but professionalism demands respect, and these kids are all pros, briskly and cheerfully wrapping and stowing the bikes, yet another essential cog in the MS150 machine.
And that thing about Bicycle Riders being "The Great Unwashed"? That only has any relevance if you count the point in time directly after the MS150 ride. As in all year's past, there was a plentiful supply of Semi-tractor trailers set up with portable showers, much to the disappointment of Edward Bulwer-Lytton. The lines were only two people long for each trailer, the shower felt great, and I loitered in a chair outside the trailer once I had finished, soaking up the cheerful vibe coming off of Riders, Volunteers and mere passers-by. Everybody was in a good mood.
After that, I headed to the Continental tent, put myself on the Massage list, and ten minutes later was having the previously complaining body parts rubbed into submission. I socialize with some Riders, but don't see anybody I know except Ramona Z from our running group. The day wraps up, and I'm ready to head home. Amazingly, I feel great. Every last muscle in my body is tired, but nothing hurts. I feel at least as good as I did directly after my pre-MS150 breakfast on Friday of bacon, eggs, toast, coffee, cereal, donut and orange juice, and a whole lot better than I felt thirty minutes after that same meal. Such is the fate of amateurs when they eat like professionals.
Around 5:15 p.m. I head for the busses, board immediately, and ten minutes later we are eastbound for Houston. I check out the window from time to time for Bluebonnets, just in case I had simply missed them on the Ride, but there's nary a one to be seen, much less the rolling fields of flowers from MS150s past. No problem. It's a small price to pay, and the elusive Bluebonnets - like the MS150, the wonderful teams, the thousands of volunteers and a kajillion folks lining the route and cheering us on - will be back next year.
And so will I.
As a follow up to Part II, wherein I described the mystery of women routinely getting in and out of the Rest Room faster than men, I mentioned the number of steps they have to go through that most men do not. My friend Sheila Weitzel replied back and added the following: check makeup/reapply lip gloss/brush hair. Now, whether you consider these a single step or three separate steps, it still only serves to deepen the mystery.
To recap, the Riders have all survived the Deluge and formed the World's Largest Caravan from Houston to LaGrange; think Noah after the flood, only instead of an Ark, we all drive to the Promised Land in SUVs. I have gotten in my obligatory rips on people who start from Rhodes Stadium, and thrown in a gratuitous slap at Southwest Airlines for only serving peanuts on their flights.
On to the Ride. When last I wrote, the MS150 pack had just left LaGrange. The first 12 miles were - not unexpectedly - rolling hills, lots of Riders, and - unexpectedly - not a single Bluebonnet. I stop at the first rest stop, breaking with tradition, grab some food and Gatorade, and keep on peddling. Maybe the Bluebonnets are up ahead. Another dozen miles, and I'm in to Rest Stop II. It's another quick refill, and I'm soon turning back onto the course.
As I depart from Rest Stop II, I swear I hear a cop say "watch out for ice straight ahead". It's 75 degrees and the sun is shining. It's another alternate universe moment, and I'm already a little suspicious because of the misdirection I'd gotten from the traffic cop back at the Start. After about a quarter mile, I come upon the roadkill remains of a possum. It occurs to me that the cop might have been referring to that, but if so, now I've got to come up with a synonym for possum that sounds like "ice". I give up after about fifteen minutes, even though there's not much else to occupy the mind, and figure that cop was messing with me too. Of course, it's not like they're not entitled. As housebroke as Cyclists generally are, there's still 10,000 of us and only a couple hundred of them, and I couldn't help but notice that many Cyclists are also hard of hearing, the cops having to repeat themselves at every stop.
Of course, that might have been the wind.
I skip the next Rest Stop, and I'm in to lunch at Bastrop. It doesn't look like there was much attrition because folks had to drive themselves to LaGrange for the start. A quick bite, a recharge on fluids, and I'm off once again. I'm now halfway through Sunday, and beginning to have doubts about my training regimen, particularly the strategy of relying on yard work for the endurance part. As innovations go, this is not paying off. And is it just me, or are the uphills all going at 6.5 mph? I check my speedometer. I check the people around me. The uphills are all going at 6.5 mph, but the people around me are not.
I'm hearing "on your left" a lot more than in year's past. If you've never ridden in an organized bicycling event, "on your left" is Cycling shorthand for either a) I am passing you and want you to be aware of my presence, b) I am coming by you at a high rate of speed with my seven identically dressed friends, imitating a pace line on the Tour de France, or c) please get the hell out of the way, you are blocking the road for everybody else who - while not out here to compete - would like to go faster than your conversation-friendly pace of 10 mph.
The first type of shorthand is the accepted norm for charitable cycling events, seeing as how we're all amateurs and out there to have a good time. It is one of but a number of safe riding practices that every MS150er is expected to learn. In year's past, I've said "on your left" as much as I've heard it, being about in the middle of the pack, bike speed-wise speaking. I'm not saying "on your left" so much this year.
The second type of shorthand is unfortunately more typical than it should be, despite the admonitions of the MS150 Poobahs in countless e-mails reminding us all that it's a ride, dammit, not a race. This is lost on many Peletoniers, by the way. With their matching helmets, jerseys, pants, riding gloves and - dare I say it - Underarmor - they are the lovable rogues of the charitable bike ride: snobby, indignant, and with a not-so-modest sense of entitlement. I swear, they even bark out "on your left" with the slightest of French accents. I half expect to see some surly Frenchmen with clipboards accosting the Pelontiers at the Rest Stops, demanding urine samples and insisting on accompanying them into the Port-O-Can to verify their authenticity.
The third type of shorthand is from people like, well, me, but in my defense, thousands of other riders as well. I've been amused and then bemused for years about the folks that ride side by side, having a nice conversation, never having learned from their Daddies (or Driver's Training), that slow moving vehicles should be in the right hand lane. They also were impervious to the sundry admonitions of the Riding Community and MS150 instructions about bicycle etiquette, so this year, it seems that there are more "Two-And-Three-Abreasters" than in year's past, just chatting away, and generally occupying the entire lane of traffic. Of course, that might be because they've got more to talk about than last year, what with the Saturday ride being cancelled and all. But how much could they do with that? "Bummer man; Saturday was cancelled". "I know; Bummer". I mean, that's about it. How exactly do you stretch that conversation starter from LaGrange to Austin?
Either way, everybody's good natured about the interruptions, and the ride just flows. I've still not seen any more Bluebonnets, but I also haven't see a flashing light nor heard a siren the entire time; so, if no Bluebonnets is the price to be paid for no casualties, that's good enough by me. That starts me on another line of thinking, though: I wonder if the Determinists would get on my case for assuming that there is some Greater Power that would subject the Riders to a little inconvenience like no Bluebonnets in return for protecting them from serious injury? This thought sustains me for the next few miles, with the Right side of my brain contemplating the philosophical implications, and the Left side taking care of the actual business of riding my bike.
Figuring that there are no Determinists that are going to debate me on the point, I direct my attention back to the Ride, and paying attention to the Uphills. No worries; I have always made up time on the downhills, pedaling furiously so as to gain momentum at least part of the way up the next, tiresomely inevitable hill. That hasn't worked today, because in addition to my lack of training, there is The Wind. The freaking, inescapable wind. OK, I got that out of my system. Everybody else had to deal with it, and not once did I hear anybody else cursing under the breath, as I did several times.
THE HOME STRETCH
I catch the second last rest stop, and get a pleasant surprise from one of the numerous volunteers. "Only 17 miles to go", she says. This is balm to my psyche, as I thought I had 27 miles to go, having been told the course was 80 miles long back at the start, when in fact it was only 70. Good thing, too. There was a raging debate among my body parts, and the vote ten miles back was 3 to 1 to get in a SAG van, hoof it to the final Rest Stop and hope my Hasher friends never found out. It's bad enough that I'm going to have to endure some ribbing for blowing off the Hills at Buscher State Park, as they will be immune to my argument that in so doing, I removed myself as an obstacle for the more accomplished riders, and thus, have been virtuous.
But, fair is fair. I gig several of them for starting from Rhodes Stadium in Katy, but I don't even have that to fall back on this year, what with all the rain cutting Day One out of the equation entirely.
I hit the last Rest Stop, as I think most Riders do, not because it's necessary, but because it's the last milestone. Folks are relaxed, cheerful, and enjoying their last respite before the final 10 miles. Soon enough, I'm on my way, bombing down the downhills, and slugging up the uphills. Finally, I've climbed the last hill just past the freeway, and now I'm heading downhill and downtown. Thankfully the last mile is the fastest mile, and requires almost no effort; or at least it feels that way. I've got to admit that the cheering folks at the end - which you can hear from a long way away - certainly put some starch back into your legs. Soon enough I'm riding down that long chute with people on both sides, cheering for all the world like we've all just won the Tour de France. I slide over close to the left side and do a rolling series of high-fives with them, causing - however briefly - a moment of consternation for a photographer, close to the left side, but between me and the Finish Line. He's got nowhere to go, but I do, so I jump back to the center, cross the line, turn the corner, and gratefully get off my bike.
I hand my bike directly to a kid of sixteen who explains very carefully that I should remove any personal possessions I don't want to lose, remove my pedometer, empty my water bottles, and to please remember that my bike is on the trailer named Chicago White Sox. It's disconcerting being told what to do by a 16 year old, but professionalism demands respect, and these kids are all pros, briskly and cheerfully wrapping and stowing the bikes, yet another essential cog in the MS150 machine.
And that thing about Bicycle Riders being "The Great Unwashed"? That only has any relevance if you count the point in time directly after the MS150 ride. As in all year's past, there was a plentiful supply of Semi-tractor trailers set up with portable showers, much to the disappointment of Edward Bulwer-Lytton. The lines were only two people long for each trailer, the shower felt great, and I loitered in a chair outside the trailer once I had finished, soaking up the cheerful vibe coming off of Riders, Volunteers and mere passers-by. Everybody was in a good mood.
After that, I headed to the Continental tent, put myself on the Massage list, and ten minutes later was having the previously complaining body parts rubbed into submission. I socialize with some Riders, but don't see anybody I know except Ramona Z from our running group. The day wraps up, and I'm ready to head home. Amazingly, I feel great. Every last muscle in my body is tired, but nothing hurts. I feel at least as good as I did directly after my pre-MS150 breakfast on Friday of bacon, eggs, toast, coffee, cereal, donut and orange juice, and a whole lot better than I felt thirty minutes after that same meal. Such is the fate of amateurs when they eat like professionals.
Around 5:15 p.m. I head for the busses, board immediately, and ten minutes later we are eastbound for Houston. I check out the window from time to time for Bluebonnets, just in case I had simply missed them on the Ride, but there's nary a one to be seen, much less the rolling fields of flowers from MS150s past. No problem. It's a small price to pay, and the elusive Bluebonnets - like the MS150, the wonderful teams, the thousands of volunteers and a kajillion folks lining the route and cheering us on - will be back next year.
And so will I.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Not The Gay Movement's Finest Moment
OffHisMeds thinks Gay people need to be pickier about who they allow to represent them. I mention this in the wake of the bile and vitriol directed towards Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and spilling out of “spokesmen” for the Gay community that has become a torrent of recent days. The Internet blogcast by Miss USA judge and Gay Activist Perez Hilton was the first, a conversation between Michael Musto of the Village Voice and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC was the worst, and sundry other voices have chipped in, all abetting the character assassination of Ms. Prejean.
It began during the Miss USA Pageant when Hilton asking Prejean if she favored legalizing Gay Marriage. She started out throwing Hilton a bone by stating that it was great we lived in a land where people could choose, but stated that her personal belief was that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The reaction by Hilton and many others in the Gay Community against Prejean was swift, brutal and relentless. Hilton immediately got on the web and among other things, stated that she had "half a brain", and called her "a dumb bitch". He went on to threaten her with violence and humiliation - "ripping the tiara off her head" - if she had won. Do yourself a favor and watch his blogcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0d3Hebhgc
It's interesting to note the totally disingenuous rebuttal he offers regarding her answer, and his suggestion of the appropriate answer being that she was free to express personal disagreement but that the decision should be left to the individual states. Perez Hilton could give a crap about the Tenth Amendment, and likely doesn't appreciate the significance of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution as they relate to the question; and he surely couldn't care less about Prejean's First Amendment rights. It's all about him, all the time.
It's also interesting that the "half a brain" theme was picked up on by Musto and Olbermann and cranked up to Warp Nine, as they trashed her brain, breasts and virtually every other part on her body. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xWdelybsXw
Several things are remarkable about these acts, and none of them reflect well upon the Gay Community in particular or Liberals in general. First, the breathtaking Hate Speech that characterized their words, all to defame a woman they disagree with. Second, their constant misrepresentation of her words supporting heterosexual marriage as being an "attack" on Gay marriage. Third, the guerilla campaign to defame and destroy Carrie Prejean for holding a view different from their own. Fourth, the hypocrisy of these folks for attempting to destroy Carrie Prejean for having exactly the same opinion as their hero - Barack Obama - but breathing not a word of criticism about "The One".
Finally, and not insignificantly, there is the failure of these self-appointed spokesmen for the Gay Community to acknowledge that this was actually an attack on Heterosexual women in general, and Prejean just happened to be the victim du jour. Recall that Hilton set Prejean up by asking her such an inappropriate question in the first place. Whether it was she who was asked the question or any of the other dozens of contestants, the "wrong" answer would have provoked exactly the same vile and tiresomely predictable response from Hilton and his ilk. And does anybody actually believe that Hilton would have stopped asking this question if he had gotten the politically correct answer on the first try?
Please.
The behavior of all of these so-called representatives of the Gay community reinforces all the worst stereotypes about Homosexuals: self-absorbed, self-righteous, obsessed with Body Image, bitchy, mean, vindictive, and deeply, deeply Misogynistic. That last is, I think, the dirty little secret of this drama. Think about it: have you ever heard a straight male speak of any woman like that? Ever heard a heterosexual so criticize Gays? For that matter, have you ever heard another Gay male use such vitriol against a Straight male? No; only from some radicalized Gay Men do we hear such things about women simply because they are overtly Heterosexual. Call me crazy, but it's rhetoric like this that reinforces the other stereotype that Gay Men are Gay only because they couldn't get girls.
How else to explain the Hatin'?
While I only document the nefarious behavior of Olbermann, Hilton and Musto, sundry others prominent in the Homosexual community have reacted in essentially the same fashion, numerous others have been silent, and virtually none of them has come forward to defend Ms. Prejean, much less her right to have an opinion different from their own. Surely there's somebody in the Gay Community to speak rationally about her right to self-expression? But that any of these "gentlemen" had the integrity of Randy Shilts.
So much for chivalry.
I also pointed out earlier these Activists' predictable response in having set up Prejean for answering the question honestly. Perez's follow up - and that of his Minions - was to then dredge up anything and everything to "Out" her; a process, by the way, that was actively abetted by the Mainstream Media. Now, Outing is one of the most controversial practices of militant Gays, but it reinforces yet another stereotype of those who do this to other Homosexuals for no reason other than vindictiveness. From that perspective, it was only a matter of time before they extended the practice to Straight folks, albeit that this has been a time-honored tactic of the Democrat Party in dealing with others who disagree with them.
Finally, Homosexual Activists must one day come to grips with the Big Gay Elephant In The Living Room, and acknowledge that their President was not only NOT reticent about making his anti-Gay marriage views known, but volunteered this information time and time and time again on the campaign trail. And yet, I don't recall Perez Hilton, Olbermann, Musto or any other member of the Gay Community calling Obama a "dumb bitch" or proclaiming him to have "half a brain" for so forthrightly advocating against Gays.
Besides further exposing the hypocrisy of some in the Gay Community, I wonder what it does to their self-esteem, not to mention their view of The One? Might it be that his Tiara - not to mention their own - has been knocked ever so slightly askew?
It began during the Miss USA Pageant when Hilton asking Prejean if she favored legalizing Gay Marriage. She started out throwing Hilton a bone by stating that it was great we lived in a land where people could choose, but stated that her personal belief was that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The reaction by Hilton and many others in the Gay Community against Prejean was swift, brutal and relentless. Hilton immediately got on the web and among other things, stated that she had "half a brain", and called her "a dumb bitch". He went on to threaten her with violence and humiliation - "ripping the tiara off her head" - if she had won. Do yourself a favor and watch his blogcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0d3Hebhgc
It's interesting to note the totally disingenuous rebuttal he offers regarding her answer, and his suggestion of the appropriate answer being that she was free to express personal disagreement but that the decision should be left to the individual states. Perez Hilton could give a crap about the Tenth Amendment, and likely doesn't appreciate the significance of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution as they relate to the question; and he surely couldn't care less about Prejean's First Amendment rights. It's all about him, all the time.
It's also interesting that the "half a brain" theme was picked up on by Musto and Olbermann and cranked up to Warp Nine, as they trashed her brain, breasts and virtually every other part on her body. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xWdelybsXw
Several things are remarkable about these acts, and none of them reflect well upon the Gay Community in particular or Liberals in general. First, the breathtaking Hate Speech that characterized their words, all to defame a woman they disagree with. Second, their constant misrepresentation of her words supporting heterosexual marriage as being an "attack" on Gay marriage. Third, the guerilla campaign to defame and destroy Carrie Prejean for holding a view different from their own. Fourth, the hypocrisy of these folks for attempting to destroy Carrie Prejean for having exactly the same opinion as their hero - Barack Obama - but breathing not a word of criticism about "The One".
Finally, and not insignificantly, there is the failure of these self-appointed spokesmen for the Gay Community to acknowledge that this was actually an attack on Heterosexual women in general, and Prejean just happened to be the victim du jour. Recall that Hilton set Prejean up by asking her such an inappropriate question in the first place. Whether it was she who was asked the question or any of the other dozens of contestants, the "wrong" answer would have provoked exactly the same vile and tiresomely predictable response from Hilton and his ilk. And does anybody actually believe that Hilton would have stopped asking this question if he had gotten the politically correct answer on the first try?
Please.
The behavior of all of these so-called representatives of the Gay community reinforces all the worst stereotypes about Homosexuals: self-absorbed, self-righteous, obsessed with Body Image, bitchy, mean, vindictive, and deeply, deeply Misogynistic. That last is, I think, the dirty little secret of this drama. Think about it: have you ever heard a straight male speak of any woman like that? Ever heard a heterosexual so criticize Gays? For that matter, have you ever heard another Gay male use such vitriol against a Straight male? No; only from some radicalized Gay Men do we hear such things about women simply because they are overtly Heterosexual. Call me crazy, but it's rhetoric like this that reinforces the other stereotype that Gay Men are Gay only because they couldn't get girls.
How else to explain the Hatin'?
While I only document the nefarious behavior of Olbermann, Hilton and Musto, sundry others prominent in the Homosexual community have reacted in essentially the same fashion, numerous others have been silent, and virtually none of them has come forward to defend Ms. Prejean, much less her right to have an opinion different from their own. Surely there's somebody in the Gay Community to speak rationally about her right to self-expression? But that any of these "gentlemen" had the integrity of Randy Shilts.
So much for chivalry.
I also pointed out earlier these Activists' predictable response in having set up Prejean for answering the question honestly. Perez's follow up - and that of his Minions - was to then dredge up anything and everything to "Out" her; a process, by the way, that was actively abetted by the Mainstream Media. Now, Outing is one of the most controversial practices of militant Gays, but it reinforces yet another stereotype of those who do this to other Homosexuals for no reason other than vindictiveness. From that perspective, it was only a matter of time before they extended the practice to Straight folks, albeit that this has been a time-honored tactic of the Democrat Party in dealing with others who disagree with them.
Finally, Homosexual Activists must one day come to grips with the Big Gay Elephant In The Living Room, and acknowledge that their President was not only NOT reticent about making his anti-Gay marriage views known, but volunteered this information time and time and time again on the campaign trail. And yet, I don't recall Perez Hilton, Olbermann, Musto or any other member of the Gay Community calling Obama a "dumb bitch" or proclaiming him to have "half a brain" for so forthrightly advocating against Gays.
Besides further exposing the hypocrisy of some in the Gay Community, I wonder what it does to their self-esteem, not to mention their view of The One? Might it be that his Tiara - not to mention their own - has been knocked ever so slightly askew?
Monday, May 4, 2009
The First Victim Of Swine Flu
OffHisMeds thought it noteworthy in the extreme that when President Obama was asked during his press conference last week whether there were any circumstances under which he would close the border with Mexico (Ground Zero) to control the Swine Flu outbreak, he infamously repeated Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano's line that this was not an option because "the horse is already out of the barn".
The underlying assumptions here are as astounding for their short-sightedness as for their cynical political origin. Obama was essentially telling the American people that preventing the flow of people to and from Mexico to prevent a Swine Flu outbreak wouldn't work because things were already as bad as they could possibly get. With this and other statements, Obama not only ruled out quarantine as an option now, he ruled it out forever. The application of simple common sense shows an Administration seriously out of touch with reality.
The lack of specifics to justify his decision was also disturbing. President Obama produced no numbers, and cited neither his experts nor historical precedent; nor was he asked any hard questions about the matter, particularly considering the sheer implausibility of "horse out of the barn" as a means of containing a prospective epidemic. Not only is this notion not a plausible policy when talking about the potential for controlling wide-spread disease, it is arguably the worst policy to pursue.
As I mentioned, not only were there no hard questions, there were no follow up questions, many of which cried out to be asked. Here's some OffHisMeds would have asked:
- If Mexico was found to have 10,000 cases of Swine Flu and the rest of the world only 200, would you still use the "horse out of the barn" analogy to justify not closing the border? Is there any level of infection in Mexico relative to the U.S. that would cause you to change your mind?
- Why not restrict traffic between Mexico and the U.S. for a matter of a week so as to gauge the extent and virulence of the infection? The effect on either economy would be minimal but the results would be almost instantly measurable.
- Why not screen people coming from Mexico for signs of illness? Japan did it on all flights into their country, as did numerous other nations. This involved a visual screening for signs of illness, including taking their temperature, and was accomplished in a matter of seconds. Were the Japanese wrong to screen all passengers coming into their country?
- If screening all people seeking entrance into the USA is impractical, why not selectively screen them based on visible symptoms, and groups with the highest likelihood of infection? Surely this would not be onerous.
- If closing the border with the nation that is Ground Zero for the disease is not an option, why is it acceptable to close schools and businesses all over America? Surely the "horse is already out of the barn" analogy is as applicable in these instances as it is to the border?
- Did the Fort Worth school district over-react when they closed down the entire district? Did they over-react when they screened all the reporters at the press conference, taking their temperature?
- Why not let trade goods continue to flow but restrict simply human traffic? The effect on commerce would be minimal, with only Tourism suffering, and then only for a short period of time. Let the goods come in, and test the truck drivers, train engineers, airfreighter pilots and other personnel transporting the goods.
- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the likelihood of a greater spread of the disease as a result of your policies of an open border?
- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the greater likelihood of mutation of the disease into a more virulent form due to the greater initial spread of the disease?
- Did France and other nations in the E.U. over-react in advocating for blocking air travel from Mexico? If not, don't their actions justify America shutting down the border? After all, on a daily basis, France would have blocked entry to mere hundreds - and arguably those less likely to have the flu since they were affluent (no pun intended) - whereas closing the border would block tens of thousands of potential disease-carriers, and arguably a demographic with a much higher likelihood of having contracted the illness.
- Did you take your VP, Joe "foot-in-Obama's-mouth" Biden out behind the woodshed for getting off-message? And if so, which of his specific admonitions did you take exception to? Was it Biden's claim that we should avoid air travel and public transportation? How does it make you feel to know that VP Biden was simply repeating the preventive steps being taken by Mexico?
- Since 911, Americans have been forced to endure a five to thirty minute delay every time they attempt to board an airplane - including the elderly, the infirm, children, pregnant women and even babies - so as to determine that they are not Terrorists. This is mostly because of Democrat paranoia of being accused of "racial profiling". Is it fair to so inconvenience your own citizens - the ones least likely to be carrying bombs or disease - but demand nothing of foreign nationals, the ones most likely to be carrying bombs or disease?
I'm not really expecting any of these questions to be asked. As in numerous past instances, our Ditherer-In-Chief, along with a Compliant Media, have portrayed his indecision and wrong-headedness as a virtue, and probing questions as a mere inconvenience to Received Truth. For example, his waffling on releasing our Special Forces to rescue the Captain of the freighter The Maersk arguably added at least three days to the rescue and compromised the likelihood of a successful outcome. After all, Piracy and Kidnapping ought to be fairly straightforward matters: rescue the hostages as quickly as possible. For the Obama Administration, though, it had to be viewed through the prism of policy implications.
Meanwhile, the jury is still out as to whether this disease will evolve into a pandemic. Several things that are not in dispute are:
a) The Obama Administration's policies were neither well thought-out, coherent or even explainable.
b) Politics and Political Correctness rule when it comes to preserving the health of Americans. America can be shut down responding to the crisis internally, but woe be unto us for causing even the slightest of inconvenience for the citizens of Mexico or other affected countries.
c) If there is no serious outbreak this summer, this will be trumpeted as a resounding victory for the head-in-the-sand Health policies of the Obama Administration.
d) If the Swine Flu mutates and causes a Pandemic this Fall and Winter, the Obama Administration will blame somebody other than themselves, and get away with it.
e) The Media will continue to flack for the Obama Administration to deflect any blame, and they will never connect the dots between the rank amateurism in play or its consequences.
Finally, any efforts to restrict border traffic in the face of Epidemics will be portrayed - now and forever - as repressive, nativist, racist and wrong-headed. Remember folks, the Obama Administration has just set the bar as low as it can possibly get. It's not like Mexico or any other nation attempting to preserve their cash-flow as they milk the American cow is going to let him forget that. The first victim of Swine Flu from a geopolitical perspective is American Sovereignty.
Am I detecting a pattern here?
The underlying assumptions here are as astounding for their short-sightedness as for their cynical political origin. Obama was essentially telling the American people that preventing the flow of people to and from Mexico to prevent a Swine Flu outbreak wouldn't work because things were already as bad as they could possibly get. With this and other statements, Obama not only ruled out quarantine as an option now, he ruled it out forever. The application of simple common sense shows an Administration seriously out of touch with reality.
The lack of specifics to justify his decision was also disturbing. President Obama produced no numbers, and cited neither his experts nor historical precedent; nor was he asked any hard questions about the matter, particularly considering the sheer implausibility of "horse out of the barn" as a means of containing a prospective epidemic. Not only is this notion not a plausible policy when talking about the potential for controlling wide-spread disease, it is arguably the worst policy to pursue.
As I mentioned, not only were there no hard questions, there were no follow up questions, many of which cried out to be asked. Here's some OffHisMeds would have asked:
- If Mexico was found to have 10,000 cases of Swine Flu and the rest of the world only 200, would you still use the "horse out of the barn" analogy to justify not closing the border? Is there any level of infection in Mexico relative to the U.S. that would cause you to change your mind?
- Why not restrict traffic between Mexico and the U.S. for a matter of a week so as to gauge the extent and virulence of the infection? The effect on either economy would be minimal but the results would be almost instantly measurable.
- Why not screen people coming from Mexico for signs of illness? Japan did it on all flights into their country, as did numerous other nations. This involved a visual screening for signs of illness, including taking their temperature, and was accomplished in a matter of seconds. Were the Japanese wrong to screen all passengers coming into their country?
- If screening all people seeking entrance into the USA is impractical, why not selectively screen them based on visible symptoms, and groups with the highest likelihood of infection? Surely this would not be onerous.
- If closing the border with the nation that is Ground Zero for the disease is not an option, why is it acceptable to close schools and businesses all over America? Surely the "horse is already out of the barn" analogy is as applicable in these instances as it is to the border?
- Did the Fort Worth school district over-react when they closed down the entire district? Did they over-react when they screened all the reporters at the press conference, taking their temperature?
- Why not let trade goods continue to flow but restrict simply human traffic? The effect on commerce would be minimal, with only Tourism suffering, and then only for a short period of time. Let the goods come in, and test the truck drivers, train engineers, airfreighter pilots and other personnel transporting the goods.
- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the likelihood of a greater spread of the disease as a result of your policies of an open border?
- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the greater likelihood of mutation of the disease into a more virulent form due to the greater initial spread of the disease?
- Did France and other nations in the E.U. over-react in advocating for blocking air travel from Mexico? If not, don't their actions justify America shutting down the border? After all, on a daily basis, France would have blocked entry to mere hundreds - and arguably those less likely to have the flu since they were affluent (no pun intended) - whereas closing the border would block tens of thousands of potential disease-carriers, and arguably a demographic with a much higher likelihood of having contracted the illness.
- Did you take your VP, Joe "foot-in-Obama's-mouth" Biden out behind the woodshed for getting off-message? And if so, which of his specific admonitions did you take exception to? Was it Biden's claim that we should avoid air travel and public transportation? How does it make you feel to know that VP Biden was simply repeating the preventive steps being taken by Mexico?
- Since 911, Americans have been forced to endure a five to thirty minute delay every time they attempt to board an airplane - including the elderly, the infirm, children, pregnant women and even babies - so as to determine that they are not Terrorists. This is mostly because of Democrat paranoia of being accused of "racial profiling". Is it fair to so inconvenience your own citizens - the ones least likely to be carrying bombs or disease - but demand nothing of foreign nationals, the ones most likely to be carrying bombs or disease?
I'm not really expecting any of these questions to be asked. As in numerous past instances, our Ditherer-In-Chief, along with a Compliant Media, have portrayed his indecision and wrong-headedness as a virtue, and probing questions as a mere inconvenience to Received Truth. For example, his waffling on releasing our Special Forces to rescue the Captain of the freighter The Maersk arguably added at least three days to the rescue and compromised the likelihood of a successful outcome. After all, Piracy and Kidnapping ought to be fairly straightforward matters: rescue the hostages as quickly as possible. For the Obama Administration, though, it had to be viewed through the prism of policy implications.
Meanwhile, the jury is still out as to whether this disease will evolve into a pandemic. Several things that are not in dispute are:
a) The Obama Administration's policies were neither well thought-out, coherent or even explainable.
b) Politics and Political Correctness rule when it comes to preserving the health of Americans. America can be shut down responding to the crisis internally, but woe be unto us for causing even the slightest of inconvenience for the citizens of Mexico or other affected countries.
c) If there is no serious outbreak this summer, this will be trumpeted as a resounding victory for the head-in-the-sand Health policies of the Obama Administration.
d) If the Swine Flu mutates and causes a Pandemic this Fall and Winter, the Obama Administration will blame somebody other than themselves, and get away with it.
e) The Media will continue to flack for the Obama Administration to deflect any blame, and they will never connect the dots between the rank amateurism in play or its consequences.
Finally, any efforts to restrict border traffic in the face of Epidemics will be portrayed - now and forever - as repressive, nativist, racist and wrong-headed. Remember folks, the Obama Administration has just set the bar as low as it can possibly get. It's not like Mexico or any other nation attempting to preserve their cash-flow as they milk the American cow is going to let him forget that. The first victim of Swine Flu from a geopolitical perspective is American Sovereignty.
Am I detecting a pattern here?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Newsflash: Government Employment Is Deadly!
Two stories in the paper in the past two days provide further evidence that Public Sector employment is not the unambiguously benevolent pursuit it is always proclaimed to be by the Democrat Party, although it does appear to be a sweet deal for those in society who are dangerously incompetent or even outright evil. It is also further evidence of how GEFAFA (the Government Employee Full Actualization and Fulfillment Act) has so enriched the lives of those who draw a government paycheck, insulated as they are from the slightest scrutiny or accountability. Of course, GEFAFA is not a real law, but rather the shorthand that OffHisMeds likes to use to describe the inertia of Government - sometimes intended, sometimes unintended - and the regularity with which it is used to destroy Society with Taxpayers' money.
The Purely Dangerous Bus Driver
In the first instance, Aldine Independent School District bus driver Nellie Rose ran over a student she had just let off the bus with both her front and her back wheels, killing her. What's remarkable about this event is not that she killed a student, but that she hasn't killed more. This same bus driver ran over another student two years ago with her bus, and has been involved in two other accidents since 2003, at least one of which also resulted in injury.
This is also the second time Rose has used the phrase "I felt a bump as I drove forward", in describing the most recent event to police. She used exactly the same words in describing how she inadvertently ran over another teenage girl in 2007. In this latest incident, the kids on her bus were familiar with her previous record, and actually began teasing her after the first "bump", asking her if she had just run over another student. Cutting up with the students being her first priority, she ignored that first "bump", particularly after other students re-assured her that she had simply run over a dog. Apparently, being neither an animal lover nor somebody with an appreciation of Cause and Effect, she continued on and ran over the student with her back wheel.
In a classic case of understatement, school officials proclaimed that this pattern of activity "raised a red flag" and that Rose had been "removed from her route pending the outcome of the investigation". As Barack Obama likes to say: "talk about the horse already being out of the barn". Not only is this the third injury/accident she's been involved with, Rose had also accumulated only four points on the ten-point scale used by the State of Texas to deprive a bus driver of their license. By that standard, she might rack up as few as four additional points, technically leaving her eligible to keep her job.
This is the same school district, by the way, which found Rose faultless for the first incident in which she ran over a student, which was apparently news to the Student in question. No word as to whether school officials have questioned Rose's victim in the third injury/accident.
Serial Murderer/Serial Government Employee
The big GEFAFA news today, however, was the story about what Los Angeles police describe as a man who might be "the most prolific serial killer in the city's history", which is no mean feat, considering the abundance of mass murderers who have called, or continue to call, California home. Due to recent advances in DNA testing, LA police have charged John Floyd Thomas Jr. in at least two rape/murders of elderly women throughout California, and implicated him in dozens more going back as far as the 1950s.
After a dishonorable discharge from the military and being convicted of burglary, sexual assault and numerous parole violations in the 50s and 60s, Thomas went on to hold jobs as a Social Worker, hospital employee and Workers' Comp Claims processor, the last job of which he has held for the past twenty years. More about that later.
The short version of this story is that throughout the late 60s and through to the late 80s, wherever this rapist/murderer went, he was generally able to a) get a job in the public sector, b) use those jobs to finance and even enable his murderous hobby, and c) totally escape the attention of law enforcement authorities tasked to protect the public.
We can drive ourselves crazy speculating about why this guy was given such light sentences despite conviction as a serial felon as far back as the 1950s; we can drive ourselves crazy trying to figure out why this recidivist rapist was not kept under closer scrutiny once he did get out; and we can drive ourselves crazy trying to figure out why it is that California and U.S. Law Enforcement "Professionals" did not connect the dots on the pattern of this guy's activities. The record shows that every time he got out of jail, and wherever he moved, old women were raped and murdered.
The thing that will absolutely drive you crazy is Thomas's employment history after his convictions. He got a job as a Social Worker after his 1966 release for rape and burglary. The Rape/Murder wave began shortly thereafter. When he was released from prison in 1983 for a non-fatal rape he committed in 1978, he went to work as a "hospital peer counselor" for a hospital in Pomona. The murders resumed shortly thereafter, and continued until 1989 when he went to work as a Workers Comp claims adjuster.
They are all job descriptions that only a bureaucrat could love, but my favorite was "Peer Counselor". Similar to such job titles as "Social Worker" and "Grief Counselor", it seems to consist of Empathizing - the makework and busywork so typical of government employment. Simply put, a Peer Counselor's job is to regurgitate to students, breast-feeding mothers, drug addicts, the Disabled and other groups requiring empowerment the benefit of their experience as a student, breast-feeding mother, drug addict or Disabled Person.
This is not to say that Peer Counseling lacks any legitimacy. Those lacking experience will always benefit from those that have experience. It is to say, however, that until the Democrat Party came along, nobody thought to make it not only a full-time job, but an esteemed "profession". It is also to say, that, given Floyd's past record, the only constituency for whom he was qualified to be a Peer Counselor would have been Rapists and Murderers.
Conclusions
It seems that there's a double standard in the qualifications for employment between the Public Sector and the Private Sector. After all, compared to Etta Rose the Purely Dangerous Bus Driver, your typical UPS driver gets two shots - neither involving injury or fatalities - before he or she can be fired; and of course, UPS would be sued by the ubiquitous hordes of Personal Injury attorneys which flock after Democrat politicians like so many female mosquitoes looking for the first blood-meal of breeding season.
The typical automobile driver with Rose's driving record would also have considerably more than four points on their driving record, so Government Employees not only live by different rules when it comes to employment, they live by different rules when it comes to the Law.
As for John Floyd Thomas, The Serial Murderer/Serial Government Employee, the differences in treatment of the Private Sector compared to Public Sector - and mandated by Government - are not only numerous, but obscene. Take simple workplace behavior, as defined by the Social Engineering geniuses in the Democrat Party. For the Private Sector, it is practically mandatory that an employee accused of being a sexual predator or even sexual harassment should not only lose his job, but be permanently read out of polite society and any future meaningful employment. And as you know, if it is a case of being convicted of a sex crime, that individual is incarcerated for a long term, and if he or she eventually regains their freedom, is deprived of all privacy and kept under constant surveillance. Their criminal record also follows them for all future employment, their faces are posted on internet websites, and they are banned from various government jobs. All for the public good.
Of course, there are the "standards" that normal folk are expected to live under, and then there are the "double standards" reserved for Government employees. The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be those serial abusers of women and propriety, Judge Samuel Kent of Houston, President Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. For the sake of this narrative, we are assuming that even their most ardent defenders would be willing to admit that the Courthouse, the White House and a government vehicle would be considered a "workplace". They suffered no punishment for their crimes, though; they were all undone because they lied about it, and then they got a mere slap on the wrist, even though their crimes ranged from Rape to Murder.
In the case of John Floyd Thomas the convicted multiple rapist, his prison time for past offenses clearly should have been longer; and to say that jobs as a Peer Counselor, Social Worker and Workers' Comp Adjustor probably shouldn't have been opportunities that were available to him would be an extreme understatement. What's important to keep in mind is that we are talking California here, which portrays itself as the Land Of Enlightenment. Seems California is also the Land Of Unintended Consequences, as Thomas plowed through the senior community, raping and murdering Grandmas with gleeful abandon for over three decades.
In the department of large ironies, both the Killer Bus Driver and the Serial Killer Rapist allowed the States of Texas and California (and likely the United States as well) to justify ever-burgeoning Law Enforcement and Social Welfare bureaucracies, with ever more Special Commissions, Task Forces, Crime Scene Investigators, Coroners, Policemen, Emergency Response Personnel, Professional Grief Counselors, Administrators and sundry other Governmental Lifers too numerous to mention to deal with the deaths, the investigations, crowd control, the social aftermath, the inevitable lawsuits, and last, but certainly not least, the paperwork; the endless paperwork which is not only the lubricant but the very fuel of modern Governance.
In the article by the L.A. Times, Thomas's co-workers were quoted as saying that "his job mostly involved paperwork". While I'm unwilling at this point to claim that mindless, soul-sucking jobs that "mostly involve paperwork" are responsible for murderous pathologies, there is a disturbing trend to his pattern of government employment and a lifetime of misconduct, starting with his dishonorable discharge from the Army. And we see this same behavior played out in other walks of Government life, most notoriously with the expression "Going Postal".
Simply put, since the time of FDR, Government seems not to be concerned about whether a Government employee is kept productively busy, nor is it of import that they might be busy because of the incompetence or outright criminality of other Government employees. What is important to Government is that there are increasingly more of Government employees, and that they are all kept busy, endlessly. The Wheels of Government continue to grind, but these days, rarely to the benefit of Society.
In the Department Of Small Consolations, the Dangerous Bus Driver was from my home state of Texas; the Serial Killer was from California. 'Nough said.
The Purely Dangerous Bus Driver
In the first instance, Aldine Independent School District bus driver Nellie Rose ran over a student she had just let off the bus with both her front and her back wheels, killing her. What's remarkable about this event is not that she killed a student, but that she hasn't killed more. This same bus driver ran over another student two years ago with her bus, and has been involved in two other accidents since 2003, at least one of which also resulted in injury.
This is also the second time Rose has used the phrase "I felt a bump as I drove forward", in describing the most recent event to police. She used exactly the same words in describing how she inadvertently ran over another teenage girl in 2007. In this latest incident, the kids on her bus were familiar with her previous record, and actually began teasing her after the first "bump", asking her if she had just run over another student. Cutting up with the students being her first priority, she ignored that first "bump", particularly after other students re-assured her that she had simply run over a dog. Apparently, being neither an animal lover nor somebody with an appreciation of Cause and Effect, she continued on and ran over the student with her back wheel.
In a classic case of understatement, school officials proclaimed that this pattern of activity "raised a red flag" and that Rose had been "removed from her route pending the outcome of the investigation". As Barack Obama likes to say: "talk about the horse already being out of the barn". Not only is this the third injury/accident she's been involved with, Rose had also accumulated only four points on the ten-point scale used by the State of Texas to deprive a bus driver of their license. By that standard, she might rack up as few as four additional points, technically leaving her eligible to keep her job.
This is the same school district, by the way, which found Rose faultless for the first incident in which she ran over a student, which was apparently news to the Student in question. No word as to whether school officials have questioned Rose's victim in the third injury/accident.
Serial Murderer/Serial Government Employee
The big GEFAFA news today, however, was the story about what Los Angeles police describe as a man who might be "the most prolific serial killer in the city's history", which is no mean feat, considering the abundance of mass murderers who have called, or continue to call, California home. Due to recent advances in DNA testing, LA police have charged John Floyd Thomas Jr. in at least two rape/murders of elderly women throughout California, and implicated him in dozens more going back as far as the 1950s.
After a dishonorable discharge from the military and being convicted of burglary, sexual assault and numerous parole violations in the 50s and 60s, Thomas went on to hold jobs as a Social Worker, hospital employee and Workers' Comp Claims processor, the last job of which he has held for the past twenty years. More about that later.
The short version of this story is that throughout the late 60s and through to the late 80s, wherever this rapist/murderer went, he was generally able to a) get a job in the public sector, b) use those jobs to finance and even enable his murderous hobby, and c) totally escape the attention of law enforcement authorities tasked to protect the public.
We can drive ourselves crazy speculating about why this guy was given such light sentences despite conviction as a serial felon as far back as the 1950s; we can drive ourselves crazy trying to figure out why this recidivist rapist was not kept under closer scrutiny once he did get out; and we can drive ourselves crazy trying to figure out why it is that California and U.S. Law Enforcement "Professionals" did not connect the dots on the pattern of this guy's activities. The record shows that every time he got out of jail, and wherever he moved, old women were raped and murdered.
The thing that will absolutely drive you crazy is Thomas's employment history after his convictions. He got a job as a Social Worker after his 1966 release for rape and burglary. The Rape/Murder wave began shortly thereafter. When he was released from prison in 1983 for a non-fatal rape he committed in 1978, he went to work as a "hospital peer counselor" for a hospital in Pomona. The murders resumed shortly thereafter, and continued until 1989 when he went to work as a Workers Comp claims adjuster.
They are all job descriptions that only a bureaucrat could love, but my favorite was "Peer Counselor". Similar to such job titles as "Social Worker" and "Grief Counselor", it seems to consist of Empathizing - the makework and busywork so typical of government employment. Simply put, a Peer Counselor's job is to regurgitate to students, breast-feeding mothers, drug addicts, the Disabled and other groups requiring empowerment the benefit of their experience as a student, breast-feeding mother, drug addict or Disabled Person.
This is not to say that Peer Counseling lacks any legitimacy. Those lacking experience will always benefit from those that have experience. It is to say, however, that until the Democrat Party came along, nobody thought to make it not only a full-time job, but an esteemed "profession". It is also to say, that, given Floyd's past record, the only constituency for whom he was qualified to be a Peer Counselor would have been Rapists and Murderers.
Conclusions
It seems that there's a double standard in the qualifications for employment between the Public Sector and the Private Sector. After all, compared to Etta Rose the Purely Dangerous Bus Driver, your typical UPS driver gets two shots - neither involving injury or fatalities - before he or she can be fired; and of course, UPS would be sued by the ubiquitous hordes of Personal Injury attorneys which flock after Democrat politicians like so many female mosquitoes looking for the first blood-meal of breeding season.
The typical automobile driver with Rose's driving record would also have considerably more than four points on their driving record, so Government Employees not only live by different rules when it comes to employment, they live by different rules when it comes to the Law.
As for John Floyd Thomas, The Serial Murderer/Serial Government Employee, the differences in treatment of the Private Sector compared to Public Sector - and mandated by Government - are not only numerous, but obscene. Take simple workplace behavior, as defined by the Social Engineering geniuses in the Democrat Party. For the Private Sector, it is practically mandatory that an employee accused of being a sexual predator or even sexual harassment should not only lose his job, but be permanently read out of polite society and any future meaningful employment. And as you know, if it is a case of being convicted of a sex crime, that individual is incarcerated for a long term, and if he or she eventually regains their freedom, is deprived of all privacy and kept under constant surveillance. Their criminal record also follows them for all future employment, their faces are posted on internet websites, and they are banned from various government jobs. All for the public good.
Of course, there are the "standards" that normal folk are expected to live under, and then there are the "double standards" reserved for Government employees. The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be those serial abusers of women and propriety, Judge Samuel Kent of Houston, President Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. For the sake of this narrative, we are assuming that even their most ardent defenders would be willing to admit that the Courthouse, the White House and a government vehicle would be considered a "workplace". They suffered no punishment for their crimes, though; they were all undone because they lied about it, and then they got a mere slap on the wrist, even though their crimes ranged from Rape to Murder.
In the case of John Floyd Thomas the convicted multiple rapist, his prison time for past offenses clearly should have been longer; and to say that jobs as a Peer Counselor, Social Worker and Workers' Comp Adjustor probably shouldn't have been opportunities that were available to him would be an extreme understatement. What's important to keep in mind is that we are talking California here, which portrays itself as the Land Of Enlightenment. Seems California is also the Land Of Unintended Consequences, as Thomas plowed through the senior community, raping and murdering Grandmas with gleeful abandon for over three decades.
In the department of large ironies, both the Killer Bus Driver and the Serial Killer Rapist allowed the States of Texas and California (and likely the United States as well) to justify ever-burgeoning Law Enforcement and Social Welfare bureaucracies, with ever more Special Commissions, Task Forces, Crime Scene Investigators, Coroners, Policemen, Emergency Response Personnel, Professional Grief Counselors, Administrators and sundry other Governmental Lifers too numerous to mention to deal with the deaths, the investigations, crowd control, the social aftermath, the inevitable lawsuits, and last, but certainly not least, the paperwork; the endless paperwork which is not only the lubricant but the very fuel of modern Governance.
In the article by the L.A. Times, Thomas's co-workers were quoted as saying that "his job mostly involved paperwork". While I'm unwilling at this point to claim that mindless, soul-sucking jobs that "mostly involve paperwork" are responsible for murderous pathologies, there is a disturbing trend to his pattern of government employment and a lifetime of misconduct, starting with his dishonorable discharge from the Army. And we see this same behavior played out in other walks of Government life, most notoriously with the expression "Going Postal".
Simply put, since the time of FDR, Government seems not to be concerned about whether a Government employee is kept productively busy, nor is it of import that they might be busy because of the incompetence or outright criminality of other Government employees. What is important to Government is that there are increasingly more of Government employees, and that they are all kept busy, endlessly. The Wheels of Government continue to grind, but these days, rarely to the benefit of Society.
In the Department Of Small Consolations, the Dangerous Bus Driver was from my home state of Texas; the Serial Killer was from California. 'Nough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)