Bad Influences

I notice that my movie and TV viewing habits have changed substantially. Most notably, I actually watch movies and TV. This is a change for me, since I literally did not have even basic cable TV literally for years. I got a few local networks on open-air broadcasts (I did buy a digital converter box), and if I adjusted the antenna right, I could also catch the occasional soccer game on the Spanish Channel. But watch TV? Me? Kinda not so much. Until the last few months or so.

I have to admit, there is some good stuff on. And a lot of it is on DVD. Even now, I spend a lot more time watching re-runs on DVD and/or Netflix (Weeds, Lost, Bones) than I do watching live TV (pretty much limited to True Blood and Rules of Engagement). Baby steps, you know. Gotta build up my tolerance to it. Especially since most TV these days not just INCLUDES general douche-baggery (as addressed below), but instead seems to be BASED on general douche-baggery. The fact the Jersey Shore has the kind of following it does really speaks volumes about our culture. Have you seen 'Idiocracy?' Does the society portrayed in that movie really seem that far-fetched or over the top?

I've also been watching a lot of romantic comedies lately, since both The Woman and I enjoy laughs. I have no problem with watching romantic comedies, actually. They are generally funny and entertaining and appropriately mindless for casual lounging on evenings and weekends. No denying the amusement value. But I have to say that I fundamentally object to the general theme of the modern romantic comedy. The universal storyline of those movies seems to be 1) guy meets girl 2) guy acts like a douche-bag (intentionally or incidentally) 3) guy loses girl 4) guy sees the error of his ways 5) guy makes a further ass of himself apologizing in some endearing fashion 6) guy gets girl back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I go down my mental list of romantic comedies, and I really can't think of a single notable instance where the GIRL is the one who fucks things up, and ends up falling on her sword to get the guy back. I'm sure those movies are out there. But I can't think of them. And remembering movies is generally something that I'm pretty good at.

There is a certain amount of reality in what we seen on TV and movies. There is a lot of douche-baggery in the world, and some of it is really fucking funny. Moreover, guys DO act like jackasses, and nonetheless still get The Girl. I have no intention of stopping or changing my TV or movie viewing habits. But that having been said, I'm not sure any children of mine will be allowed to watch these sorts of shows and/or movies, at least until they're in their teens. Seriously. Because unlike the usual material that parents tend to object to (movies or shows about crime, violence, etc.), the people in these lowest-common-denominator shows and/or romantic comedies are not in settings or situations where their behavior is clearly fantasy. For example: rather than being set in jungles or battlefields or outer space, romantic comedies are set in normal day-to-day places, with actors who tend to look and act like everyday people. Except that the storyline has the guys overtly (and often intentionally) acting like jackasses, making fools of themselves, and the women in question sometimes acting even worse, and almost always forgiving the douche-bag(s) for their behavior and taking them back.

I think it's funny that a parent wouldn't let their kid watch action or horror movies because swearing and violence are 'bad influences' on their kids, but might have no problem with their kid watching programming where infidelity, intoxication, lying, and/or general douche-baggery are central points of the storyline. Maybe this has something to do with the sorts of entertainment that appears on TV and in movies these days. Again, is a true Idiocracy really that far-fetched?

Resumes

I got this today as a forwarded email. Best thing I've seen since the mass email a while back comparing Condoleeza Rice to Martin Sheen, about who's best qualified to opine on national policy. This one clearly focuses on the military angle:

General Stanley McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart , Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable.
Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008


The wrong guy resigned.

I'm a big believer in the idea of civilian leadership of the military, since the overwhelming majority of national revolutions start as a military coup d'etat. But at the same time, I really wish the United States Military would at least make some more noise. After all, their oaths are to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the administration, and I have to believe that dissatisfaction with the administration and its policies (as expressed by McChrystal) are FAR more widespread among people in uniform than most of the civilian populace would believe. Which is worrisome, if you step back and take a look at history, both in the long-view, and in recent development. There are wheels within wheels, rolling forward, and with some ominous signs.

Take this, for example: A lot of what the military does these days is domestic supervision and civil rights enforcement. "Police actions." Expert efforts by armed men to compel a populace to toe a line set by a government that the populace will now live under. American national policy in response to terrorism has become to conquer "rogue states" and set up republics, with the hope that the local people suddenly overcome generations of torture, coercion, and repression to step up, participate, and toe the line. And the military stays there until they do, killing dissidents and counter-revolutionaries as necessary.

Currently, the military is tasked with supporting several national transitions from totalitarian regimes to republic nations, with armed men on hand to enforce the rights of the populace. The United States military has had a couple practice runs at making it happen: Iraq, Afghanistan, and handful of Central American dictatorships. I see the possibility that they might just be warming up for the Main Event, inside our national borders. Overseeing a political transition here on the home front. Of course, the Law forbids such things. Posse Comitatus. But whatever; those are just words in books.

There is, of course, the very likely chance that elections are going to provide the necessary relief without the need for any "police actions" here locally. But is that correction of the problem, or just a new group of people at the wheel of a Federal Machine running out of control? This is just me talking, of course, but history suggests the inevitability of a nation deploying military forces internally, against the nation's own populace. It hasn't happened in the United States, not in any large degree, at least. But we've only been around for about 250 years. We haven't reached that critical mass of national political/civil clusterfuck where something has to give between the demands of the government and the desires (rights?) of the people. Yet. But again, history suggests the inevitability. It took centuries, but the Legions did eventually march into Rome. And to great fanfare from the populace. I see that as a possibility.

The flip side of the coin is that, while they have been acting to support the rights of people against totalitarianism, the United State Military has gained a LOT of expertise in tracking down and dealing with political dissidents. You know: those people who refuse to toe the line that Washington has drawn. Those poor dumb fucks who think that they were doing just find before all this shit came along, and who cling to the way things were Before. Those who resist "re-education," perhaps to the point that they take up arms against the New Order, and get hunted down by highly-trained, well-armed uniformed men. The military gets used these days to build republics where there used to be autocracies. But it's gaining one hell of a skill-set in the process.

Which makes for an interesting quandary here in the United States, about how that skill-set might ultimately be used. When the Legions come home under arms, are they going to settle in Washington to oversee a change in power, from a dysfunctional tyrannical set of overlords to a legitimately free republic? Or are the Legions going remain under the command of Caesar? Might they be sent to "pacify" Arizona, based on local recalcitrance on immigration issues? Or be deployed to Texas, to halt secession and/or to "guard" strategic oil reserves? What orders might be issued, in pursuit of "the common good," and to combat "treason?"

And should any of this ever come to pass, tomorrow or a century from now, who would you rather have calling the shots? Should the American Military be called upon to maintain peace inside the United States, would you want someone like Barack Obama at the head of the War Machine, deciding how troops are deployed and towards what ends? Or would you rather have someone like General McChrystal leading the way forward?

There is no easy answer, of course. And more than anything else, I wonder if this train of thought might be spun into a novel that would sell well enough to spare me the trouble of a day job.

La Migra

These days, my main source of news is actually Yahoo News. I spend pretty much all day every day shining a chair with my ass, staring at a computer, and plotting world domination. Staring at a computer all day, I find that while most mainstream news services are either disgustingly revolutionary (MSNBC) or frighteningly reactionary (FOX), Yahoo at least puts up the articles from both sides. This is good for me, if for no other reason than that both sides provide no end of comic relief and eye rolling.

Among the gems that appeared this week was notice that the President and Justice Department are challenging Arizona's new law granting police authority to explore the citizenship status of person who give cause for the officers to question the suspects legal standing to be in the United States. Personally, I think this is Obama in a nutshell: the Arizona voters passed the law and continue to support it with an impressive majority. While management of immigration is a Federal chore, Obama himself has admitted that the Federal government is handling it badly. The Consitution expressly says that States have the power to enact and enforce the law within their own borders. In effect, there doesn't seem to be even a little bit of basis for a Washington politician to tell the people of Arizona that no, they're not really in charge of their own state. But no matter. Barack doesn't like it, so it's going to have to go.

Have I mentioned my thoughts on secession lately? Once upon a time, I thought that there's no way that a state would seriously consider departing the United States over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not even sure we'll get the to end of Obama's presidency before there are rumblings, especially along southern-border states that are being saddled with healthcare and benefits for illegal aliens while being told by the Federal government that they're going to have to shut down their oil industries. I guess the worry is that our kids will not be able to pay off all this debt Obama is running up if they're busy dealing with global warming, whenever (if ever) it actually arrives.

But going back to the immigration thing, I'm not sure I'm a supporter of the Arizona law (I grew up in California, and am a firm believer that the quality and cheapness of California's unsurpassed produce is largely a result of migrant labor), but I absolutely support that Arizona can pass that law if they see fit. But more than anything else, I think the way the debate appears in public forums says a lot about the difference between Republican and Democratic mindsets. In their article posted on Yahoo News ("As Dems lay low, GOP hits Obama on Arizona lawsuit,") the AP stated:

"But some Democratic strategists say the GOP is playing a dangerous game. Past GOP bids to crack down on illegal immigration have driven Latino voters into Democrats' arms, as was seen most dramatically in California in the 1990s. And Americans who are most passionate about illegal immigration tend to be reliable Republican voters anyway, and not up for grabs, these strategists say.

"There's no evidence that Republicans have been able to turn this issue into a winning issue in a general election," said Simon Rosenberg, who follows immigration matters as head of the liberal-leaning group NDN. If top Republicans keep pounding the issue, he said, it could increase Democratic turnout in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California and possibly other states."

That's actually cut and pasted from the article.

I find it hugely ironic (and very insightful) that the GOP position is based on things like separation of powers, legal prerogatives of the states, and the legality of Arizona's actions. You know: the LAW. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care about the law. They're in it for the votes, and their analysis focuses not on whether or Arizona's statute (or the challenge to it) have legal standing, but on whether or how Arizona's statue can be spun into a mass-media sound bite. Is that the real difference between the left and the right? The Right seems to care about the LAW. The left seems to care about what is POPULAR at any given moment.

The left is in power currently, and it's showing. We don't have time to do things legally, so lets forget about the laws and do what we want. *Sigh.* So much for being a nation of law, not of men.

Lost

I almost never watched "Lost" when it was actually on TV, but it's near the top of the list of things that I've been turned on to since finding love. It's up there along with trashy romance novels and pop-culture vampires (of the trashy-south vampire variety, not the teeny-bopper sparkly variety). Not quite sure what all this says about me, but I've never really cared what my likes and dislikes say about me in the past, and I don't plan to start now.

So. Lost. I'm working my way through the DVDs of past seasons, and am most of the way through Season 2. I like the show, especially the fact that nobody on the island seems normal in any way, shape, or form. True to real life, everybody has their back-story, secrets, hang-ups, and damage. I like that. I also like that the character flaws are consistent from one season to the next. Jack's inability to decide whether or not he's really in charge (or whether he wants to be). Sawyer's inability to decide if he wants to be loved or hated. Kate's inability to decide whether she loves or hates Sawyer. And Locke... ... ... Yeah. Locke.

But I've got to say that I wish I could meet the character, Michael, just so I could punch that motherfucker in the throat. And I felt that way even before "Henry" escaped from the hatch. Seriously, how is it that Michael manages to do exactly the wrong thing at every turn, mostly fuck up the wrong thing he decides to do, blame everyone else for what's going on, and still sound sanctimonious? Oh and that whiny half-yell of his when he gets excited.

Punch. In. The. Throat.

I really don't know how his story is going to end, but unless he and Sayid have a little sit-down involving pliers and sharp instruments, it's not going to be nearly what he deserves. Although I do draw some content from that conversation he had with Echo about the young boy who was afraid the slain dog would be waiting from him in the afterlife. The implications of that were cool, as were Michael's dry heaves after the discussion ended. Made me smile.

Mike, here's to hoping Ana Lucia really is waiting for you to arrive.