"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Although this passage is commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the phrase was actually (per most histories) coined by Louis Blanc, about a decade before Marx really climbed to the pinnacle of his soap-box. Blanc himself offered the phrase as a revision of a comment from a French utopian socialist (Henri de Saint Simon) who had the audacity to suggest that workers should be paid according to how much he works.
But although the line doesn't actually appear in the Communist Manifesto (1848), it is a principal underlying point of nearly every mainstream communist/socialist movement, philosophy, or ideal. Which I mean to include any time a tax dollar gets paid for the benefit or advantage of someone who doesn't pay taxes, or who otherwise fails to support themselves. Use of warm fuzzy "moral" arguments to argue that it is the responsibility of the capable to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable. Which is not something that I'm overwhelmingly adverse to. There are people who legitimately need charity, and there are a great many who can afford to give to charity. My objection comes when the idea becomes institutionalized to the point that the capable are REQUIRED to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable, whether they like it or not, and where there's only questionable differentiation between "incapable" and "disinterested."
But returning to the communist ideal expressed above, this was an idea that Americans railed against 50 years ago, universally and violently. You couldn't get a job in this country if you were associated with any sort of communist/socialist party. Wars were waged with little more justification than being part of the "war against communism." Aversion to this idea, and belief that a person was entitled to the benefit of their labor, was fierce, to the point that the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, and contemplated ending the existence of meaningful human civilization on this planet, rather than accept the concept.
So I think it's hilarious that "from each according to ability, to each according to need" has become a central tenant of American political thought and governmental efforts. We don't use those words, of course. Even if it were politically correct to call a duck a duck, we're much more sophisticated than to use the same failed slogans while we attempt to re-enact the same failed policies.
Because that is what we're doing. Lets make the successful pay higher taxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It should be their obligation to support the health and welfare of the HALF OF THE POPULATION that doesn't pay taxes at all. Fuck this whole privatized industry thing: lets get the automotive industry under Federal Control. Throw some more regulation on the banking industry. Oh, and about that whole health-care thing; successful people should be barred from paying their own money for procedures. Lets make the taxpayers buy coverage for everyone. Play some games with the billing structure so we can fit 30 million additional people into the healthcare system, regardless of whether they can pay. Never mind that the former Soviet Union - where living conditions are currently nearer to downtown Mogadishu than they are to downtown Chicago - should be lesson enough for any rationally thinking political scholar to write off Marxism/Leninism as a catastrophically bad idea. Never mind that there are five entire European countries on the verge of bankruptcy (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from following these exact policies, Barack knows better. And, after all, he is NOT a communist. Just ask him. And of course, he'd never endorse the Marxist language, which remains anathema, even as he trumpets the Marxist ideal.
Fifty years ago, the administration was willing to destroy the world to protect us from this idea. Now, the administration is enacting this ideal, pretty much regardless of whether people want it or not.
*Sigh.* We have met the enemy. And he is us.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Addendum re: Shitty Sequels
After she read the prior post, CB (yes, the significant other has been assigned a code-name) pointed out to me a spectacular example of the trend I was describing. And it was a better example than any I used. Specifically, the Die Hard movies.
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Cultural Evolution. Through IP Theft.
Hollywood has never been shy about stealing shit that looked good, and trying to make it into something better. I generally support this trend, although even an idiot would have to concede that the results are sometimes mixed, at best. But I suppose it needs to be, given the scope of the ongoing theft of intellectual property. How many of Shakespeare's plays have been "adapted" into modern cinema? How many different versions of Dangerous Liasons have been made? There's a bunch of generally shitty movies (notably "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "Last Man Standing") that are bad remakes of a great film called "Yojimbo." (By the way, the greatest writer-director who ever lived was not named "Lucas," "Spielberg," "Hitchcock," or "Cameron." Rather, he was a Japanese guy named Akira Kurosawa.)
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Bourgeois and the Plebes
When I was back in Mr. Blair's 7th grade World History class, I remember being surprised at his description of the Roman Empire in the periods of its decline. His general position (necessarily general; he was teaching a bunch of 12 year olds) was that the Empire had become amazingly stratified, where there was the privileged class who spent most of their time pontificating and/or dealing with amorphous abstracts - art, politics, philosophy, law, etc. - and the rest of their time lounging in steam baths being catered to hand and foot.
In contrast to this elite, there was a remarkably small merchant and artisan class, and then a vast mob of the lower-class. The precursors of modern tenement buildings, packed to overflowing with people. Unskilled workers and slaves in cases where they were employed at all. This persisted for centuries: by dint of being lower classes, the lower classes lacked the structure to organize into any sort of legitimate political bloc. Besides, the consensus was that they really felt no great impetus to organize, since the Roman policy of panem et circenses (google it) kept them fed, entertained, and voting for endless continuation of benefits. Rome was, in fact, the precursor of the modern wellfare state.
Right up to the point that it all went up in flames, at least.
As I was hearing these lessons, even back before I turned into the bastard-coated bastard with hard bastard center that I am today, I wondered how the ruling classes could allow that level of stratification to exist? Even at the time, it occurred to me that a social model based on hand-outs and blood-sport entertainments had no sustainability. And how was it that there existed no substantial middle-class which the lower-class could aspire too? How could the overall leaders of the Empire not see what what was coming when there existed neither social mobility for the capable, nor economic flow other than Legion-enforced imperialism? Although the Empire persisted for centuries under that social model, it seemed clear that it did so partially because the Roman lower-class populace was unarmed, but mostly because the 500-year supremacy of the Legionary military system meant that Rome could have all its tangible needs met imperialistically, regardless of whether the need was Egyptian wheat for the masses or Persian luxury goods for the emperors.
Did the Romans really think that they could go forward into perpetuity, buying the votes of an ignorant public with nothing more than promises of a decent hand-out diet, and weekly spectacles of chariots and gladiator games? Where they so busy trying to keep a doomed system afloat that they didn't have time to consider the long-term results? Or was the leadership just so busy enjoying luxury and opulence that they truly didn't give much of a damn at all about the masses, except for the expectation that the plebes remember their place and keep their complaints to a minimum?
These thoughts occurred to me as I was spending a weekend lounging on the pool deck at Red Rock Resort and Spa, sipping beer and snacking on over-priced finger-foods delivered by scantily clad girls. It was a good time, and I heartily recommend it, even if there was no steam-room in evidence. I specifically recommend the fruit plate with the honey-yogurt dipping sauce. There were even gladiator games going on over the weekend, although we didn't watch them; since the Fertita clan owns both UFC and the Red Rock Resort, they were piping in a live video feed from Oakland.
Has humanity developed at all in the last 2000 years, or are we just recycled situations, and variations on a theme?
In contrast to this elite, there was a remarkably small merchant and artisan class, and then a vast mob of the lower-class. The precursors of modern tenement buildings, packed to overflowing with people. Unskilled workers and slaves in cases where they were employed at all. This persisted for centuries: by dint of being lower classes, the lower classes lacked the structure to organize into any sort of legitimate political bloc. Besides, the consensus was that they really felt no great impetus to organize, since the Roman policy of panem et circenses (google it) kept them fed, entertained, and voting for endless continuation of benefits. Rome was, in fact, the precursor of the modern wellfare state.
Right up to the point that it all went up in flames, at least.
As I was hearing these lessons, even back before I turned into the bastard-coated bastard with hard bastard center that I am today, I wondered how the ruling classes could allow that level of stratification to exist? Even at the time, it occurred to me that a social model based on hand-outs and blood-sport entertainments had no sustainability. And how was it that there existed no substantial middle-class which the lower-class could aspire too? How could the overall leaders of the Empire not see what what was coming when there existed neither social mobility for the capable, nor economic flow other than Legion-enforced imperialism? Although the Empire persisted for centuries under that social model, it seemed clear that it did so partially because the Roman lower-class populace was unarmed, but mostly because the 500-year supremacy of the Legionary military system meant that Rome could have all its tangible needs met imperialistically, regardless of whether the need was Egyptian wheat for the masses or Persian luxury goods for the emperors.
Did the Romans really think that they could go forward into perpetuity, buying the votes of an ignorant public with nothing more than promises of a decent hand-out diet, and weekly spectacles of chariots and gladiator games? Where they so busy trying to keep a doomed system afloat that they didn't have time to consider the long-term results? Or was the leadership just so busy enjoying luxury and opulence that they truly didn't give much of a damn at all about the masses, except for the expectation that the plebes remember their place and keep their complaints to a minimum?
These thoughts occurred to me as I was spending a weekend lounging on the pool deck at Red Rock Resort and Spa, sipping beer and snacking on over-priced finger-foods delivered by scantily clad girls. It was a good time, and I heartily recommend it, even if there was no steam-room in evidence. I specifically recommend the fruit plate with the honey-yogurt dipping sauce. There were even gladiator games going on over the weekend, although we didn't watch them; since the Fertita clan owns both UFC and the Red Rock Resort, they were piping in a live video feed from Oakland.
Has humanity developed at all in the last 2000 years, or are we just recycled situations, and variations on a theme?
Monday, July 19, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)