The Jape of the Schlock

posted by killre

"What mighty contests arise from trivial things," wrote Alexander Pope in 1712.  The phrase was later adopted by Hasbro as a slogan or a motto or perhaps merely a self-conscious justification for the board game Trivial Pursuit.

I'll be the first to admit the pursuit I'm about to embark upon is pretty trivial, but I just can't seem to let it go...

Chris Mathews was like a kid on Christmas morning during Wednesday's edition of his MSNBC show, Hardball.  Former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers and the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman joined him on set at the University of Denver to shake the presents 'neath the tree and try to guess what might transpire during the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Toward the end of the segment, their discussion centered on whether Obama would do better to pounce on any early opportunity Romney might give him or lay off and see if moderator Jim Lehrer (of PBS) would press Romney on the point in question.  (If not, Obama had the option of coming back to hit Romney on it later, albeit to less effect.)  Myers and Fineman voiced their opinions and then --just before the when-we-come-back and the cue to commercial-- Mathews coughed this bulky nugget onto the table (I'll paraphrase):

"Why did the cavalry leave the fort to fight the Indians?  Because they're cavalry."

Huh?

A throw-away line, to be sure, intended to elicit a chuckle more than make a point, then carelessly crumpled and tossed in the general direction of the nearest recycling bin.  Yet here I go, chasing after it, picking it up, smoothing it out, puzzling over it...

Mathews delivered the one-two as if he were quoting someone.  Who, when or why the words were ever spoken I couldn't say.

At first blush, this cloudy question-and-answer gem might be taken as a sort of blue-collar wisdom akin to Yogi Berra's "It ain't over 'til it's over" (a saying that is true, by the way, except when it isn't).

A second consideration might lead one to the possibility that some not too deep-thinking 19th century military man didn't want to answer the question, so he decided to be snide about it.  Sort of an Ozzie Guillen type with mutton-chops.  Several years ago Guillen, then manager of MLB's Chicago White Sox, was suffering through a press interview following a tough loss.  One reporter had the temerity to ask him why he'd put such-and-such a pitcher into such-and-such a situation in the bottom of the whatever inning.  Guillen replied, "I made the pitching change because I'm the manager."

I'll pause at this point to permit you to ponder the profundity of that pronouncement.

I call it a Job v. God answer.  For those of you unfamiliar with the case of Job v. God, I'll summarize.  The name Job, by the way, is pronounced with a long vowel sound, as if it were spelled Joeb.

God was throwing a big party out at the lake house one weekend...

See, now, already some of you are starting to think about being offended.  To you I say with utter sincerity:  Trust me, you're going to be a lot angrier by the time this story is over.  Please refer yourself to the big word on the banner at the top of this page.

So anyway, God was throwing a big party out at the lake house one weekend.  He'd invited all the highest-ranking angels in the company.  Of course, they'd all have had to attend, even if they weren't among the most dedicated brown-nosers in the cosmos.

Lucifer arrived late.  On purpose.  This was back before he and God had their big falling out, but even back then Luci (as he was known to his friends) was more brash than most of his colleagues.

Yes, Lucifer was called Luci by his friends.  It was a different era, when proud men bore names like Mordecai, Hiram, Orville, Marion, Shirley... heck, even Willard.  (Actually, Heck was a name, too.)

Anyway, Lucifer arrived late, but almost immediately he realized that God was being a boastful douchebag this day.

"Luci!" the Old Man boomed.  "About time you showed up.  I was just telling the boys about My pet human Job.  Have you ever seen a more well-behaved human?"

Lucifer rolled his eyes.  "Of course he's well-behaved.  You've given him everything!  A beautiful family, good friends, wealth, power, land, stock options..."  He paused to knock back a shot of Hot Damn!, then snapped his fingers for another.  "I'll tell you something, Yaya--"

God had made it abundantly clear He didn't like being called Yaya.  He frowned.  For most, it was terrible to behold.  Of late, though, Lucifer had started to take perverse delight in displeasing the self-righteous Old Fart, so he bulled on.  "I'll tell you something, Yaya, I'll bet you that if you let me torture Job, I'll have him cussin' a blue streak in less than a month."

"You'll bet Me," God said.  "How much?"
Lucifer shrugged.  "Ten thousand bucks?"
God raised His eyebrows.  "That's a lot of scratch."
Lucifer smirked.  "Afraid You'll lose?"
The Almighty considered, then He spake so He unto him, and saying:  "You're on, you cheeky little dung beetle!"

So Lucifer threw all his energies into what he called Project Dirty Word.  He destroyed Job's house, killed Job's whole family, got Job fired from his, uh, job (short vowel), stole all his money, afflicted him with, like, three or four chronic diseases... pretty much took everything from him but his Social Security.  Even for Lucifer, that's a third rail.

Job was a tough old bird, but even the toughest among us has a breaking point.  He filed suit in Superior Court.  Once he'd gotten God face to face, he demanded to know why he'd been treated so unfairly.

Unwilling to admit that the whole sorry series of events stemmed from a childish wager He'd made with Lucifer, God pursued a stupifying defense.  He looked at Job and said, "Who the hell are you to question Me?"  Case closed.

Now, then... where was I?  Oh, right:

Why did the cavalry leave the fort to fight the Indians?  Because they're cavalry.

The problem with this pearl isn't just that the answer is unsatisfying in its over-simplicity; the problem, like the cases of Job v. God and Reporter v. Guillen, is that the answer never addresses the real question.  It presumes that there will be a fight, and that the question is where.  The real questions are, however, (a) why must there be a fight and (b) if there must be one, how best to wage it?

You see, the cavalry does not ride forth to engage the enemy simply because they are cavalry; instead, they are cavalry because someone must ride forth to engage the enemy.  That may sound like mumbo-jumbo to some, but it isn't.  The former is a case of tactics dictating strategy; the latter of strategy dictating tactics.

As to who in Chris Mathews' attempted analogy --Lehrer, Obama or Romney-- is supposed to be represented by the fort, the cavalry or the Indians, I still don't know...

...but I'm probably over-thinking it.

-------------
P.S.... Bud "I'll Have a Hot Damn! to Wash Down My Hot Dog" Selig must go.

The Thrill on Capitol Hill!

It's a photoshop tutorial. It goes through step by step to show you how to make this poster. Jump to the thing here

Blasphemes' Debate #1 Drinking Game

Drink when the following words or subjects are brought up:

Cayman Islands

47 percent

Built That

The Very Poor

Immigration

Obama Care

Massachusetts

When Obama mentions: George Bush, says "aaaahhhhhh....." (also and/or "uuuhhhhh") "Sasha and Malia, wealthy, fair share." Finish the bottle if he says "Mormon."

When Romney mentions: Jimmy Carter, laughs inappropriately, stammers, Job creators, olympics, class war fare. Finish the bottle if he says "birth certificate."

If either talk about dogs or start singing - move to Canada.

Debate #1 Tonight: The Tremor in Denver

Oh yeah! The contest of the two heavywei- er, the two nominees. Yeah... oh, hells ye- you know I can barely get enough enthusiasm to type, let alone tune into this borefest. Sure there are prescripted barbs and fanciful facts that won't past muster in the morning - but it's the debates... Time for the 5 or six people who haven't made up their minds about this thing to not watch, and not care about, and still be undecided. Hmmm... Coke or Pepsi... Tide or Cheer ... golly, this one is tough. Who's offering the coupon in the Sunday fliers? 

Look for those talking heads and spin-sters to already be downgrading Obama's performance and explaining away the tiny downtick after tonight, and the same air heads talking about how Romney needs to re-re-re-introduce himself to the voting public. 

It's very easy for me to conclude that it's all coming down to the haircut and who "looks like" the President. Really, it's a casting call, not a policy discussion. Maybe there's a few who are getting excited for Romney to make a Reagan "are you better off" echo -- but since it's Romney, he'll probably ACTUALLY ask, "Are you better off?" And then Obama will cock his head, light a smoke and say, "Bush." And then he'll blow smoke rings out of his ear.

If you've got some whiskey, join in on me with this and watch it live. I was almost thinking about bringing out the old Twitter account and playing along... but I really don't think all two of you give a rip, and I don't think I want to be interrupted from raising my bottle to my lips.

I will be surprised if they discuss sequestration = neither of them are owing up to that "little" problem.

Two Americas

Eating caviar in Zuccotti Park amongst
the Occupy Wall Street protests.

I hear about the 47% who are on food stamps or on some kind of Federal assistance - and then I hear about the folks who are standing in line to get a cell phone that's 'slightly' better than the phone they already have in their pockets.

That's the red state and the blue states. That's the state of the nation. There's such a divide between what is important, and why it's important - it isn't about Obama or Romney - it's about the complete and total disconnect from America First World and the other half.

What can be done about it? Well, I suppose a compromise for both camps of economic theory. To understand that the one half is going to pull the other one into the crapper fairly soon - and I actually can make a case for the have-nots doing it, but the other half already struck first with the housing market and financial meltdowns. And their complete and total refusal to understand that the 'takers' have no other option than to ask for a handout - or hand up - but they're just getting a finger from that side. At least, that's how it looks when Romney talks about the typical Obama voter.

To have a rational discussion about supply side economics - or Trickle Down (I always envision a two story outhouse for the visual) - it's fairly clear how spot on it works. Once the millionaires and the big corporations took huge hits in 08, they stopped spending. Immediately. It took, what, two months to trickle down to pink slips across the country? And now, since the 1% and companies, like Apple, are sitting on huge piles of cash, there's an outcry that they should start hiring or spending that money - That would be someone asking for supply side economics to open the spigot, would it not? Kind of ironic to bash that system when it's clear that's what you're asking for - even if you don't 'believe in it'.

So, there's a fiscal cliff on the horizon. No one, and I mean no one is talking about it. Tax breaks are expiring, 10% cuts in, er, everything is coming. And the current players in Washington caused it, and what have the done to address it? Go on vacation to bash their opponents in their re-election campaigns. Is it too soon to worry about the debt crisis (16 Trillion) before the economy is repaired and folks are back to work? I don't know, and neither does anyone else -- but what's dangerous, is that's what these politicians were paid and placed there to figure out.

At some point, someone's going to have to come to the rational middle, yes, both sides of the fringe, and realize that if half the country is playing out the Walking Dead - and the other half is watching it on AMC - it's all going to go to hell. And really quickly.

The 'rich' are going to have to discover, like they did in the Gilded Age, that if they fund the hospitals and the schools, their own personal habitat is less likely to be filled with zombies. Their own children will not be getting the polio and less likely to watch a reality show if the personal health and education of the society is improved. What's that worth?

And the other side of the fringe is going to have to concede that not all that charity work should be done by fifteen layers of bureaucrats in marble government facilities. If the problem is too large - then that's where government programs could assist - not necessarily operate unending programs. Like a consultancy.

To take it to the next level - maybe the PEOPLE should be more assertive and active in what programs should be funded and prioritized? A Kickstarter, hell, even a Reddit, of registered voters could tell the elected officials what the priorities for their communities are. The school playground is falling down, but there are 43 kids in your kid's class room. We can either hire another teacher, or fix the playground. Or maybe we can fund both, but we're going to have to ask for a bake sale. We could raise taxes, but wouldn't a voluntary hand out be more effective? A one time raising of funds over a constant and un-retractable pile of money once accounted for is expected to rise with inflation, forever? "Well, if we don't spend it, we won't get the funding next year" mentality is killing everyone.

Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but it doesn't seem impossible. Is it?