"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans
would prefer that the government do it to somebody else.
This is the idea behind foreign policy." --P.J. O'Rourke
commentary by killre
It's back. I thought it was dead, but like the monster in a horror movie it simply slipped beneath the inky waters of the sea to rear its ugly head elsewhere. In this case, elsewhere was Great Britain.
A few weeks ago, Americans with too-itchy share-clicking trigger-fingers were passing around a poorly reasoned harangue (an all too common phenomenon) against foreign aid.
How poorly reasoned? I'm glad you asked. Atop a pile of some legitimate domestic problems, the generator of the post listed having "to dial '1' to speak English" as one of the arguments against sending tax dollars overseas.
Had I been feeling snarkily productive at the time --or productively snarky, or whatever-- I likely would have pointed out that no-one needs to dial '1' to speak English. They dial '1' to communicate in English. Failure to grasp this distinction is symptomatic of a failure to grasp a much more important one: the supreme and exhausting effort described --pressing a button-- does not rise to the level of problem. I'm not even sure it is worthy of all the syllables in the word inconvenience. Even if it were a real problem, rather than a trumped-up one, it does nothing to address the pros or cons of foreign aid, nor does it belong on the same list as hunger, homelessness, and inadequate health care. It's like the manager of a heavy-hitting ballclub penciling-in as his leadoff hitter the equipment boy from the canasta team.
Fortunately, that fad faded. As I indicated in my opening paragraph, however, it has risen again, leaner and meaner, this time in jolly ol' G.B. In the last few days, some of those same itchy-fingered Americans have been click-sharing a similar message posted on a site called "Britain First." I'm taking wagers on whether they know Great Britain is actually a separate country, or they just don't care. My money is on the former. Without looking into it any further than this lone post, it is easy to surmise that "Britain First" is much like "America First": an isolationist-flavored political movement, dedicated to the direction backward.
I suppose I could link, if I really had to, but in this case there wouldn't be much point. The so-called "photo" being passed around is text-only, and is easily transcribed here:
"Doesn't make much sense, does it???
Homeless go without eating. Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without benefits that were promised. Yet we donate billions to other countries, and excessive immigration before helping our own first. 1% will re-post and 99% won't. Have the guts to re-post this. I KNOW I'm in the 1%."
See, you can tell it was written by a Brit, because there are no misspellings. Aside from that, it is the same hailstorm of half-truths, unsupported claims, twisted information, and questionable grammar that you'll find in most right-leaning, bumper-sticker-esque, American political rants-- with a dash of intimidation to give it that tangy aftertaste.
Since the Americans who brought this rant to my attention surely intended the message to be applied to American policies, rather than the British ones for which it was actually written (and about which I would feel far less comfortable commenting), I will respond as such. As is my wont, I'll treat what I see as the less-important points as appetizers, and save the meat for the entrée. Let's eat!
"Doesn't make much sense, does it???..."
No, as I will show, your argument doesn't make much sense-- in triplicate.
"...Homeless go without eating..."
True, the homeless often go hungry, but that only tells half the story. To be more precise, the homeless go without shelter; the poor go without eating. Yes, the homeless are also poor, and therefore also go hungry, but what does it say about the generator of this post that he or she couldn't be bothered to come up with a complete list?
"...Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment ... Veterans go without benefits..."
Along with the poverty and deprivation mentioned above, these are legitimate issues. Kudos for caring... or is it just lip service?
"..., and excessive immigration before helping our own first..."
This clause has the rare distinction of being both an incomplete thought and redundant (the word first is extraneous). I honestly cannot glean why the issue of immigration is being raised here. I suspect, much like dialing '1' in the American version of the same message, it is simply an unrelated item that sticks in the originator's craw. Perhaps I think that because excessive is the only dynamic adjective in the entire message. It is also an unsupported one, both substantively and stylistically.
Now, then...
"...Troops go without proper equipment...
Yet we donate billions to other countries..."
As stated, I am approaching this argument as an American answering other Americans.
In 2014, the United States spent $610 billion training, paying, deploying, supplying, and yes, equipping its military. The next seven most highly financed militaries in the world received the combined equivalent of $601 billion U.S. dollars. I'd like to reiterate that: the United States, by itself, outspent China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Great Britain, India, and Germany COMBINED for military-related concerns. If it is indeed true that our troops are ill-equipped, the problem is not financing; the problem is management.
(A recent episode of HBO's Veep highlighted a political aspect of the financing/ management problem. Looking to cut Federal spending, fictional President Selina Meyer induced the Joint Chiefs to offer a way to cut the Defense budget. They answered with an outdated submarine-building program that would single, uh, boatedly excise $50 billion. Alas, subs are complicated machines and the manufacture of components for this one took place in about two dozen different congressional districts. Upon realizing thousands of their constituents were about to lose jobs, those two-dozen congressmen threatened to vote down one of the president's other, unrelated initiatives. As a result, the $50 billion unnecessary submarine project stayed active and in the budget.)
In addition to the $610 billion the Federal government lavished on the military in 2014, it spent $52 billion in foreign aid. Let's compare those numbers on a smaller scale. $610 billion represents almost 20% of the total Federal budget for the year. $52 billion, then, would represent about 1.6 or 1.7%. In other words, for every tax dollar sent to Washington, 20 cents goes to the various branches of the armed services. The total amount of every tax dollar sent to all foreign governments worldwide: slightly more than a penny and a half.
What do we get for that penny and a half? Well, the effectiveness of foreign aid can certainly be debated. I won't do that here, because it is both off-point and a lengthy discussion. Ostensibly, though, it is supposed to work something like this...
For decades, one of the guiding lights of U.S. foreign policy has been the some-what high-minded notion that more democracy (democratic republicanism) and less oppression, more development and less squalor, more openness and less corruption make the world --including our little corner of it-- a better place. There are essentially two ways of working toward these goals: military intervention, and economic assistance.
(Some might say, "What of diplomacy?" Diplomacy certainly has its place. I'm willing to admit there might be aspects of diplomacy that I have not considered in this context. However, diplomacy is ultimately just a fancy word for conversing with. One of the harsh realities of this world is that when you are conversing with a contentious party, you need to back your words with either the threat of violence or the promise of a payoff.)
The first option --military intervention-- has many drawbacks, not the least of which is that it tends to run counter to some of the very ideals it strives to achieve. Invasions are usually destructive, oppressive and undemocratic, and bring with them deprivation, at least in the short term. Additionally, they are expensive undertakings in both blood and treasure: tens of thousands of people are killed, maimed, or displaced, and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent. Worst of all, military intervention rarely changes hearts and minds. Democracy cannot be forced; it must be nurtured.
That's where the second option --economic assistance-- comes to the fore as the better choice, at least in theory. The generator of the post uses the word donate. Intentionally or not, this is a misrepresentation of the intent of foreign aid. Proponents of the policy do not view it as a donation; they view it as an investment. Some of the money is intended to finance U.S. security-based concerns: counter-terrorism, and the limiting of nuclear weapons-- pseudo-military spending, really, in the guise of what its opponents would call charity. Much of the money, though, is earmarked for a wide variety of projects ranging from building better roads to improving crop yields. Such projects, it is thought, will raise the standard of living and foster trade. This in turn will lead to better education and a freer and more peaceful exchange of ideas and ideals. Then, if democratic republicanism and other aspects of the Western way of life truly are the best the planet has to offer, the whole wide world will see it for themselves, want it for themselves, and work toward it on their own initiative.
All this, at a cost less than one-tenth the annual price tag of having the mightiest military force in world history... and misusing it.
...Or so the theory goes. As I said, the real-world effectiveness of foreign
aid --past, present, future-- is a debate worth having. It deserves to be a discussion, though, rather than an ill-informed rant.
Now for dessert:
"...1% will re-post and 99% won't. Have the
guts to re-post this. I KNOW I'm in the 1%."
Oooo. Guts. Glory. Ram-- right down your throat. Nothing like a little cyber-based peer pressure to get a message across. When the argument runs empty, resort to name-calling. Of note here is that the percentages are completely made-up, pulled from thin air and supported by same. Even if the (purely theoretical) percentages were accurate, they don't represent the true audience. The generator of the post is saying, "All who see this will agree with it, but only one in a hundred will have the guts to say so." He apparently cannot conceive of anyone questioning even some of his assertions. After all, he made SUCH a cogent argument: seven incomplete sentences, a couple of them wildly off-base. Additionally, a large segment of the 99% don't care that much, while others just might be put off by the intimation that they are a coward if they don't im-mediately fall in line. No, it couldn't be disagreement, or apathy, or a strong will; clearly, they lack guts.
-------------
Found on Mars this week:
A snowshoe! Or maybe it's a tennis racquet; the jury is still out.
Impious since 2006
Apr 27, 2015
Nov 26, 2014
The Comeback Conceit
"Nothing made sense in this place. The maid was an heiress,
her husband talked in alliteration, the handyman kept missing
the point of things, and then there were these three woodsmen...
but only one of them talked."
--Bob Newhart
"It's a show within a show! My real name is Tracy Morgan!"
--Tracy Morgan
commentary by killre
For two or three weeks now, I have seen, heard, and read a variety of Hollywood insiders and the types who report on same --critics, recappers, and other ilk who are not insiders but who spend an inordinate amount of time with their noses pressed to the window-- tell me what a great show The Comeback is. In case you're unfamiliar, The Comeback is an HBO offering starring Lisa Kudrow.
So, I tried to watch it. I think I might have made it almost all the way through the season premiere. I'm not really sure. I kind of nodded off toward the end. I had no intention of watching episode two, but by accident I caught most of the second half. That is my disclaimer: Everything I have to say about the show is based on about an episode and a third, maybe an episode and a half. It seemed more than enough.
It strikes me as just so much inside baseball,
liberally spiced with emotional-torture porn.
I beg your indulgence in carrying the baseball metaphor another pint-sized paragraph. A few years back, I read a book of baseball analysis. Written by Bill Felber, it was called The Book on the Book. The premise of The Comeback reminds me of that tome's title.
Here is the show's kaleidoscopic framework. See if you can follow. Actress Kudrow plays an actress who is the star of a reality show about an actress whose current role is that of an actress. Not just any actress, mind you, but herself --herself the actress, not the actress Kudrow-- or at least a reasonable facsimile. Confused yet? Let's review. (*deep breath*) The Comeback is a semi-scripted show about an actress who is the star of a behind-the-scenes reality show about an actress whose current role is that of an actress --not-so-loosely based on the actress who is portraying her-- on a scripted show whose premise is a thinly disguised, behind-the-scenes look at a scripted show in which the actress once starred.
I didn't make any of that up.
In Freudian terms, it is like watching the super-ego giving the ego a hand-job while the ego goes down on the id and the id goes down on the amygdala, as recorded by the hippocampus, starring Lisa Kudrow blowing Seth Rogen. I sincerely hope that doesn't clear it up one damned bit.
Here's why: sooner or later --and I'd prefer it sooner-- We the People need to rise up and shout in unison in the general direction of the lower left coast, "Stop it! Just stop it already! Okay? We are not nearly as enamored with all your mutual mental masturbation as you think we are. There are two simple reasons why we sift through the torrent of b-grade s pouring out of the greater L.A. basin. One, to gain a tiny bit of insight into the polished product-- just a starter kit of insight, really. Two, to maybe see some of you at least partially naked. That's it. So knock off all the other crap!"
Worse yet, the show is supposed to be a comedy and... it isn't funny. Kudrow's character is neither likeable nor dis. It cannot even be said she is particularly sympathetic. More than anything, she is pitiable. Once upon a time (I surmise), she was a throttle-wide-open jerk to almost everyone she knew-- what past generations (and certain segments of the current one) would have called a bitch on wheels: arrogant, entitled, and nowhere near as smart as she thought she was. Somewhere along the way (I surmise), her ride came to a sudden and near-complete halt. The hungry years that followed taught her humility, and even imparted a small portion of tenuously grasped wisdom. (She is smarter than she was, though still not as smart as she thinks she is. The central character's standard comeback on The Comeback is on par with, "Oh, yeah? Well, huh, you're a, you're an even worse one. Of those. So, yeah. Chew on that!" It is the sort of line Kudrow has made a career of.)
Here is where the emotional torture part of the equation comes in. Kudrow's character was a bad person. Not evil, just bad. Dislikeable. Then she got knocked down. It made her a better person. Her efforts to redeem herself (and, yes, her career), however, are now rife with people kicking her while she is down. That is the show in a nutshell: people kicking her while she's down, teaching her a lesson she has already learned. From this, we the viewers are supposed to derive satisfaction.
Personally, I can't do it.
-------------
P.S.... Bud "Turkey" Selig must go.
her husband talked in alliteration, the handyman kept missing
the point of things, and then there were these three woodsmen...
but only one of them talked."
--Bob Newhart
"It's a show within a show! My real name is Tracy Morgan!"
--Tracy Morgan
commentary by killre
For two or three weeks now, I have seen, heard, and read a variety of Hollywood insiders and the types who report on same --critics, recappers, and other ilk who are not insiders but who spend an inordinate amount of time with their noses pressed to the window-- tell me what a great show The Comeback is. In case you're unfamiliar, The Comeback is an HBO offering starring Lisa Kudrow.
So, I tried to watch it. I think I might have made it almost all the way through the season premiere. I'm not really sure. I kind of nodded off toward the end. I had no intention of watching episode two, but by accident I caught most of the second half. That is my disclaimer: Everything I have to say about the show is based on about an episode and a third, maybe an episode and a half. It seemed more than enough.
It strikes me as just so much inside baseball,
liberally spiced with emotional-torture porn.
I beg your indulgence in carrying the baseball metaphor another pint-sized paragraph. A few years back, I read a book of baseball analysis. Written by Bill Felber, it was called The Book on the Book. The premise of The Comeback reminds me of that tome's title.
Here is the show's kaleidoscopic framework. See if you can follow. Actress Kudrow plays an actress who is the star of a reality show about an actress whose current role is that of an actress. Not just any actress, mind you, but herself --herself the actress, not the actress Kudrow-- or at least a reasonable facsimile. Confused yet? Let's review. (*deep breath*) The Comeback is a semi-scripted show about an actress who is the star of a behind-the-scenes reality show about an actress whose current role is that of an actress --not-so-loosely based on the actress who is portraying her-- on a scripted show whose premise is a thinly disguised, behind-the-scenes look at a scripted show in which the actress once starred.
I didn't make any of that up.
In Freudian terms, it is like watching the super-ego giving the ego a hand-job while the ego goes down on the id and the id goes down on the amygdala, as recorded by the hippocampus, starring Lisa Kudrow blowing Seth Rogen. I sincerely hope that doesn't clear it up one damned bit.
Here's why: sooner or later --and I'd prefer it sooner-- We the People need to rise up and shout in unison in the general direction of the lower left coast, "Stop it! Just stop it already! Okay? We are not nearly as enamored with all your mutual mental masturbation as you think we are. There are two simple reasons why we sift through the torrent of b-grade s pouring out of the greater L.A. basin. One, to gain a tiny bit of insight into the polished product-- just a starter kit of insight, really. Two, to maybe see some of you at least partially naked. That's it. So knock off all the other crap!"
Worse yet, the show is supposed to be a comedy and... it isn't funny. Kudrow's character is neither likeable nor dis. It cannot even be said she is particularly sympathetic. More than anything, she is pitiable. Once upon a time (I surmise), she was a throttle-wide-open jerk to almost everyone she knew-- what past generations (and certain segments of the current one) would have called a bitch on wheels: arrogant, entitled, and nowhere near as smart as she thought she was. Somewhere along the way (I surmise), her ride came to a sudden and near-complete halt. The hungry years that followed taught her humility, and even imparted a small portion of tenuously grasped wisdom. (She is smarter than she was, though still not as smart as she thinks she is. The central character's standard comeback on The Comeback is on par with, "Oh, yeah? Well, huh, you're a, you're an even worse one. Of those. So, yeah. Chew on that!" It is the sort of line Kudrow has made a career of.)
Here is where the emotional torture part of the equation comes in. Kudrow's character was a bad person. Not evil, just bad. Dislikeable. Then she got knocked down. It made her a better person. Her efforts to redeem herself (and, yes, her career), however, are now rife with people kicking her while she is down. That is the show in a nutshell: people kicking her while she's down, teaching her a lesson she has already learned. From this, we the viewers are supposed to derive satisfaction.
Personally, I can't do it.
-------------
P.S.... Bud "Turkey" Selig must go.
Oct 30, 2014
Maddon Men
Former Tampa Bay Rays Manager Joe Maddon will likely become the new manager of the Cubs, according to reports from CBSSports.com.
The Cubs and Maddon are on the verge of making a deal that would pay him at least $5 million a year, according to CBS.
Other outlets have confirmed the story, although the Cubs say the report is inaccurate, and MLB sources will not confirm it until after Wednesday night's Game 7 of the World Series so as not to overshadow it.
Oct 9, 2014
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
Oct 3, 2014
50 Ways to Lose Your Lunch
"This has gotta be the only country in the world
that could ever have come up with Bulimia."
--George Carlin
"I have always liked this story:
A man... with one hand to a one-way sign, is vomiting
into the gutter; another man goes past... and [says],
'If you only knew how much I agree with you.'"
--Jean Fremon
slice of life by killre
Barf, vomit, puke, blow chunks, bounce your breakfast, boot.
Heave, hurl, hoist the colors, hoist the ensign, hoist the mains'il.
Eject, reject, project, renounce, paint the floor, bark at the Earth.
Yell at your shoes, laugh in Technicolor, pray to the porcelain god.
Post to your blog.
Salute the dignitaries, liquidate your holdings, launch the shuttle.
Toss your cookies, pogo with just your stomach, denounce your dinner.
Ralph, regurgitate, reboot, raise the flag, raise the steaks,
raise a mushroom cloud, create a casserole, Ralph Kramden.
Promote a piece of legislation.
Expel, upchuck, throw up, throw it into reverse.
Do penance, make like Mount Saint Helens, sneeze with soul.
Say something with substance, elevate the disgustion,
air your grievances, review the contents, tie-dye the carpet.
Don't digest; divest!
-------------
Ironically, "spill your guts" ...not on the list. Means somethin' diff'ert.
Full disclosure: I read a list like this many, many years ago, albeit not in stanza form. I admit to outright stealing two expressions, which I found particularly memorable, from that list. The rest are either quite common or came directly from my brain. No reference materials were consulted. I do not claim the list to be comprehensive. Feel free to add to it.
There are 49, not counting the title. Here is the 50th:
Express your opinion of Bud Selig.
that could ever have come up with Bulimia."
--George Carlin
"I have always liked this story:
A man... with one hand to a one-way sign, is vomiting
into the gutter; another man goes past... and [says],
'If you only knew how much I agree with you.'"
--Jean Fremon
slice of life by killre
Barf, vomit, puke, blow chunks, bounce your breakfast, boot.
Heave, hurl, hoist the colors, hoist the ensign, hoist the mains'il.
Eject, reject, project, renounce, paint the floor, bark at the Earth.
Yell at your shoes, laugh in Technicolor, pray to the porcelain god.
Post to your blog.
Salute the dignitaries, liquidate your holdings, launch the shuttle.
Toss your cookies, pogo with just your stomach, denounce your dinner.
Ralph, regurgitate, reboot, raise the flag, raise the steaks,
raise a mushroom cloud, create a casserole, Ralph Kramden.
Promote a piece of legislation.
Expel, upchuck, throw up, throw it into reverse.
Do penance, make like Mount Saint Helens, sneeze with soul.
Say something with substance, elevate the disgustion,
air your grievances, review the contents, tie-dye the carpet.
Don't digest; divest!
-------------
Ironically, "spill your guts" ...not on the list. Means somethin' diff'ert.
Full disclosure: I read a list like this many, many years ago, albeit not in stanza form. I admit to outright stealing two expressions, which I found particularly memorable, from that list. The rest are either quite common or came directly from my brain. No reference materials were consulted. I do not claim the list to be comprehensive. Feel free to add to it.
There are 49, not counting the title. Here is the 50th:
Express your opinion of Bud Selig.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)