Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: September 2003

JONAH GOLDBERG SHOWS YOU WHY PALEOS HATE NEO-CONS

Posted on by Posted in Current Events, Politics, The Media

In what is undoubtedly the worst column he has ever written, and possibly the single most inane piece of journalism conceived in the last ten years, Jonah treats us to his deep thoughts regarding the California recall election. Not wanting to keep the eager reader waiting, his title, “Recall Election Shows Too Much Democracy is Dangerous” gives you a pretty good idea of where he’s coming from.

To demonstrate his very questionable conservative bona fides, he starts off by dismissing the liberal arguments against the recall as “flatly absurd.” But then, in vintage Jonah fashion, he makes his own arguments, which, I suppose, must be pointedly absurd.

“The recall, in my opinion, undermines the accountability of voters, telling them in effect that they can have a do-over whenever they mess things up by electing the wrong guy. Well, I’m sorry. As I’ve said before, the people of California elected Gray Davis and now they must be punished.”

Interesting concept. First of all, Davis barely won the election, and the total turnout was anything but overwhelming. So, by that logic alone, there is plenty of unjust punishment being meted out. He also has it wrong about the “do-over.” Of course, we have do-overs. They occur every time we elect a new guy to replace the old one! By what tortured reasoning is the exercise of that option under a regularly scheduled basis any more legitimate than doing it on an emergency basis?

“… And until Californians understand that their state’s problems are not accidental so much as logical, the liberals of the California Democratic Party will continue to run the state into the ground.”

Now that’s a good one. Tell me, Jonah baby, exactly which Californians are going to achieve this understanding—and when? The millions of illegal aliens? How about the Hollywood Leftist morons? Could it be the hundreds of thousands of state employees? Maybe it will be the members of the teachers’ unions, or perhaps the casino Indian tribes?

It surely won’t be the business owners and their workers who have left the state, and it would never be California’s major print media outlets, which are lockstep left wing institutions.

So, by all means, let’s wait for the promised enlightenment. What unbelievably toxic, arrogant, and pernicious drivel, that could only emanate from a writer whose main claim to fame is that his mother had her 15 minutes of fame, based on her involvement with Linda Tripp.

But wait. There’s more! He goes on to attack Arnold Schwarzenegger as “probably the worst of all possible outcomes.” Arnold, you see, is a “social liberal, ” with “few conservative positions.” For God’s sake, Jonah, look in the mirror!

“He insists that he’s opposed to giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses not because they are, in fact, illegally in the United States, but because it would be a “security threat” to have licensed immigrant drivers who haven’t been fingerprinted.”

Here, our boy wonder really exposes himself. First, note the transition from “illegal immigrants” to simply “immigrants,” within the same sentence. It is no secret that neo-cons, and Goldberg is no exception, are huge boosters of open immigration, and will paper this over with occasional mild remarks on illegals (such as this one). More significant is his lack of comprehension that given this driver’s license, the illegal—now legitimized via stealth amnesty—has achieved the same level of official identification that a citizen would have. And this is not a security threat? Would-be terrorists sneaking in from Canada or Mexico: Come on down!

Certainly, fake ID’s are available. It’s just that they’ve never before been supplied by the state.

He concludes (or so you think) by saying that the best outcome is for Davis to squeak by, and carry out his ongoing “panderfest,” saddling us with even more Leftist horrors, so that the Republicans can then ride in on their white horse. Yeah, as if… We all know that the legacy of FDR was less socialism, right?

But you keep on reading. In the best tradition of the Hollywood false ending, he suggests that he was really only kidding.

“Even though I’m against the recall, if I lived in California I would vote for the recall and try to run Gray Davis out on a rail. Why the double-standard? Because if I lived in California, I would have to vote for my immediate interests. And, besides, I never would have voted for Davis in the first place.”

Please stop. Take a deep breath and understand that this man is paid to write, and presumably, someone is paid to edit him. It is not enough to say that a mediocre high school student could have come up with something far better. Rather, lament that the conservative movement in America has been hijacked by no-talent hacks like Jonah Goldberg.

LEAVING THE GOLDEN STATE

Posted on by Posted in Uncategorized

Perhaps it’s fate. Our state, named after a mythical island of paradise, as described in a 16th century Spanish novel, may have been too good to last. Whether you blame incredible amounts of immigration [nearly 12 million people in the last 25 years or so into a current population of around 35 million], overcrowding, high taxes, or the most socialistic state government in the country bar none, Californians are leaving at an alarming rate.

Of course, there are those who are taking a more sanguine view. They would argue that there have been plenty of migrations in the US, starting with the general “Manifest Destiny” trend westward, even before that term was coined in 1845. There was much movement of industry out of traditional New England centers starting in the 1920’s, and there was significant migration of Southern blacks to the North starting even earlier in the 20th century. Notably, there was much movement to California, spurred first by the Gold Rush, and then by the aircraft boom of World War II, not to mention the mild climate. Relax, they would say. This is just another population shift.

Point well taken. Still, it’s cold comfort for those who have grown up here, and have seen the changes first hand. We remember when California public schools were the envy of the nation, and we remember when the Los Angeles Times took an arch-conservative editorial stance. We remember city, county, and state politics before their every aspect was dominated by racial overtones, and we remember when film production actually occurred in Hollywood.

Indeed, the very industry that gave California most of its glamour has all but vanished, leaving behind little more than office towers and historical studio buildings filled with administrative functionaries. What other industries might depart the state? Rather, we should ask what industries have to stay here.

Fortunately, agriculture, the foundation of the state’s wealth, will top the list. Mining, fishing, forestry, and their secondary processes would round out those basic endeavors that are intimately tied into the physical geography. The military is well entrenched here, but bases have been known to close. Government has been a major employer, but will be affected by an ever shrinking tax base as industry moves out. Public sector cutbacks are inevitable, as are higher taxes, which will cause more businesses to leave, in a truly vicious circle.

Population-fueled enterprises such as education, health care, and construction will change dramatically. At some point, the state will have to bail out of running its impossibly expensive elementary and secondary school system, embracing, I predict, a voucher model. Publicly funded hospitals will be crushed by the burden of illegal aliens, and as the state loses its middle class, builders will either be erecting large apartment blocks or mansions. There will be scant need for new commercial or industrial development.

Given the disastrous employment prospects, many productive and able bodied young people will continue to leave, further intensifying the basic problems. At that point, the state will be forced to create tax-favored enterprise zones to lure industry back into California, but the long-term benefit of such policies is dubious at best. New Hampshire, to name one state, has shown that the most splendid “gimmick” is to have no gimmick at all. Just keep taxes low, workers educated, and the environment favorable for business.

But this precept is lost on an arrogant and despotic Leftist leadership class, that ultimately survives based only on the ignorance and naïveté of the have-nots, and the desperate guilt of so many of the haves.

STRANGER THAN FICTION

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

Maybe I’ve hit on a formula! Reaction to last week’s piece, that used the device of looking at current events through the prism of a fictional character (Emma Bovary) evidently struck a nerve. In fact, the only complaint seems to be that I should have hit harder on the morality points. Your wish is my command…

After burying herself in debt, and destroying her reputation with a series of extramarital affairs, a despondent Emma swallows arsenic and suffers an agonizing death. Compare her suicide to what might happen today. As to the debt, no problem. She would either find a “debt management counselor” that would negotiate with her creditors, or she would simply file bankruptcy, and be back in the malls within days.

As to the affairs, no problem either. These days, cheap sex is now part of every empowered and liberated woman’s birthright. Whether expressed in a somewhat subtle manner as in The Bridges of Madison County (1995), or in a lurid, salacious tone as in Unfaithful (2002), the movies and pop culture in general have little time for fidelity. And, of course, there is absolutely no stigma whatsoever involved with having children out of wedlock. We’re soooo enlightened. Just tell that to the millions of fatherless American kids. I think I liked it better when we were all repressed.

If Emma had a banal existence, and needed to drown herself in diversion, how are today’s Americans, addicted to moronic television entertainment, obsessed with the pathetic lives of brainless and lascivious celebrities, raised on instant gratification, and cursed with an attention span more befitting of a 4-week-old puppy any better? We guys can’t even take solace in televised football anymore, as it has become all but unwatchable, with its constant game stoppages, as well as stupefyingly awful commentary from “sideline reporters,” seemingly chosen for their ability to be ignorant, irrelevant, and just plain idiotic.

Emma, at least, felt responsible for her actions, but nowadays that word has no meaning at all. When Janet Reno said that she “took responsibility” for the Waco fiasco, and then did nothing, and was not even censured, it became clear that “taking responsibility” means the same thing as NOT taking responsibility. Which brings us to more fictional characters.

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand tells of the conflict between the producers and the “looters”—those socialist types who would live off the productivity of others. One defining characteristic of a looter is to never accept responsibility for anything, and there is little doubt that the looters are well represented today in all walks of life. In the book, all the productive people and great thinkers eventually go on strike, bringing the looter-run society to its knees. Belying Rand’s supposed bent against sacrifice for others, at least one character, Francisco d’Anconia, purposely trashes his very successful business, has to appear the fool, and gives up the woman he loves, to further the cause of the strikers.

And today, we have Enron, scandals at scores of investment banking and brokerage firms, Dick Grasso of the NYSE getting compensation in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and CEO’s of large companies lacking basic common or business sense. Ayn Rand had John Galt, the genius inventor and leader of the strikers, while we have Gerald Levin, of AOL Time Warner infamy, who presided over the single worst deal in the entire history of commerce. Be sure to mention that the next time you’re on a job interview, and someone asks about your qualifications.

You could also note that THE most qualified governor in California’s history, Gray Davis, is also our worst, and considering that the field includes the likes of the bumbling “Sunny Jim” Rolph, socialist Culbert Olson, the execrable Pat and Jerry Brown, ultra racist Peter H. Burnett, and the arrogant and clueless Henry Gage, that is saying something.

But even the cynical Rand wouldn’t have predicted the ultimate recipe for disaster, coming incredibly as it does in the wake of 9/11, and that’s stealth amnesty. Give an illegal alien legal identification documents, and its pretty much “game over.” But look on the bright side: the Lefties have finally found a way to cut government! With stealth amnesty, who needs the INS?

It’s time to find a real life John Galt.

EMMA BOVARY IN YOUR VERY MIDST

Posted on by Posted in Current Events, History

Gustave Flaubert’s classic novel, Madame Bovary, describes the sad fate of a young girl, who believes that her life will be just like the romanticized version of reality she gets from reading novels. She marries the local doctor, who is dull, boring, and incompetent. Still, he does love her, and wants to make her happy, even if he does not understand her.

To spruce up her banal existence—and the word “banal” appears in virtually every review of this work—she takes refuge in compulsive shopping and adultery, to the detriment of her reputation, her daughter, and her family’s finances. Desperate, and refused help by her lovers, she poisons herself with arsenic and dies an agonizing death. The technical beauty of the writing, notable even in translation from the French, with Flaubert always in pursuit of the mot juste, the “exact word,” intensifies the stark, ugly realism of the proceedings.

If Emma had only married a better man, if she had only lived in our enlightened feminist age, if only she had more money, if only she hadn’t been so stupid and superficial…

But Emma Bovary is alive and well all over America, some 160 years after the time of the novel.

It is hardly a brilliant observation to note that many Americans have become addicted to acquiring goods, and paying for them with an endless succession of credit cards. Monsieur Lheureux, the merchant who realized that he could make a fortune by exploiting Emma’s sick notion that she could buy herself happiness, may not have had the benefit of slick direct mail and Internet marketing campaigns to con people into using high interest credit cards, but he prospered nonetheless by exploiting human greed and superficiality.

Many commentators refer to Emma’s fate being exacerbated by the limited options a woman would have had in France in the 1840’s. For example, they make much of her eleventh hour approach to Maitre Guillaumin, the notary, who is well acquainted with her debt problems, and may have helped her—for horizontal favors. Perhaps, he really loves her. In any event, she refuses him. The reviewers’ argument is that absent sex, she has no recourse to better her situation.

While this point might have some merit, it is weakened by the consistent citation of the Guillaumin matter, which underscores sex for money, even as her extramarital affairs done to save her from banality are almost never mentioned in this context. Apparently, prostitution is deplorable as it would only provide her with the means to salvage her life (how boring) while the affairs appeal to a higher romantic sense. Thus, the commentators fall into the same trap as Emma herself: Preventing a suicide is so banal compared to romantic dreams.

Now, look at the present. To be sure, today’s women have infinitely greater options than poor Emma did, or do they? Yes, of course, there are female corporate officials, politicians, physicians, and military types, but how much of this is tokenism? And, how much of it is derived from simply being able to pay them less than men? Given all the options open to them, not to mention that they were already stars, why did Madonna, Britney Spears, and Jennifer Lopez decide to become downright tawdry in their heightened sexy image to further their careers?

Flaubert has little good to say about religion and science, and there are many who would agree with him today. Religion was supposed to comfort our souls, but instead, gave us pedophiles. Science was supposed to make our lives easier, but gave us nuclear waste, designer viruses, and the electronic means to work nonstop. My take is that his beef is actually with the destructive fads of the day, that can eclipse the enduring values of any spiritual or intellectual discipline. With that, he is right up to date.

Flaubert does have much to say about fate. Emma believes that her sad life has been decreed by fate, and her husband Charles doesn’t even resent Rodolphe Boulanger de la Huchette, a wealthy playboy who seduces Emma, claims he will elope with her but doesn’t, and refuses to help her in her final crisis. Encountering Rodolphe in the marketplace after Emma’s death, Charles says that, “It’s Fate must bear the blame!”

Given the tone of the novel, dripping with irony at times, we must conclude that Flaubert does not agree with this assessment, but rather believes that each of us is the architect of his own fate.

Some enduring 19th century advice for us moderns.