America, United At Last! by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #235
August 8, 2011 Mike Gold 6 Comments
Our elected officials in Washington – all of them, as if they were one – pulled off the impossible. 48 years ago the assassination of John F. Kennedy ushered in an era of dissent, despair and disgust. We saw ever-widening wedges grow between people on the left and people on the right. Between Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and conservatives. Pro-war, anti-war. Pro-dope, anti-dope. Pro-abortion, anti-abortion. It seemed everybody hated everybody, and clearly, things were getting even worse.
Until last week.
Last week our elected officials, from Bernie Sanders to Eric Cantor, from John Boehner to Nancy Pelosi, from Barack Obama to Barack Obama… all of them came together to consummate their orgy of cowardly deceit. They ran and ran hard, with all their energy and all their might, right into a brick wall. The United States of America went beyond being a global laughing stock right into becoming a sad and pathetic broken down dowager turning tricks in the alley to fund her meth habit.
More important, after the dead dog and lame pony show to which we were all subjected over the previous month – and if you’ve just returned from Neptune, let me suggest it was a lot like the O.J. Simpson car chase, but in slow motion – all of
America is now united in one thought. And that thought is holy crap, do these people suck!
Look at the polls. The general ones, not the ones the partisans and the politicians quote. The vast majority of voters are disgusted by the whole thing. Really, really disgusted.
This does not inure well to the President of the United States, even though right now his numbers haven’t dropped. Next year, every voter will vote for or against exactly one congressional seat. One-third of us will get to vote for or against exactly one senatorial seat. But each and every one of us gets to vote for or against POTUS Obama.
Conventional wisdom has it that 14 months is a long time, that a lot can happen between now and November 6 2012, that the Republicans have yet to find an electable candidate. This time, maybe not. People are really, really pissed.
Some won’t show up at the polls. Some will find different dynamic newcomers to support. Obama is no longer a dynamic newcomer. In three short years he’s devolved into Anthony Quinn in the last reel of Rod Serling’s Requiem For A Heavyweight. When it comes to black folk, the line used to be “Yeah, but would you let your daughter marry one?” Today, you’d let your daughter marry “one” but you’ll think twice about voting to reelect this one. Yeah, race still plays into it. It always does.
Obama’s greatest hope lies in the Republicans nominating a truly hideous Tea Bagger – and, admittedly, they’ve got a lot to choose from – and then running like he’s on fire to get out the “hold your nose” vote.
It’s sad. Really, really sad. Barack’s such a nice guy.
—
Parallel reconstructionist and www.comicmix.com editor-in-chief Mike Gold is proud and surprised to announce that he will be returning to Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind at www.getthepointradio.com this coming Sunday at 7 PM eastern time, with the usual reruns and such. His playlist might overlap with the President’s: this week’s musical topic is… pain!
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 11:28 am
Mike, lot’s of truth…and pain in the following.
http://youtu.be/y54FRMedT_s
R. Maheras
August 8, 2011 - 11:37 am
I voted for Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate because he was the best candidate, but more importantly, I thought he was ready for the jump from the state to the federal level.
However, I did not vote for Obama for president for two reasons. First, I felt there was no way he was ready for the job because he had no federal-level government experience, and no executive experience of ANY type. Second, as an Illinois voter, I was still mad at him for (ahem) bending the truth, on the record, to all of us about not running for president in 2008. He stated point blank he wasn’t going to do it because he’d never run for a position he was not qualified for.
But here’s the problem: Running for president these days is such a hideous experience, both publicly and privately, that only a relative handful of people (masochists? egomaniacs? megalomaniacs?) are willing to take the plunge. Unfortunately, all seem to have glaring weaknesses or strong partisan convictions that make them unelectable.
So, in 2012 (as in 2008) we’re probably going to be stuck with a nice, charismatic, well-meaning man who is trying to learn how to run the largest country in the world via on-the-job-training.
R. Maheras
August 8, 2011 - 11:39 am
By largest country, I of course, meant country with the largest economy (for the next few years, at least)
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 11:51 am
It’s an old joke, Russ. Goes along with Groucho’s comment about not wanting to be a member of any club that would accept him. I don’t know why anybody would want to hold any higher office, let alone president (Garfield Goose aside). They have to be egomaniacs — to think you can get anything past our ugly two-party system takes an ego of astonishing proportions.
After our exchange a few days ago, I’ve decided that if I have to define myself in a partisan manner it will be as a Will Rogers Democrat. He was the last sane person, maybe the only sane person outside of Sam Clements, to serve up political fare.
Your final comment makes me realize that perhaps the best we can hope for is to elect a nice guy. Or a nice gal. Doll. Whatever.
Neil C.
August 8, 2011 - 12:20 pm
Wasn’t there a science-fiction writer who once said, “Anyone who wants to be President shouldn’t be allowed to run”?
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I’m always amused by the references to Obama being inexperienced for the job. Was Dubya, Reagan, Ford, even Billy Boy really qualified to step up to the big chair before seating in it?
All had varying degrees of political experience, but all were politicians in the same sense that Obama was/is. My opinion is that the no holds barred political arena that is Chicago provides a far better training ground for the White House than Arkansas,running a baseball team, or the SAG.
Or I wonder if it refers to the fact that Obama has been traditionally excluded from certain doors of power that those other fellas were granted access to due to their melanin content (or lack thereof).
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Neil, I’m sure you’re right, but I’ll be damned if I can remember who. Still, we need somebody to be president. Probably somebody who wasn’t a lawyer or a Fortune 500 executive. Probably somebody who lost a bet.
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Actually, the reason why Hollywood is painted as a den of liberals is because Reagan screwed so many people out of pre-1961 royalties (I think I’ve got the year right) and the old lefty laborites got pissed and started organizing. What Ronnie did at the SAG is pretty much what Barack did last week.
Obama wasn’t much of a player in Chicago politics. Downstate stuff is very different. It’s actually more corrupt than what happens in Chicago, but that’s a different story. Suffice it to say that quite a number of governors who went to jail were from downstate, and I think only one or two were from Chicago. Rod will close that gap a bit. Maybe.
I’m not aware that Barack was excluded from doors of power (and I love that phrase, Reg). His getting through them is probably his most worthy achievement, and the one that most qualifies him as president. It’s a shame he seems to have tired of kicking open those doors.
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 1:54 pm
Mike…I should have referenced Illinois politics as a whole.
Regarding those ‘doors of power’ (copyright Reg 2011 :-D),there’s no doubt that Obama has obtained access to a number of them, but I think that it’s abundantly clear from the “tar baby”, “uppity”, “boy” bile, and ‘burn the forest’ opposition that’s spewed from the mouths and hearts of folks whom one would hope would be better representatives of our country, that there are doors that are decidedly closed.
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 2:46 pm
Hmmm. I’m not certain name calling, no matter how vile, stops a guy like Obama. Or George Kirby. Or Paul Robeson. Or — and MOST particularly — Jackie Robinson. Part of the job of being a trailblazer is the willingness to take on the heat.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t need the trailblazer. My problems with his presidency aside, I admire Obama for taking it on. He knew it. He also knows the odds on his living through his tenure are probably lower than any other president since, oh, say, Abe Lincoln.
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 3:22 pm
Mike, I’m not saying that Obama has allowed the stuff that’s being propagated against him to serve to overtly waver him from his internal purpose, rather I’m saying that regardless of his his drive and abilities, if the real doors are decreed to be shut by those elements that I’ve mentioned, those doors are going to remain shut. And those doors are accessible to others…even if the politics are on opposing poles, there’s the consideration of the uniting element.
R. Maheras
August 8, 2011 - 3:48 pm
Reg — What Mike said. Obama was not a force in Chicago-area politics until quite recently. He was a coat-tail politician who mostly flew under the radar.
As for his experience level, I admire your loyalty, but who do you think you’re kidding? He had none. Even a small company would have never hired him as president, director or CEO right out of the gate.
Bush II, despite arguments about effectiveness, had still been a governor and a CEO first. Ford was president by default, but even so, he’d been a congressman for 25 years — including a stint as House minority leader. And Reagan — my god, how partisan can you be? He ran California for eight years, and probably could have run it longer if he didn’t opt out because he had higher aspirations. Clinton was also a governor, so, again, you have no argument.
Obama was a rookie in every sense of the word, and frankly, it shows.
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 4:42 pm
Russ, I concede to both your & Mike’s greater awareness of Obama’s political bonafides in respect to Illinois politics, and I confess to having written with fingers slightly crossed when alluding to those ‘other guys’. Of course I know that Billy, Ronnie, & Dubya were governors, but with the exception of Billy Boy, none of the others seemed to evidence any great intellectual prowess or great political leadership abilities. And I know you may vehemently disagree with my opinion of Reagan, but in my view he was never more than what he started out as…an actor reciting other people’s lines.
My point being, every Presidency is an on the job training scenario. In my view, no modern President has had to address the number & severity of crisises that Obama has in the face of irrational oppositional partisan politics.
pennie
August 8, 2011 - 4:52 pm
As a professional oddsmaker, I’ve been humbled trying to come up with realistic numbers for the 2012 presidential election–for entertainment purposes only. Most “difficult” sporting events pale next to this one.
R. Maheras
August 8, 2011 - 5:53 pm
Well, if your take on Reagan is really what you say it is, then I don’t see how your opinion of Obama could be any different.
You seem to assume that because Obama is an intellectual, that automatically translates to managerial effectiveness. It doesn’t necessarily — and it doesn’t necessarily translate quite often, from what I’ve seen.
I’ve known quite a few bona fide intellectuals in my time, and I don’t know why, but common sense is not a common trait amongst them. In fact, over the years, some of the best troubleshooters I’ve known (i.e., those with strong common sense and good decision-making skills) were “nothing more than” high school graduates.
In reality, just because someone has a PhD does not mean they will make good financial decisions (even if their PhD is in economics), or that they’ll be good leaders or managers. The ONLY way to know if someone can manage/lead an organization is by putting them in such a position, then stepping back to see what happens. Will a given individual be able to handle an environment where countless important decisions have to be made — many of which there IS no clear-cut answer. Will that person be able to organize a large, effective staff and lead it? Will he/she be able to plan, develop and implement an effective strategic vision for the organization despite the constant distraction of day-today crises exploding all around?
In 2008, when everyone was fawning all over Obama, I warned them that if he won, he would soon be thrust into totally unknown territory — almost unfairly so. And Obama loyalists bristled when I said the average mid-level manager at a manufacturing firm, or a typical field-grade military officer, was far more likely to be effective as a manager and leader than Obama because they had years and years of practice. Apparently they felt, of all the professions in the world, the President of the United States was a position where experience and practice are not required.
I sure wish I could find a six-figure job like that!
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Russ, I respect your discourse in this little (yet powerful) electronic real estate, so please receive the following in the spirit requested…
What state do you think our nation would be in under the ‘experienced’ leadership of McCain/Palin?
Or, for that matter, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee or even Ron Paul?
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 6:45 pm
Interesting point that raises an interesting question. Is Obama an intellectual? I hadn’t thought so, as his tastes are way too low-brow for the intelligencia. I agree with your observation regarding common sense, particularly if you define that as “involvement with the actual world that people live in.” I think Obama has greater awareness of the common man than that. He’s simply too Kumbayah to be able to do anything about it. Interesting…
And I absolutely agree with your point about common sense and decision-making skills not being the sole province of colleagues and intellectuals. Absolutely. Militantly.
I think Obama is a truly decent man, easily the most decent in the White House since Eisenhower and maybe mores than even him. The sad part — the truly, truly ROTTEN part — is that a decent man makes for a bad politician, and (cue the pre-guillotine-drop drum roll) it takes a politician to get anything done in Washington.
Although not lately. Lately our politicians have been standing around with their thumbs up their asses just trying to piss Standards and Poor off.
Mike Gold
August 8, 2011 - 6:52 pm
Reg, I’m certainly not answering for Russ, even though you directed your comment to him. I think McCain/Palin would have been another puppet presidency, like Bush 2. No Tea Baggers, but Cheney The Next Generation. None of them would be able to deal with the economy. Romney would be selling us slick bullshit like the car salesman his daddy was but he would have delivered Romneycare and few would have squaked as loud. Huckabee would be a religious Obama; over his head without the ability to deal and maneuver. Guiliani would have been shot shot to death by a NYC fireman who then would get elected either president of the union or mayor of New York, or both. Ron Paul would stay true to his principles and not even a molecule would move in a strong Washington wind.
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 8:39 pm
Mike, I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Bizarro world America. Which is what royally twerks me. With all of the criticism (some definitely justified) of Obama’s Presidency, does any sane person really believe that we would have been better off under the leadership of any of the aforementioned individuals?
Re: Miltie…outside of getting his Romneycare passed, do you think he would have handled Dubya’s legacy and the resultant economic meltdown better? Not to mention administering “permanent justice laced Ambien” to the boogie man?
Doug Abramson
August 8, 2011 - 9:07 pm
Russ,
Regarding Reagan’s term as Governor of California; I can only go on my parents’ opinions, as I can’t remember. Their opinion is that he was a lousy Governor. This coming from two registered Republicans; my mother, back then, militantly so. He got their votes for Governor and President by default. There was no way in hell that they were going to vote for the other guy. As for a possible third term, I think that Jerry would have beat him. The nostalgia for his father and his youth appeal would have been just as effective against Ronnie as they were against Houston I. Flournoy. (What a name!)
Reg
August 8, 2011 - 10:30 pm
Mike…apologies for the already answered question. I was asking that of Russ in my head while responding to your post.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 1:12 am
Reg — McCain/Palin would have been painful as well, no doubt, but not like this. This is difficult to watch. Congress is paralyzed, White House policy is aimless and almost entirely in a reactive mode, and people with businesses generally have a a bunker mentality.
Face it, if you suddenly had five million dollars in your pocket, what would you do right now? Would you start up a business and hire a bunch of employees, or would you just hang on to your money until the business climate improved and start your business later? Or would you just say, “Screw it, it’s too risky trying to make money these days,” and milk that five million until it eventually ran out or you died of old age?
I don’t know about any of you guys, but I’d probably do the latter. Who needs the grief of running a small business — especially if you can’t make any money doing it?
Martha Thomases
August 9, 2011 - 6:37 am
@Russ: We should all only have the problem of not knowing what to do with a spare $5 million. And I actually think this is a great time to start a business – rents are low, there’s a lot of unemployed talent – assuming you have a great idea.
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 7:14 am
Russ, if I had five million in my pocket (and no good barbecue in sight), I’d use it as start-up funding in a heartbeat… if I had an original, viable idea (which I always do, heh heh heh) and it wasn’t in an industry that was on the ropes — house construction, for example. I think this is a great time to start something because it is more likely to get noticed. As Martha pointed out, rents are lower, although personally I’d go into something that can be sold online as well because of high gas prices and increasingly stupid parking fees in the big cities.
As long as this business is not dependent upon the middle class paying high prices for luxury items, I think it stands a good chance. Apple’s selling a lot of iPhones and iPads and iMacs.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 8:24 am
I wouldn’t do a start-up now — too much uncertainty.
The only exception might be a truly small business where I, and possibly an immediate family member, would be the only employees. I know at least two recent association conferences where the one of the top concerns was the escalating heathcare costs for employees and/or the looming new regulations. In addition, tax hike uncertainties and start-up red tape make the thought of starting a new business (especially here in California) a non-starter for me.
So I’d probably buy a modest-priced home somewhere warm (not California) and live off of the rest of the dough.
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 9:06 am
I’d either do an e-publishing biz or hire a truly great barbecue chef and fully outfit him/her and spend the rest on Omega-3 pills.
Oh, hell. We all know which one I’d choose.
Martha Thomses
August 9, 2011 - 11:01 am
@Russ: if you can’t handle uncertainty, you aren’t cut out to start a business. Nothing is ever certain, which is why it pays so well if you succeed.
Why, yes, I did start a business or two. The government was the least of the problems.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 11:33 am
Martha — Uncertainty is not the issue. Every job I’ve had in the past 30 years or so involved huge amounts of uncertainty. I actually thrive on the stuff.
The issue here is unnecessary risk.
There’s a huge difference.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 11:34 am
I guess I should have phrased my response earlier better…
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 12:05 pm
Yeah, well, but… not having a job is another unnecessary risk. And starting something new at a time when fewer people are doing so has its advantages. You pick your dice from the rack, and you hope for the best.
Martha Thomases
August 9, 2011 - 12:38 pm
Risk? Honey, I live in New York City, and I regularly leave the house. Don’t tell me about risk, necessary or not.
The people who have been able to start successful businesses reveled in risk. Walt Disney mortgaged his own house to start Disney Land (and didn’t tell his wife, which shows how much risk he could handle).
I don’t think I see the difference between risk and uncertaintly.
Vinnie Bartilucci
August 9, 2011 - 12:59 pm
“To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”
–Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
—————-
“the Republicans have yet to find an electable candidate”
Looking at things right now, I don’t thick the democrats have either.
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Vinnie —
Yeah, but historically the default goes to the guy who’s already got the job. And thus far, Obama’s weathering the polls better than the Republicans presently in power, and when you look behind the numbers a majority of independents are clearly more disgusted with the Tea Baggers than with the President. Although they’re pretty disgusted by everybody. Lucky for Boehner, he’s not running for president. He isn’t even doing all that well in his home district right now.
Everybody would like to vote everybody out of office. More-so now than before. But we’re basically opposed to anarchy. And by “everybody,” of course, I mean “everybody except me and a handful of my wackier friends.”
As for Douglas Adams, a man of considerable acumen, that novel was written about a year after Margaret Thatcher took office.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Martha — Yeah, well I take public transportation, or walk, in Los Angeles at all hours of the day or night. Many Angelenos think that’s pretty risky behavior.
But I’m generally do not take stupid risks with my money. I never have. For example, historically, instead of buying a car that I can afford, I buy one that gets good gas mileage and is inexpensive — in other words, a practical car.
And while I’m not against taking risks, I weigh such risks carefully. For example, I quite a cushy union job in 1978 — taking a 66 percent pay cut in the process — to join the Air Force. Some of my friends thought I was crazy, but I knew I the job was a mental dead-end. After some basic, but careful research, I found out that the USAF would not only provide for most of my basic needs (food, lodging, uniforms), it would also provide all the other benefits, and many more, that were not available through my union job. But, more importantly to me, the USAF would offer personal growth opportunities and experiences that were impossible for me to get otherwise.
Another “risk” I took? I married my wife of three decades after meeting her just three times. There’s a lot to the whole story, but suffice to say that if we did not marry when we did, we probably never would have seen each other again.
I have a few other good examples, but the bottom line of my philosophy is that taking acceptable risks can reap great rewards.
That said, I just don’t think starting a business now is an acceptable risk, and I’m far from alone in that conclusion. For the past three years, many businesses have avoided hiring and expansion because many of the biggest risk takers went belly-up or had to be bailed out. As a matter of fact, this country’s current economic crisis is a direct result of OVERLY-RISKY business practices that damn near put us into another Great Depression.
So while you may pooh-pooh those who are cautious about spending in the current economy, I think it’s prudent and reasonable thinking.
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 3:24 pm
Los Angeles has public transportation? My major complaint about LA, other than the air quality and the general lack of civic identity, is that it’s not built for walking. A major city that isn’t built for walking isn’t a major city. And the locals just don’t get it. When I say I’ll walk the half mile or mile or so to get somewhere, Los Angelenos look at me as if the Sinclair dinosaur just farted.
I gotta agree with Martha here. There are circumstances that I’ve noted where starting a business these days can be a good idea. It’s always risky, but if you’re as careful about the decisions you make as, quite frankly, you always should be, the odds aren’t really worse. It might be harder to raise the money — that changes hour, it seems — but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If you’ve got an idea and a plan and you diligently try to raise the money and you can’t, it’s possible you have a bad idea or a bad plan.
But I wouldn’t have said that two years ago, and maybe even a year ago.
R. Maheras
August 9, 2011 - 4:20 pm
Yeah, Mike — L.A. is odd in a lot ways.
I think it leads the world, per capita, in psychic/palm reader parlors, massage parlors, (ahem) medicinal pot parlors, and 7-Elevens.
But oddest of all, it has no NFL franchise!
Mike Gold
August 9, 2011 - 4:25 pm
Yeah. If Wayne Gretzky had played football instead of hockey…
I’ve been told that the pot parlors have become quite a tourist attraction — people who can’t buy the stuff, some who wouldn’t buy the stuff if they could. They still check it out.
I think I’d open a comic book store next to one.
mike weber
August 10, 2011 - 7:52 pm
pennie
Fearless Leader: My good man, what odds are you quoting on the upcoming big contest?
Bookie: Woild War T’ree? Six-to-five and pick ’em.
(I think that was when my Dad began explaining the marvels of sports betting to me. As i recall, the explanation was so traumatising that i have never even contemplated getting a bet down in the ensuing fifty or so years.)
Mike Gold
August 11, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Not that I’m supporting it, but sports betting is a more honest game than the stock market, and the damage it causes is far, far more limited.