Friday the 13th, Part XXX

OK kids, it's time to play “Guess the Country”. Today's entry goes as follows: “(country)'s political system combines elements of a theocracy with a democratic republic. The country holds regular elections for (representative body) and the presidency, but all candidates are vetted for loyalty by a powerful committee of... clerics...” I guess that “theocracy” business gives it away. Yes, it's Iran. But say... when's the last time you heard of an American presidential candidate being “vetted” by powerful groups of, e.g., Evangelicals, Neocons, and Israel lobbyists? I would say this happens in every election! If they don't approve of someone, that person will simply not get on the ticket... no matter how much they might appeal to the ordinary voters. Gee, sounds like we really did succeed in “spreading democracy” -- at least our version of it – to the Middle East. Who knew it would wind up in Iran?

Well, now we know. An astrophysicist from England has estimated that “There are at least 361 ("intelligent") civilizations in our corner of the universe, and perhaps as many as 38,000.” (Don't you just love “estimates” that come down to an exact, odd number like 361?) The article goes on to say that other estimates “have put the number anywhere between a million and less than one”. I'd like to see that “less than one” intelligent civilization, wouldn't you? But here's the prize: The estimates were arrived at through a process he calls “quantifying our ignorance”. (Maybe someone should tell the NEA about this; they could start on it right away.) Basically, he started with an estimate based on assumptions about the life-supporting capability of planets, and “extrapolated across the Milky Way”. (Wow – sounds like something Christo would do.) And admittedly, the process “involves much guesswork” -- which I guess accounts for the margin of error of 1,000,000%. I'm amazed this guy hasn't been hired to run Obama's economic stimulus program.

I usually don't talk a lot about what happens in the state government of Pennsylvania, because it's simply too inane and depressing. But once in a while an issue comes up that has a bit of amusement value. This time it's the burning question of whether poker – Texas hold 'em poker, in this case – is a game of skill or chance. The answer will, in turn, determine the legality of poker tournaments as a fund-raising activity for things like volunteer fire companies. (This is apparently a vital part of their cash flow. Think "Catholic churches and bingo" and you get the idea.) And of course, as you might expect, the arguments break down pretty much as follows: People who win at poker say it's a game of skill, and people who lose (including many district attorneys and judges, apparently -- no surprise in this state) say it's a game of chance. One commentator says “it's a perfectly reasonable disagreement”. I don't agree. There is one sure-fire way of making the determination. If there are people who make a living – a good living, in many cases – playing poker, it has to be a game of skill, even if there are, statistically, more losers than winners. If it has never been known that anyone could make a living at a given gambling activity, except in James Bond movies, then it's a game of chance. Now, have you ever heard of anyone making an honest living at roulette, for example, or craps? I know I haven't. But there are cable TV channels whose entire programming is devoted to the exploits of professional poker players. Q.E.D. I rest my case. But nothing is this simple where the simpletons of the Pennsylvania power structure are concerned – they will be debating this issue for months to come, I expect.

Hey – is there any chance that Obama has what is called “low frustration tolerance”? I guess, based on the adoration he received all through his campaign, he didn't expect that anyone in Washington would fail to roll over and play dead the minute he started pushing his programs through Congress. But guess what, not everyone has yet learned the words to “Kumbiya”. And there are a few who don't intend to. And guess what -- the Republican party still exists, even though its numbers and power have been severely reduced. Obama's reaction? – not the Mr. Cool of the campaign, but the thwarted, foot-stomping, mild tantrums of a Golden Boy who's used to getting his own way. Welcome to the real world of politics, Mr. President! It's not all like Illinois, where decisions are made in back rooms with plenty of goons on hand to enforce them. So he resorts to the kind of “panic talk” that we normally hear only from someone trying to sell insurance or patent medicines or "credit card protection" – do this or you will surely die! Of course, he learned that lesson from all of his predecessors – you can't keep the electorate under control unless you can get a good number of them quaking in fear about something. But there's a limit to even this time-honored strategy. Sooner or later people will get weary of listening to speeches about the economic equivalent of flesh-eating bacteria and heterosexual AIDS. They'll start to wonder if these threats even exist! Maybe they were just conjured up, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (or, some would say, Pearl Harbor and 9-11). FDR said that the only thing people had to fear was fear itself. And yet he used that fear, as did most of his successors, to gain support for his programs. The problem America has always had is that, in the lives of ordinary people, there is relatively little to fear. We have had it good most of the time since 1776. Now that is all changing... but people's complacency is not, at least not enough to satisfy the Regime, which has run out of games and circuses and is now left with only “negative motivators”, i.e. fear that things will only get worse than they (allegedly) already are. And of course, fear has its limits as a political tool – when it morphs into outright panic, your army of slaves is going to beat feet over the next hill, like the woods animals fleeing the forest fire in "Bambi". This is the balancing act Obama is trying to perform. Maybe the problem is that he still hasn't quite figured out who's holding on to the high wire... or the net.

I love the fact that the Obama administration is getting highly irritated with what are termed “hawkish” politicians who threaten to gain power in the current Israeli election. Why, they “could complicate efforts by the Obama administration to promote peace efforts with Palestinians”. Well, yes, they could. But whose country is it, anyway (Israel, I mean)? And why do we seem to care more about peace with the Palestinians than they do? Surely they know better then we where their interests lie. Maybe we should just pack up and go home, and let them solve their own problems. But I guess that would violate some core principal of American leadership in the world. Of course, one of our own core principals is that we're not allowed to elect any leader that Israel doesn't approve of. So why should there be even one ounce of concern on the part of our leaders as to whether or not a given group of Israeli politicians wants peace? By definition, if whoever is in charge of Israel wants peace, so do we. And if they don't, neither do we. This policy has been faithfully followed for 60 years now, and everyone is apparently satisfied with it. So again... what's the problem?

“In a related story”, Obama has accused President Karzai of Afghanistan of being “detached” -- i.e. from the Afghan people, which in Washington-speak means “from our attempts to spread democracy to Afghanistan and everywhere else on earth”. So when Afghans do things the Afghan way, that is bad for us? Again I ask, don't they have the right to run their lives, and their country, as they see fit? Apparently not – because our priorities come first, and those include something called the “War on Terror”, which the average Afghan sees -- and rightfully so -- as the “War on Afghanistan”. Another way of putting it is that we are fighting the outfit that used to run Afghanistan, namely the Taliban, and we're fighting it _in_ Afghanistan, with all sorts of collateral damage, and expecting the Afghans to help, or at least not hinder, the effort, when a good number of them were either part of the former regime or are still sympathetic with it. (Picture a foreign power coming over and bombing all the Evangelical churches in the U.S. Yeah, I know, dream on... ) Plus, guess what, every time we bomb a wedding party we add to the proportion of Afghans who are not on our side. And when their president dares to acknowledge this situation and work within its constraints, we get impatient and mumble about “regime change”. Yeah, regime change – great idea. We could just leave. That would be _real_ regime change.