Send in the Clowns

Hey – how about that kid and the helium balloon, huh? I understand his folks are going to be charged with violating the No Child Left Behind Act. [insert rim shot]

And I also notice that the Nobel Peace Prize has now been combined with the Special Olympics. [bada-boom]

But seriously folks, these days it's like, if you didn't laugh now and then, you'd have to cry. The inanity of Congress, combined with their wretched obsequiousness, continues to astound – as does the invincible self-confidence of the Prez. But who can blame them? Just as every dog has his day, so does every political/economic theory, not matter how wrong-headed... and we'll be finding out just how wrong-headed the Obama world view is before much longer.

Meantime, since the stock market spasm chased all the regular people away, leaving room for the high rollers, who bought in at the lowest point, now they've already, in a few short months, made fortunes (or, I should say, additional fortunes). So now it's time for regular people to buy in again, after which we'll have another mini-crash, and... well, you know the drill by now. Hey, who has to worry about taxes and inflation when we have the stock market as the prime instrument of redistribution of income?

But let's not miss, for gazing rapturously at the forest, the numerous trees that present themselves in all their fall finery. There are so many stories... so little time... but it would be a shame not to at least give it a shot.

1. Here's a priceless headline for you: “Obama's image entangled with big government.” This is yesterday, in an AP article. The concern is that by being everywhere at all times, and being all things to all people, he's likely to be confused with the government, which is also all of those things -- or attempts to be. In fact – horror of horrors! -- he's becoming “chief spokesman for government itself”. Now imagine, a mere president of the United States becoming “chief spokesman for government”! What's this world coming to? (I might better ask, what's AP coming to? Have they turned their “analysis” section over to a troop of chimpanzees?) Now... we already know that Obama himself is far more popular than “the government” that he supposedly heads up, and this may be the reason for the concern. As long as he can float, like some disembodied spirit, above the fray, his charisma and halo intact, he is in no danger of falling from his demigod status. But heaven forbid people start tying him directly to government policies and actions! Not that that would be entirely unfair – since Obama is one of the legion of liberals that believes government is the answer to everything – the remedy for all human woes, the balm for all wounds. And yet it's perceived that he has to, somehow, distance himself from this process -- implication being, either it's not perfect or the American public is too bullheaded to appreciate its perfection. Plus, the article admits that this is “a precarious time in the relationship between Americans and the federal system that oversees them.” (I like that term, “oversees” -- think of a lone cowpoke out on the Great Plains overseeing a very large herd of very dumb steers headed for the slaughterhouses of Chicago.) But note that it's openly admitted that all is not well in Obama-land. Not only that, but “As the line between the public and private sectors blurs [“blurs??” The two have merged.] more and more, people are losing confidence in each. They are wary of more federal involvement in their lives.” Wow – this sure goes against the party line, namely that anyone who is not “for” Obama and all of his programs is an insane “hater”. One thing about Obama, though – and I have to admit it -- he's not lukewarm. He's not mealy-mouthing about a “mixed economy” -- no sir! It's going to be all for one, and one for all, from here on out, and no “capitalists” need apply. And in a way, it might be instructive to have, once and for all, that social experiment that the liberals have been yearning for since the start of the Populist Era... and with particular vigor since the onset of the New Deal. Maybe the only way to shut them up is to actually try all of their ideas out in real life – kind of like what happened with communism, in fact. After all, there were nearly 70 years between the publication of The Communist Manifesto and the October Revolution – and in all that time there was endless debate and ferment: Where would the revolution occur first? What would the outcome be? And so forth. But finally Lenin and his crew decided to live the dream – and intellectuals the world over were forced to take sides: Now that you've seen it, are you still for it? This could happen here as well... and we might be rid of any number of pests in the media, the entertainment business, colleges and universities. Or, on the other hand, they could spend the rest of their lives making excuses, like the hard-core Bolsheviks did.

2. It's not enough that we're flushing hard-earned taxpayers' money down various third-world toilets, but now they have the gall to accuse us of thereby threatening their “sovereignty”. This happened just the other day with Pakistan – and they clearly need to learn a bit of humility from places like Germany, Japan, Korea, and Israel, who have been gladly gobbling up our foreign aid and other resources for decades. The problem seems to be that we annoyingly attach strings to the billions we ship over there – strings like, we expect them to “crack down on militancy” (I assume of the Islamic, and not feminist, variety) and “meet other conditions”, like maintaining control over their military, in order to be deemed worthy of aid. Well... I can see how they might not be totally happy being known as part of the American Empire; it's hard to keep things like that under wraps. But this quaint notion of foreign aid being – at least in part -- “humanitarian”, rather than simply intended to enrich the elite and further solidify their power? "Well, that just shows how naïve these Americans are." It would be so great if we could just tell places like Pakistan to blow it out its shorts – and that we'll take our money elsewhere, thanks – or better still, just keep it. But that's not going to happen, which makes me think that the real threat to “sovereignty” is to our own. If our survival as a nation, or an empire, depends on continuously bribing leaders of other countries, then who has the upper hand? The answer is them, not us. And who, therefore, has more self-respect and true sovereignty? Them, of course. This is a point that is nearly always missed – that we depend on them more than they depend on us. They could survive without handouts from us, but our empire could not survive without their facilitation and codependency.

3. The good news (for China) is that they now have more billionaires than any other country besides the U.S. The bad news is that they are all “dollar billionaires” -- and as the dollar goes, so go their fortunes. And this, more than any other single factor, is what may force the Obama administration and the “Fed” to cool it a bit with the hyperinflation and the national debt. Wouldn't it be ironic if the only thing protecting Americans from complete penury was a gaggle of Chinese billionaires? But stranger things have happened.

4. If, twenty years from now, you read about a young man leading a group dedicated to the demolition of the American public school system, don't be surprised if his name is Zach Christie. He's the 6 year old who was first suspended, and then threatened with reform school, for having brought a military-type fork, knife, and spoon combo to school to eat his tater tots with. Here's a quote from a school board member: “Politically, zero tolerance is what everybody clamors for, until we start to realize how harsh zero tolerance can be.” I suspect that the “everybody” consists mostly of teachers' unions and other totalitarian busybodies – but actually, I'm for “zero tolerance” myself – zero tolerance of public school fascism and idiocy, that is. I think the entire system ought to be sent to reform school – AKA the unemployment line – and that we should substitute something called “real education” in its place.

So that's a sample of the buffoonery that passes for serious news these days – not that it's the media's fault, because that really _is_ the news... unfortunately.