John Boehner Stars In Waterworks II

It's universally accepted that there is good man-crying and bad man-crying. John Wayne was a good crier. Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas were masters of the underappreciated art of the macho sob. Economy in all aspects of the act is the key. The eyes mist over, there's an almost imperceptible and momentary quaver in the voice and a slight hitch in the syncopation of the delivery. But the mist never requires the use of a tissue, the quaver doesn't affect the timber or pitch of the voice and the hitch doesn't require a hideous contortion of the facial mask. The Duke, Kirk and Mitch were men, or at least portrayed men, who could hold there water. On the opposite end of the man-weep spectrum is Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, who is a baaad crier. Not only does he cry early and often (see his post-election victory from November) he does it in such a way that is embarrassing and a little frightening. The left side of his face collapses exposing an unacceptable amount of gum line and he insta-drools at the first hint of emotion. It looks like Acute Onset Bell's Palsy. Well, something the evil and mean Leslie Stahl asked him during his 60 Minutes interview (12/12/10) sent him careening into a world class case of the power vapors. Poor Leslie looked like someone that stumbles upon an accident scene and can't decide whether a towel, a tourniquet or defib paddles would be most beneficial. (You can never go wrong with the paddles. Even if the victim's heart is still beating and you end up killing them with the unneeded jolt you're protected by the Good Samaritan laws in most states. So when in doubt, ride the lightning). I couldn't watch the rest of the interview but I was left with the impression that Mr. Boehner doesn't have the requisite sand to be Speaker Of The House. I don't recall Nasty Nancy Pelosi's face melting a la' Raiders Of The Lost Ark under even the most trying circumstances. You could tell Nancy that her whole family was being systematically drowned in public toilets at various D.C. bus stations and she wouldn't flinch. Hilary Clinton? Now there's a dude who knows how to cry.

The Exception Proves The Rule?

I'm certain that you've heard the phrase "the exception proves the rule" dozens or even scores of times during your lifetime. And each time you heard it, assuming that you received an American public education somewhere besides California or Arkansas, you were troubled by a little voice whispering, "that doesn't make any sense". Don't worry. That little voice is what's left of your I.Q. and it's your ticket to being categorized as intellectually salvageable during the coming purges. The truth it that, as used in America, this aphorism doesn't make any sense. It is, in my experience, always used by self-important blowhards (or those seeking to be self-important blowhards) when their opinions-stated-as-facts are challenged by actual facts that counter their contentions. A common example is "all birds can fly". If you follow modern American usage logic the existence of penguins would prove that rule to be true, when it does just the opposite.
So, what does it mean? It is derived from the Latin Exceptio Probat Regulam. Probat, or prove, in this case is defined as test. As in a proving ground. Anybody who came of age in the 60's and 70's remembers rocket cars attempting to break the land speed record at The Bonneville Salt Flats Proving (Testing) Grounds. Therefore the statement means that exceptions test the rule or rules, not confirm their validity. Learn well and learn fast. Public means testing is coming and this will be one of the questions. You want another one? Alright. Would've is not a contraction for would of. I know when you say them they sound the same, but one is a shortened version of "would have" and the other has no meaning at all. I've been told that people who miss that one go straight to the gulag (or the rendering plant, depending on whether there is a shortage of glue or dog food at the time). Good night America and good luck!

PS There is another accepted meaning of the above mentioned phrase. That an exception proves the existence of a rule. If parking is free after 6 PM(exception) it hints that there is a rule that prior to that parking is not free (rule). But we haven't devolved to the point where evidence that repudiates a claim also confirms it's validity. Not yet, anyway.

Hillbilly Weddings Destroying America

Alright, the title is overly sensational and probably elicits disturbing mental images but it does help me drive home my point. Lack of diversity of thought creates the same deformities in cultures that lack of chromosomal diversity creates in the flesh. It took a system clogged with inbred Ivy Leaguers to conjure up the mess we find ourselves in now. (Not to deny a big assist to an apathetic and doltish populace who care more about dance contests than their futures). Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson and peers attended the same schools, absorbed Keynesian dogma from the same professors and were injected directly into the government circulatory system before their theories had been filtered through, and refined by, significant real world experiences. I'm not an expert on Keynesian or Austrian economics but my common sense tells me that John Maynard's system is unsustainable outside of a laboratory or the virtual world of a computer model. The bottom line for me is that I don't trust these guys. Greenspan, Bernanke, Krugman and company have shown a remarkable ability to miss the warning signs of impending economic calamities. They’re either kind of dumb (the strain of hubristic ignorance and myopia that only affects those with PhDs) or they are benefitting from the resulting chaos. Either way, I wouldn’t want them to manage a Burger King franchise for me, much less the U.S. economy. Give me somebody from Iowa State with some business experience and a little common sense.

John Boehner and the Tragedy of Attention Defecit Disorder

I've always been skeptical when it comes to the myriad designer diseases that seem to appear magically from the marketing departments of Big Pharma directly to my TV screen. But since hearing that incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner is working in the shadows to keep Ron Paul from becoming Chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, I'm reconsidering the case of ADD as an actual medical malady. It was only a few weeks ago that a tearful Boehner said that he got the message sent by the electorate. He said he understood, in so many words, that it was Tea Party sentiment that handed him a victory that he didn't really earn. Republicans were swept into power because the game has been fixed for so long that angry voters were left with no viable alternative in the short term. But understand, unless the Republican Party absorbs a healthy dose of Tea Party philosophy into it's core platform it will create the perfect conditions for the virulent spread of Tea Party-itis going into 2012. (Oddly, this philosophical shift would bring them more in line with classical, Reagan/Goldwater Republicans). I read recently that a plurality of voters in this country now consider themselves independents. That tells me that thinking people from both sides of the ideological spectrum mistrust Republicans and Democrats alike. No wonder. They're like two magicians that have conspired to distract the audience with different illusions. One tinged with gay marriage and green energy and the other with prayer in school and patriotism. Meanwhile they're picking the pockets of the poor sods and sharing the spoils with their lobbyist/banker/CEO cronies. Finally enough voters have come to this realization that they must be taken seriously. While I know Boehner will never be a convert, it would be a gesture of good faith to give Paul his Chairmanship. Sarah Palin may be the court jester of the Tea Party but Ron Paul is it's patron saint. Giving Dr. Paul his due would be appreciated by people who really don't have any other reason to view Republicans favorably. And in the end Mr. Boehner, is your house of cards so flimsy that it can't withstand one voice crying in the wilderness that The Fed just might be full of shit?

Bernanke and Pelley and the Wimpering Death of the 4th Estate

The 60 Minutes interview of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (12/5/10) was dispiriting for many reasons. I came away convinced that our Banker -in-Chief was channeling Titanic Captain E.J Smith as he steadfastly and unwittingly steamed toward his doom. Of course the Captain Smiths of the world never go down alone. But my biggest disappointment was not with Bernanke. He is another in a long line of "public service" apparatchiks who is finally discovering, to our detriment, that academic principals don't seamlessly translate into the real world. My main concern is with American journalism in general and Pelley and 60 Minutes specifically. Bernanke, even at the start of the interview, was sweating! His lips were trembling and his voice was quavering as he dissembled in response to Pelley's litany of softball questions. He (Bernanke) was more composed when he was being grilled by Congress. I don't have any formal training in reading body language but it appeared that BB was either experiencing a series of petit mal seizures or he was unnaturally concerned that Pelley was going to ask him something for which he had no acceptable answer. Not to worry though. This is not the 60 Minutes of Mike Wallace. Leslie Stahl will push the Facebook Kid in an interview that has only fleeting cultural significance, while multiple Murrow winner Pelley carefully wraps our sweaty Fed Chairman in verbal cotton candy while covering The Decline and Fall of the American Empire. The sad truth is that the 4th Estate in this country has prostrated itself and exposed it's hind quarters to the government and their corporate/banking masters. I'm not certain when this started but I'm convinced that if the American journalists of the 1970s were as prone to the vapors as their modern counterparts we would never have heard about Watergate. The Founding Fathers created an ingenious and durable, although not perfect, system. The job of the 4th Estate in this system, with the benefit of freedom of the press, was to keep the politicians honest. Or as honest as they could. They've failed miserably for the last many years. As happens with all complex systems which suffer catastrophic failures of major components, the pressure builds until it must find a method or vehicle of release. In the 1950s and 1960s behind the Iron Curtain it was called Radio Free Europe. In 2010 America it's called WikiLeaks. An organization like WikiLeaks would serve no purpose in a society where investigative journalism thrived. Mr. Pelley,you can play a small role in the revitalization of your craft. The next time you're interviewing someone who looks like he's about to soil himself, find out what's he's so nervous about.