THE JOKE

On an Iowa campaign stop, Hillary Clinton was asked if she has what it takes to deal with the bad, evil men in the world. “Now what in my background would prepare me to deal with bad, evil men?” she quipped, obviously referring to her philandering husband. Okay, cute answer. Next question.

But noooo! The media pounced on this rare, light moment – Hillary doesn’t have the same gift of humor as the philanderer - analyzing it as if it were breaking news: Was she really talking about the former president? How did he react to the jibe? Is she trying to get the “cuckoldette” vote? Will it affect her standing in the polls?

Let it be, for Christ’s sake. After public humiliation on a scale that few of us could imagine, followed by almost a decade of silence on the subject, the woman made a joke. It wasn’t news, it wasn’t politically relevant, it wasn’t even that funny. It was a non-event. If reporters had paid that much attention to what the president said, we might not be at war.

It does revel something about our news media, though. Network news shows are carefully designed to promote an image of journalists as completely knowledgeable and altruistically motivated. Network anchors still sit behind official looking desks as they flawlessly disseminate the news, calling up stories on high-tech screens from reporters around the world. How could anyone doubt their integrity? Unfortunately, high-salaried network anchors who work for corporate-owned news organizations are little more than front men, shills, corporate spokesmen. The quest for ratings/advertising profits, forces them to air celebrity trivia as news, all in search of the lowest common denominator and the largest audience. Serious viewers are forced to look elsewhere for serious news. The joke, unfortunately, is on us.

I know news shows cost money, but corporate ownership of national news outlets is a dangerous. We deserve a passionate, honorable, independent news media. At the moment, we don’t have one.

DEEP POCKETS

Jan 25, 2007

One of the most famous, or infamous, depending on your point of view, characters in the Watergate scandal was Deep Throat. So far, the most scandalous aspect of the upcoming 2008 election is deep dockets.

Several prominent Democrats are off to an early start in the presidential race. Among them is my personal favorite, Barack (he’s a Kenyan, he’s a Kansan, he’s all American) Obama. Like John Kennedy, he may not be 100% ready for the oval office yet, but this lengthy campaign will season him somewhat, and there’s just something about him that you gotta love. He is truly inspirational.

Most of the chatter, however, is about front-runner Hillary Clinton, ahead in the early polls by more than 20 points. Interestingly enough, though, what most people are chattering about has less to do with her ability to raise American hopes than it has to do with her ability to raise money. The “deep pockets” of the Clinton machine are legendary. In talking about it, a number of political commentators have unwittingly exposed a deep crack in American politics: the gap between the voting democracy we are taught to expect and the silent-bid auction we have been forced to accept.

Without even a blink, savvy political observers like Hardball's Chris Mathews take it as a given that the ability to raise tens of millions of dollars is probably the determining factor in this or any other race. Never mind character, experience, campaign promises, or even the “it” factor, as important in politics as it is in movies; a candidate’s connection to major contributors gives him or her the best chance of being elected. When that's how the system functions, it is dysfunctional.

This dysfunctional system is the maze of corruption and incompetence that has led to our current administration. The only way out is through publicly funded elections: shortened campaigns, equal amounts of public funds and air time for all candidates, and, of course, no other funds whatsoever. It wouldn't be an end to all corruption, of course, but it would be a good beginning.

Cynics are quick to say it can’t be done. I say it must be done. It is our only chance.

a foot on either side

Bartley B

PUT YOUR ARMS AROUND ME

"Put your arms around me, baby, hold me tight . . . "

The president recently announced his decision to escalate the war, warning Iranians that if they were caught supplying weapons to the conflict they would be arrested or killed or made to stand in the corner. This is done, of course, to protect American soldiers and Iraqi freedom.

Could be bluster - hard to tell. A number of political commentators, however, seem to believe that, like the WMD hoax, this is the opening shot in justifying a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and a possible invasion.

One way or the other, the argument doesn’t hold water. The largest arms supplier in the world is the U S of A; so large, in fact, that it supplies more arms to more armies than all the other countries of the world combined! So, using the same logic, any country being attacked by an army using American weapons, which is most of them, would be justified in launching a preemptive strike against us.

It's also worth mentioning that when tyrants invade foreign countries, they rarely admit they’ve come to rape and pillage (the Vikings would be a notable exception). No, what tyrants have always said, from Caeser to Hitler to Hussein, is that they have come as liberators, to free the people from … someone, and protect them. Shall we add Mr. Bush’s name to the list?

a foot on either side

Bartley B

ASS BACKWARDS

Jan. 18 – 07

The government moving ass backwards at high speed, as usual. .

In Washington, CNN reports that, “The Senate will begin considering a non-binding resolution next week opposing President Bush's new Iraq policy. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, predicted the resolution would gain Republican support and would ‘do more to change the way in Iraq that any other thing that we can do.’

Reid went on to say, "If there is a bipartisan resolution saying we don't support the escalation of the war, the president's going to have to take note of that. I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned."

Yeah, right! I’m sure the president will take note of that. It's more likely that Wayne Newton will win the WWF championship. A non-binding resolution? Please! Sounds like my first two marriages. If the Senate wants to put this cowboy in the corral, they should pass a law, cut off spending, do something that has some teeth in it. Act like you got a pair.

In Los Angele, the city is considering adding a short second lane to Laurel Canyon. Not quite the length of a football field, the proposed lane would run south from Mullholland Dr. at the top of the canyon, the idea being to alleviate the traffic jam caused by two lanes from the Valley side merging into one lane on the city side. Opponents say the traffic jam will not be alleviated, only moved 270 feet down the hill. Plus, the proposed lane would encroach on what is now a wildlife preserve.

Hmm. Some of us are old enough to remember driving over Laurel Canyon on the way to Universal – the studio, not the theme park – hitting Mullholland Dr., looking to the right, and seeing . . . nothing. No houses, no apartments, just a naked hillside. What did they think would happen when they added 10,000 people to that barren hillside? My guess is they figured there was a profit to be made in the construction and sale of new housing, and if that caused a traffic jam, they didn't live in the neighborhood, so they didn't care.

The city's efforts to uncork the traffic jam is going moving ass backwards. An extra lane won't alleviate traffic, but fewer cars will. What the city really needs is an effective public transportation system, one that is actually aimed at the public, not just those who are too old, too young, too poor, or too disabled to drive a car. A real transportation system, a monorail, for instance, would take most of the daily commuter traffic off Laurel Canyon, preserving it not only for wildlife but for residents, as it was originally intended.

Growth is a good thing, but random growth leads to chaos. Planning gives everyone a better chance for a better life. Wouldn’t it be nice if the city, just once, considered its residents first.

a foot on either side

Bartley B

Barack 'n roll

Barack Obama
I’m in – save my spot on the
Barack-o-rama


The Golden Globes

Yellow balls again
Our yearly dog and pony
Better than blueballs

Marshalling Forces

A small article, hidden in the back pages of the Times this morning, accidentally supports my position on labor, business, and the nature of the beast. On page 20 of the front section, under the headline, "JFK was overrated, Carter was a 'disaster', and oh, Reagan ..." late President Gerald R. Ford gave his frank opinion of past presidents, with the understanding that the interviews, conducted over a 25 year period, would only be published posthumously. He reveals himself to be a pretty keen judge of character and ability.

Most interesting to me was Ford's opinion that Regan had less to to with the collapse of the Soviet Union than the Marshall Plan, the post-WWII reconstruction and aid plan that rebuilt Europe. Hello! That has a familiar ring to it, don't you think? To quote from my last blog, "People who are fed, clothed, housed, employed, and occupied are less likely to go to war, with America or anyone else."

That was the whole point of the Marshall Plan. People can only be led toward radical change if their lives are dysfunctional. But if they are getting up and going to work every morning, feeding their families, going to the movies, watching their children grow in safety, they are more inclined to sign up for dance lessons than for the revolution. Offering aid to developing countries, whether we happen to like them or not, is a cheaper, more dependable, more ethical way to extend the stay of the human race on the planet. Anyway, that's what I think.

And by the way, a second article, this one on the front page of the California section, lauds the Marshall Plan as a paradigm for dealing with gang infestation in Los Angeles. 470 gangs, with approx. 39,000 members, rule large portions of the city. God forbid these guys ever put their differences aside and join forces, that's all she wrote for L. A. You'd see a whole new brand of free market capitalism.

a foot on either side

Bartley B

A REFILL AT DU-PAR'S

In regard to “Du-par’s? Do tell,” a few trusted friends have taken umbrage with my position on the ideal relationship between business and labor. That’s worth another cup of coffee.

The American view of success is pretty simple – just earn as much as you possibly can. Maximum wealth is the only thing keeping the wolf from the door. “Do unto others,” is fine for Sundays, but, “Let the buyer beware,” is the operative motto from Monday to Friday. There are some safety nets in place for those who stumble, but they’re mostly for show. It’s free market capitalism for the big boys and free-fall sky diving for everyone else.

It’s not a bad system, if you don’t mind stepping over the broken bodies of the people whose parachutes fail. Some are slackers, some are cheaters, some just have bad luck, but one way or another, people will fall through the cracks. If you can handle the mess on the sidewalk, raise your hand and praise Jesus.

For some of us, though, there is another view, a view of a community. This system would lean toward achieving the greatest good for the largest number of people. That doesn’t mean everyone’s on the dole or that everyone ends up with the same amount, but it does mean that the overriding consideration would be community rather than self. A manufacturer wouldn’t move his operation over seas to save money because he would be hurting the members of his own community, who, by the way, would no longer be able to buy his product, being out of work. Since we are all in the same boat (on the same planet), first let’s make sure the boat doesn’t sink, then we’ll worry about who gets the best seat.

Such a system would certainly include universal health care (see: Gov Schwarzenegger, State of the State speech), insurance, education, and some form of job protection. It would also require a new definition of success itself. The ultimate winner would no longer be the one who dies the richest, but the one who lives the richest life.

This is not a starry-eyed, aging hippie wish for peace on earth, it is a practical solution to the problems of 21st century life. I am convinced that, “people do a better job when they are undistracted by fear,” when they feel they are being treated fairly and will not be abandoned. A productive work force results from a stable, secure environment.

As for the rest of the world, I strongly suspect that people who are fed, clothed, housed, employed, and occupied, are far less likely to want to go to war, with America or anyone else. Helping others achieve a decent standard of living is in our own best interest, and with the world getting smaller all the time, there aren’t a lot of other practical choices.

A foot on either side

Bartley B

Du-par's? Do Tell.

One of L. A.’s few remaining landmark restaurants re-opened last week after a long hiatus. The Farmers Market Du-par’s had been serving up the best pancakes in town since the Depression. Most of the waiters and waitresses, hired as teenagers, were in their fifties, making it the kind of neighborhood place where you could go away to college, come back with an advanced degree, and find the same person serving up coffee and pancakes and caustic remarks about how much your acne had improved.

Du-par’s closed in the middle of 2004, amid rumors that it had bee bought by Tiny Nailers. The employees, most of them too young to retire but to old to find new jobs, were summarily fired – dismissed without severance pay, without pensions, without so much as a thank you. The building was gutted, the doors were closed, and a sign was hung in the window that read, “Opening early, 2005,” which turned out to be fairly optimistic.

Tiny Nailers apparently used the same planning team for renovating Du-par's that Bush used for invading Iraq. When it finally did re-open lasts week, the alterations were stricly cosmetic, just enough to let people know the management had changed. An outside eating area was added, for those who enjoy the sun and don’t mind eating in a parking lot adjacent to one of the city's busiest intersections. The counter was replaced with a “farm table” (the restaurant’s original name was Du-par’s Farmhouse) about twelve feet long with seating on both sides. It’s unique, and affords oppor-tunities for up close people-watching.

The staff is thoughtful, and with two supervisors in constant motion, perhaps overly attentive. At any rate, your coffee doesn't get cold. Unfortunately, the pancakes, the raison d’être for going to Du-par’s in the first place, are no longer the best in town. They’re not bad, but they’re not Du-par’s. I don’t know if it’s new ingredients, or new chefs, or old memories, but they’re not the same.

It’s just as well. I won’t be going back. Frankly, I don’t want to give any business to a place that throws people out like cold French fries. “A promise is a promise,” my mother used to say, and when you hire someone, in fact, you make a promise. You promise that if they do their job, they’ll always have one. Now, if La Brea Tar Pits explodes and covers everything with 50 million year old sticky crap, that’s a whole new ball game. But if you just decide to sell because the golfing is better in Florida, then goddammit, make arrangements for your people.

This doesn’t’ make me a communist or a radical, I just think people do a better job when they are undistracted by fear, when they know they have some sort of mutual bond with their employer. When Home Depot fired its CEO, they gave him a world-class, lifetime income. Would they do the same for a guy at the check-out counter?

The moral of this story is, if you have to eat at Farmers Market, eat at Charlie’s. The pancakes are just as good, the French toast is better, and the people are there for life.

A foot on either side

Bartley B

SURGE, SHMURGE

If you haven’t yet been to the newly reopened Griffith Observatory, do yourself a favor. Peggy and I, co-authors of the soon-to-be-released, “Party Till Your Pacemaker Squeaks,” caught a shuttle at the Kodak Theater complex, rode up the hill, and learned a little something about our world. The earth, in case you didn’t know, is just one of eight planets in our particular solar system – it used to be nine, but Pluto got the boot when NASA downsized – our solar system is one of billions of solar systems in our galaxy, the Milky Way, which is only one of billions of galaxies in the known universe. From that point of view, whether or not George W. Bush decides to send another 30,000 soldiers to Iraq probably don’t mean spit.

The thing is, it’s tough to maintain that point of view. Every one of those 30,000 men and women, many of whom will doubtless return home in flag-draped coffins, is someone’s child, someone's parent, a sibling, or a best friend. And whatever it is Bush thinks he’s doing, it isn’t worth one of those lives.

Chris Mathews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” has a new mantra. Every time he interviews someone on the question of this surge he says, “Do we really want to see American kids, who do not speak Arabic, walking up and down the streets of Baghdad, kicking in doors, killing Sunnis and getting shot?” Personally, I don’t.

Regardless of who is “right” about Iraq, George W. Bush committed an act of unspeakable arrogance when he told the U. N. that the U. S. was above the law. If any other world leader had made that speech we would have called him a tyrant, and we would have been right. America has become the rogue state.

I will be writing to my congressman and telling him to get off his ass and stop this crazy fuck. I hope you do the same.

A foot on either side.

Bartley B