Thursday, July 17, 2014

Assassination is a young man's game

Two things you don't see often in this life: Bon vivants who listen to the Cure and middle-aged assassins.

Czolgosz was 28 when killed President McKinley.

Gavrilo Princip was 19 when he killed Archduke Ferdinand.

Hinckley was 25 when he shot Reagan.

Yigal Amir was 25 when he killed Yitzhak Rabin.

Wilkes Booth was 26 when he killed Lincoln.

John Lynette Fromme was 26 when she tried to kill Gerald Ford.

Arthur Bremer was 22 when he shot George Wallace (Travis Bickle was partly modeled on Bremer*).

Sirhan Sirhan was 24 when he killed RFK.

Mehmet Ali Agca was 23 when he shot Pope John Paul II.

Mohammad Bokharaei was all of 17 when he killed Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Ali Mansur.

If Stefan Wisniewski killed Germany's Attorney General Siegfried Buback, he did it the day before his 24th birthday.

Giuseppe Zangara was 32 when he killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak while attempting to shoot FDR.

Truman's failed assassins were 36 and 20.

van der Graaf, who was 32 when he killed Pim Fortuyn, was an elder statesman of the assassination racket.

Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry was also long in the tooth, being almost 35 when he tried killing De Gaulle.

The reason assassins are usually mere babes (particularly when it comes to random "lone gunmen"): is obvious: Young people are romantic, and only a pie-in-the-sky romantic sacrifices himself to commit a murder that in 99% of cases alters very little. If the killing of Franz Ferdinand led the way to WWI, it was the exception.

People in their 40s and 50s might care about politics, but in addition to being less romantic about the world they usually also have more to live for; kids, spouses, mistresses, etc. A 22-year-old guy is living for beer and Transformers 5; hardly impenetrable walls against foolish revolution attempts.

Even when assassinations involve teamwork the organizations behind them normally rely on wide-eyed youngsters to commit the actual violence. The heads of these organizations know it ain't easy getting a boomer to try a low percentage act of terror that will change nothing and end with his facing a firing squad.

When you're young you feel much more strongly about revenge; even if it is macro revenge, the kind you take against political figures. Plus young folks are more likely to harbor a sense of destiny; they compare themselves to Great Ones much more often than oldies. Someone who thinks he's destined for greatness is going to be far more inclined to TAKE ONE FOR HISTORY.

By the time you're older you're more aware that nothing changes. This is why young people, including the non-assassins, do most of the marching and screaming. They're too young to know no one is listening.

*Behind every would-be "great man" is a woman who said no.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Killing 'Em Profitably

Here's a theory about the globe's nagging economic stagnation: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

One of the arguments for immigration, in the U.S. and Europe, is that these young transplanted workers will pay taxes and save the pension systems. Well, who is likely to be killed in these ostensibly prosperity-inducing wars? Young people.
If large swathes of the young are killed off, who is left? The pension-expectant elderly. Then you really have global Japan-like malaise.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Workers of the World, Download!

Calls for an increased minimum wage are echoing coast to coast. Many of those doing the calling are millennials; the Piracy Generation. The generation that wants everything for free - music, movies, TV - are upset that someone is trying to give them less money for their services.

Funny how they decided "labor rights" didn't matter when they suddenly had a chance to obtain music for free. Funny how they decided a living wage wasn't necessary for musicians. Funny how they didn't worry about royalty checks keeping up with inflation. "Workers should control the means of production," except when I can horde their services with the click of a mouse.

Isn't it convenient that these anti-business folks started using the term business model when it came time to justify the "business model" of musicians no longer getting compensated for their songs? Don't ya just love watching these anti-globalists participate in the movement of goods across borders without paying for them?

Apple takes flak for what it pays people. Millenials use Apple products to behave like Apple.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

The Marlboro Man was born that way

Drinking is now called a disease.

Drug use is now called a disease.

Even gambling addiction has been upgraded to a disease.

But cigarette addiction: not called a disease. In fact, smokers are treated as though they're a disease. They're even quarantined like a disease. No one shows them the slightest compassion. Quite the opposite. Folks will regurgitate the claim that "nicotine is more addictive than heroin," then two seconds later cast disdain on the smokers puffing on the sidewalk outside the bar.

How about all the cartoonish outrage against cigarette companies? They're vilified for "targeting" new addicts. But what about beer companies? Their ads, which are EVERYWHERE - TV, magazines, billboards, sporting events - don't aim to make drinking seem cool? How about bar owners: their entire enterprise consists of intoxicating "diseased" folks right before they get in a car to drive home. Sounds pretty callous to me. Cigarette companies have to put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packs. How come Miller doesn't have to include pictures of beaten wives or families killed by drunk truckers on their beer bottles?

What about casinos? Unlike tobacco companies, Vegas still gets to advertise on TV. Yet when was the last time you saw an attorney general get elected by taking brave stands against backgammon?

Here's how it is: alcoholics, drug addicts, and hardened gamblers very often destroy their lives and the lives of everyone around them. Telling them a disease was at the root of it makes it easier for them to cope with the damage they've inflicted, and thus find a way to start over. Which is more likely to get someone to attempt a painful rebirth; telling him he's a victim too, and therefore his neglected kids, traumatized wife, deceived friends, and stiffed creditors aren't entirely his fault, or telling him he indulged himself to the point that it dragged everyone he cared about into the undertow?

Ironically, because cigarette smoking DOESN'T wreck lives we don't bother qualifying our criticism of it. You hear that smokers: a little less nicotine gum and a little more domestic abuse and soon you'll be welcomed back indoors. Or just start calling cigarette addiction a disease and attack anyone on Twitter who dares suggest otherwise. After a few radio and TV hosts lose their jobs for being Kool-o-phobic everyone will magically forget that for decades cigarette smokers were treated like lepers.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Will Obama be remembered as worse than W?

Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, those surveyed consider Obama worse than W. Bush; worse than any President since the Axis called it a day.

Whether it's getting elected or securing a legacy, the mechanics of politics are the same: It isn’t about what you do, or even about what you say; it is about the feeling you give people when you speak. Reagan is seen as a fiscal hawk, yet he ran deficits that would have embarrassed Lyndon Johnson. But he made people feel good when he spoke, so no amount of evidence can erase the memory of his tough but empty talk on government spending.
Clinton signed a “tough on crime” bill, and presided over and SIGNED the Defense of [hetero] Marriage Act, but because he made people feel good when he spoke he has the image of a benign, progressive liberal.
Obama makes a lot of people feel good, so in the long run, he will be remembered more favorably than W, who didn’t even make himself feel good.


Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The running away of the bulls

China is facing an epidemic of overwork, to hear the state-controlled press and Chinese social media tell it. About 600,000 Chinese a year die from working too hard, according to the China Youth Daily. China Radio International in April reported a toll of 1,600 every day.

In America in the late '80s, stories like these appeared, only they concerned Japan. The American narrative about China surpassing the US has been similar to the narrative about Japan's. The narrative moves in stages:
1)            Everyone starts mentioning everything they own is from that country.
2)            Everyone starts complaining that country is taking American jobs.

3)            Politicians start pretending they’re going to do something about it. People believe them.
4)            All the pundits and business leaders start saying in public that the Japanese/Chinese way is better (in the ‘80s Japanese conformity/homogeneity was seen as a positive). Before the 2008 Crash everyone in the West was saying China had a smarter command economy and a much smarter citizenry (hence their explosion); post-crisis they said China’s system could better react because they didn’t have to answer to voters (even the NYT got on board with this).

5)            Cracks start showing, and suddenly people stop viewing the country's system as a monochrome positive (even my mother now knows about Chinese ghost cities). 

6)            The top-down bulls capitulate and the country that couldn’t be stopped stops hard.

The question is whether China will crash like Japan or just slow down significantly. My guess is the latter.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

There is nothing uglier than cries for "real beauty"

Tell me you haven't noticed this:

A supermodel being fawned over in an interview throws some red meat to the cosmetic 99% by shanking her way through a rehearsed sentence about how "real beauty is on the inside."

We're so uncomfortable admitting what we find beautiful - models and model-caliber women - we have to offset it with lies about "real beauty coming from the inside." We must make a show of saying "all women are beautiful" or "real women are beautiful." Our allegedly high estimation of "real" women isn't self evident, hence the boosterism.

As it often goes with things we think we should believe but don't, we scream it at the top of our lungs.

Our preference for women like Gisele Bundchen is so categorical we even start campaigns to champion "real women" like Lena Dunham. It is telling that Dunham has to get naked constantly to be labeled a sex symbol; Gisele doesn't.

Real women aren't what men aspire to be with, nor what women aspire to be; any more than a man aspires to look like Jeff Garlin.

Notice there is never pressure for women to pretend to find Danny DeVito, Paul Giamatti, or the late Philip Seymour Hoffman sexy. No one praises Steve Buscemi for being "unapologetically ugly." The very fact that we campaign for Lena Dunham shows we think she's a lessor. Revealed preferences, as they say in economics. People worship beautiful women far, far, far more than handsome men. Men are much more comfortable with this inescapable fact than women (and are more in touch with reality generally), which is why you don't see lumpy dudes starting Facebook campaigns telling women to ignore six packs.

If models believe real beauty is on the inside, why do women like Gisele and Heidi Klum work so hard to keep looking beautiful? Maintaining beauty is a mountainous chore; harsh exercise and dieting is a lot to endure for something that supposedly doesn't matter. If they believed beauty didn't matter and real beauty came from within, they'd spend more time eating Snickers and sinking into the couch and less time gobbling Ex-Lax and doing squats.