I just finished watching No Country for Old Men.  It is one depressing movie.  It is unsettling.  It has none of the nice package that we like, expect, need to see to go on about our lives comfortably after a story has been brought to its logical conclusion of the hero riding away into the sunset.  None of that at all.

 

Here's what I take away from the movie:  the world is a gruesome place.  It is nasty, brutish, and very often short in a sense even worse than what Hobbes condemned.  If you are to thrive in this modern world, you must be even more nasty and brutish than what you see around you, inhumanly nasty and brutish, and even that is no guarantee against the casual and causal wounds of life.  Like a car wreck.

 

Faced with this gruesome reality, the only sensible choice of a person who wants to survive is to remove himself from this environment - from this world - as much as possible.  In this world, children have little to no place.  In this world, your only goal is to survive and to take care of those dear to you.  The only way to do that is by taking no chances....and by avoiding interaction with those who have embraced this modern world, who are evil, incomprehensible, and act on a code that is beyond comprehension.  There is no reason in this modern world to stick your neck out for anyone besides you and yours.

 

The frame of reference of this urge to withdraw from the world is the inevitable comparisons with our predecessors, those who acted nobley according to their standards in their time, which we have inherited.  How would they act in the face of this evil, incomprehensible new world?  The answer is that this does not matter.   This is comparing apples to oranges.  They are two different worlds.  The world of yesteryear was a world worth fighting for, a world in which fighting could make a difference, a world in which a hero could exist and make a difference.  In this world, the ability to make a difference no longer exists.  The loss of this world is irrevocable, it is set in stone, and to struggle against it is to throw away your life to no effect. 

 

Our Hero in this film is really no hero at all.  He is presented to us as a hero and we accept him as such because he decides that leaving a man to die of thirst in the desert is probably unconscionable.  He is greedy, ornery, lacks judgement, and is not as competent as he thinks.  Yet because he decides to give a drink of water to a man he left to suffer we accept him in the role of hero.  The Coen Brothers, directors of this film, throw this acceptance back into our face in the scene where we find his body in the hotel room, ignomiously displayed.  This scene asks us, disdainfully, "This is your hero?  You thought a man of his character could fix everything and save this world?"  The viewer must call into question his acceptance of this hero by comparing him with traditional heros.  He realizes immediately that the instant version falls far short, and is left to question a world in which we could accept a character such as this as a hero.  Remember, hero's are defined by extraordinary acts.  In this case we have accepted a man as 'hero' for the extraordinary act of being human.  We find acts approaching civilized behavior extraordinary.  In a sense this movie is very much a condemnation of the viewer as much as the world in which the viewer lives.

 

The overall message, I think, is that we need to withdraw.  It is the only sensible option.  We have no true heros in this brave new world.  What we allow to pass for heros are not up to the task of navegating the loss of morals and respect for life that define the modern era.  In this world, when you get into trouble, nobody is coming to save you.  Well, nobody who can, anyway.  The hero's time - the old man's time - is past.  We can rail against the death of this time past, but that only serves to make us die bravely - bravely, that is, by the standards of a world that exists only in cultural memory, and not in fact.  The Coens underscore this point by the additional ignomious death of the master assassin played by Woody Harrelson, dressed in ultimate cowboy (American hero) garb.  He has no chance.

 

Actually, on second thought, I guess the message is not that the hero is dead.  The message is that 'hero,' is in the modern sense of the word, is somebody who survives, takes care of those dear to him, and in so doing does not submit to the cesspool of modern society.  Trying to achieve anything further than this is an act of futility, even selfish in that, ultimately, it will only harm those charged to your care.  The definition of hero has, very sadly, changed completely.  Hero's are now synonomous with practicality.

 

Anyway, that's my initial take at 0245 in the morning after 1 liter of wine (mildly modified at 1030 the next morning).  It has depressing parallels with my decision at age 28 to abandon my dream of running for political office.  Cormac McCarthy, the author of the novel this movie was based on, is a notorious recluse.  I would guess that this is a remarkably autobiographical novel from him, though of course I can't assume that the movie and the novel carry the same message.

 

 

 

 

two articles of note:  First, this article discussing the likely imminent return of the global warming trend that was truncated by La Nina. 

 

Second, this article discussing the thinning of the Arctic ice level and why the recent re-freezing is insignificant.

 

 I now wonder what role the shifting wind patterns are playing in the thinning of the old Arctic ice. 

My job is mundane - I am a corporate attorney.  If my self of ten years ago knew what my daily life now entails - and that, on top of that, I mostly enjoy it - he would travel through time and kick my overly-leaded ass. 

 

There is one aspect of the job that I definately do not enjoy, however - the assholes.  These are loosely defined as immoral scum that violate all rules - procedural, ethical, and otherwise - to gain any edge, no matter how incremental.

 

For a long time I simply did not understand these people.  They do things that any normal person understands are wrong.  They are wrong because they have been expressly prohibited by the person and/or entity that delegates powers to them or because they are morally wrong by the standards of any marginally functioning moral compass.

 

I have wondered at these people for years.  They press forward with their desired path, and when stopped, react with the same moral outrage as, say, a victim of a robbery.  They are offended to their core that you have stopped them from acting as they see fit despite knowing that what they intended to do was prohibited by authorizing code/law/basic morals.  There is a disconnnect there that, until recently, I never understood.  Now, I think that I do.

 

Normal people see the word through a moral compass of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong(RW), Moral and Immoral.  It's a pretty basic and universal model - don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, disrespect, etc.  Normal people see these things as wrong. 

 

There is a sub-set of humanity, however, that does not share this moral code.  Their understanding of morality is not based on right vs. wrong but rather on Winning vs. Losing.  To them, an action that leads to winning equates to moral.  Conversely, an action that leads to losing is immoral.  Clearly, though there will be some overlap between the two, the inherent disparity between the two standards will lead to strenuous conflict.

 

The winning vs. losing (WL) standard seems particularly common amongst Business Development (Sales) folks.  Let's say, for example, that there is a fat contract to provide logistical support to the janjaweed in Darfur.  A right-thinking person would immediately denounce this as immoral.  A WL thinker, on the other hand, will argue strenuously that we have no actual knowledge of what they are doing, that reports are based on rumor and innuendo, and that we cannot be placed into a position of passing moral judgements on our clients.  It is a slippery slope that will end in bankruptcy.

 

The RW crowd, of course, stares at them blankly in horror while internally making mental leaps in understanding how the holocaust happened.

 

This WL crowd, I suspect, is a large part of the reason that the world is in such dire straits.  There is another post I have in the back of my head about family, politicians, and power, and I am realizing that is should probably be a Part Two to this post.

 

My baby girl Marion is four years old today.  She is a beautiful human being.  Please, God, let us continue to raise her correctly.

I was going to write a post about oil being the next bubble in the economy, but Lou Minnati beat me to it.  Check out his article here.   I will satisfy myself with re-posting a mildly edited version of my comment there below:

 

"Funny, I had the same thought yesterday when reading an analysis of the price of oil.  The authors basically said that they can justify $80-85 oil as a product of higher demand from India and China, as well as problems in the Middle East, Nigeria, etc, but nothing above that.  The authors opinion - which I thought was very interesting - was that people escaping the higher risk areas of the stock and bond markets were throwing that capital into oil commodities, which has injected about nine months of artificial demand into the system.  They used CalSTRS as an example of one such system. 

I think Houston could well handle a drop from $106/barrel to $80/barrel.  But what if we reach $150/barrel and drop to that level?  It might get real ugly.  "

 

This is something to watch closely.  Two bubble markets popping closely together would not be good for Houston.

The question of running mate is a very interesting one.  I am not in tune enough with politics to make an predictions as to persons.  I think that I am in tune enough to predict characteristics of the VEEP slot characteristics, however.

 

Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination, will probably go for a Joe Biden or Christopher Dodd sort.  Though Bill Richardson is probably the most natural fit, he is strictly off limits.  He is half hispanic, and as such is besotten with the social disease of compounded minority status as far as the Obama campaign is concerned.  To choose him, or any other minority candidate, as running mate is to marginalize Obama's campaign as the 'minority campaign' in its view of the public's perception. I do not mean this in a pejorative sense.  The Clinton's, as you may have noticed, have already made a strong effort at painting Obama as a 'mere minority movement' candidate.  Obama needs to be seen as 'mainstream' to be successful which, like it or not, in popular perception means 'non-racially aligned.'  He will avoid the 'minority ticket' classification at all cost.  Too bad, really, as it eliminates Richardson (perhaps the most qualified of all the Democratic candidates), Colin Powell, and a few others from his consideration.  I don't think he has the intelligence to ask Leiberman, one of the few really good Democrats out there, as his Jewish status might also add to the minority party perception.

 

Hillary, on the other hand, MUST choose a minority candidate.  Should she win the nomination (and as I drunkenly type this she looks to carry both Texas and Ohio, thrusting her back into competition for the nomination), she MUST offer Obama the VP slot.  Not to do so would engender all manner of bad will from various minority groups that traditionally support the Democrats.  Should Obama refuse - which I think he will - Hillary has to try to find another minority candidate to capitalize on the strong national desire to elevate a minority to a position of executive leadership.  Richardson, Powell, and a few others might fit the bill.

 

McCain should also choose a minority candidate to capitalize upon this national - perhaps global - desire.  His principles and loyalties extend to the nutso level, so there is no guarantee that he will make any such practical decision.  The best of all possible choices for him is Colin Powell, a popular, nominally black American with a distinguished record of public service who also has a history of issues with the Bush administration, as does McCain (meaning that Centrists and conservative Democrats who are wary of the far left Dem's will gravitate towards them).  Condaleeza Rice is entirely too associated with the Bush Adminstration to make a viable running mate, especially since Obama or Clinton will try to make the entire election be against the Bush Adminstration, regardless of who is running.

 

McCain will probably choose a Fred Thompson type, someone who with impeccable conservative credentials who can assuage the concerns of the far right regarding McCain's bone fide conservative leanings.  If not Fred Thompson, then perhaps Mitt Romney for his money and perceived conservative credentials, a Huckabee for his inreach into the far right/evangelical side of the party, or a Christ for his inreach into Florida.  McCain defies prediction, however.  My best guess is Fred Thompson followed by Mitt Romney.

 

 

 

 

Uribe's government responded to Chavez's manic press conference by stating that evidence from the computers seized shows that he has both given and received money from the FARC.  If born out this could makes things very interesting in Latin American politics for a while.

 

 

Want to feel a cold chill run down your spine?  Then read this article about Chavez's latest antics.  

 

It is hard to overstate the overwhelming stupidity and irresponsibility of his actions today.  Uribe's apparant decision to violate Ecuador's borders should certainly raise some eyebrows, but it is a matter between Columbia and Ecuador, not Venezuela.  There is likely a significant backstory at play, and the military action was probably meant to send a message to Ecuador.  My best guess would be that Ecuador has been somewhat lax in prohibiting the FARC rebels from operating in relative safety from within Ecuador borders, the Columbian military saw a high-value target, and decided to eliminate a dangerous nuisance and send a message all at once.

 

Chavez getting involved changes the game.  He is effectively telling the FARC that they may operate with impunity against the Columbian government from within Venezuela's borders.  If Columbia takes any retaliatory action against the FARC within Venezuelan borders, Chavez will consider this cause for war against Columbia.  In the process of making these shocking statements he also called Columbia's democratically elected president a stooge, liar, and other nasty things, but that pales in comparison to shutting down the embassy in your neighbor's country and dispatching troops to the border.

 

Columbia's action against the FARC in Ecuador touched a nerve with Chavez, even more so than it did with President Correa of Ecuador.  This makes me more convinced than ever that Chavez is tied in very strongly with the narcotraficantes (a longstanding core capability of FARC.)  This one hurt him in the pocketbook, and he wants to make sure it doesn't happen again.  After all, given his success at completely destroying Venezuela's economy, including the availability of food a la Mugabe of Zimbabwe, he can't afford the loss. 

 

Here's the truly scary part:  if Venezuela and Columbia go to war over this, the US will have to get involved.  Columbia, a valued ally, is fighting a long and just war against a terrorist group of drug dealing thugs who have made the slaughter and kidnapping of innocents seem mundane.  Chavez has inserted his country into this war on the wrong side.  (Uribe has a good track record in turning the FARC back.  Those of us who remember that a FARC mortar attack almost killed Uribe at his initial inauguration appreciate his perseverance.)

 

Should Venezuela allow the FARC and other rebel groups to operate against Columbia from within its borders, Columbia will be fully justified in launching a military strike against Venezuela.  The US will have little choice but to offer military support when one of our staunchest allies in South America is attacked by a leftist demagouge supporting a terrorist movement against a legitimate and democratic country.  And that, my friends, is a can of worms that nobody should want to see opened.

 

This is so stupid a move that I am beginning to doubt that Chavez is following the North Korean playbook - he may be so arrogant that he is crossing the line towards madness.  Or extreme stupidity - I'm sure the two are indistinguishable at some point.

 

Here's hoping Chavez follows the sage advice of King Juan Carlos of Spain: "Por que no te callas?"

 

Update:  Correa shut down his embassy, too..after Chavez did.  The aggrieved party acts in response to the non-aggreive party.  What a tool.  Who's the "sub-president" again, Chavez?  Also, is it just me, or does Correa bear a striking resemblance to Ray Liotta?