Ain't We Got Fun?

 

I think some of the most poignant songs I've heard are those associated with what we call "The Roaring Twenties" and thre "Great Depression."  Consider for example Brother Can You Spare a Dime? and We're in the Money and Ain't We Got Fun? and Pennies From Heaven.

All of those songs relate, of course, to money; the desire for it, the dream of it the possession of it and the lack of it.  Money inspires art, especially Pop Art.  It clearly inspires us as well.  It isn't clear anything else does.

Here, I mean, in our Glorious Union.  That may be because we make so much noise.  We're live loudly if not well.  Perhaps our greed isn't unique and is merely noisy.  Avarice may be universal, and we're special only because we're exhibitionists.  We like to display our greed, our need.

 I don't mean to preach.  I simply note what is the case.

We live in a plutocracy so it's to be expected that those who have money are admired and those who don't are despised, or at best ignored.  But it's surprising that those who are truly plutocrats aren't just admired or envied but even defended or championed, as I've noted before. Defending the wealthy requiries a commitment to money that isn't merely personal.  Money becomes an ideal. It's inherently good.  It's to be prized as a good.

Those who have money may not be criticized because they have it anymore than those who are virtuous should be criticized because they have virtue.  

Defending those who are wealthy merely because they're wealthy reflects a kind of depravity, and perhaps even a perversion.  It's not surprising, therefore, that we live in a society where the perversions of the wealthy are tolerated.

The Ease Of Corruption

 

There are figures in history renowned for their venality, dishonesty and depravity.  There have been great prodigies of corruption.  The names of Tallyrand and the Borgias come to mind readily enough. Our Great Republic (?) has had its share--Tammany Hall in the time of Bill Tweed was an impressive vehicle for graft.  The Teapot Dome scandal is a remarkable example of rot in politics.

But there's sonething about the current batch of degenerates running the country that makes them extraordinary.  It's certainly not their intelligence.  The squalid figure at their head is no "Napoleon of corruption."  He and his lackeys are mere brutes; pigs rooting for truffles or trifles.  Selfishness and avarice are a part of them. It's in their nature to be corrupt and to corrupt others.

And that's what makes them unique.  Acquiring money and resources through foul means is what they do.  Insider trading, the creation of slush funds, acceptance of gifts in return for favors, granting government contracts to friends or contractors in which they hold an equity interest, is as natural to them as belching or farting is to a hobo.

More than that, corruption is to them a matter of pride.  They don't try to dissimulate their depravity.  They flaunt it.  It's no surprise that their chief does so in the most tacky, florid way possible, plastering golden gimcrakery over every open space.  Grossness is the essence of the corrupt.

It's difficult to imagine how this will end.  Periods of excess are sometimes followed by periods of repression, but for that to take place there must be a recognition of what was excessive.  Do we still know what's excessive, now? What once was excessive corruption is now normal, even expected.  

This prevents what's taking place from taking on the wit and dignity of a parody.  It's so obvious it might be one in a reasonable world, but it has become our sad reality.

Pity the Poor Rich

 

One of the more grotesque of the peculiarities of these sad times is the sympathy being shown for the enormously rich we like to call "Billionaires" to avoid the need to specify. It's claimed they're inappropriately being criticized for not paying enough taxes. It's claimed that they're hated, unfairly because their vast wealth has generated jobs and lowered the cost of various products.

If we make them pay more taxes or otherwise annoy them or belittle them, we're told, bad things will happen.  They'll go away. We'll no longer benefit from their accumulation and possession of more money and assets than they or anyone else coild possibly need.

Personally, I doubt that Billionaires constantly provide jobs and lower costs.  Assuming they do, I suspect this takes place while they make their billions.  After they make them, my guess is that they spend them and in spending don't do so pro bono publico. 

So I don't think it can be maintained that we should have Billionaires or should cater to them or love them because they do so much for us.  Nor do I think we should admire or favor them because they are Billionaires.

I have no doubt that many people envy Billionaires. But I believe that it's reasonable to dislike them and have no respect for them for a simple and sensible reason: in a time of limited and diminishing resources, where many even in better off nations are having difficulties making ends meet or live in poverty, those who obtain, consume, or possess more resources than they or any reasonable person will ever need, when most struggle to live, are not admirable, moral or virtuous people. In fact, they're unworthy.

That's why I've compared them more than once to gluttons and hoarders in this blog. It makes no more sense to claim they deserve to be Billionaires or should be Billionaires than it does to claim that any person deserves to be or should be a glutton or a hoarder.

Should a glutton have the right to consume huge quantities food neither he nor any one else could possibly need where food is scarce and others are starving?  In a time of limited resources, should a hoarder have the right to possess more assets or resources than he or anyone else could possibly use where others need resources to survive?

I think these are questions which should be addressed in considering whether Billionaires should pay more taxes or contribute more to society.  The libertarian view that a person should be able to do and have anything provided no harm results to others takes on an untraditional meaning as resources grow scarce 

Sex and Sensibility

/

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by the great American humorist James Thurber called The War Between Men and Women.  The idea of such a War has been around for quite some time, of course, whether in fantasy or as an actuality, but it seemed to take on a more virulent character in the 20th century as women acquired and exercised the right to vote and with the advent of feminism.

More recently, disputes regarding gender and its relation to sex and sexuality have further complicated matters.  Complicated them to such an extent that they may be beyond the understanding of an aged fellow like me, alas.  But, being shameless, I'll expound on them nonetheless.

Our endless fascination with sex has generated what seem to be significant and perhaps disturbing concerns regarding masculinity--what it is to be a man, how men should act, how they should behave, particularly where women are concerned.  In some cases, these concerns have had results I think peculiar.  The so-called "incels" strike me as particularly odd.  As I understand it, they're young men who've made a kind of lifestyle out of resentment against women for not satisfying their emotional expectations and physical needs.  It's a sadly unworthy to blame others for your perceived failures; sadder still to take a kind of perverse pride in doing so.

In addition, it seems that there's a new psychological or social condition called 'bigorexia" which is supposed to be taking over the lives of young men.  It's an obsession regarding muscularity, which apparently compels them to attend gymnasiums and workout constantly in order to develop as many muscles as possible, and so become more "manly."

Perhaps as part of the unfortunate resurgence of the Abrahamic religions, there's an increasing demand that women conform to "traditional" female roles.  One sect in particular champions "family voting."  The wife and mother, it's proposed, shouldn't vote.  Her role is that of homemaker and mother. The father and husband should vote on her behalf, and apparently on behalf of the children.   It seems to resurrect, as it were, the ideal of the pater familias.

As may be expected, those who think their masculinity and the masculinity of others are threatened, or being diminished, find disputes regarding gender roles and the existence of transgenders especially alarming; almost as alarming as the existence of gay people.  As a result, they actually fear that they may be exposed to them.  They especially fear that children will be.  They evidently think that it stands to reason that if they are exposed, they'll 

"turn."

Misogyny thrives in such a climate.  So does outrage.  So does pandering, particularly by politicians and pundits.  

Kipling wrote a curious poem titled If which it seems he meant to express what Victorians thought it was to be a man. If it does, a man was, to them, so extraordinary as not to exist, except perhaps as a Medieval knight and hero in fairy tales.  I wonder if he really thought he was a man as described in the poem. 

In our Great Republic, we have a love/hate relationship with the sexual act--more accurately with sexual conduct of any kind.  We love to have sex (or most of us do, in any case).  But we hate having to acknowledge it, or address it, except in limited circumstances, and most of all seek to judge the sexuality of others.  If we had any sense, though, when it comes to sex we wouldn't care what consenting adults do, or how they look or act, or what others may think about our sexuality and sexual conduct.  

Accustomed To Assassination

 

What struck me as most curious about the shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner was that, once I knew that no serious harm was done by the shooter, and that he had been apprehended, I felt no pressing curiosity about what had taken place.  I'd learn what there was to learn soon enough.

I watched some of the news coverage after the shooting had taken place and saw guests of the event milling about, drinking and talking together, some of them even smiling.  Nobody seemed particularly concerned.  The talking heads described what they saw, and then they and the various pundits and politicians summoned to appear in front of the cameras began to solemnly abhor violence.  I confess I returned to watching what I was watching before learning of the shooting.

This is not to say I wasn't appalled by the shooting.  But in a disturbing way it wasn't interesting.

I had seen it all before, of course.  Eventually, politicians of one party began to blame those of the other party for the act; something I had also seen before.  I assume there will be talk of stricter gun control, which will be ignored.  Something else seen before.  We can accurately predict what will be done or said in each case.  I missed nothing by ignoring the immediate tumult.  

We await the next shooting.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say we expect it. We accept the violence, and are resigned to it as something regrettable but inevitable.  It's just a part of life in our Great Union.

The fact that the shooting was in this case politically motivated makes it less common than the other mass shootings which seem to take place, now, on a daily basis. But we can't say it's unique or unusual on that basis.  We have a history of assassinating political figures, or trying to do so.  Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were killed.   William Seward was shot.  Teddy Roosevelt was shot while speaking in Milwaukee.  Huey Long and the Kennedys were killed.  Truman, Ford and Reagan survived the attacks made on them.  The list goes on.

Politically motivated shootings or attacks are themselves used for political purposes.  It's no longer possible to be surprised by attacks on politicians who so often attack each other.  We're jaded observers of the efforts for and against our jaded politicians, violent or otherwise.  The outrage they express doesn't even seem genuine anymore.

What have we become when violence and death are considered dull, unless they can be used for personal or political benefit?