Brief Essays With Pictures

The Wire was surely the greatest television show to ever be aired. Radley Balko, amongst others, has loved the show. But today, he delves into its alleged critique of capitalism, linking to Connor Friedersdorf’s work as well.

1. Both agree that capitalism isn’t Baltimore’s problem. Rather, the bureaucracy is. There is no doubt that, at almost every turn, the bureaucracy is shown to be an inhibitor in people’s lives, in no way benefitting everybody and seeming to undercut people.

2. That said, there are moments when in fact the bureaucracy does seem to help people - perhaps the motivations are wrong, but there are plenty of times in the show when bureaucratic actors do clean the streets, arrest the bad guys, provide for the kids, and generally exist in a manner beneficial to the citizenry.

3. To ignore the fact that Marlo, Avon, Proposition Joe Stewart and The Greek are capitalists, however, is to ignore reality. All are offering a product, wanted by thousands. All are working strictly for profit, caring little for what happens to their customers. All maintain their positions through power, violence, and the ability to create monopolies. Friedersdorf, at first, hilariously claims that this doesn’t represent true capitalism, because true capitalism is free from all of these things.

Later, he acknowledges that the idea of perfect capitalism exists only in books, and requires its participants to operate free from greed. Does anybody really believe WalMart wouldn’t completely shutter its competition if it could? Or if Microsoft could have forced itself onto everybody, it wouldn’t have? People pursuing money will often go to outrageous lengths to make it, steal it, have it, or earn it. If that means playing outside of the rules, so be it.

Turning around and claiming that what we see there isn’t real capitalism is changing the rules after the game.

4. Finally, there’s this from Balko:

And that is how two brilliant men like Ed Burns and David Simon … call themselves men of the left, which implies a kind of default support for massive government intervention to solve or alleviate suffering, poverty, crime, and other social ills.

If The Wire attempted to communicate anything, it was that our monolithic understanding of things is wrong. Criminals can be good (Cutty). Addicts can be friendly (Bubbles). Police can be assholes (Dozerman). Politicians can be awful (Clay Davis) or slightly less awful (Tommy Carcetti). Gunmen can have hearts of gold (Omar) and love their children (Chris Partlow) or just be out and out killers (Snoop).

Being a liberal doesn’t mean that you necessarily want the government involved in everything. In fact, as somebody who has flirted enough with libertarianism to know that I’d rather call myself a liberal, I can be pro-market, pro-freedom, and still believe that government agencies should be responsible for fixing the roads. I would imagine that the authors of The Wire deeply believe that the government can help to fix some of these problems, if they’d just do things differently. Take, for instance, Season 3’s “Hamsterdam.” The government backs off, its various agents step in, offering condoms, clean needles, information about treatment, and education, a situation which appears to be working. (Would it in real life? Perhaps. Libertarians against the drug war seem to believe so…but some of those people doing good work in Hamsterdam were government functionaries of various sorts.)

Meanwhile, I would also offer that The Wire’s authors might believe that some solution is necessary for suffering, poverty, crime, and other social ills, issues which libertarians rarely spend any time on, choosing to instead claim that, “the market will solve everything!”

No solution is perfect. No solution is right. The Wire was a searing indictment of everybody’s politics. To claim it as a bastion of libertarian thought is ignoring the message as much as claiming it as a bastion of anybody else’s thought.

Update: This is the sort of capitalist behavior that I’m talking about. Greedy people do awful things, as evidenced by this sort of behavior, all completely legal in Balko’s libertarian dreamscape.)

I have a friend, who is a devout Christian, who reads this site. Whenever we discuss religion, I am mightily impressed by his faith, his belief, and although his beliefs are intense, he seems somewhat skittish about using the government as a functionary for himself. In other words, he might try to convince me of God’s rightness, but I doubt he would abide police officers sent to my house to make sure that I’m praying.

Unfortunately, his profound faith is being completely sullied by these rabid douchebags, who believe that if gay marriage isn’t repealed this fall in California, armageddon is upon us. (Which they technically ought to endorse, because they’re saved, and thus go to heaven…right?)

Anyway, to listen to these people tell it, if those two well-dressed men down the street are allowed legal protection for their relationship, the next thing the state will be able to do is tell Christians which parts of the Bible they can and cannot read. The paranoia, it runs deep.

Another friend asked me what’s wrong with people. He asked after reading the previous link. I didn’t know what to say. How can these people so viciously hate gays? How can they believe that God, if s/he exists, cares this much? The lunacy of declaring that gay marriage is the first step toward Christian oppression is so stupid that it barely deserves the attention I’m giving to it.

In happier news, there was a fire near Fred Phelps’s church, and although he escaped the conflagration unharmed, we can hope that next time, the arsonist torches the place. Or better still, a lightning strike ignites the church, so we can all say that God, apparently, Hates Fred Phelps.

Man gets a ticket for having an unlicensed vehicle parked in his own driveway, on a piece of property that he owns. Man, mentally ill, doesn’t pay the ticket, which escalates into a $2,600 fine. City responds by taking his house which is worth almost 100 times the fine: $245,000.

Inexplicably, nobody quoted in the article objects to the state’s behavior, instead calling it a “tragedy.” It isn’t a tragedy if your house is stolen from you. It’s a crime. That the government is committing the crime doesn’t change its nature. Everybody involved with this on the city’s end should be fired, fined, and potentially jailed for so badly abusing their authority.

Everybody quoted, incidentally, should also be on the receiving end of a “dope slap” which is what you deserve if you don’t object to the state’s outrageous behavior here.

I recently had a very brief, but excellent conversation with somebody from The Onion’s AV Club. He was beyond polite. We discussed my occasional need to tear into something that the site has published, even though it is the only site I’ll trust for reviews.

Today, they set experienced hot chips, and it is a fantastic, and telling, review. Every once in a while, TOAVC stuffs a bunch of people into a room with some sort of “tasty” treat and then writes up the people’s response. This week featured some soft drinks, and the hilariously titled Blair’s Death Rain Habanero Chips, which are basically potato chips with a bunch of hot poured all over them. (Blair’s makes incredibly burning hot sauces. Some people are into this. Although I eat my food hot, I don’t eat hot sauces for the sake of suffering.)

TOAVC was challenged to do this by one of their regular readers: Zodiac Motherfucker. S/He was interviewed before the review began and basically announced that these chips were hot, and that he wasn’t aware that Indians had any food, much less hot food. It is a brilliant interview. Really, what would we do without the internet?

Needless to say, TOAVC stuffs people into a room, makes them eat these chips, and then published some responses. I’ve selected several of the more important ones to the point that I want to make:

“They’re hot enough that all you taste is the spice.”

“Yeah, it burns so much that there’s no actual flavor. It just tastes dusty. I feel like I just licked dirt with ground glass in it.”

“Why would anyone want to eat this? Besides, like, on a bet?”

“The first habanero chip must have been a dud, because the second one was extremely hot. Nothing subtle about it, this chip almost made my eyes water. No depth of flavor. Just intense heat that lasted a good five minutes.”

I find various reasons to wander down to the ocean and howl at the tide. One is the occasionally jarring attitude of critics, who, if they cannot personally find any value in an experience, then assume that there is no value to be found. Value, of course, is personal to all of us. The notion that there is inherent value in one thing and not another is just that: a notion. It isn’t a fact, regardless of what people with intimate knowledge of a particular thing would have us believe. A romance novel is worth more to a person who likes romance novels than are the works of Shakespeare. However, neither the romance novels nor the works of Shakespeare are worth more or less than the other.

As a consumer of hot food, I don’t go into it looking for an amazing taste sensation; I go seeking heat. (Whether I do this because I have fewer taste buds on my tongue, or for the endorphin rush, or whatever, I seek the heat.) The people involved in this tasting do not, apparently, eat or enjoy hot food. Note especially the quote that says, “There is no depth of flavor.” To which those of us who eat hot food would say, “So?”

Explaining This A Different Way
The other day, I went to my local Indian restaurant and ordered shahi paneer masala, extra hot. There is a new chef there, and he was apparently told that I was his test case, that it would be a challenge to make it hot for me. But he was up to the challenge. I got tears in my eyes. I got the the giggles. My mouth as on fire, and I couldn’t stop smiling.

This experience isn’t for everyone. Once, I was having lunch with a friend who wanted to put ground chili powder onto her food, as I did onto mine. I warned her that it was hot, but she said she’d be okay. One bite later, using much less than I used, and she was not a happy camper. She, obviously, doesn’t to eat her food the way I like to eat mine.

Conclusion
What’s problematic to me about reviews in general is this assumption that the reviewer possesses the ability to make true statements about the thing, whatever it is (art, music, food, etc). In fact, they’re reflecting nothing more than their own opinions. Reviewing is nothing more than saying what you think about a particular thing. Blair’s Death Rain Habanero Chips aren’t without value; they’re just without value to the however-many-people were standing in the room tasting them at that time. Perhaps they’re the greatest food stuff ever if you’re like me, just as Snakes On A Plane was a great movie…if you’re like me.

The problem that lies within is this notion that reviews reflect some sort of truth. It just isn’t true. If only the review had contained some sort of information for us to use, some sort of disclaimer like, “TOAVC used reviewers who don’t generally like hot food, and thus, were predisposed to dislike the aforementioned chips.” Or, “The reviewer doesn’t like cheeseball airplane horror movies, and thus, was predisposed to dislike Snakes On A Plane.” Maybe if we knew more about the reviewer, these problems wouldn’t exist, because we’d know the biases going into the review.

The Dark Knight absolutely sucked. It’s horrid that people are claiming it to be a great movie. But the Joker? Totally fantastic. More at this week’s What A Bad Idea Podcast!

Not all of them, I suppose, but these idiots in California certainly are. They’re angry because, when Californians head to the ballots this November to choose whether or not to strip gays of the right to marry, the initiative that they’ll be voting is actually written to say precisely that.

“Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

That’s what the initiative is currently titled, which is unfair, say the gayhaters.

“Even though we’ve demanded a vote on a Constitutional amendment doing precisely what this wording says, we don’t want it to read that way because then we’ll lose,” said these rude gay-marriage hating jerkoffs. “We hate gays, but we don’t want it to be so obvious.”

It’s unbelievable that they want their hatred sugar-coated. The fact that they don’t want anybody to honestly know what they are or aren’t voting for shows exactly the type of people that these are.

Becky Hammon, a talented basketball player who was the runner-up in last year’s WNBA MVP balloting, will be playing for Russia in this year’s Olympics. ESPN has been covering this story, both with the aforementioned column, and during an Outside the Lines piece last week.

The gist of the story goes like this: Becky Hammon is a very good player without very good connections. She has, despite excellent statistics that more than match players who easily made the American Olympic squad, been unable to get an opportunity from the American’s Olympic committee. Wanting to play in the Olympics, she was interested when the Russians offered her a chance to play after she decided to play professional basketball in Russia as well as America.

Thus, in a few weeks, she will be suiting up against Americans, despite herself being a full-blooded American who wanted to play for the American team. Just imagine the sort of bullshit we might end up hearing once the Olympics get going, blaming Hammon for abandoning her country, not being patriotic, and whatever else. ESPN’s Outside The Lines piece featured the management of the women’s team basically suggesting that Hammon wasn’t being patriotic by playing for Russia, and that she should have been happy to have been ignored by the American squad.

Honestly, I almost hope that Hammon wins gold, so that this sort of coterie of decision makers end up with egg all over their faces. It is clear that Hammon is good enough for the American Olympic squad, and the only thing keeping her off it were unseen, behind the scenes forces. That American officials would then tell her to be honored to have been ignored and treated badly is then beyond the pale, isn’t it? If these teams aren’t going to be picked by anybody attempting to be fair, it’s hardly appropriate for them to turn around and criticize players who pursue opportunities that they weren’t being given. It isn’t like Hammon stuck a thumb in the eye of Americans who wanted her; she stuck her thumb in the eye of Americans who inexplicably treated her badly.

(Here’s the Outside The Lines segment.)

I actually did another podcast! Woo hoo! Unfortunately for you, it’s about my kids. Probably not interesting to anybody but me, but that’s what you’re stuck with if you’re a listener.

A Texas District Attorney has started prosecuting people working in a legal needle exchange program for possessing drug paraphernalia. The employees of the program swear that they’re only passing out the needles to attempt to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, but according to the District Attorney in this case, “These charitable motherfuckers can go fuck themselves because having needles is the same as doing heroin.”

Okay, she didn’t say exactly that, but it is clear that she believes it. How else can she possibly justify spending the people’s money pursuing prosecutions of individuals trying to prevent the spread of infectious disease? Needless to say, it is at times like this that Drug Warriors are at their most embarrassing.

“Folks, we’ve got to stop drug use, and if that means jailing people concerned with the spread of infectious disease, then we’re going to jail them. Because we’re literally desperate to prevent drug use, and if heroin users don’t have clean needles, they won’t use heroin,” said Susan Reid. She added, “I am a fucking moron.”

Again, none of that really happened. But it was pretty implicit in everything she has said, and everything she has done, up to now.

I might love to play the game, but what can I really say about it? It’s stupid. This is part of an ongoing series about the game’s lesser qualities.

-I’ve been waiting for a golfer to genuinely hate. First it was Vijay Singh, but he seems like he does good charity work. Then it was Phil Mickelson, just because he’s an overrated doofus, but again, he seems like a good guy even if he isn’t a personal favorite. I’ve cycled through others, never totally being able to decide on anybody. Paul Azinger has been my current fallback position, because of his outrageous arrogance in John Feinstein’s Good Walk Spoiled, a book I won’t link to because it sucks.

Fortunately, Pat Perez just walked into my life. Perez is the sniveling jackass profiled in this column in which he says, apparently with all seriousness, that he doesn’t shoot 82. 82, I guess, is a score for the masses and since he is a professional PGA player, the possibility that he’d falter under intense conditions is nil.

…except he did shoot an 82 today, during the morning rounds at the greatest golf tournament in the world, The British Open. By all accounts, the conditions at Royal Birkdale were insane: wet (driving rain), windy (gales of up to 35 mph), and cold (the temperature didn’t top 50 degrees). Perez expected to be let off the hook, thinking that because the weather wasn’t cooperating, he’d get a break from the British Open. He was wrong, and forced to play, he came apart at the seems.

He whinged about the conditions, about how unfair they were, about how terrible they were, about how impossible they were. Meanwhile, Tom Watson, 26 years older than Perez, managed a 74, and then didn’t whine about it, because he was man enough to realize that if the conditions are rainy, wet, and nasty, then you figure out how to score well in them. There’s a reason Watson won 5 British Opens, and Perez has yet to win on the PGA Tour, anywhere, even in the most ideal conditions.

For people that get everything for free, for people who play the greatest courses in the world, for people who live a pampered life, for people who can win a million dollars a year by merely being the 99th best golfer in the world, golfers can sometimes be awfully whiny. Needless to say, Pat Perez is my new least favorite golfer.

-I hit my second hole-in-one last Saturday, on a 210-yard hole at my golf course. Although it is listed on the scorecard, by virtue of a typo, as a par 4, it is really a par 3. I used a 4 iron. I was very, very lucky, hitting a trapped four iron with a fade on a dry day. It bounced once before the green, rolled on and dropped in. I can’t even claim to have seen the ball drop in though; I only figured out that it was a hole-in-one when I got to the green and couldn’t find my ball before looking in the hole. Golf’s a funny game.

One nomination, for writing. One wonders what exactly Emmy nominators are looking for. The Wire received just two nominations during its five season run, which is odd considering that it is probably the greatest television show ever done.

I would go on, but my head would probably explode.

Update: I just read the best actor/actress nominees:

Best actor in a drama nominees are Gabriel Byrne (”In Treatment”), Bryan Cranston (”Breaking Bad”), Michael C. Hall (”Dexter”), Jon Hamm (”Mad Men”), Hugh Laurie (”House”) and James Spader (”Boston Legal”)… Glenn Close (”Damages”), Sally Field (”Brothers and Sisters”), Mariska Hargitay (”Law & Order: Special Victims Unit”), Holly Hunter (”Saving Grace”) and Kyra Sedgwick (”The Closer”).

I mean, really? Mariska Hargitay? Kyra Sedgwick? James Fucking Spader?

One of my core objections to libertarianism, despite it’s obvious appeal on social issues, is its apparent fuck-you approach to issues of poverty. Here’s Radley Balko on heath care:

Of course the left will celebrate when they ram this though, because though we’ll all then have equally crappy health care, it’s the equal part that’s most important to them.

Yes, because the primary concern of people advocating for socialized health care is equality, and not the inability of some Americans to get health care. Balko is usually a reasonable fellow, so this conspiratorial claim that those of us in favor of some sort of national health care are concerned only with equality is a bit disconcerting. I can assure Balko, for whatever it’s worth, that the primary concern isn’t equality, and that nobody believes that the richest Americans will be standing in line with the poorest Americans waiting for medical treatment. I think that while there may be wingnuts in this debate, almost everybody involved understands that the upper classes and better off will not be using whatever nationalized health care is settled upon. The health insurance companies will not go away, and private interests will continue to maintain firm footing in the marketplace.

If libertarians are genuinely interested in liberty, one wonders why it is always, always, always only their own. I would assume that aggregate increases in liberty for citizens nationwide would be a good, if not great, thing. Being able to get treatment for health conditions is precisely the sort of thing that increases the liberty possessed by Americans. And nevermind that, think of the good that having health insurance does for the marketplace. If people aren’t going deeply into debt to pay for medical treatment, they are free to spend that money on goods and services elsewhere in the marketplace. More participation by consumers will lead to better information, which will in turn lead to a better marketplace.

Sometimes, libertarians will complain about roads. But the government’s (almost) monopoly on roads is good for the marketplace, because it allows consumers and sellers to freely move about the country with ease. That the government takes care of the roads allows consumers and sellers to focus their attentions on other, more important, goals. Thinking of health care in the same way - as opposed to believing that it is a leftist conspiracy designed to hurt the rich - takes the edge off, no?

This guy is so good.

So, Phil Gramm is doing a bang-up job speaking for McCain, especially after declaring America a nation of whiners stuck only in a mental recessions. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Even if I was pulling for McCain, and I certainly am not, this would have forced me to facepalm myself. How else can you explain somebody, in the midst of bad economic times for a lot of people, although not necessarily the economy itself, saying something so stupid? Economists never understand this sort of thing, but a person’s outlook on the economy as a whole is directly affected by their personal economic standing. If that standing is bad, then the economy is in bad shape. I guess people get bent out of shape about this sort of thinking.

What the Phil Gramms of the world need to say is something like, “We know times are tough for some of you, but we’ve got a strong nation and a purring economy and we want to connect you with it.” You don’t have to lecture your audience at all times.