The Recreational Nihilist Articles

The legislature has finally done it – passed a budget. (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-budget25-2009jul25,0,7575547.story) And yet as far as victories go, this one feels rather Pyrrhic – a lot of people are going to suffer from all the cuts, especially since they weren’t softened by some tax increases to make up for lost revenue.

There’s a scene in Michael Mann’s seminal crime drama “Heat” in which Lt. Vince Hanna invites master criminal Neil McCauley to coffee. The scene is notable, of course, for being the first in which Al Pacino and Robert De Niro share screentime together. But in terms of the story, it marks a rather rare kind of encounter between enemies. Here they are sitting together, the cop and the thief, sharing personal life details they undoubtedly don’t share with their colleagues, achieving a sort of understanding and mutual respect despite the fact that their goals put them at potentially deadly odds with each other. In watching the two, there is the feeling that their opposition is not personal but professional, making the way in which they carry out their antagonism something rather noble. Yet the idea of noble enemies is not one we’ll find in Washington or in the vast sea of commentary that spills into it.

Who among us hasn’t wondered about an individual’s parenting qualifications? We hear stories in the news, we see people in the neighbourhood restaurants – examples abound of parents who neglect their children and, in some tragic cases, harm or kill them outright. While my colleague Mike Hennessey and I would disagree on abortion, we certainly share concern over the welfare of these children. I would even take it beyond the children themselves.

While the news is filled with reports of celebrity deaths; while valuable and scarce taxpayer money is shoveled onto providing police supervision for what should be a private event; while an ultimately tragic figure goes from quasi-pedophilic freakshow and object of ridicule to canonized saint of pop music; while people feel pain in regards to a person with whom they had no tangible, personal relationship; while people express their grief in that most capitalist and American of ways, by buying tee-shirts and trinkets; while it’s hard to resist saying “He’s dead, people. Get over it!”; another far more important death goes unnoticed.

With the State Controller Issuing IOUs instead of checks (http://cbs5.com/local/california.budget.IOU.2.924701.html) on account of the money well being dry, it’s an understatement to say that the California budget has gone far beyond critical. I’m talking nuclear meltdown. With a recent budget proposal by Democrats shot down by Republicans, it’s unclear how, exactly, the eminence grise of the legislature will lead us out from the shadow of the valley of debt.

As the American Medical Assn. waffles on the so-called “public option,” which for some reason is made to sound ominously like “nuclear option,” and Republicans dig trenches so deep, one thing has become clear: There’s a lot of philosophical cowardice around here. All those free enterprisers, all those who want to shrink government and keep it out of healthcare or financial regulation or anything of public interest – cowards. If they were truly brave in their political philosophy they would be anarchists.

Democracy Now had a headline blurb (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/12/headlines#4) explaining that Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, would oppose public healthcare in any form. “It’s not going to be public,” he said.  “We won’t call it public, but it will be tough enough to keep insurance companies’ feet to the fire.” It sounds like a Republican talking point – oppose any option other than private, corporate, for-profit healthcare – but it really begs the question: since when has “public” become a dirty word?

There’s an extraordinary piece of film footage in the documentary biography “An Unreasonable Man” in which Ralph Nader, legitimate ticket in hand, attempts to attend a 2000 Presidential debate as an audience member only to be denied access. Despite reasonably asking if it isn’t a misuse of taxpayer money for the Massachusetts State Police to be involved in excluding a Presidential candidate for political reasons from what is a private event – and, of course, it is a misuse – he is threatened with arrest. Nader, with great dignity, leaves on his own terms. But the point is clear.

It gets me every time. I look at the label of this or that nutriceutical product and find a claim related to improving bodily functions, only to then find the small print that says, “This product is not intended to diagnose or treat medical conditions.” Say what? Then comes the kicker in the fine print: “This product has not been evaluated by the FDA.” In other words, the only thing these nutriceutical products have going for them is a marketing campaign and a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

All right. Count me in. I’ve been resisting, because there are a few other topics I want to write about, but what the heck. It is, after all, the fad-du-jour. The flavour of the month. All the popular kids are doing in. Dagnabit, even the unpopular ones are doing it. Might as well join in. I refer, of course, to picking on President Obama.