Am I the only one who noticed the similarity between Charlie Sheen’s motto” WINNING!” [ insert un-medicated webcam leer] and Obama’s motto “Winning The future!” [ insert teleprompter directed politi-smile]? How ironic that these two walking caricatures have become such important cultural icons in 21st century America.
We all know Charlie of course. He’s a second generation B list actor, born with a silver spoon in his nose, who’s spent his life knocking around the elite watering holes and methadone clinics that Hollywood has made fashionable. His principle occupation (like all actors) has been to look good for a living, which isn’t exactly the kind of activity that encourages personal growth. Every few years he manages to keep his fly closed long enough to make a movie or TV series. But as soon as he cashes the check, he’s off to Vegas again, Heidi Fliess and her modern day camp followers in tow, for one more episode in what seems to the rest of us like a life-long bender.
And after spending 30 years in a lifestyle which has to be about as low stress as anything America has ever produced, this pre-adolescent attention grabber is going to presume to tell the rest of us about winning. As if he would know. His instructions to the rest of us on how to succeed, reminds me of that old joke about how you become a millionaire in the Wine business. Step one, get a billion dollars, step two… buy a winery.
If Washington DC is like Hollywood for ugly people, you can begin to imagine the similarity I see between Charlie Sheen and Obama. Obama wasn’t born into the entertainment elite, but he did have something which gave him the same kind of ‘start at the 50 yard line’ advantage in politics. He was born black. And for the last 40 years in America, being black has not been a disadvantage, like it clearly was in the past. On the contrary – driven by the desire to make all outcomes equal, liberals have turned being black into a profound advantage – especially in those areas that they dominate like academia and the political classes.
Obama is walking and talking proof of that. He hasn’t really done anything in his life. He has no real accomplishments that aren’t the type that Charlie sheen could also lay claim to. His academic career, carefully guarded by his political handlers and their allies, is a closely held secret – so one can only assume that it’s unremarkable. His career in politics has been mostly of the Chauncey Gardner variety – where he voted present and that was more than enough for his fans. Even his presidential bid was marked not by his brilliance but by his opponent’s electoral ineptitude. Just like Charlie, ‘looking as he does’ was more than enough for him to succeed.
In other words, both Charlie and Obama have never had to face any real challenge in their lives. Nothing they’ve ever done has required any character, or forced them to make genuinely difficult choices where they would be the ones to bear the burden of error. They are both a product of the carefully coddled elite, each in their own area.
This may sound trite, but one of the ways I try to assess people is by imagining how it would be if our plane crashed in the mountains somewhere. Not everyone has wilderness survival skills so I try to discount for that. My thoughts are more along the lines of wondering if they would make good decisions. Would they help make reasoned judgments about where to set a shelter or could they be counted on to help do some of the work. Would they be desperate to be in control of everything or would they defer to others more knowledgeable? Would they whine and complain about the cold, the wet, the smell, the general lack of comfort – or would they stay positive and try to contribute what they can?
In a circumstance like that I think most people would see Charlie coming. He’d gripe constantly about wanting a soy latte to give him a little boost. If his assistant survived (they no doubt travel together), then his sole contribution would be to order them to fetch kindling or whatever while Charlie reclined to ponder how he can use 'something like this’ in his acting. Overall, he’d be about as helpful as any 5 foot 10 toddler would be – since that is essentially all he is. A great big, totally dependent, child.
For Obama, it would probably be a little different. He’d be no more actual help than Charlie Sheen, but he wouldn’t know it. Soon after the crash he’d want to organize the survivors into various groups for completing tasks. He’d place himself in the executive role of course, while other less managerially capable survivors were tasked out to more menial work. He’d have a group for deciding how to distribute the food, and a group for deciding who slept close to the fire. Everyone would vote on everything of course – everything except the questions to be voted on.
And in no time there would be a set of rules for distribution of all available resources that took everyone’s ‘proper’ position into account and awarded them resources based on how important it was that they survive. Obama would make that decision himself, but all the rest would be voted on. He would be the merit-less leader; capable of doing nothing except telling other people where when and how to use their skills to the best benefit of him.
This would probably work fine so long as the time in the forest wasn’t too long, or didn’t involve to much actual hardship. But if things began to get genuinely difficult people would get sick of Obama doing nothing except giving orders. And when that pressure begins to be felt by everyone, he would look like a burden rather than a benefit. Hungry people don’t care about being politically correct as much as they do about getting food. And Obama’s elitist rule would not play well. Eventually he’d seem to them like the kind of officer who is shot by his own men. When it came time for cannibalism, I’m sure he’d be the first one pushed into the communal cooking pot.
Anyway – my point is, both Charlie Sheen and Barak Obama, are mostly legends in their own minds. By any objective measure neither has accomplished anything - so in response, they have summarily rejected objective measurement. They’ve turned instead to their own egos to measure their success or failure in life. And surprise of surprises, according to them they are the greatest people that any of us have ever met. Critics of this idea would say that getting elected President was an objective accomplishment and in response I’d say, not if you’re Barak Obama.
But governing the country certainly is, and in that objectively measured area, we do get a more accurate look at Obama’s merits. Economic growth is anemic, housing is disastrous, unemployment is lofty, the dollar is withering, and the living standard of Americans (thanks to soaring gas and food prices) is falling faster every day. The ‘city on the hill’ for the age of Obama is turning out to be a housing project. Obama is turning all of America into Cabrini Green. Blame his starting position on whoever you like, but by any objective measure, he has failed to improve things.
So here then are America’s 21st century cultural icons. The deranged coke addled actor, and the inept black President… neither offering a very promising way to ‘win the future’. While they both proudly claim that the path forward is simple. "All we need" they say, "is a expertly managed mix of 'taxes on the rich', 'Windmill subsidies', and Tiger's milk."
Here in the real world, winning is still possible. But not if we continue to expend all our energy ignoring reality. Obama needs the equivalent of a political rehab. He needs to realize that just claiming that he’s ‘winning the future’ ala his election speech last week, isn’t enough to actually win anything. He isn’t actually doing anything more for the country than Charlie Sheen is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment