Chariots of the Dogs
Can Fall-Out Shelters Protect Us from Testosterone Poisoning?
Thursday, October 18, 2012
TRICK OR TREAT: Scariness, like beauty and pornography, lies largely in the eye of the beholder. I bring up the relativity of terror because 50 years ago this week, the United States and the evil empire formerly known as the Soviet Union came within a gnat’s lash of nuking it out over the Cuban missile crisis, almost unleashing in the process enough “throw weight,” — according to the Pentagon — to have killed 150 million men, women, and children. Also spooking me out is Mitt Romney’s performance in Round II of the Presidential Debates. Clearly, the night belonged to President Barack Obama, who showed up hyped on Adderall — or some variant of speed lite — rather than the Ambien he’d been abusing prior to their first encounter to help snag some sleep.
Angry Poodle
Yes, the prez decisively won this week, but I’d say on points. The only knock-out punches to be thrown were by Romney himself, and they were all self-inflicted. Gloating aside, Mitt gave us a few glimpses of the man behind the mask, and frankly, I really wished he hadn’t. What I saw transcended creepy and entered the realm of the genuinely chilling. While that works for Halloween, there are 364 other days of the year for which I’ll need to double down on my Ambien prescription to get 40 winks. I’m just old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. Barely. I’m not sure if I really remember the mad rush on toilet paper that the missile crisis — so named after Soviet nuclear warheads were discovered in Cuba — triggered or I just think I do. But I definitely remember how freaked out the grown-ups were. Not angry; scared. That’s saying something because back then there was no shortage of things to get scared about. Backyard fall-out shelters — where you chilled after a nuclear attack — were all the rage. It would take decades before they could be rehabilitated as the post-ironic wine cellars for the shabby-chic they are today.
At my elementary school, duck-and-cover drills were a regular occurrence. To this day, I remain amazed that school officials found desks so durable they could withstand a nuclear blast as powerful as all the bombs dropped during World War II combined. That’s when education still counted for something. In high school, I remember having to re-enact the Cuban missile crisis as a class assignment. It was fun. We broke into teams and played war games. I’m not sure what grade I got. We blew up the world. I’d like to say it was the other team’s fault, but it was me. I drew the proverbial line in the sand. I didn’t back down. And I didn’t blink. The Kennedy Administration didn’t blink either. Or so we were told at the time. We won because the Soviets blinked first and sent their flotilla of warships steaming toward Havana back home.
We have since learned, however, that both sides blinked. Nuclear war was averted not because we stood tall and firm — more erectile imagery — but because the Kennedy Administration struck a secret deal with our enemy. It would be revealed only many years later that the United States agreed to remove nuclear warheads it had parked in Turkey, perilously close to the Soviet border; in exchange, the Soviets agreed to yank their warheads out of Cuba, 90 miles from Florida. It should be noted that the Joints Chiefs of Staff and all the bright lights of the Republican Party insisted at the time we had no option but to invade Cuba. Immediately. And a lot of Democrats thought so, too, like vice president Lyndon B. Johnson. Only because John and Robert Kennedy ignored such advice and had the courage to be soft, squishy, and wishy-washy would 150 million people live to enjoy a nuclear-free winter back in 1962.
In that context, watching Mitt Romney during Tuesday night’s debate gave me a serious case of the willies. I understand testosterone poisoning is an occupational hazard for anyone in politics, but Romney came off as the poster child for the Viagra Generation. Forget the lies, omissions, and policy flip-flops. With Mitt, it was all about establishing alpha-dog primacy, a hormonal secretion of musky male superiority. I admit my perception could be warped; I really don’t like the guy. But in Debate Two — as in Debate One — he displayed open contempt for the moderator, the clock, the rules, the question on the floor, and clearly, his opponent. At least that’s what I saw. About the only thing missing was the fast-grab, bone-crunching handshake. “You’ll get your chance in a minute,” he scolded the president dismissively. “I’m still speaking.” For someone who exhibits such a troubling air of entitlement — an affliction common to people of vast wealth and to Mormon patriarchs — that’s not just bad manners. For someone who personifies the class that’s accumulated unprecedented wealth at great expense to most everybody else by flagrantly disregarding all rules of common sense, ethics, and law, it’s an astonishing display.
But like I say, maybe that’s just me. But in the meantime, we have no shortage of potential Cuban missile crises of our own. There’s Syria. There’s Libya. Throw a dart anywhere on the map. Clearly, we need a commander-in-chief who can handle himself in a fight. But that’s a far cry from electing someone who — by dint of his personality — has a tendency to provoke such fights. The election remains too close to call, and I’m hedging my bets. Between now and November, I’ll be in the market for a hand-me-down backyard bomb shelter. Just make sure it’s stocked with wine. And lots of toilet paper.
Related Links
Comments
This editorial is all bluster and no facts. Nick didn't give one reason that he thought Mitt would be quicker on the nuclear trigger except that Republicans were calling for an invasion of Cuba in 1962.
Nick's most severe criticism of Romney's debate performance was his retort for being interrupted by Obama. I always thought that interrupting someone when their speaking was rude. Nick doesn't think so. He thinks it was rude for Romney to call him on it.
Some people can look at a pile of manure and see next year's garden, but it's still just a pile of manure.
Botany (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With these republican types there will only be a select few who would be allowed shelter. So forget any thought of hunkering down with wine and t.p.
This aggressive persona is played out across the nation. Locally we have had similar astonishing ethics lapses in council'men' Francisco, Hotchkiss and Rowse. Francisco once vigorously interrupted his lesser opponent from his council chair. It's the Self-serving conservative 'I've got mine and the hell with you' personified in the republican leadership, the standard in that party. Too bad far to many support this type of Self-ish behavior.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually Romney is exactly the kind of selfserving would push the button. How anybody could take this charlatan con artist seriously as a candidate for anything qualifies is wishful thinking at best Romney's temper tantrums and numerous lies during the debate alone prove my point.
I didn't think it could get trashier than the Palins but Willard Romney wins that race. Heck he isn't even running under his real name!
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, the fine sport of Presidential debating.
Most folks say sports build character. But I think sports *reveal* character. Debate #2 was a good example.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JUST RELEASED- details of Romney Tax plan
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
geeber (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nick's views are amply reinforced by comparing the Romney and Obama performances at tonight's Al Smith dinner in NY. Wonder if local wordsmith and right-wing comic convert, Dennis Miller, had a hand in writing Romney's lines? I do hope not.
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2012 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
this opinion is absolutely on the mark when it comes to Romney, thank you for seeing the same things I saw in his performance, he is scary. I'm not really "for" Obama but he is less scary and a lot more of a human being, Romney is like some aggressive Robot.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2012 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
am w/GluteousM that whereas O-man is lacklustre and wonky and cerebral, R-man scares the dickens out of his supporters as much as us independents! When you try to parse all of R-man's varying positions, he makes O-man seem steady and wise. It's clear from both debates and his awkward Europe "coming out" trip/Israel trip that Romney knows little about and doesn't understand global politics or affairs. My 6th graders may know more about Islam than this fellow, and I am concerned about the relationship of Mormonism to Islam? Don't they disagree deeply on the role of Abraham, as simply one e.g.? Or how to view Hagar, to whom the Lord (El OR Allah) supposedly SPOKE...man, that's revelation, and if their two gods are at terrible odds...?
What if Romney makes a JFK-like speech rejecting the idea that he would obey whatever the Mormon Council of Elders dictates? (In Houston, Kennedy told the US Catholic bishops that the pope would not be calling the shots in his administration, if elected.)
Obama will eat him up Monday night on foreign affairs.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Nick consistency. And he admits he does not like Romney, full disclosure. Aside from the topic which to me is preaching to the choir, I want to say how cleverly Nick expresses his opinions with just the perfect verbs and adjectives....often making me roar with laughter....which is dwindling to a slow smirk in these election days. You go Nick, don't change a verb for me!
janebenefield (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2012 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think if Obama had slugged Romney during the debate, Nick and most commenters here would have criticized Romney for having too hard a face.
Botany (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2012 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nick's fact less critiques do not bother me in the least. These are editorials, usually decently written, and his point of view is well known. I read them and enjoy his point of view.
What the Democrats(not just the Progressives) seem be having a hard time with is that they portrayed Romney as a completely incompetent boob who could not do anything and they thought they had the country convinced of the same. After the first debate where the President looked as perturbed and annoyed and as impotent(nod to Nick W) as lil George Bush that someone was disagreeing with him, and Romney appeared confident and strident, much of the country realized that whether or not they wanted Romney to win he is capable.
I know, I know, Romney is only capable of lying, stealing poor peoples money, changing positions, being an elitist rich, not caring about the "little guy", etc...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2012 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)