Garfield Ridge

Mikhail Gorbachev Still Lives.

And he's a real cranky-pants as usual.

Apparently, he's also delusional, as usual:

The man who ended the Cold War and launched democratic reforms that broke the repressive Soviet regime continues to enjoy the limelight, globe-trotting on behalf of his political foundation and environmental group and taking part in charity projects.

At a meeting with foreign reporters this week, Gorbachev blamed the United States for losing a chance to build a safer and more stable world following the Soviet demise.

"Ending the Cold War was given as a gift" to the United States, but it only strengthened its arrogance and unilateralism, he said. "The winner's complex is worse than an inferiority complex, because it's harder to cure."

First off, "the man who ended the Cold War"? My, my, aren't we a wee bit arrogant, Mikey? I'm no student of history-- oh wait, yes I am-- but a little birdie tells me that Gorbachev had a little bit of help in ending the Cold War.

As far as ending the Cold War as a gift, well, thanks Mister Gorbachev, but what have you done for us lately?

Pity the sad fantasies of a bitter old man.

Guess What? It's Still Turin!

Yeah, I know I've bitched about this before. And sure, the Olympics are over. But the beauty of beating a dead horse is that it can't fight back.

Thanks to Friend of Garfield Ridge Veeshir, here's a photo he recently took of the Turin Palace Hotel in TURIN, Italy. Not Torino, Turin. With a "U". As in "Urin"e.

If only that hell-harpy of a bitch-elf Katie Couric had choked on her Torino. Alas, to dream. . . to dream. . .

Hollywood Fantasyland, Continued.

I wrote a posting yesterday taking the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson to task for spinning a delightful little yarn about how this year's Oscar nominees (seen by all of 150 people in total!) somehow reflect the Impending Resurgence Of The American LeftTM.

Well, it turns out that my contention-- that Robinson's wishful thinking resulted from reading the wrong tea leaves-- more or less replicated an argument advanced by Slate's Mickey Kaus earlier in February.

I guess great minds think alike, only mine works a lot slower.

Thanks to Friend of Garfield Ridge HayZeus for pointing out how late I am to the party.

The Agony Of Defeat.

Those Japanese pull a funny one on crazy Gaijin.

Everybody's Kung-Fu Fighting!

This kid's style kinda puts the "crane technique" to shame.

Half Of Europe Fat.

The other half, however, thinks the fat Europeans are just American tourists:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Half of Europeans are obese or overweight, but citizens do not see obesity as a major health threat, a food industry report said on Tuesday.

According to the report, commissioned by Kraft, the world's second-largest food and beverage company, Europeans view obesity as a problem that affects others, but not themselves.

Of 15 health concerns listed in the report, obesity and being overweight ranked fifth and ninth respectively. Cancer and heart disease topped the poll.

Cancer and heart disease were tops? Probably all those Gauloises at the cafe.

I take no pride in acknowledging that Europeans may just be getting as fat as Americans. Actually, it gives me cause for worry.

After all, the fatter the Euros are, the harder it will be for them to outrun all those Jihadi rioters chasing them down.

Hollywood Fantasyland.

Writing in today's Washington Post ("free" registration required; jacknapes), Eugene Robinson highlights this year's crop of Oscar nominees for Best Picture as indicative of the social awareness in America today. Issues of gay rights, racism, and the war on terror each get their day in films like Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich.

My favorite Robinson bit is this bizarre paragraph:

This is hardly the first time the movies have had a "Hello?" message for Washington. I remember how stunned many people around here were when Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" became a runaway hit, despite scenes of unwatchable violence and dialogue in an ancient language no one speaks. That time, of course, mainstream Hollywood -- which tends to be liberal and secular -- was even more surprised. A few politicians, mostly Republicans, had a sense of the breadth and depth of the fundamentalist Christian movement and have been able to use that knowledge for political gain.

This year, if the Oscar nominations are any guide, it's the Democrats who ought to be in a position to absorb valuable political lessons. America is a complicated place filled with minorities of all kinds, including gay people. Celebrating America means celebrating our differences. Standing for America means standing for American principles. War, even when it's justified, has to have peace as its ultimate end.

Hmmm. If Robinson is using the success of Passion of the Christ as indicative of how a movie can reflect unrepresented political moxie, and then tries to extend that to the Oscar-nominated films from this year, perhaps Robinson would do the math and realize that, at best, all five of this year's nominated films made less money *combined* than Christ earned.

Now, I'm a borderline movie snob, so you'll never hear me argue that a movie's dollar tally correlates with the film's quality-- bad movies make good money, and vice versa-- but as long as we're talking about money correlating to political influence, one would assume that more money = more influence.

But hey, Brokeback Fever is sweeping the nation-- catch it!-- so who am I to argue with Robinson?

As for Robinson's political commentary, I'll leave that to others to dissect. Suffice it to say, I find it somewhat laughable that anyone who can write an editorial in one of America's major newspapers feels somehow that they have to "apologize" before questioning President Bush's policies. Just because so many of the Administration's opponents talk about the "chilling" of dissent doesn't make it true-- it's just self-serving spin.

But hey, Eugene-- you go on thinking that, all right?

Speaking Of Music Snobs. . .

This video is so true, so true.

I think that *I* may start celebrating Black History Month in November too, you know, just to be cool like that.

What Hurts More?

Skydiving accident number one?

*OR*

Skydiving accident number two?

*OR*

Skydiving accident number three?

(Okay, so that last one isn't technically a skydiving accident, although I think we can all agree, that dude needed a 'chute).

Federal Financial Frustrations.

Something's been rolling around in my head the last few days, a thought I've had before but is recently more persistent.

Social Security is slavery.

Tough words? Sure. Hyperbole, even.

But every once in a while, my libertarian streak kicks into high gear. And nothing sets off that streak more than contemplation of our entitlement society.

How did we reach a point where millions of Americans have to work solely so that other, wealthier Americans have money in their plaid pants pockets? We have a government that expends enormous energies to ensure that the fruits of my labor goes to someone who doesn't need it? We're not talking the common good here. We're talking cash in the hands of people too lazy or too incompetent or too selfish to save for their retirement.

Now, I'm not condemning those seniors who were so poor that they never were able to save for retirement. But Social Security is not a charity program. You get the money regardless of whether you need it or not. Which of course means that a fair share of my income is going to people better off than I, retirees with IRAs and mutual funds and pension plans.

Oh, but I'll get *my* share of the money when I retire, won't I? Well, even assuming that Social Security will be around for me-- a big assumption, that-- here's the stark truth: I'm willing to give that money up, every dime of it, in return for the money I would pay into that system. I could add that money to my retirement account and make significantly more money than I would ever see through trusting the government with it.

But, of course, I can't go ahead and do that, even if I wanted to. Last time I checked, the responsibility to work without any gain is-- wait for it-- slavery.

At times, I shudder to think what the Founders would have thought of this situation. Oh, it's one thing to point to how technology has changed society, thus requiring a government that pays attention to things like INTERNET and air traffic control and bio-terrorism. Yet it's another thing entirely to ignore everything that's happened since the Great Depression (!), let alone the founding principles of freedom in our nation.

Instead of a nation where the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed, we live in a nation constantly striving to guarantee happiness itself, as if such a chimera were ever possible. Instead of a nation that protects the rights of its citizens to hold property, it seeks ever more creative ways of appropriating that property-- whether through eminent domain, increasingly complex tax codes, or worst of all, the redistrubitionist architecture of the entitlement society.

Government does some things well only because no one else can do those things. Those things, however, are very few, and ultimately do not include ensuring that all Americans achieve the same outcome. We're the land of opportunity, not the land of uniformity. The only way to ensure that we're all equal is by ensuring that none of us are free.

It's amazing what people can forget in the brief span of 230 years, eh?