Skip to main content

The Good Guys and The Bad Guys, a Satire


Here on the far left, there are two kinds of bad guys: good bad guys and bad bad guys.

Jesse James is an example of a good bad guy. Like US Rep. Barney Frank and US Sen. Chris Dodd, he had developed over a period of years the good bad habit of shaking down the Big Boys – large banks, trains full of wealthy commuters -- and distributing their ill gotten gains among the oppressed, some of whom were his friends.

Billy the Kid was a good bad guy. He shot up a lot of bullies, some of them sheriffs, was a true white knight toward the ladies and, a Byronic romantic, allied himself with what he thought was the honorable side in a violent range war. Bit of bad luck there.

Al Capone was a good bad guy: He rid Chicago of lots of bad bad guys, mostly by shooting them. He was anti-prohibitionist at a time when even FDR’s first Vice President, John Nance Garner, was tippling in the White House to protest temperance leagues. Like Charlie Rangle of New York, he was indifferent about paying taxes. In the course of his wanderings, he unfortunately contracted syphilis, dying from it in jail. A bit of bad luck there.

Robin Hood, the redistributionist, was a good bad guy.

The sheriff of Nottingham was a bad bad guy.

Joseph Stalin was widely regarded as a good bad guy, most touchingly by border-line socialist Henry Wallace, FDR’s second Vice President, and George Bernard Shaw, the Nietzschean playwright – until Papa Joe formed a pact with Adolph Hitler, the mesmerizing Fuehrer of Nazi Germany, who was a bad bad guy. Some demur and think there was a bright side even to Hitler; he was, after all, a pagan vegetarian who liked dogs. But anyone who has attempted to empathize with the vegetarian dog lover generally has been regarded as a bad bad guy.

However, some on the left are ambivelent towards people who feel warmly about Hitler’s final solution – for instance Mahmoud Amadinejad, the personable president of Iran, twice invited to enlighten the United Nations members in New York, the site of the terrorist bombing of the Twin Towers. Get the flakey Amadinejad off the point of the Zionist threat, and you may discover beneath the terrorist surface a tender, tolerable vegetarian, like Hitler, a charming bank robber, like Jesse James, and a mesmerizing speaker, like the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.

While examples of bad bad guys abound, it would seem that president George Bush -- who ought to be impeached, flayed alive and hung by his thumbs in the US Capitol rotunda while being forced to listen to the sonorous speeches of Robert Byrd – ranks among the highest order of bad bad guys.

First of all, he started a war on the false pretext that the honorable president of Iraq was concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction from Hans Blick, a UN WMD inspector who, some think, would have trouble finding Al Capone if he were hiding under his bed; then Bush deposed the honorable Saddam Hussein; then he diddled in the White House while Iraq descended into chaos, finally settling on a general who routed al-Qaeda in Iraq – when really he ought to have listened to the next president of the United States, Barack Obama, who has now pledged unilaterally to invade a sovereign state, Pakistan, for the purpose of seeking out and destroying Osama bin Ladin, the Al Capone of al-Qaeda, without so much as a nod in the direction of our allies, France and Germany. Bin Ladin may or may not be alive at this point, though almost everyone would agree that he is a weapon of mass destruction and ought to be destroyed.

Barack Obama is one of the good good guys. To be sure, there are some unsavory characters tucked into the dark recesses of his closet but, on the whole, he’s good, like Robin Hood. We are not quite sure why this is so – it may have something to do with his ideological compatibility with Henry Wallace, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank -- but we are certain it is so.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p