Colin Simpson's Game

My friend, Baysage, said to me the other day that it was an atrocity that I could get my head bashed for expressing sentiments such as I had done - merely saying that the USA was a nation of absolute fools and being opposed to more military spending. This was in a post of his titled "Oh, Good" on March 16 2009 at http://whatpowderfingersaid.blogspot.com/ My own big problem is that I am finding it harder and harder to find people to insult and to annoy. Even my father agrees with me. Case in point: I can say Bush was a fool, now my father nods his head, smiles ruefully, and says "Yeah, yeah...but what choice did we have?" I can say the USA is a nation of fools, and he agrees. I can deride organized religion, and he sighs, observing that we never knew real Christianity. I say we are idolators of War, and he now says that, although he'd say it differently, he always said that he thought we made the mistake of falling in love with War after WW II. He still attacks Obama as a spell-binding orator ( which I think is FOX-type-1930s- code for "Mussolini" and "Hitler" ). He attacks Obama for Socialism ( which is the same thing that happened to FDR in the New Deal ). So what gives with this meeting-me-half-way nonsense? What good is it to be a curmudgeon if people are all going to smile sheepishly, nod their heads, and mutter some words of agreement? I mean, I suppose if some lunatic right-winger were walking done the street and bumped into the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, they'd say, "You know, Rev, you were right as rain about them chickens coming home to roost." Smile sheepishly. Nod head. Shuffle off to Buffalo. I feel that my gloom and doom has been usurped by the natural target of my scorn. For pity sake! How can I call someone a dunce, if they are already wandering about with a gap-toothed smile and wearing a size 7 dunce cap? You can't. It is totally superfluous. I would be accused of commenting on the obvious. Thursday past, my father and I talked a good deal about things in general. I told him I no longer keep up with the news. I also told him there is no point in arguing about Obama this, Obama that. The reason lies in the nature of a game of poker favored by St. Colin. Back when we actually knew people we felt friendly towards, we used to have a party every fall at my father's place on the river. One person who attended every year was Colin Simpson. Colin passed away in 2007, and he was almost immediately canonized by not only the Catholic Church, but also the Atheists' Guild and the Brimstone Club. Colin had a number of variants of poker he'd play. We always ended the evening with a favorite called "Butcher's Block", the results of which are indicated by the name. There was, however, another game he favored, which was a seven card variation. It essentially had all cards dealt face down, ante, turn over one card at a time, bet on the best five cards in your hand. Well, we agreed that the situation today is like that Blind Seven Card: all the cards are dealt; no point, really, to argue any more. Arguing means you think you can change how the cards are dealt. They're all out there. Now we are just turning them over...slowly...one at a freakin' time...and dreading what turns up. My father also agrees that the last depression was helped along to a speedy end by WWII and the rebuilding of Europe and the world in its aftermath. However, since there's no one around anymore big enough to fight on a world wide scale - and we can't even beat the little guys - this is probably not an alternative this time round. We also agreed on some points about economics and concentration of wealth: it is dangerous to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few; it leads to class warfare. It also occurred in the 1920s as we worked our way into the Great Depression, and is seen as one of its causes. If there is a game called "National Economy", and it has a number of strategies, what nation in its right mind would pick a zero-sum strategy called "Concentration of Wealth in the Hands of a Few" which is known to have a high probability of a disastrous outcome? Why not choose something like a strategy of allowing the wealth greater circulation to insure social concord, to insure that the country does not fall into warring camps? Yet for the past 20 years, there have been no lack of articles and warning about this particular folly. I have called this country a nation of fools for that very reason: its strategies are those that have a high probability of disastrous outcomes. The cards are all on the table. I think the game called "Restore the National Economy" will take at least 45 years.