Dictator's Guide to Holding Power: Part 5

As the events in the Muslim world of late have shown, despite thousands of years of evidence on what works to acquire and maintain a stranglehold on a populace, modern (im)potentates have clearly been out of the loop. Thus, for their benefit and that of their subjugated masses, I present

The Dictator's Guide to Holding Power (Part 5: Running Them in Circles)

So, we talked about how you need to keep the elite hunkered down and scared through your penchant for unpredictable violence.  The great unwashed are not paying much attention because they have food and something shiny to distract them.  All is well and you're finished!

Except...

Nope, it's just not that easy.  (If it were, this guide wouldn't be necessary, now would it?)  With the populace it is, but the elite can't just be scared of you.  Notice I say "just".  They should be, but that's not all.  They also should want to try to curry your favor.  Basically, dealing with them is like trying to get a stubborn mule going where you want it to go.  You can't just beat it; you have to dangle a carrot as well.  Just like raising a child (and you must view all your countrymen as malleable children), you must strike a balance between punishment and reward.  Ulimately, just like children, they will grow to seek your approval and yet resent you at the same time. Ah...filial love.  

You're not getting his attention; 

you're justifying his decision to emotionally abandon you.

At any rate, how do you accomplish this?  Well, you could simply bribe them, but then you'd seem weak at best, feckless at worst.  First of all, to do so would pierce the illusion of the puppet government; second of all, the general public actually much prefers when things go badly for the elite.  Schadenfreude might be a recent German word, but the sentiment is as old as time.

This is fantastic.  It's okay. You can admit. 

What to do then?  Well, you need to focus the energies of those who would otherwise be conniving to take your spot.  You need a civil service that appears to be a meritocracy of sorts.  You appear to be placating them by having them participate, but all you're really doing is sewing the seeds of discord by having them contend amongst themselves for pretty baubles.  With their focus on one-upping each other and acquiring non-existent power, you can rest assured they are not only not conspiring against you but undercutting each other, trying to intricate rivals in supposed sinister plots so you'll remove them from the equation and open a path to glory (or so they think).

Even though only about 50 people read this...

Please don't sue me, LucasFilm!

In the Soviet Union, the Politboro were the lackeys of Stalin and even had non-voting members, but you bet your sweet, dictator tookus that the upper ranks were doing everything they could to be part of it, just like you can bet the politburo members were doing everything they could to make sure they wouldn't be replaced.  Best of all, when one stabbed the other in the back, the little people secretly smiled; not as much as Stalin though.  That's the key.

I killed 20 million of my own people AFTER World War II...beat dat!

*********Update*********

I was informed I'm not supposed to go through a post without a hot chick, let alone two whole posts.

So.

Up Next: The finale!

Dictator's Guide to Holding Power: Part 4

As the events in the Muslim world of late have shown, despite thousands of years of evidence on what works to acquire and maintain a stranglehold on a populace, modern (im)potentates have clearly been out of the loop. Thus, for their benefit and that of their subjugated masses, I present

The Dictator's Guide to Holding Power (Part 4: Crackin' Skulls)

Now, so far in this guide I've focused on what it takes to dominate the populace because mass demonstrations have caused instability throughout the Islamic world.  However, I really can't state how unprecedented this much popular unrest is.  Typically, protests are from a small subset persecuted group (e.g. Kurds, Sunni in a Shia country, Shia in a Sunni country, etc).


I will give a wee bit of credit.  The teetering dictatorships may have completely dropped the ball on entertaining and feeding and ruling from the shadows, but they were all over Crackin' Skulls.


You see, typically, the biggest threat to a dictator doesn't come from the distant little people; it comes from the elite.  It's been that way for thousands of years.  There's chaos and one man, though force of will (and usually with a frightening talent for bloodletting) unites.  A king, a monarch, does so with the approbation of the people and nobility.

Peerless Leader of Men

A despot does so through fear and intimidation

Don't believe the hype; Jimmy will stab you in the face

Despots are usually overthrown by a close circle once his actions are too threatening to their livelihood or power.  Because they're a smaller group, organizing  resistance is more manageable.


Anyway, as I said, the modern Muslim despots have been absolutely fantastic at keeping the elite down, but at the expense of placating the populace.  You, however, are properly following this guide and so know to toss them a bone.  Here, then, is how to adequately crush opposition through the ever-so-satisfying application of tools in your dictatorial handbag 

 Yes, dictators have handbags. I assure you they're very macho.

1.  Get Rid of the Elite Who Won't/Don't Back You-  This is pretty straightforward.  Imprison through trumped up charges; assassinate with death under suspicious circumstances; flat-out send the military or police to murder.  You have options.  However you choose to do it depends on the proper balance of placating the masses (not breaking the illusion of your puppet government) and driving fear into the hearts of friend and foe alike.  You should have done most of this when you were coming to power, but if anyone ever directly challenges you, crush them or expect your lack of response to be taken as a sign of weakness that will snowball into a coup or revolution.


2.  Get Rid of the Elite Who Do Back You-  It's never a bad thing to stir the pot from time to time.  If you're a dictator the status quo can be your worst enemy because it allows your minions time to plan rather than be fearing for their safety.  Remember, a lot of your supporters are ruthless too, so, eventually, as you've held power long enough, you'll have done something to make them resent you,  even if it's simply the fact that you haven't killed anyone lately and your lack of bloodshed is viewed as a weakness.  To stave off the inevitable, a thinning/pruning is just the ticket.  It's just how it is.  

When you remove someone, it helps to have a legitimate excuse, but it's not 100% necessary.  The key is to keep your subordinates on their loyal toes, so focused on preventing a hint of suspicion that they'll turn anyone in they think is becoming disloyal.  If you do your job right, their paranoia will have them pointing fingers at each other and giving you all the justification you need.  It never hurts to personally murder someone from time to time as that boosts your ruthlessness.

 "All Right! My dictator unlocked +10 bloodthirsty!"

Don't overdo it though.  If you kill too many and make them think you're insane or make them too scared, the elite will completely join together to overthrow you.  


Lastly, another positive to killing an older supporter is that the person you elevate to their position will be in your pocket because a) you gave him what he didn't have before and b) he saw up close what happens if he doesn't toe the line.


3.  Secret Police- If you haven't already, set up a "secret" police.  Make sure everyone knows about it.

You have the right to remain...fabulous!

Have a sizable portion of them known.  Keep some actually secret, of course, but the ones out in the open are your main source of fear and intimidation.  You don't need to have them actually do nefarious things, just have them rumored to have killed or what have you.  For example, someone important died in a car crash?  Happens all the time.  No reason for you to waste an opportunity to take credit for it, even if they really died because they were texting while driving

Dumbass photographers pestered her, but now people 

are a little more respectful of QE2, aren't they?

When your secret police do actually take someone out, make sure people know about it and know why.  Send it out through back channels, while denying in public.  Smile in front of cameras; slice throats behind closed doors.

Uncle Walt don't take @$#! from no one!

Up Next: Run Them in Circles

Dictator's Guide to Holding Power: Part 3

As the events in the Muslim world of late have shown, despite thousands of years of evidence on what works to acquire and maintain a stranglehold on a populace, modern (im)potentates have clearly been out of the loop. Thus, for their benefit and that of their subjugated masses, I present

The Dictator's Guide to Holding Power (Part 3: Puppetry)

You're in charge.  The Big Boss.  El Jefe.  The Big Cheese.  You want people to know it!

So did Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Qaddafi (He doesn't know how to spell it either.  Seriously.)

They wanted to make sure everyone knew they were "runnin' shit."

See where I'm going with this?

You can do all the steps correctly.  You can entertain; you can feed; you can get power that way.  Keeping it takes a bit more nuance than "panem et circenses" and "I'm in $@#!ing charge!"  

(Important to note/ helpful tip: if you have to constantly reiterate that you're in charge, you're in deep, deep trouble already.)

People lie to themselves.  Learn this.  People want to lie to themselves.  If you give them an excuse to do it, they will, and gladly.  Humans are trained to despise tyranny but still want to be led.  Whiny sheep.

So...lie to them.  It's really that easy.

If you're holding actual power, what do you care what your "official" title is?

Glory?

If that's it, you're a retard.  You're like the people who go to law school just because they think the prestige of being an attorney makes them more important.  Enjoy being strangled/stabbed/shot.

Rome again (I know...I know...)

Augustus Caesar didn't declare himself "king."  Technically, Rome under his rule kept the republican government it always had.  There was still the senate; there were still the duly elected magistrates; everyone knew what was up though.  Occasionally he'd stand for election for one of the magistracies, but he was content to let people lie to themselves and he kept up the charade.  Successful despots have been doing this throughout world history (Shoguns in Japan, Grand Viziers under the Ottomans, etc).

Quick! Who's in charge in Iran?

Ahmadinejad?

Wrong!

The Ayatollah (and the Supreme Council)

Sure.  Sure.  They had riots, but the riots didn't go anywhere and even if they did, so what? (I say they wouldn't have had riots if they not only allowed but endorsed public boobies, btw)  They're protesting against a puppet government.  Swap out Ahmadinejad, who has no authority beyond what he's allowed, for someone more palatable.  Okay.  Change the window dressing but the view stays the same.  

(Please note, this is different from the US, where when one party replaces the other it is also changing the window dressing and the view not changing; however, the difference is that there is no mastermind retaining power/guiding policy.  We're a driverless tank careening down an urban highway during rush hour. Not pretty.)

Quick! Who's in charge in Russia?

(If you're in charge, never have your shirt off outside of the bedroom)

Putin!

Except he's not.  He's the Prime Minister, technically.  Medvedev is the President.  But everyone knows it's Putin.  He just had to let everyone know he's "runnin' shit."  For now, it's working for him, so long as people remember how bad things used to be, but unless he starts a war to distract from his failings...wait? He already did that?  Oooh.  That doesn't look good for him.

[Stirring up foreign issues to mask domestic troubles is the 1A move in your dictator playbook.  I haven't mentioned it before because if you don't know that you never should have gotten there in the first place. For examples, see everything Ahmadenijad does ("holocaust!" and "nukes!")]

Anyway, the Ayatollah is smart.  He rules and let his puppet dance around and say ridiculous crap and deal with the fallout.  Putin's not going to survive when Russia is tired of his crap.  I'm not saying the Ayatollah is, since he isn't feeding and he isn't entertaining, but he'll be able to withstand the initial blast.

Mubarak failed because he made his puppet government too obviously fake.  Once there's an uprising is not the time to try to institute a more legitimate fake government ("Okay. Fine. I'll have a Vice-President, I guess...).  

Besides, let the little people deal with the day to day boring crap.  They feel "empowered" and you don't have to do the mind-numbing work of approving road resurfacing, school building, and the like.  The most successful dictator lets people play at their silly little government game and then steps in and says "no more play time" when it suits him.  Tyrants are micro-managers.

The Emir of Kuwait, whom I've already pointed out is pretty fantastic at the feeding and entertaining, also is great at puppetry.  The official government of Kuwait is a Constitutional Monarchy.  There's an elected parliament.  They run things. 

(You'd be smiling too if you had duped everyone that well)

Until the Emir decides they can go screw themselves.  Then he's allowed to dissolve the national assembly and assume total power.  Obviously, he does that rarely because he doesn't have to, but just having that ability means that when he makes a suggestion they do what he says.  The founder of the modern Kuwaiti state was brilliant.  If Kuwait somehow screws up (hard to do considering their oil reserves are so large in contrast to how small the country is), the Emir will be able to throw the parliament under the bus.  He's absolutely loved and absolutely in control and he doesn't have to deal with day-to-day B.S.  He should be your role-model.

 (This is to remind you to remember to feed and entertain; also, so I can get people to read, I have to include at least one scantily clad woman per post...sad part is, it doesn't matter that it's Paris Hilton eating a hamburger; it's still the reason they'll scroll through the article)

Up Next: Crackin' Skulls! (Fun Times!)

Dictator's Guide to Holding Power: Part 2

As the events in the Muslim world of late have shown, despite thousands of years of evidence on what works to acquire and maintain a stranglehold on a populace, modern (im)potentates have clearly been out of the loop. Thus, for their benefit and that of their subjugated masses, I present

The Dictator's Guide to Holding Power (Part 2: Food)

Cheap/Free food. Pretty damn obvious. Even in America our leaders have tried this one. They were right to do so. It works.

I point to Rome, again. (On a side note, if you don't want to see references to Classical Antiquity, read another blog.) Why point to Rome? Because Rome was an excellent example of doing what it took to keep the masses at bay. They had two systems of government (republic and principate) that lasted hundreds of years (even if I only count the principate being effective to the end of Marcus Aurelius' reign) and they rested heavily on food distribution. These dictatorships we have nowadays rarely last more than one generation. Anyway, Rome put the impoverished on the corn dole, flat-out feeding the urban lazy and incompetent, going so far as subjugating other nations to do so (thank you, Egypt).

As with pretty much all Rome's problems, it wasn't the masses that caused the revolutions, it was the privileged upper classes. That's a topic for later in this series though.

Anyway, the key is to keep the masses happy. More specifically the massed masses. People are easy to pick off individually, but they're much more problematic in groups. You, the aspiring dictator, must (MUST!) placate the urban masses. That's not resigned to ancient civilizations. That's a modern necessity too, and not just from totalitarian dictatorships.

The US doesn't care that Mississippi is a backwater craphole. As long as the Northeast corridor and West Coast keep inflation in check, their unemployment reasonable, and their entitlements coming, all is well. $@#! the South and Midwest!

On an amusing note, the rural areas that get screwed are the ones who provide the food to the people who screw them over. It's always been that way.

"Fat, dumb, and happy", as the saying goes. Break it down and you'll see the point I've been trying to make. "Fat" equals free/cheap food. "Dumb" equals minds filled with drivel (mass media entertainment). "And" equals =. "Happy" equals complacent and amenable.

So, free/cheap food + minds filled with drivel (eg. boobs + explosions) = complacent and amenable.

If you haven't noticed, I like equations.

Anyway, let's look at Libya.

Population: approximately 6.5 million

GDP: $62 Billion

Live chicken: $2-5

Cost of giving everyone (even the rich people who don't need them) TWO chickens: $65 million (at most)

That's a hell of a lot cheaper than being overthrown and shot and stabbed and having your corpse mutilated.

"But what the hell can people do with 2 chickens? If they eat them, then they're hungry again soon, and if they have a rooster and a hen, then they're eating eggs, plus they need grain to feed them."

Okay, fine. Be difficult.

Cost of giving everyone in Libya a chicken a day: $2.4 billion

That's still a hell of a lot cheaper than being overthrown and shot and stabbed and having your corpse mutilated.

Also, the beauty of entitlements when you're a dictator is that if people get uppity, you can threaten to take them away once they're dependent on you. Food distribution=control.

Food is all about why North Korea's going to fall (give it time; it will). Yes, the military has guns, but the whole country is starving. If the Kims had any sense, they'd feed, feed, feed. The reason it's taking so long is that Pyongyang is hip to keeping the masses from massing so they restrict migration to urban areas, effectively keeping the poor starving people from noticing there's a metric crap ton of other poor starving people all over the place (Libya and Egypt, conversely, have seen their urban/rural ratio soar towards urban in the past 40 years). If you won't listen to reason (feed them), but simply want to delay the inevitable, I recommend the North Korean route.

(He feels that way about North Korea too)

Anyway, to finish about food, I'll just give one more equation, this time concerning current dictatorships' handling of the food-populace manipulation paradigm.

Current Dictators=Dumb as Stumps

(minus the Emir of Kuwait, who wisely pays all Kuwaitis oil money, with which they buy food and gold-plated Mercedez-Benzes and supermodels)

Dictator's Guide to Holding Power: Part 1

As the events in the Muslim world of late have shown, despite thousands of years of evidence on what works to acquire and maintain a stranglehold on a populace, modern (im)potentates have clearly been out of the loop. Thus, for their benefit and that of their subjugated masses, I present

The Dictator's Guide to Holding Power (Part 1: Entertainment)

First of all, people are sheep. That's the good news. They want to go where someone else leads and then, once they get where they've been taken, they're more than satisfied to eat, poop, and rut. So long as they aren't in the abattoir, they're content, even if they're in the holding pens just outside and hear the wailing within.

1. Entertainment

Unfortunately, unlike sheep, people require entertainment. Even if they want nothing more than to eat, poop, and rut, in between those activities they want distraction from their sheep lives. No self-respecting shepherd would do cartwheels to keep the sheep happy, but, unfortunately, bored human beings are way, way, way more deadly than sheep, so you have to play along. Bored humans bitch, but then they also don't take personal accountability for their lots in life, so that leaves the big guy in their cross hairs.

Julius Caesar understood this completely. When he was following the traditional Roman politician's career path, the Cursus Honorum, he nearly bankrupted himself as an Aedile, the official in charge of public games and festivals. His fellow politicians were ticked off because he was playing to the masses and, more troubling to them, it was working (they didn't mind him bankrupting himself). The people loved Caesar. He ended up going on a massive killing spree, otherwise glorified as the conquest of Gaul, mostly so he could recoup his losses from entertaining the Roman hoi polloi. When he became de facto dictator he was killed, as all know, but it wasn't because the Great Unwashed wanted him dead at all. He crushed the government and the people had him deified after his death.

Long story short, a smart dictator includes a sizable portion of his budget for entertaining the masses. Wave the opening flag at races. Throw out the first pitch. Do the coin toss at the 50 yard line. These things are all well and good, but the smart dictator makes himself the commissioner of all the leagues, plus hosts the Super Bowl/World Series/Finals at his mega sporting complex that he built.

Also, I'd suggest personally funding movies and TV shows. Nothing controversial, of course. Big mindless summer blockbusters and silly sitcoms. Give your country's Michael Bay or James Cameron $2 Billion and let him go nuts. Hire Super Models and Soft Core Adult Actresses to prance around in their underwear in some cookie-cutter-premised tv show. You're the government; you can outspend any rivals.

People are animals. Animals are attracted to shiny. Boobs, explosions, whatever. Never forget that and you'll be fine.

(BOOBS!)

+

(EXPLOSIONS!)

+

(SEAN CONNERY!)

=

HAPPINESS!!!!

Up Next: Free Food!

An Open Letter to Blake Lively or Melanie Iglesias

Look, I'm going to be upfront here. You're ridiculously hot. Obvious, I know. That's the thing with looks; they're right there for everyone to see. Not necessarily the best way to judge people, but damn effective and pretty much universal. 

Unfortunately, for me, I'm not ridiculously hot. I don't mean that I'm Quasimodo here, but I can be honest. I tend more towards the average part of the looks spectrum. That being said, I don't think it's very fair that my conformity to norms of appearance should really be a hindrance to our getting married on top of a mountain (a mountain!) and having a baseball team of progeny. Married to each other, to be clear.

You see, I'm smart. I don't mean "Oh, he keeps his checkbook balanced!" smart. I don't mean "He remembers the quadratic formula" smart. (Actually, I really don't mean the quadratic formula smart; I'm borderline retarded when it comes to higher math.) Never mind about that. What I mean is I'm super-smart. Super-smart in that way that will inevitably result in my being hailed as a prophet of some sort. Plenty of people are fantastic at calculus, even quantum mechanics, but hardly anyone inspires acolytes/ cultists. That's the kind of smart I'm talking about here. Plus, I know things about the Byzantine Empire.

You've made a living off of your looks. I've made one off of my brains/personal magnetism. I say you should let me do the thinking for you and I'll let you do the being jaw-droppingly pretty for me. See? We're already making a fantastic team.

But no. That's not how it's gone so far. You've been off trying to think on your own. How's that worked? About as well as my trying to be stupendously sexy. Sure, I've attempted it, but it's been cosmically comical and people have said snide things about it behind my back. I know they have because I'm super-smart. Also, my quasi-mutant-large ears are sensitive.

You've been dating pretty boys, no doubt. Models or actors or rock stars or athletes. You may even have dated a "bad boy" (biker or some such) or two. No. Bad. 

I'm not any of those things (though I was captain of my high school baseball team...but that doesn't mean I was athletic), so I can definitely tell you you've been going about this all wrong. You were never going to find me that way. Hence why I'm having to post this for you on the internet.

Other than being historically brilliant, I'll give some of my qualifications. I mean, I don't want to just rest on that one thing, otherwise you might think I'm puffing myself up. As Schopenhauer said, "Intellect is invisible to the man who has none." Millennial intellects like mine probably seem like make-believe to most people, even relatively smart ones. Like Einstein. He probably wouldn't understand how awesome I am. Anyway, I'm not saying you don't (or won't, when we finally meet) get how brilliant I am, but I'll sweeten the pot, as it were.

I'm tall. Not freakishly so, but, yeah, 6'2". Women seem to appreciate that for some reason. Also, I'm not fat. At the same time, I'm not skinny. I'm sort of a nebulous in-between of out-of-shape. I'm like unmolded clay. Want me to be fat? I can do that. Want me to be heroin-skinny? I can do that too (though I won't be happy about it...unless you put me on heroin). I'm willing to work with you. See? I'm open to compromise.

Also, I'm manly. Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean that in the "micro" sense where it means I drink Budweiser, tell sexist jokes around the camp fire (though I've done that before), and punch people clearly weaker than me. No, I mean I'm "macro" manly. Historically manly. I don't do anything small-time.

I was (and sorta still am) a Captain in the US Army. And I wasn't a quartermaster, counting toilet paper rolls or whatever it is that they do. Nope. I was artillery. 30+ ton killing machines that fire 95.5lbs projectiles of death 18 miles away from out of 20' tubes. That's manly. Also, it's slightly phallic, now that I think about it. Whatever. Anyway, I wasn't bayoneting babies in the face or anything like that. I was an officer. That's the difference between micro and macro manliness. I had subordinates to do the distasteful stuff.

What else? Technically, I'm a lawyer. You disturbingly, aberrantly beautiful women seem to allow doctors, lawyers, and businessmen to paw on you from time to time, so I figure I should mention it. I do have to add a caveat to that by admitting that I don't practice, and not because I'm so wealthy that I don't have to practice. To be honest, being a lawyer just isn't a whole lot of fun. It's not like Matlock or Boston Legal, no matter what anyone may tell you. It's mostly paperwork and despair.

I would like to say I'm a writer, and I guess I can. You're reading this after all, but, as far as defining myself as one, I don't think I can quite do that yet. I've written a couple of books but I haven't been published...other than a few articles I got printed in a newspaper my dad assistant edits. Does that count? Let's not get hung up on this one.

So, I'm sort of a warrior, lawyer, and a writer. Those are all pretty bad-ass, I must say. Feathers in my cap. All three of those are macro manly. Macro manly tends to be a bit more boring than micro manly. Bikers and lumberjacks are micro manly. They're pretty exciting, I admit, but, typically, they're awfully dumb and they dredge up loads of drama. You don't want that.

Don't get me wrong though. It's not all responsibility and boredom when you're with me. I can be exciting. You see, I'm also an adventurer. It's hard to quantify what, exactly, an adventurer is or how I am one, but, basically, think of a not-as-sexually-intimidating Indiana Jones crossed with a slightly less-masochistic version of Bear Grylls and then add some boozy insouciance and tada! that's me.

Everything is an adventure to me. I don't say that to justify calling myself an adventurer when I haven't done anything objectively adventurous. Oh no. I've done some of the big stuff. I've been to war. I canoed 2,180 miles down the Mississippi River. I tried to date a female law student or two (Insanity personified). Hell, I even managed to get a $550 speeding ticket in a Fiat. Those were no simple tasks.

What have the guys you usually date ever done? Been pretty? Popular?

BOAARR-ING. I think it's time to go for a change of pace. Really, it's pretty clear that you don't have any other option but to fall head-over-heels in love with me.

Also, think about how popular you'll become. When "regular" guys (ie not anomalously good-looking) think they have a chance (disclaimer: I'm not regular, but they won't be able to tell I'm not because they'll only be judging by looks), your career will skyrocket. See? I'm looking out for you. It's not all about me.

I'm casting a pretty wide net here, writing this to both of you, I know, but, again, I'm super-smart. I have to double my chances. Unless both of you go for this. In which case it really will be an adventure. Or both of you call the law on me. In which case I guess I won't be coming home from Afghanistan any time soon. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

To summarize, you're awesome; I'm awesome. I'm way, way more awesome than any other man you've ever met or will ever meet. We're "totes" meant to be. You'll see.

With Much Affection,

Ajax Carpenter

Meeting Face

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I Am NOT Cool With On-Line Gaming

There used to be a difference of about 20 years per generation. People within that generation could identify with each other based on common experiences or culture. That 20 year deal went out the window after the Baby Boomers.

Baby Boomers. Straightforward. What was the generation of their kids? It's my generation and I'm not certain. They tried Generation-X, "Gen-Xers" to be hip, but that didn't really work. I mean Gen-X should have started in 1965 and lasted to 85 but it doesn't seem right to call a 46-year-old man Gen-X, just because the marketed "cool" aspect is gone by middle age. I heard a theory saying Gen-X stopped with 1979, making me the last year of it. After that was the Reagan Generation or the MTV Generation or something, but then even that got shrunk down to about a decade because there needed to be a generation for the Computer or Internet ("Dot Commers"?). I say from now on we can pretty much just label them all the Failure Generation. Damn uppity kids.

Okay, anyway, enough of bitching about that. I'm just saying, the whole idea of a generation was that there would be some sort of way to identify them through shared ideals. If I'm Generation X, and the youngest of the batch at that, then what I'm going to say isn't going to be shocking to my fellow Xers.

@$#! online gaming.

I came of age on NES. That system was freaking awesome. 8-bits and it was genius. It was reminiscent of arcade culture where when your character died, you started over again and the only way to show you were a true, unadulterated bad-ass was to be a true, unadulterated bad-ass. You didn't get to continue unless you had a cheat code. Try winning Contra without up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, start. I dare you. Castlevania might as well be impossible. You wanted to achieve on the NES, you gawddamm achieved or you sold the game to a friend for half what you paid for it and lied about being bored with it.

Sure, not all games were hard, but there was a feeling like you were pretty special if you could win an NES game. I remember friends inviting me to their house to show them how to beat Goonies 2. They sat and watched. If it was time for me to go home to, you know, sleep, I'd just press pause, turn off their TV and then come back at retarded o'clock the next morning and they'd keep watching. Saving mermaid Annie and beating the Fratellis was THAT big of a deal. Sega Genesis was similar. I didn't get real far with Altered Beasts. Where did it change? The Playstation.

Now, you might say "You're missing PC games." I'd answer, "Yeah, because I wasn't a dork." I liked video games. I wasn't sickly white from not seeing the sun for months at a time and wallowing in my 4-days-worn underwear. PC gamers back then seemed like the D&D kids with a new format. I never did the D&D thing. I played sports. Sunshine was my friend.

Anyway, most kids were like me. We liked sunshine and girls and consoles (even if I was, and am, intimidated by women). Playstation sorta ruined all of it. With the Playstation, you had the memory card and could save, the graphics were good enough for cinematics, and you could have voices. Videogames became like movies.

Because they were like movies, and so much time was put in those cinematic flourishes, the developers sure as hell weren't going to make the games so hard you wouldn't see what they'd dumped the majority of their budget on, so they made them so you could restart levels or go to checkpoints. Then they discovered that people are lazy and *like* feeling like winners. Then games got too easy and they had to start having various difficulty levels.

I HATE difficulty levels.

The first time I play a game, I don't want to play on super-duper-insane, because I don't want to kick the dog and threaten to murder my mother out of frustration. I pick the "normal" and I fly through the damn thing. Then, I'm good to go at playing "hard", but by then I already know the story line and don't really care about beating the game with a piece of tofu as my only weapon. By then, I'm looking for something else. So, yeah, I'm kinda lazy too. But I liked it better when there was one level and it was tough as balls and you had to deal with it. Nothing pisses me off more than when I'm playing on "hard" and am having trouble with a boss fight or something and continually dying and the game asks if I want to dial my difficulty setting back.

"I will stab you, video game!" (Punts Fluffy)

Anyway, as I've aged, I've gotten to a point where I don't play video games because they'd be fun. I play video games to make time pass (try sitting through law school lectures without them) or to keep from thinking about all the things in adult life that drive me nuts (money, job, women, etc). Video games are my zen garden. Wax on. Wax off.

Which brings me to online games. I don't want "interactive experience" with fellow gamers. If I'm not playing a sports game, drunk, against a buddy of mine sitting on the couch next to me, I don't want to have squat to do with anyone else. My video gaming is a sad little reality-avoidance technique that I prefer to do alone. Sorta like masturbation. Just because there's swaths of people who also do it to, I don't want to do it with them. Unless, I guess, I'm drunk and they're sitting on the couch next to me. Hmmm...the analogy breaks down there, but whatever.

I "game" on laptops nowadays because I travel and need to be mobile. I need a self-contained game so that when I'm in a meeting, I can be killing orcs or reconquering the Roman Empire, or what have you. I don't want to feel like I have to be tethered to an internet connection. BTW, for you people out there who can't imagine this, there are places on this planet where high-speed internet does not come out to play.

Beyond that, I don't give much of a crap about my level whatever character taking on your level more pathetic character who unfailingly destroys me because you chose not to sleep for a week. I just want to thrash things and move on to the next challenge. Plus, usually when I play video games it's because I don't want to deal with people. I don't want to deal with them in a more frustrating way (headset or in-game messaging).

Now though it seems like they're making games primarily for online vehicles. Why can't I just play a Modern Warfare game through the normal way? Why is the focus on playing with other people. I'm a misanthrope. @#$! other people. Especially the kind of people who play online video games.

The reason all this comes up is because I also like comic books. There's a game that looks cool, DC Universe Online. Well, I couldn't play it if I wanted to (no high-speed in Kabul) and then, IT COSTS $15 A MONTH/$199 FOR LIFETIME TO PLAY, AFTER YOU PURCHASE THE GAME FOR $50-60! I must be getting old, because @#$! that. I just want to play as Batman or some other super hero, beat people up and save the day. I'm not trying to join an alternate reality.

I like my sadness/ennui solitary and self-contained, people.

@$#! online gaming.

If you disagree, enjoy being part of the Failure Generation.

Hi. I'm Ajax and I'm an Addict

I tried to deny it for a long time, but I now accept it. I spend money that I don't need to on it, and I figured it didn't matter because I can afford it. I figured it was no big deal because I live in Afghanistan and we all need our thing. I've finally noticed that I get testy and irritable without it. I have to have it, and usually as soon as possible after I wake up.

Damn you, coffee!

The Price We Pay for Heritage

Just saw a soldier with the last name of Willcockson. Wow. I mean, if someone is named Baker because his ancestor made bread, there has to be a lot of trauma and unresolved daddy issues in the Willcockson family.

Same with the Dickinsons.

How Are We Not Doing This With Cheerleading

So, up until middle age I felt I was fairly normal. My friends and I used to watch 18-22 year olds. No harm there. Perfectly understandable. Now though, I feel like they've gone a little overboard. I found out they're joining pay sites to watch video of 16 and 17 year olds. I just can't do it. It feels wrong. And the things they talk about now, it's a little too much, even for me, and I consider myself a fanatic. It's like Dateline NBC is going to go To Catch A Predator when we all get together.

I *know* creepy and I'm gonna tell you; middle aged men sitting around drinking beer and talking about young athletic men is just wrong.

"He's a beast!"

"Look at how he bursts through the hole!"

"He's got power and speed!"

"Look how he defends the blindside!"

"He just puts his head down and barrels in! He's a grinder!"

"Have you ever seen a kid zip it in there like that?

"He's got a rocket, but he's got feel too!"

"He might not be the prettiest, but at the end of the day, he just goes up and gets it!"

"He's not fast enough to stay as a tight end at the next level."

"Suffocating. Smothering. Sticky hands."

NAMBLA members are less effusive.

I cannot get into college football recruiting. Too creepy.

Not like the NFL draft. That's awesome.