|
 'm
only disappointed that our servicemen are on their way home before
the administration could implement the truly
perfect solution.
This one should be filed away for future reference.
As you are
probably aware, Chinese President Jiang Zemin was demanding a fulsome
apology from the United States for not stopping a Chinese plane
from ramming an American plane.
Things were
tense. As a China "specialist" who was quoted in the New
York Times explained, Jiang had no choice but to take a hard
line because he has "very diverse constituencies, and they
all have to brought on board, both in the bureaucracy and in the
public."
Or he could
just shoot them.
By contrast,
an American president really does have to respond to constituencies.
By and large, Americans take a dim view of eating dogs, shooting
students, and subjecting American servicemen to communist show trials
until the American president agrees to hop on one foot dressed like
a chicken. President Bush is hemmed in by peculiar American attitudes
that demand proper treatment of American men and women, rather than
execution in Tiananmen Square.
On one hand,
it is totally humiliating for an American president to have to apologize
to a 3-foot-tall dictator for his plane crashing into our plane.
But on the other hand, short of all-out thermonuclear war, there
was no other choice if we can't bear the idea of Americans being
treated like the Chinese government treats its own people.
So this was
my idea: Have President Clinton apologize. He'd get all weepy, bite
his lower lip, ramble on and on and on — the full Jimmy Swaggart
routine. But at the same time, everyone would know he didn't mean
it.
We could even
have two separate tape reels, one short action shot for Jiang's
"constituencies" and one with the outtakes for American
viewers. Remember the footage of Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral?
The full tape showed Clinton happily strolling along, smiling and
laughing — until he catches sight of a camera. Then he quickly
hangs his head and pretends to wipe away a tear. It's a beautiful
moment.
And now his
country needs him. No other human so thoroughly lacks the capacity
for embarrassment. (He's probably headed in China's direction right
now on that Thai sex tour anyway.) Actually, we don't even need
Clinton. That guy from Saturday Night Live could do it. Americans
can barely tell the difference; the Chinese surely won't.
In lieu of
the Jimmy Swaggart solution, I have Backup Auxiliary Offer No. 2,
which I call the "win-win solution." But first, this one
requires a little background.
In the last
election, Bush won: the election, two recounts in Florida permitted
by law, a third recount not permitted by law, and a count of all
Florida absentee ballots — before the U.S. Supreme Court finally
said enough.
Now it turns
out Bush also won every conceivable method of counting the Florida
ballots concocted by the Miami Herald (which endorsed Gore)
and USA Today (which did not endorse a presidential candidate)
— but one. Pursuant to this one single counting method —
which was not among the 17 methods requested by Al Gore or ordered
by the Democratic Florida supreme court — Gore might be three
votes ahead of Bush. Literally, five months after the election,
they think they've finally found a method of counting ballots that
puts Gore three votes ahead.
Commenting
on the media recounts that produced the exact same result as all
the official tabulations, the New York Times stated: "They
provide stark evidence of how imprecise our voting system is."
There is more
important background information. In a classic Tax-Cuts-for-the-Rich
expose, the New York Times began a story last week: "Carrie
Villa of Helena, Mont. has a dream — a house of her own on
a nearby mountain." She thought she might "achieve her
dream" when President Bush came through Montana recently, promoting
his tax cut.
She'd "heard
the president talk about a 'typical family' making $40,000 a year"
and that "the Bush plan would return $1,600 to that family."
Excitedly, she "took out a calculator and a tax form and did
some numbers."
Sadly, her
hopes were dashed. After working with the calculator for a while,
"Ms. Villa discovered that the president's tax cut would not
put a single extra dime in her pocket."
All that was
on the front page, above the fold. You had to persevere to Page
A-18 to find out that Ms. Villa doesn't pay any federal income tax.
What was she doing with that calculator exactly? Hmmm, I pay
zero dollars in federal income tax now, so if my entire tax burden
were reduced to zero under the Bush plan, I'd be up ... zero dollars!
Let's run those numbers again.
Don't we have
journalists in China? Next time let's make a trade. Give us the
kids back and keep the Times reporters.
|
