Somewhat Scholarly Reflections on Science Fiction, Part 2

For Part I of this series, see here.

Dozois Year's Best 30

As lovers of all literary forms, from Romance to the classics, we don’t turn our noses up at anything, mainly because we know that everything is interesting in its way.

But not everyone shares our eclectic preferences or polymath tendencies.  For decades, the literary establishment considered Science Fiction writing to be little more than a lowbrow diversion suitable for children and the lower classes.  The pre-pulp and pulp eras of the genre are probably the most illustrative of the times when that attitude was prevalent.

After WWII, however, the tide shifted and the stereotypical science fiction fan was a pimply male who was better in the classroom than on the playing fields of the world.  Fans of SF clustered together and fandom–a pioneer that showed today’s myriad fan communities the way forward–was born.  The fiction, of course, was still dismissed as something that was fine for teenage boys: you know, rocketships and robots and that sort of thing.

Both of these stereotypes over-generalized, of course.  The literature being published in the pulps was often excellent… and the postwar fans were not all pimpled nerds.  Having said that, there were arguments that upheld both of those assumptions, and no one was particularly concerned with debunking the prejudice except for SF fans themselves, and no one really cared what they thought.

In the sixties, those postwar teens had become adults, and deeply resented the ghettoization of their beloved genre.  They set fingers to typewriters to prove that SF could be grown up as well, and proceeded to bombard the world with reams of mostly-forgotten prose (Dune being the major exception) that proved that the genre could do character-driven stories, stream-of-consciousness, literary sexuality, drug-addled confusion, angsty existentialism and pop psychology just as well as the literati of the day.  It was the New Wave.

Luckily for the genre, that particular tendency soon died out and SF went back to its roots in the seventies. After the new wave, the genre was more mature and held a much higher profile (more thanks to Star Wars that anything the New Wave did for it), but it was still easily recognizable as the genre which had been born in the pulps and not some weird thing that Andy Warhol would have written had he been a writer.

The eighties, which we discussed here continued the pendular swing towards action-driven SF, but the pendulum swung back decisively in the nineties.

With a few honorable exceptions, the more visible genre is now dominated by character-driven, agenda-driven literary fiction, and is bitterly split roughly along political party lines in the US.  At the risk of over-generalizing, Democrats seem to appreciate the high-quality writing of the genre the way it is, and are at the helm of many of the established magazines and also at least one of the major houses while Republicans find the current iteration of SF to be mind-numbingly dull and overly focused on politics over substance (this is the essence of the famous Sad Puppies schism).  They are also the core audience of one of the publishing houses.

Other than the two we’ve mentioned, the rest of the houses don’t actually care about the color of the politics if they think they can sell the book, so there is more literary diversity on the bookshelves than in the magazine spectrum but, as the talent in SF is supposed to come up from the magazine world, even the big houses’ output does tend to skew a little to the left.

So why am I rehashing and oversimplifying the history of the SF genre?  Easy, I’ve been catching up on my reading of Gardner Dozois’ Year’s Best Science Fiction Anthologies.  Though I’m still a couple of years behind, I recently read #29 and #30.

A quick note for those new to the genre: Dozois, a former editor of Asimov’s is the current taste-maker of the SF genre.  Vastly experienced, he is hugely respected in the field and can be essential in making (or ignoring) promising young writers.  He specializes in the short form, which means that he can turn an obscure story in a mag into a famous piece just by including it and praising it in one of his anthologies.

Anyhow, Dozois’ taste has evolved over the years, perhaps matching, perhaps leading, the genre’s swing towards more literary sensibility and political activeness and less entertainment.  The two or three Year’s Best books before #29 had been pretty dull and more concerned with diversity of voices than diversity of content, broken only by the occasional Alastair Reynolds tale (Reynolds is always high-concept fun and I honestly think he doesn’t care about politics at all… at least that’s the impression I get from his fiction).

Dozois Year's Best 29

And #29 was just another one of these.  Kind of a slog.  Some good stories and some great writing in there, but not enough to become a memorable collection.  Sort of another grey monument to the “diversity” era of SF.  The worst of it is that the individual stories are all generally good.  The problem is that, when taken together, they put the problems of the genre into sharp focus.  No one seems to want to deviate from the norm and after two dozen tales, it does get monotonous.

Number 30… gives me hope.  There seemed to be less grey porridge in there, and a few more tales that march to their own drummer.  Reynolds, of course, but also a brilliant one by Stephen Popkes.  It just seemed… better than any of the prior ones, perhaps a sign that, after a couple of decades, the pendulum is swinging back towards the sense of wonder that has been lacking in the genre for so long.  (or it might have been the fact that they re-used the cover art from Foundation and Earth, and this colored my thinking!)

Foundation and Earth by Isaac Asimov

Of course, this might just be a flash in the pan.  Both of these came before the Puppies controversy.  That ended with the establishment simply retrenching and covering up their ears, trying to yell louder than the opposition–as it does in every walk of life–and widening the gap.  Time will tell if Dozois took the same line.  Our review of the anthos from the next few years should answer that.  Stay tuned!


Beyond a Few Statues

Statue of Lenin Dropped

If you were alive in 1989, then you remember the end of socialism.  Millions of people decided that individual freedoms were more important than collective security and, defying humorless men with guns, brought down nearly every government in Eastern Europe.

One of the lasting images burned into the retinas of those of us glued to CNN was that of statues of socialist leaders being pulled down all across the region.

Of course, it wasn’t that simple.  The destruction of a few statues was not enough to destroy the idea of socialism, and, twenty years later, the world is awash with left-leaning ideas that cover the spectrum from slight sacrifices in personal freedom in the name of more equality for vulnerable populations to full-blown communism.  Socialism clearly isn’t dead.

Why?  Well, because the statues weren’t socialism, and neither was the Berlin Wall.  Socialism is a collection of ideas about how society should be structured in order to achieve a certain number of goals.  These ideas range from making capitalism a little more “fair” to doing away with the capitalist system altogether.

And these ideas don’t live in statues.  Statues are about power, but ideas live in books.  That’s why socialism didn’t die when everyone thought it had: those books stayed on the shelves and eventually a new generation of activists and scholars rediscovered them.

The above seemed a timely reminiscence, as today’s review is about Gone with the Wind.  The book, not the movie.

Why timely?  Because, as I write, there has been a very recent series of high-profile removals of Confederate statues from public spaces in the US, mainly of General Lee.  These removals took place in a highly polarized climate, but were undeniably driven by a large number of people (although they were probably also opposed by an equal number… as one can imagine, reliable numbers in today’s media climate are hard to come by).  Protesters and counter-protesters clashed, with violent and even tragic results.

Perhaps the problem is that both sides seem to have forgotten the lessons of 1989.  No one cared about the statues until they became front page news; they were just part of the urban landscape, and I’d have been willing to bet that most could not have told you who the guy on the horse was until everything hit the fan.

But the ideas?  They exist.  In the case of the Confederacy there is a structured case for why it existed: broadsides, pamphlets, letters and even the constitution are in university archives.  But these documents are not the ones that keep the idea of the Old South alive for its proponents.  Popular media does that job.

Perhaps the most virulent example of propaganda in that respect is a film: Birth of a Nation.  It tells the story from the Southern side, and no matter where your sympathies lie, you end up feeling strongly for the characters.  Yes, time has passed it by and the premise of the “Ride of the Klan” is cartoonish and grotesque, but the film is very well done all the same.  In fact, it is considered one of the true greats of early film.

More subtle is Judge Priest, where folksy Will Rogers shows us how it’s done without beating anyone over the head with it.

Gone with the Wind Paperback

There are countless other examples, mainly from the twenties and thirties when mass media was working up some serious steam, but the biggest seller of the idea of the Old South was clearly Gone with the Wind.

The film… was just a Hollywood blockbuster, and not really a propaganda piece (despite never questioning the nobility of the Confederate cause), but I’d argue that the book is the Old South’s Communist Manifesto.  It’s impossible to read this brick and not feel truly moved by the plight of every single Southern character (except Scarlett–she’s unbearable), and feel a deep sense of loss for a way of life that ended in blood and fire.

I don’t read books with an eye to the politics, which meant that I approached this simply as a book (and a romance at that), which meant that, until I sat down to write this review, was only concerned with the story itself and the plight of the characters.  The fact that it also contains a good blow-by-blow account of what was happening in the war made it doubly interesting for anyone who enjoys history (and if you’ve read our manifesto, you know we do).

By the end of the book, I felt truly sorry for what the characters had to live through… and also pined for the society that existed at the beginning of the book.  Granted, it only takes a little bit of analysis to recall that the gentrified lifestyle existed on the back of a slave economy but I postulate that most casual readers will not do the exercise of analyzing this and will walk away with a deep sense of loss.

I’ll go one step further: I will categorically bet that no one who picks up this book purely for pleasure will do this analysis.  The people who are sensitive to the issues it raises will either avoid it or read it for study purposes, not for fun.

Perfect propaganda.

So what to do with it?  It’s still selling very well, so it’s not going to go out of print anytime soon (and the Kindle is bringing it to a completely new audience).

So, ban it?  Burn it?  Try to pressure the publisher into canceling the next huge print run?

Or perhaps just accept that ideas can’t–and shouldn’t–be killed?

Whatever happens, it should be an interesting battle to watch.



Reading vs. Writing: A Reflection

A contributor’s copy* I read recently made me stop and think.  This is a rare enough occurrence that I thought I’d immortalize it here.

First, some background.  As a reader, the best description for me is omnivorous.  From Tolkien to Dostoyevsky to Joyce, I’ve read a little bit of everything (yes, I finished Ulysses, no, I haven’t yet dared take on Finnegan’s Wake) but if you told me that my memory of a single book would be erased so I could enjoy it again, I’d choose Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Admitting to lowest-common-denominator tastes–not just science fiction but science fiction and humor–instead of citing Pliny the Elder might get me tossed off the Classically Educated editorial board** but I stand by the choice.  It’s probably the book I love most in the world.

Of course, looking at a good portion of my writing, this doesn’t shine through.  It can very often be dark and grim.  Sometimes it takes itself very seriously.

I also like happy endings… but most of my characters, at least in my short fiction, come to endings that are anything but joyous.  In fact, they are often messy, painful and protracted endings which are also untimely in the extreme.  And they often don’t enjoy what comes before.

Finally, I don’t care if the fiction I read is particularly inclusive or politically activist.  In fact, stories that get preachy tend to get a thumbs-down from me even if I agree with the politics.  Which is why I will equally cheerfully demolish the writing of Ayn Rand or the writing of most of the current left-leaning SF genre.  Both are crap, and the only people not admitting it are Rand’s fans and the people in the SF echo chamber.

Which brings me to my own writing and the book I was reading.

Apex Book of World SF Volume 2

First, the book.  It was while reading the Apex Book of World SF Volume 2 that I asked myself how I ended up participating in a project that has a very specific and very political objective: to encourage greater diversity in the Science Fiction and Fantasy genres by bringing in writers from countries not usually represented in the genre. I came in as both an Argentine and a Latin American (which is weird, because at the rate I sell stories, I would have thought that Argentina was way over-represented, at least in the short fiction world, but there you have it).  My story in the book is called “Eyes in the Vastness of Forever”.

It’s very definitely not the kind of book I would have picked up of my own volition.  And many of the stories are clearly aimed at making the world a better, more inclusive place (not something I like to be able to identify in the fiction I read – if there’s a message, make it sneaky, not overt).

But then I realized that, far from standing out (or even just standing apart), my story fit in perfectly.  Without spoiling it for anyone wishing to read it, my tale has the following in common with the rest:

  • It’s written in a style that would have made the Golden Age writers denounce me as some kind of literary elitist (and my writing style is pretty straightforward compared to some in the genre).  Some might simply say well-written (every single tale in this book is well-written) but my definition of well-written is more based on writing for your audience, which means that, to me, Golden Age and Pulp Fiction was perfectly well written.
  • It focuses on a not-so-often seen culture.
  • It respects that culture’s beliefs and shows how valuable that respect can be… or else (my stories always have an “or else” factor some of the others in the book, not so much).
  • It’s strongest character is a woman.

I didn’t set out to do any of these things, of course.  I just set out to write a story about Portuguese explorers in Tierra del Fuego inspired by the reports that the natives built dozens of campfires that could be seen from  the sea, hence the island’s name.  If you think about it, fires burning in the darkness of an unexplored land is a powerful image.

But any reader whose political or social justice leanings is specifically looking for those elements will see them and nod approvingly.  They aren’t what the story is about, and they aren’t (in my opinion) an important part of the story’s message.  I don’t care about those things except as far as to treat everyone decently.  I’m definitely not an activist of any sort.

But what happens when a reader who HATES the modern trends in SF sees some of these same elements in a novel?  This review is what happens.

Interestingly, I am about as left-leaning as, say, Genghis Khan, which means that my friends on both sides of the political spectrum have ribbed me ceaselessly for this review.  But you have to respect it: it talks about what the reader SAW in the book.  Not what I tried to put in there (for the record, it’s a military SF novel chock full of action and things that go boom… that just happens to have two female protagonists who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, hence making them main characters).

Isaac Asimov told a story that illuminated this phenomenon (and I paraphrase because I don’t remember it word for word): It seems he was at a talk where a critic discussed one of his books and the motivations and themes that were present.  After the presentation, Asimov, it seems, went up to the critic and told him that he, the critic, had misread the work.  The critic said: “What do you base your opinion on?”  Asimov pulled himself up to his full height and said: “I wrote the thing.”  To which the critic responded: “Oh, that doesn’t mean anything.”

I assume that pretty much ended the conversation, but the point is made.  A writer’s control over the meaning of what he writes is essentially zero.  Readers (and critics, unfortunately) will find that for you, and they will always find stuff that you didn’t mean to put there.

And yes… you will find yourself writing fiction that you might not have thought to read, and appearing in anthologies you would never have picked up if the publisher hadn’t sent you a copy.

Life is a funny old thing.


*For those who are unaware of what a contributor’s copy is, it’s a copy that an author receives of his work.  Often, this is a periodical or book in which a story by the author is included.

**they can’t, I’m the boss.  Besides, the manifesto specifically states that we’re supposed to talk about a bunch of different stuff.

Today’s post was written by Editor-in-Chief Gustavo Bondoni.


National Geographic Sells Out

Our Editor-in-Chief is back… and, as usual, he sounds off on something that bugs him.

National Geographic Centro Cultural Kirchner

So, I was recently dismayed to learn that National Geographic has issued a Special Edition in Spanish about the Nestor Kirchner Cultural Center in Argentina.

On the surface, this would seem to be reasonably aligned with National Geographic’s mission.  After all, on their website, National Geographic says that they want to inspire, illuminate and teach.  But (there always seems to be a “but” in these things, doesn’t there…) it isn’t quite that simple.

You see, this latest supplement is not a simple article about a cultural center that many people in the Spanish-speaking world are likely to be interested in.  This, as so ably chronicled by La Nación, Argentina’s most respected newspaper, is a particularly crass pandering to media dollars by the society in a critical election year in that South American country.  The cultural center is not just named after the current Kirchnerist government’s founder, but is also a monument to their belief that an ideal world can only be reached through their particular continuation of Mussolini’s old ideas, reinforced with concepts of isolationism, populism and certain elements of postmodern socialism.

Of course, it can be argued that a democratic country’s culture is well-reflected by its government, so the supplement is a valid informative piece – except for the fact that just a month before it hit the streets, 60% of Argentina’s population voted against the Kirchnerist government in an obligatory presidential first round election.

Even if the population hadn’t expressed its desire to find a different, more modern road forward, the supplement itself reads like a political manifesto written by a virulent opposer of free market economics (which is weird, because the last time I checked, the Society was based in a somewhat non-socialist country), savagely criticizing what many feel to be the last true era of modernization in the country.

Worse still, one of the spokespeople for the government appears in no less than four photos…

We’ve sounded off against the sheer barefaced destruction of the truth by this government before, but I sincerely can’t believe that a publication as well-respected as National Geographic would publish something like this for any amount of money.  This is a government that has lied about inflation statistics – even firing members of the statistics bureau who wished to inform the true numbers – and attacked the free press openly and violently during its entire run.

It is a government that has actively attempted to promote ignorance and isolation – everything that National Geographic is supposed to combat.  But it seems that this government’s desperate election money was stronger than the principles established for so long.

National Geographic has betrayed out trust.

But worse, it has betrayed itself.

Why I Fight Against Political Correctness – A Very Personal View

no political correctness

Today, Classically Educated’s Editor-In-Chief answers exactly why he’s been so outspoken – sometimes controversially so – against organized expressions of political correctness.  These are his views, and clearly might not reflect that of all our contributors (see here if you happen to doubt that – or read any of Scarlett’s posts).

I am often asked why I react negatively whenever a practicer of the dogma of political correctness pops up.  Those who know who I am and how I think are puzzled by the strength of my feelings towards this.  “After all,” they say, “the PC brigade is merely fighting for things you believe in strongly: freedom and equality regardless of race, gender sexual orientation, etc.  You should be on the bandwagon with a megaphone.”  Even this very blog has a number of female guest bloggers (many more than the men), Bloggers who are notable members of the LBGT community and even people who enjoy Tango!  That clearly shows an open mind.

Well, they’re partially correct.  The stated intentions behind the PC onslaught are good – but jumping on the bandwagon implies looking past certain extremely difficult issues.  I will ignore the obvious agenda-driven stuff (we’ve covered that elsewhere), but will look at the root problem I have with it.

But first, I’d like to see if you can guess which system gave rise to the following phrases:

A) …man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution

B) Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

C) It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

D)  Experiment shows that drinking but one small bottle of beer or one glass of wine may impair a man’s driving capacity… Practically all the hit-run fatal accidents are caused by drunken drivers, says Frank A. Goodwin, Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

Weird Car Crash

Let’s see how well you did:

A) Fascism (from an article by Benito Mussolini)

B) Satanism (from the commandments of the Church of Satan)

C) Nazism (Hitler quote)

D) Prohibition (Temperance Movement propaganda pamphlet)

What do all four of these movements (plus communism, populism, Christian Fundamentalism and almost all the other isms you’ll encounter) have in common?  They all believe that the world would be a much better place for all mankind if only people would think the way they do.

They essentially come up with a set of rules to try to tell adults how to think and act that go beyond what the social contract has evolved to look like.  Now, it is understood that society works on the tenet that, if we all agree on something, we make it a law in some way – but that should not extend to thought.

In particular, I am concerned by the tendency of the PC crowd to attack innocent bystanders for not doing enough to promote their agenda.  I’ve been told that being truly colorblind isn’t possible (with which I vehemently disagree), but that even if it was, it isn’t enough. One must actively work to address all inequality inherent in the patriarchy (their silly concept, not mine).  Patently ridiculous – people who peacefully live within the accepted social norms should not be bombarded with internet hatred by weirdos because they aren’t perceived to be doing enough.  That is a violation of individual rights and freedoms which I feel is unacceptable.

The second thing that all these movements have in common is that humor is off-limits.  What I personally enjoyed most about Seth McFarlane’s Oscar show in 2013 was watching the backlash on social media the following day.  The PC crowd went nuts. But then, fledgeling totalitarianisms where aberrant thought is illegal tend to be composed of humorless apparatichiks.  I happen to believe that adults should be allowed to laugh at whatever they want, and that it can still be funny, even if it’s lacking in sensitivity.

Another thing I am completely against is quotas.  Otherwise intelligent people in the PC community swear that they don’t favor quotas, and that quotas are a myth, especially in corporate society.  Perhaps things have changed since I was last employed a World 500 company, but as of 2007, I can say the quota system was running beautifully, and that finding a competent female minority among your candidates was celebrated like a sudden-death touchdown.  They might not always have been the best candidates, mind you, but they were good enough and ticked two boxes at once, allowing you to optimize for talent in the rest of your structure.  Some equal opportunities are more equal than others.

The same thing, of course, has been happening in the literary world, especially in some genres.  There are sad, bored people out there who dedicate their lives to reading tables of contents with a fine-tooth comb to try to see whether women and minorities are acceptably represented (don’t believe me?  Look here).  So editors tend to skew towards the safe call, and tokenism results, often at the cost of quality*, which is unacceptable to me.

On a slightly more technical note, the current PC movement is philosophically based on postmodernism and, even worse, on the utterly ludicrous (and inexplicable even by its own creator) concept of deconstruction.  Now, while I understand that it’s easier to create an army of PC parrots** if you only look at things from a single point of view, exhaustively analyzed, it doesn’t change the fact that things do not exist in a vacuum like ideal gases.  Most objects of criticism need to be understood in many phases, which is why things like critical race theory or feminist criticism can usually be picked apart with little training.  They simply omit too many important factors to be relevant.


Please see original comic on XKCD (plus mouse-over), here

I won’t get into the “postmodernism is dead discussion” other than to say that postmodernism should have been aborted at conception.  Preferably violently.  Of course, modernism had its issues, too, so it’s a thorny question.

Finally, like all totalitarian regimes, PC-Parrotism is trying to tell people what the right way of thinking is.  There is a tendency towards revising history to show more “balance” (I would love to ask a 10th century serf if he felt a balanced view was accurate), a tendency towards progressive education which attempts to level the playing field between the talented and untalented, and any number of other tools attempting to create a “right” way of thinking.

I believe that the only way of of creating people who think correctly is to give them the facts, to teach them all the points of view and the thinking behind them, and to let them go out and figure it out for themselves.  Starting from the conclusion is a stupid way to try to teach stuff – which is probably why it only occurs in the social “sciences”.

Of course, this is all open to discussion.  Context is important.  The last time I called Prohibition the dumbest thing ever invented until the PC movement, I was told that, in the context of post Civil War and WWI America, many men were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress, and drinking was a real problem.

Perhaps, but removing a pleasurable experience for every other adult in the country on those grounds seems unacceptable.  Individual freedom is too valuable to sacrifice on the altar even of something so important.

If I’d been alive back then, I would have invited them to discuss the issue over a nice drink.

Hmm.  I probably would have gotten in trouble even without the internet…

* In my particular case, this works in my favor, as no one would confuse my name with that of a random white guy.  But I still HATE it.

**Called that way because most of its proponents are simply repeating empty phrases that sound good to people without critical faculties.

Argentina’s 2014 Default: A Story of Evil Clowns

Queen of the Evil Clowns


“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

– George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

The above is almost always true.  Unless, of course, one is an incompetent clown.

Normally, when a government, even within the structures of a democracy, has complete control of the presidency and both houses of congress, one expects that the country will move vigorously to get large projects done, projects that need true political unity, and take huge forward strides.  This would be especially true in a case such as Argentina under the Kirchners, where the single-party domination has lasted for more than a decade.  

Unless, of course, one is an incompetent clown – or a circus full of incompetent clowns, as in this case.

OnJuly 30th, 2014, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s populist government has taken its reign to a new low mark by driving the country into an unnecessary, shortsighted default of the national debt.  It may be a disaster for the country, but it is a fitting exclamation point to Argentina’s lost decade.  There is no question: this, more than any of the other errors, are what will be remembered about the Kirchner era.

Argentina's Minister of the Economy, circa July 2014

Now how did we get here?

Well, if you ask the government today, they’ll probably shout something about having inherited the mess from the previous administrations… but ten years on, is anyone with a minimum of sense going to believe them?

I don’t think so, and therein lies a clue to the explanation.  You see, Kirchner’s government – mostly Cristina’s but her late husband, ex-president Néstor Kirchner was also guilty of this at times – has decided that, when reality doesn’t coincide with the party line, then reality is wrong.

Christina Kirchner's Government

The largest obvious indicator of this is the way the government has systematically lied about the real inflation that was measured in the country.  While various extremely trustworthy metrics exist, the “official” inflation was always about 10% of the independent metrics.  The reason this was so clownish was that anyone with a notebook and a calculator could go out into the street and measure the real price changes.  Of course, if you did that, the government would call you delusional.

So, if it was so obvious, why did they insist?  

Well, it has to do with what this government sees as success.  The model we all want to follow is Venezuela.

Now, I don’t know about you, but when I’m shown an oil-rich country in which there isn’t enough toilet paper to go around because of the mismanagement of the economy, my first thought is: “look, more clowns!”  But that is the circus which Cristina is molding her fantasy clown world government on…

Well, the delusion has come around and bit them.  Sadly, it will also bite 40 million Argentines as well.  The people who voted for this populist government – generally, poorer folks, less able to actually analyze issues and make intelligent decisions – are going to be the hardest hit.  They aren’t educated enough to really deserve it, however.  They trusted a government to guide them, and that government defrauded that trust while trying to live in a utopia that died with the fall of the Berlin wall.  Their delusions are going to mean real hardships for people who mistakenly trusted them.

So, not just incompetent clowns.  Evil incompetent clowns.  Clowns who are so incompetent that, despite the billions of (ever-less-valuable) taxpayer pesos they’ve spent trying to make their citizens believe that reality is what it isn’t they can’t change the past… or the future.  If you listen to them, it’s clear they don’t even know what’s going on in the present.

Well, the only good thing about them is they haven’t started a war, unlike other clownish governments the world over.  Probably don’t have fuel for the tanks.