My favorite Washington reporter is the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, because he refuses to take anyone too seriously–especially those who take themselves very, very seriously.
Yesterday he reminded me of the great-but-almost-forgotten novelist Thomas Pynchon, who once wrote a brilliant novel–"V"–around the concept of "Wha?" as in "Cafe Wha?"
Except that today, it’s our leaders who are–literally–saying it.
Case in point: Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Yesterday Milbank went to see Chertoff address the International Association of Fire Fighters, not long after Senator Joe Biden demanded Chertoff’s resignation for his part in a "dangerously incompetent" administration.
Milbank writes:
Chertoff’s problem is not, as Biden suggests, that he’s incompetent. The secretary is highly accomplished. His problem, if anything, is he’s a model technocrat in a position that sometimes demands a commanding leader.
A strikingly thin man with a high-pitched voice, pointy ears and droopy eyelids, Chertoff speaks of "the critical points of triangulation" and calls for a "properly risk-managed approach to critical infrastructure." He talks about the need for "total assets visibility" and favors "an integrated, sensible, systems-based approach." He desires "better information about the constituents of the supply chain." And instead of telling people that he’s protecting them, he says that his department has "done a lot to elevate the general baseline of security in this country."
Relax, America: Your general security baseline is elevated because of a systems-based approach to critical triangulation points.
Unimpressed, the Senator and the fire fighters put a number of questions about Katrina to Chertoff.
He offered a series of explanations for the Katrina problems: "catastrophe of the century . . . a disaster is always an ugly thing . . . Mother Nature can be awfully tough to deal with."
He blended that with his technocratic explanations of DHS ("internal integration into a unified command structure") and attempts at high rhetoric that fell short. Pointing to photos of the Sept. 11, 2001, wreckage, Chertoff said: "You are really part of the war on terror, as well as the war against all hazards."
War Against All Hazards: WAAH?
Kit Stolz 
Dear Kit: What do you mean,the great-but-almost-forgotten Pynchon? He’s god, even though I never could get through “Gravity’s Rainbow” or “Mason & Dixon.”
I bought a publishing review copy (in other words, a pre-first edition) of “V” at an auction years ago. You can have it when I die. Serious.
LikeLike
Well, at least you didn’t think my characterization of “V” was horribly wrong. The novel’s a lot more than that, but it was just so wonderful that “Wha?” had a part in it.
I love Pynchon, but it’s true, I have trouble getting through his masterpieces. My favorite of all his books is still “The Crying of Lot 49,” which is completely crazed and absolutely accurate and composed with the simplicity of a grand master.
So your offer is very generous, but you’re not going anywhere, we need you too much here on earth!
LikeLike
I love “V,” and there are so many ways to characterize it that there really can’t be a “wrong” version. And I totally agree with you about Oedipa Maas and the “The Crying of Lot 49.” My other favorite is “Vineland,” which is a strangely gentle book.
LikeLike