Category Rants

Bring Lawyers, Guns and Money

revolutionary

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — The Declaration of Independence

If it isn’t clear to people by now that when Barack Obama said “Change you can believe in”, he really meant nothing of the kind. He meant “we’ll just keep on doing it the way we always have”, and most Democrats have been okay with this because the ones in power benefit from having it be their turn and the ones who aren’t powerful seem to be satisfied that he’s not George Bush and that’s all they really cared about in the first place. Which is really, really, really disgusting, when you think about it.

So what can you do? Well, the deck is so stacked against any attempt to bring change to the rotten two-party system that the consensus seems to be that the only way to effect any change is to “nut up” (as that ad for the new Woody Harrelson movie says), and settle in for the long haul of trying to bring genuine change to the Democrats, who are the lesser of the two evils. The Republican Party was transformed through the slow process of seeding people at the bottom 25-30 years ago and now those wackjobs and wingnuts have successfully turned that party into a very scary political entity indeed. This long, but well-written, post at The Seminal (which has been folded into the political site Fire Dog Lake) by Bill Egnor outlines exactly wht a long and arduous task it will be. If you don’t have a quarter-century to devote to it, it’s going to seem insurmountable.

And maybe it is insurmountable. Maybe our political system is so ossified and thoroughly corrupt that it can’t be changed through even the most diligent of grass roots activism. Maybe it’s time to “nut up” and shoot it out. It’s my distinct impression that there are quite a few people on the right preparing for this very solution. It’s becoming my opinion that the left should begin thinking the same way. If you want me to believe in “change”, then you’d better be intended to actually change something.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Another $0.02 Opinion About “Star Trek” From A Middle-Aged Geek

oldtrek-newtrek

It did not suck.

All three of us went to see it Saturday afternoon at the nearby IMAX theater, since I had been smart enough to pre-buy the tickets online. By that time, there had been enough positive word-of-mouth from trusted friends as well as the glowing professional reviews that I felt reasonably confident we would not be seeing a stinkbomb, but I was still delighted and surprised at how much fun the film was. Charlotte, who has never seen a single episode of any version of Star Trek in her entire life, was totally taken with it, and Bridget, who has had to put up with me being a fanboy all these years but isn’t much of a Trekker herself, still keeps saying two days later how much she liked the movie. I think the three of us represent the exact target audience J.J. Abrams needed to hit: the hardcore Trekker, the newbie, and the average moviegoer. How you could expect to please all three seems to be an impossible task, and yet he managed it.

Now that I’ve had a couple of days to percolate about it a bit, I realize that as much fun as it was to watch, it doesn’t hold up to much careful scrutiny at all. To it’s credit, you can sit through the entire movie and just be a part of the experience without once being distracted by the weaknesses of the film, but be warned that if you are one of those people who likes to pick apart a film as you’re watching it you will see the problems and it will spoil the watching for you. Just let yourself be swept up for the 120 minutes and enjoy it as an ephemeral pleasure and save the analysis for later. That’s working for me.

At this point I’ll pause for any of you who choose to take that advice and stop reading, then I’ll share some of my critical observations with you. Noo ni noo noo…….

Okay, so on with the criticism. We’ll start with the problems from the perspective of its place in the Star Trek Canon and then move on to the problems from the perspective of the filmmaking. From the moment this film was announced as being in development, we all knew the problem would be recasting the characters and re-introducing the series without totally demolishing 40 years’ worth of carefully crafted backstory and utter worship of the original cast. Hollywood has done an utterly TERRIBLE job with every movie they’ve made based on some beloved TV show of the 1960s and 1970s, and the fear early on was that this would be no exception. What ultimately saves the bacon of this movie is that the casting of the primary roles is slam-dunk flawless. All seven of the main cast roles are so fucking awesome that it almost doesn’t matter how stupid the rest of the movie is. Chris Pine channels just enough of Bill Shatner’s swagger and charm but never seems like a caricature or a parody. There are one or two moments when Zack Quinto’s Spock is a little too much like Sylar (the character he plays on “Heroes”), but his intensity seems just right for a young Spock who has not yet mastered his unflappable demeanor. The rest of the cast get a little more leeway to bring new interpretations to their characters, especially Uhura (Zoe Saldana), although poor Scotty (Simon Pegg) gets stuck with the comic relief a wee bit too heavily, and every single one succeeds. Even Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike is great.

But my first and most serious criticism as a Star Trek fan is that they actually had TOO MUCH from established canon in the film. Every character got to utter at least one of their best-known catchphrases, and though each line got a bit laugh from the audience, after the first one or two I found myself just waiting for somebody to say the next one. Trekkers usually love lots of inside jokes or subtle references to bits and pieces of other episodes, but especially considering that the idea was to “reboot” the series, by the last couple of scenes it was just too much for my taste.

And that dovetails with my other biggest criticism from a fan standpoint: they went too far in establishing the story as an “alternate reality” that ties the new cast firmly to the entire canon of Star Trek. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Seems to me they did it to buy some legitimacy from the existing fanbase: “See, you nerds, it’s not THAT different!” It also made the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock a viability. But that viability also represents a liability for future movies to have to continue to justify the existence of their diagetic universe by explaining it in the context of the original series. Along that same line of reasoning, I don’t see how they could have worked in a similar role for Shatner as Kirk within the narrative they ended up using, so I’m glad that didn’t come to happen no matter how pissy Shatner has been about it.

So here are my carps about it as a film on its own merits:

The whole film is simply an extended action sequence. One chase scene after another, with barely any time to catch one’s breath. It’s fun, but it’s extremely superficial. Abrams doesn’t make the slightest effort to do any character development or storytelling, he simply relies on the fact that 80% of the audience know these characters inside and out already and that he hasn’t changed anything significant about any of them. So, fire forward phasers, Mr. Sulu and get us out of here, warp factor seven! The villian is utterly generic — angry bad guy with a powerful spaceship who wants to destroy Earth — yeah, right, we all saw Star Trek IV already. He’s as much of a throwaway as the guy in the red uniform who buys it on the away team mission. All he does is enable the conceit of the “alternate timeline” element. A really good Star Trek bad guy has to imply some serious peril to the Federation that maybe the Enterprise can’t stop. That’s why the Borg were such a good nemesis and why Q could keep coming back again and again. In other words, if this wasn’t a Star Trek movie, it would be an utterly forgettable generic summer action movie. A fun bit of entertainment and nothing more.

But you KNOW how these things work. Without question, all the primary cast members had to sign a multi-picture contract, and the writing team is well into a late-stage draft of the next movie so they can go into pre-production this year and have a finished film ready for release late next year. My guess is that there will be at least three movies with this cast, if not four, to pretty much fill up the release calendar clear through the next decade. So they have the opportunity to cover some ground in that time in terms of working out some more substantial storytelling and original character development. OR they could go down the path that most movie series take these days and simply cash in on all the catchphrases and shtick that worked in the first movie and repeat them endlessly until the last film goes straight to DVD.

Personally, I am at a point in my life as a fanboy to appreciate the film from a very superficial level of enjoyment. In fact, I liked it enough that I plan to go see it again, probably without the wimmins. I think it is worth recommending to anyone, be they a trufan or not. Just try not to think about it too much.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Terror From Within

This post also appears today as a guest article at The Daily Clarity.

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre. The mainstream media already have their retrospectives, their “where are they now” pieces, and their terribly thoughtful commentaries all put together and ready to bombard us with. Meanwhile, over the past month and a half a string of mass killings and murder-suicide incidents has taken more than twice as many lives as were lost in Littleton, Colorado that April day. Fourteen people diedjust as a result of the mass killing in Binghampton, NY two weeks ago and the latest incident over the weekend involved a Maryland man killing his wife and three young children before taking his own life. News coverage of such incidents has become so commonplace that the Maryland story barely registers in the collective consciousness of the media. Also in the last several weeks, the Department of Homeland Security released a report finding a significant rise in the activity of right-wing extremist groups. Despite receiving criticism for being “inflammatory”, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano justified the need to release the report before it could be bowdlerized to avoid such criticism because of the urgency of the issue — the growing likelihood that what is random violence on the part of disturbed individuals could snowball into organized violence on the part of disaffected groups united by their self-feeding paranoia and realized by hair-trigger situations.

Our cultural obsession with the potential for terror caused by the mysterious “other” — al Quaeda, Iran, Somali pirates — has rendered us nearly blind to the reality of the terror that we instill from within. The threats from outside remain nebulous at least and utterly imaginary at most, while the possibilities of violence against innocent people from disturbed individuals and groups within our own communities realize themselves with increasing frequency and horrifying regularity. Pundits and historians alike now commonly point to September 11, 2001 as the demarcation point for a new era in American society, yet few would choose April 20, 1999 or it’s almost-exactly corresponding predecessor, April 19, 1995 (the date of the Oklahoma City bombing), for the same milestone, despite the vastly more significant occurrence of violence against ourselves.

In a sense, our projection of the source of terror and violence onto whatever handy villain our leaders can provide is little more than an ages-old mechanism for focusing public attention to a political agenda; Americans have obediently changed the locus of their hatred and fear over almost a century from Germans to Japanese to Russians to Muslims as political expedience dictated. Indeed, the transition has been so seamless most of the time, that when the first President Bush needed a new villain, the effort of trying to pick one between Manuel Noriega, Muammar Gaddafi and then ultimately Saddam Hussein was almost comic. But the buffoonish machinations of governments and politicians obscure a much more complicated problem. Our projection of terror onto “the other” is a significant denial of the growing manifestation of terror and violence as commonplace elements of our own society.

For the time being, it is possible to ease the visceral response to events like Columbine or the Binghampton shooting as the acts of people with psychological problems. The regularity of such events, though, speaks to a growing acceptance of the conditions that create those psychological disturbances and even an amplification of them to the point that they result in violent outbursts. Now, we are also told by the very agency created in response to the singular events of 9/11 that we are crossing a threshold from individuals acting out in fear, despair, and paranoia to the organization of groups who share many of the same characteristics. The metamorphosis of terroristic violence from lone gunman to motivated group may only require a very small push, and it is clear that there are people actively hoping to put themselves in the forefront of those groups. It is too easy to look back over the last ten years and see the individual incidents as they have become part of our national life. Ten years hence, how likely will it be that we will be able to begin the retrospective of the list of homegrown terrorist attacks that will form yet a new element of our society.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right

This video runs a little long and oversells the point a bit, but any of you who were actual DFH’s back in the day will undoubtedly appreciate the appreciation.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Jumping With The Sharks

woz-and-karina

I have to say that I think “Dancing With The Stars” has jumped the shark. It’s debatable exactly when this happened; I think there’s an argument to be made that it was after about the fifth week of Cloris Leachman not getting voted off during the last “season” of the show, but if not then, surely with the debut of the current season last week. Between the ever-growing DL of celebs with injuries, the hopeless no-name D-list celebrities, and the mere presence of Steve Wozniak on the show, I don’t think there’s much hope.

At Tina Brown’s “Daily Beast”, DWTS judge Bruno Tonioli is now posting a weekly wrap-up of the previous night’s competition, and even his bombastic Italian enthusiasm can’t hide the sheer lameness of the current cast. When a reality-show reject can join the cast with only 48 hours to train for a number that the others have been rehearsing for SIX WEEKS and blow them all away, you know it isn’t looking very good.

And Karina? Even though I would like to cover every inch of your body with maple syrup and lick you clean, you are a complete slut. How many of the celebrities have you slept with and now we’re somehow supposed to believe you’re in love with Maks, who publicly called you a fat-ass just a couple of months ago? We all know this show is just as scripted as all the other reality shows, but the writers are treating this like it was “All My Children”. Maybe they got confused by having Susan Lucci on as a contestant. But it IS maple syrup season here, so, y’know, call me, baby.

Also, did Disney somehow run out of teenage wannabes from shows like “Wizards Of Waverly Place” or “Suite Life of Zack and Cody”? Those kids are all kinds of awesome on DWTS. That rodeo guy is stiffer than a dead opossum, even if he IS married to Jewel, and Julianne Hough’s boyfriend is completely talentless (he is, however, one of the luckiest losers on the planet to get to do the horizontal mambo with her). Even that little shrimpy kid from “Hannah Montana” could probably dance circles around both of these guys AND mug for the camera every time he slid between Edyta’s legs.

It’s too bad Nancy O’Dell had to drop out, because I was really looking forward to seeing her mostly naked and covered with body glitter and spray tan. I hope they invite her back.

In the worst case scenario, DWTS is going to turn into one of those zombie shows that lingers on for season after season even though everybody has long since moved on to something more interesting, and that would be too bad. When it first premiered, it had the air of absurdity about it; has-been celebrities so desperate for work they’d prostitute themselves as dime-a-dance girls, the unabashed flamboyance and sexual ambiguity of professional ballroom dancing (Did you see him grind his package into her ass, how can he be gay?), and the ad-lib genius of Tom Bergeron (still, for my money, the best reason to watch the show) all rolled up into the total unpredictability of live television. But what should have been a sleeper hit summer replacement show turned into such a phenomenon, that the fall from grace was inevitable. They should just kick off all the terrible dancers this week, have a showdown between the “Bachelor” chick and the naked guy from “Sex and the City”, and cut their losses.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Still Believable

On Tuesday, I posted a link to a blog post from Rex Hammock wherein he listed some things that he had lost belief in due to the economic crisis we’re in, and then I added a few others that I felt were similarly discredited. In the comments, my friend Karan asked what I did still believe in and/or hope for (since Hammock had, at the end of his post, added a few on that score). Since I felt it would take up too much space to explain in a comment, I said I would write a second post along those lines, and so here we are. Given that the crisis itself stems from a lack of confidence in financial institutions (a well-deserved lack, I think), it’s much easier to point to things to be critical about, but I’ve come up with several things that I think would be worthwhile, not just in easing the strain on the economy, but in fashioning the paradigm that will replace the one presently burning itself into ashes.

Restoring the government’s role as the natural enemy of corporatism — In my view, the best role government has is maintaining an adversarial relationship to big business. Our government, by its very definition, is meant to protect the interests of individuals over the potential abuses of other institutions that can amass power: churches, military leaders, even the individual branches of the government as established in the Constitution. The founders also clearly wanted to circumscribe the power of corporations by limiting their charters and enacting other restrictions that held corporations in check for decades. By the latter half of the 19th century, the increasing economic power of some began to erode this adversarial position through the traditional route of corruption, but even the financial shenanigans of the late 1800s eventually overstepped a threshold and a new wave of governmental reform and regulation swept through Washington in the first quarter of the 20th century. The reforms in labor, in the social safety net, in the manifestation of “public interest” as a valid entity in regulation, and ultimately the sweeping financial reforms of the early part of FDR’s administration all served to rein in the monster of capitalism that came to life after the Civil War. In the years since World War II, however, and especially in the forty years since the election of Richard Nixon, government has been completely co-opted by business and now only works for the benefit of corporations. My personal belief is that it remains possible to resurrect the government’s identity as the antagonist of unbridled capitalism, though I also think it will take a few more years of drama and devastation to get there.

The adaptability of the human species — I am, quite honestly, utterly fed up with the popular fascination for Doomsday-ism, and have been for some time. Anyone who reads this blog for any length of time knows that I have zero patience or tolerance for people who are constantly looking for some catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it. While the failures of the global economy surely should not be waved away dismissively, the Doomsdayers were all too quick to latch on to this crisis and whip themselves up into a frenzy speculating over the degree of chaos it would cause, mainly because the economic crisis is a lot more real than waiting around for tsunamis, bird flu, killer volcanoes, asteroids, or glacier melting. Humans are nothing if not resourceful and adaptable, and I believe that it’s far more likely that people all over the world will develop adaptive responses to the situation rather than self-destruct. That’s not to say that there will not be unrest; indeed, there is a strong need for unrest in troubled times, as it is often the only way to shake the powerful out of their complacency and reorganize power structures to meet the needs of the many. However, to imply that all of human civilization stands on the brink of annihilation within the context of a financial collapse is simply deluded.

Money is bullshit — Money is probably the only mass delusion on Earth bigger, more powerful and more destructive than religion. What we’ve seen is that it’s possible for clever and unscrupulous financiers and businesspeople to simply invent wealth out of whole cloth in the form of credit swaps, derivatives, bogus consumer credit, and good old fashioned fraud. And then to have it all evaporate in the space of a few weeks, even though there was never any tangible wealth behind all that paper. And what is “tangible” about wealth? I hear and read a lot of people hollering about gold, but even our insistence on the value of gold is illusory. You can’t eat it or wear it; it has practical uses, but they’re limited and certainly do not justify the overall value we assign to it. The more money that appears to be lost, the more money that appears to be given away in “bailouts” and “stimulus packages”, the more it looks like the great big lie that it is in the first place. There must be other ways to effectively exchange goods and services that can be shielded from the effects of greed and fraudulence to such an extent that allows the basic material needs of all people to be met to a level that our civilized advancements can sustain for the very long term. And it’s not the All-Mighty Dollar, the Euro, or the yuan.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

“Things I No Longer Believe In”

Blogger and magazine guru Rex Hammock had a very good post over the weekend entitled “Things I No Longer Believe In”. It’s mostly aimed at the destruction of the credibility of the institutions and individuals who have played a role in the economic disaster we’re going through. He singles out Congress for its inability to see beyond the short-term political strategies of its membership, the notion of any institution being “too big to fail”, and the absurdity of “real-tine market analysis” on CNBC, among others.

I thought it was a very thoughtful exercise, and I agreed with all of his choices and rationales for them. Still, I think I can add a few of my own:

“The American Dream” — okay, so this one needs a little more definition, because I think there are actually several different “American Dreams” to choose from, so the one I am specifically referring to is the one that posits that every American can and should be a middle-class homeowner living in a suburb. This idea really didn’t manifest itself as “The American Dream” until after WWII; previously, the “American Dream” was more about rising up from lowly serf to captain of industry in the Horatio Alger style, but the Great Depression pretty much proved what a pipe dream that really was to most Americans, and so sights were set on the less-lofty goal of home ownership as the pinnacle of achievement for the majority of Americans. Of all the ideas that went to hell in a handbasket with the boom and bust of the last decade, it is this one that was oversold by greedy and unscrupulous banks and mortgage companies, then twisted into unrecognizable permutations that would have otherwise been dismissed as outright fraud years earlier. On closer historical examination, there’s a lot to suggest this wasn’t a particularly sustainable idea in the first place, but I’m usually willing to give the decision-makers of the past the benefit of the doubt for not being able to imagine THIS as the future.

Economists — Who did these people fellate to convince the world that they deserved doctoral degrees? They’ve proven to be very good at rationalizing things after the fact, but anybody can do that. What they obviously can’t do is explain how to keep the economy from falling into a bottomless pit. Pet theories, cherry-picked examples and evidence, full-blown quackery, and an appalling determination to promote their own ideas over anybody elses make them the least-reputable “scientists” one can possibly imagine. Lately there’s been some complaint that the media are relying on their own bloviating gasbag pundits for insightful commentary than “real economists”, but that’s probably a wise move on the part of the media outlets.

“Saving For Your Future” — Yeah, right. An entire generation of people has just watched whatever retirement savings they had disappear into billions of scattered electrons. The older half of the Baby Boom will be the last generation of Americans to engage in the cultural fantasy of “Retirement”, and the rest of us will work until we drop dead in our cubicles. As my half of the Baby Boom skids headfirst into our “golden Years”, we’re going to have to reinvent collective housing, develop entirely new models of labor that accommodate older employees, and probably stage a “Million Grannies March” on Washington to undo the half-assed systems that our older Boomer siblings didn’t have to worry about because they didn’t need it.

“Planned Obsolescence” — The “everything’s a widget” model of capitalism is going to have to go the way of the dodo tout suite. Making everything from phones to TVs to dishwashers to cars so freakin’ flimsy that they break just to look at them will not be sustainable from the standpoint of consumers without money to spend, from businesses that can’t constantly sell “more more more more”, and from the rapidly encroaching realities of our depleted natural resources and shifting climate. This means that everything the businesspeople think about running their corporations is now and forevermore obsolete, and they might as well all give up and start over again.

I’ll keep adding to this list as I come up with others. You can, too.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Clean Your $!@#&* Roof!

As everyone I know in Maine will gladly attest, here in the Northeast it is still very much winter, and one of everybody’s least favorite but most necessary chores this time of year is to brush the snow and scrape the ice off your car before getting in and driving. Now, this may seem like perfectly good common sense, and it is, but enough people fail to do an adequate job of this relatively simple task that most states which have regular snowfall have had to enact laws that make it an actionable offense if you don’t.

And this is why:

An online acquaintance from “The Site Which Shall Not Be Named” shared these pictures with us this morning. He lives just up the highway from me in Southern New Hampshire, and this is his wife’s car AFTER a big chunk of ice came flying off the top of a tractor trailer and smashed into her windshield. Fortunately, she was not hurt, but, as you can see, she was mere inches from death.

Cleaning your car, truck, or other road vehicle is not just for your own degree of visibility, it is for the safety of other drivers who must share the road with you, often under less-than-ideal weather conditions in the winter. It is nowhere near okay to only do the windshields, or, as I have seen, simply make a tiny hole in front to look through. Clean off the roof, trunk AND hood to prevent chunks of snow or ice from blowing off and striking other vehicles. Professional truck drivers especially need to pay attention to their trailers — this woman nearly paid for someone else’s lack of attention with her life.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Self-Evident

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This day is also marked annually as Human Rights Day. Additionally, today is the traditional date for the presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which this year was awarded to former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, largely in recognition for his role in negotiating the end of armed conflict in Kosovo.

Like the United Nations itself, the UDHR was born amid the ashes of a World War which took tens of millions of lives not just in combat but also through unspeakable acts of inhumanity – systematic state-controlled genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other ethnic groups, mass political imprisonments by Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan, and even the United States, atrocities beyond count and description from one corner of the globe to another. It left the ruling class shaken and disturbed and willing to draft and adopt a declaration that addressed the centuries of abuse towards the bulk of humanity by their rulers. As the 1950s witnessed the disassembly of the 19th Century imperial order once and for all, the UDHR would become a foundation for new constitutions and guarantees of human rights in many of the new countries that were established.

But, like the UN itself, as time wore on, “human rights” became a cudgel for political pressure, a cover for avoiding meaningful social reform in both inudstrialized and developing countries alike, and finally a toxic piece of propaganda turned against itself as a justification for a return to government-sanctioned torture, the resurgence of genocide rebranded as “ethnic cleansing”, and the abandonment of any pretense of spreading the goals of human dignity and equality. Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exists more as the hollow cry of our grandparents’ ghosts than of any genuine mark of humanity. History has proven that even the most honorable intentions of the greatest leaders are readily and easily tossed aside like garbage when the exigiencies of political expediency demand it. And history has shown that even our nation, to whom the rest of the world could always look for the inspiration to make the tenets of the UDHR come true, would eventually succumb and choose to violate our own foundational beliefs.

The 20th Century was the single most violent, atrocious, inhumane period of human history, and midway through it the recognition of our own depravity became too much to bear to the extent that we would create this declaration of highest and most basic principles. Now, another half century past, we have made our real intentions painfully, violently, hopelessly clear for all time. We found the path and chose to turn the other way. Our heirs will judge us accordingly.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Palin

The Republicans have been reduced to the equivalent of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater. Actually, it’s worse than that, because what they’re really doing is screaming “Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!” at the top of their lungs and then pointing fingers at the Democrats as if they were the guilty ones.

It is worse than pathetic. It is, in fact, somewhat ominous. As we move toward the denouement of these two long years of campaigning, as the margin in the polls grows wider and wider to favor Obama, one has to wonder if these people will become even more deranged. One seriously has to wonder if they will actually move to physical violence, and against whom. Obama himself does not seem to worry about his personal safety, but at this juncture it’s probably not the candidate who has to worry. It’s the people in Obama campaign offices, the people who work in Planned Parenthood clinics, the people gathered at Democratic campaign rallies who need to be concerned than an unhinged right-winger will start shooting, or leave a backpack full of explosives in a public space, or throw a Molotov cocktail into a campaign headquarters.

And I am genuinely concerned that for the next eight years, this will be the norm, not the exception, to how those people will continue to express their outrage at a black President. This is the culmination of all the angry polarization that has consumed the American public since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. The right wing has been driven into a corner, and it will lash out at anyone and anything. They are beyond reason — just listen to them continue to spout the most ridiculous rhetoric about Obama, or watch those videos that went big-time over the weekend of McCain supporters screaming “Kill Him!” and “Treason”. They are frightening and they are very, very real.

Frank Rich’s column in today’s NYT is on the money:

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

The enabler has been Sarah Palin. Unfettered by McCain’s own personal reputation as “an honorable man”, she has been the point-person for the Rovian campaign people who are ultimately responsible for these tactics of fear-mongering and hate. She gets away with saying the most detestable things because of her “you betcha” accent and her fake eyeglasses and her little winks. Whether she really knows if what she’s saying is true or false, who can say, because it’s obvious she does what she’s told and is capable of little else. Nevertheless, she sells it with fervor (and a little sex), and the angry and stupid who are her political base eat it up with a big spoon.

Already there is talk that the response to Palin on the campaign trail is making some think that she is the right candidate to restore the Republicans in 2012. That this is her springboard to the top, and John McCain is the loser she will step on to get there. Given the response, given the readiness of so many Republican supporters to go to the very precipice of violence against Obama and their fellow Americans, it is something to consider with deep, deep apprehension.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site