Wednesday, May 16, 2012

blah de blah de blah

I guess that I can feel the pain that I once inflicted on others. Back in the good ol’ days [2005-2008], I would blog and blog and blog [you can emphasize ol’ if you like; I don’t really blog anymore, even falling down on my Gunslinger joy] and yak and yak and yak [1970-present] about the affairs of state. Often, I’d call certain prominent actors on the world stage “the devil” or “Satan” or “the AntiChrist” – or worse. This prompted a question from my [few] loyal readers: “why don’t you aim criticism at the President?” My quick, and truthful, reply was that I did aim criticism at the President. But I sometimes was merely silent on Boosh; as I explained numerous times, I found him likely to be the worst U.S. President since Buchanan, and certainly the worst of my lifetime. I thought he eclipsed even Ye Olde Crazy One, Milhous. I found him beyond redemption, and unworthy of wasted criticism. Indeed, as I sometimes found myself defending that administration from accusation of certain wrongs, my answer was always to ask: “why stretch your criticism to the supposed and the possible, when the provable is so damning?” Actually, I probably typed : “the shit he’ll cop to is so awful, who cares about Scooter Libby?” But I’m sure that I was *thinking* in poetic terms. . . . I digress. Anyway, now I sit and just read others talking about the doings of the world. Sometimes It’s on Facebook, or Twitter. I read the short, pithy observations about the intolerance o’ the Romney, or the lawlessness o’ the laissez-faire Republicans. I wonder if it’s possible that the people offering these opinions really are untouched by the craven, brazen lawlessness of the current occupant o’ the White House. The assassination of US citizens, the trial of journalist under the Espionage Act, the imposition by Executive Order of forfeiture of assets of certain critics o’ the Administration or its allies abroad. The utterly shameless flip-flop on Presidential authority (actually, the lack thereof) when deciding to make war on Libya. The incessant admonishment that “it’s no time to tolerate the old tactics of political divisiveness” before engaging in tactics of political divisiveness. I figure that all of the folks I read offering their daily “read this article about how stupid x is,” or observing how devious y actually was, well, those folks know just who and what the president is. Whether they ultimately will stomach the many wrongs because they prefer the policy outcomes, surely they’re silent and blindingly one-sided in their criticism because they know that this president is beyond redemption. I would ask some of them, but I’ve been told by at least two people that if I dispute their political views, they’d just as soon not be friends. I figured I’d save us the time of the dispute and end the friendship with the announcement of that stance. __________________________________________________________________ I know my views are skewed. Because I am automatically critical of anyone wielding political authority, and skeptical of their statements, I’m not coming at it with a common view that one of the two major parties is right, and the other is wrong. I don’t like either party, and I could no more embrace either’s platform than I could denounce every utterance o’ the opposite party. This makes it hard for me to understand someone who could publicly ridicule one “side” while supporting another. But even knowing that, I’m just shocked at the number of people I read who are unwilling to criticize their Prez, and are so willing to accept and excuse the indefensible. That’s not new, and that’s not one side. I just see one side represented in the New Media, because the media have become popular during this current administration. __________________________________________________________________ The most recent president that I can admire and strongly get behind is . . . I'l get back to you.

2 comments:

Mister Parker said...

I would say our political problems are both systemic and symptomatic -- systemic in the sense that gerrymandering and the rise of a permanent fundraising class has eliminated any incentive for anyone to compromise; and symptomatic in the sense that we as a people disdain compromise anyway.

But like you, I don't really feel like yakking about it. It's too much like complaining that the sun rises in the east. Don Quixote-like battles are for the young -- and I ain't young.

Who Am Us Anyway? said...

I still like yakking about it but nobody I would like to yak about it with ever wants to yak about it, so I never get to yak about it. It's like suddenly everything under the sun is like abortion, which is the one thing even *I* don't want to yak about because all yakking about that does is get everyone -- and I mean everyone -- mad at me and never changes any minds or hearts, including mine. It's a shame though that we can't at least yak about liberty writ large. They didn't not yak about that in 1776, boy! No, they didn't have TIME to not yak about that in 1776! Why back in seventeen seventy-six ... What makes us think that this Republic will just chug along all by itself like a perpetual motion machine? And another thing that drives me nuts is that pretty much no one but me, present company most definitely excepted, sees any value in Reversing the Parties, or Stepping in the Other Guys Shoes. If I had a dollar for every time my question, "How would you feel if it was Bush instead of Obama who did XXX" was met with, "Shut up, she explained," I'd be a rich man, yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum ...