Do You Hear What I Hear?
--all of the talking heads today
follow Henny Penny's lead
follow Henny Penny's lead
And we'll never be royals
It don't run in our blood
That kind of lux just ain't for us
We crave a different kind of buzz
--Royals, Lorde
Nothing really matters
Love is all we need
Everything I give you
All comes back to me
--Nothing Really Matters,
Madonna
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy now
--Don't Worry, Be Happy,
Bobby McFerrin
_________________________
For those voters who did not elect President Trump, 2017 has been a year in which there was no surcease of sorrow.
Presumably to avoid OD'ing on Wellbutrin, they have made a cruel and wicked game out of firing on anything that moves in the White House. It is not even done in the best spirit of American satire -- it is ham-fisted, and done with Gallagher's mallet versus Mark Twain's fillet knife. It emanates from a dark and heavy impulse, antithetical to the frontier mentality, the Yankee can-do spirit that embodies the best of our nation.
Here is a simple wish for the New Year: that the people I once considered my fellows put aside their fear and loathing of President Trump and have faith that the System will work, as it always has. If it comforts you, know that correctives happen every four to eight years, like clockwork. Whatever you thought was great but lost will be coming around again (possibly, in an improved guise.)
But Jeez Louise stop the incessant harping and haranguing stemming from the misbegotten elitist meme that "He is not my President". That's just stupid, forget counterfactual. Mr. Trump is your duly elected President.
If it helps, think back to 2000 and the unfortunate "hanging chads" and the infamous ballots of Palm Beach County (why is it always Florida?). In that case, Mr. Gore just might have had the better claim to the Office, but the fight was ceded and we rallied behind our then-President, the one who brought us our current misbegotten and most unexcellent and tragic misadventures in the Middle East.
Every day's news cycle for more than a year now has been naught but bloodsport against the person of Mr. Trump (with the occasional bombing, opiate addiction story and weather disaster thrown in for good measure). The talking heads are, as comedian Jon Stewart said of the ilk to which he aspired to belong before hanging up his spurs, "turd miners". Even he -- the original Pied-piper of the new "opinion news" -- tired of suiting up daily in his Hazmat garb.
Sadly, for the new breed, there seems to be no enervation in their non-stop caustic derision. Snark and nastiness is us.
This writer has tried, vainly, to counter the fearmongering and anger that has besieged her from all 'round. However, such efforts at rationality are epic fails, only serving to amp up the unfaithful and to ruffle my normal equanimity. The wise Lisa politely demurs.
No President may enact too many changes in four years. Rome was neither built nor burned in a day. Mr. Trump is surely discovering the confines that bind him.
Trade in your doom and gloom Nostradamus vagueries, "Well, we haven't seen the end of this ...". Instead, ask yourself, "What do I wish I had done today at this time next year? Do you really think disseminating fear, loathing and news-ish bits on the President is the best use of your life?
The blind arrogance of the once for-the-people Democrats is the most confounding and disappointing thing. When Mr. Obama disdained the "guns and Bible" crowd, and his presumptive successor Hillary Clinton pushed it a step further with her gleeful dismissal of "the despicables", those tone deaf party regulars failed to realize a very big reality, namely: that is us, or at least, a large number of the people they were elected to represent.
The United States has a venerable tradition of being parochial and armed. Put another way, we take our civil rights seriously. Blame it on King George and the brigands called our founders who seceded from the Royal Way.
In the 2016 election, we saw the corrective that occurs in a democracy when our public servants believe themselves entitled. In this new day of personal entitlement, the hackneyed boilerplate of the party apparatchiks seems fusty even coming from a New/Old School Obama.
He promised to extricate us from the Phony Wars and Terror (PWOT ©), but did not deliver. He presided over a renascent breakdown in race relations and the revelation of a new descent in the condition of the erstwhile entitled: the middle-aged white male, about whom it was revealed to be the only demographic losing in the mortality - morbidity sweepstakes
Sans judgement, the 2016 election was most remarkable, as it gave the lie to the received truth that pet candidates would always be shepherded into office on the large coattails of their wealthy sponsors. This writer remains curious and hopeful regarding this administration. The main fear is the New Hatred which has become de rigueur and a supposed sign of enlightenment. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
All we are saying, is give peace (in the Homeland) a chance.
Here's to a more civil 2018.
Labels: angry birds, evil media, liberals gone mad, New Year 2018
posted by Lisa at 3:33 PM
29 Comments:
We are united by our humanity.
Here's a toast to more tolerant times.
May it be a Happy New Year indeed!
Thank you for your words of wisdom, Lisa.
I never joined in the "not my president" movement and agree that Trump is a flash in the pan except for the stunning number of conservative appointment to lifetime judicial posts (which is not his doing). There have also been moments when I thought that Trump did good things (thought sadly not as many as any other president in modern history).
My fear comes not from Trump but from the egotists on the Left and the Right who say, "Ah, of course, we just ignore the facts and slander everything in sight and rely on our increasingly tribal national politics to win elections." The Roman Republic grew by fits and starts for over 300 years but fell into continual civil unrest in less than 30 years once the egotists felt they could safely ignore reality.
I do my best to calm the increasing vitriol and stupid spite in our politics but I am working against current trends and am not hopeful. The left and the right don't hear or see each other and are determined to use the US government to impose their (uniformly) stultifying version of reality on each other.
Not all is lost or bleak, the better state and regional governments are stepping up to fill some of the most important gaps while the so-called leaders of both parties in Congress bicker and nitpick. But, sadly, the US is becoming less united and more states.
I share Ael's wish for more tolerant times.
Lisa,
i thought that our agreement was that rangeragainstwar was to remain my domain.
i also thought that if you want to do a love Trump site then you should start your own domain.
i respect the office of POTUS but i will never do so with the person. respect must be earned and it can't be done by nasty twitters.
if this is the tenor of Ranger then i suggest that we shut it down.
jim hruska aka RAW.
At the moment, the President of the United States's most recent tweet is as follows:
"I will be announcing THE MOST DISHONEST & CORRUPT MEDIA AWARDS OF THE YEAR on Monday at 5:00 o’clock. Subjects will cover Dishonesty & Bad Reporting in various categories from the Fake News Media. Stay tuned!"
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
Is this the model of civility that you wish us to follow for 2018, perhaps? Of dignity? Of sobriety?
Please be serious here. The only thing sadder than the alliance of salivating opportunists and partisan hacks in the Democratic Party are the fans, and I use that word intentionally, of the current president.
Also, with respect to Jim's comment,
I do not want to comment on the relationship between the two. If it is strained enough to become public, I can't imagine anything I have to say here will be of any value.
However, speaking as a regular reader, I think I'm not alone in saying it would be a shame if the site cannot survive this difference of opinion. Trump will pass. The issues this blog has traditionally addressed have always seemed to me far greater than one man, even in the presidency.
Hey folks,
I've been on a news sabbatical this week, and have just read the eponymous Ranger's, and my co-blogger's, comment. All I can say is, "mighty sad".
Ranger has taken a hearty quaff of the partisan hatred, and believes like the much too many that catastrophe due to one man is nigh. Utter tosh, IMHO.
As an avid consumer of the media news, Ranger shows in this divisive comment what this incessant media pettiness and meanness hath wrought. As I know him to be a very creative and outside-the-box thinker, this is doubly sad. Alas.
What does the future hold? Hopefully, a reconciliation.
Please do stand by ...
Not to be subordinate, but surely a provocateur ...
I hate to be petty, but ISTM, Ranger has some 'splainin' to do:
Found by accident in the "read" queue for today, and in reply to a comment on 3 July 2014, Ranger declares himself to be an "America First" kinda guy. <*GULP*>
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...
Anon 7:41,
The disconnect that separates our thinking is that i don't give a rats ass for any of the players.
My only concern is my Army,country and my life. This means that i'm an America first kinda guy.
Why should we buy ammo or anything for people who are not our friends, and they never will be?You are aware that the good ole USA is sucking on all fronts to include trade deficit,GNP, jobs, economic bleakness, hunger, poor infrastructure, racial tension, class inequality, and our leaders are buffoons.?
So tell me why i should care about anything beyond our perimeter?
We are not responsible for the world.
jim hruska
Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:36:00 AM GMT-5
... inquiring minds want to know, Ranger ...
Lisa & Jim,
I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog that a good friend of over 30 years and I parted ways over this very issue. I contacted him over the holiday season because I missed his friendship and he responded that he missed me too, but just couldn't hang with me because of my liking Trump. No two ways about it. Done. No more beers and laughs. No more back porch guitar jams. No more talking through what's on our minds or in our hearts. No more shared adventures; new or fondly remembered.
Sad. And stupid.
I do not understand what it is about this particular President that brings about such visceral loathing and paranoia. We've had draft dodgers in the office before. We have idiots/mentally disabled in the office. We've had disgraceful moral midgets and cretins in there before. WHY IS IT SO DIFFERENT THIS TIME? Especially when all the evidence from year 1 points to Trump getting a lot done resulting in an improving economy + no new wars.
I have asked Trump haters to explain to me what is so different this time and I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A COMPREHENSIBLE RESPONSE. I get that his hair and face are a funny color ("the cheeto in chief", "the orange-gutan", etc, etc, ad nuaseam)...but that can't be it...we don't judge people on their looks, do we?
Many of the "explanations" (such that they are)include epithets involving the fact that DJT is a "fancy pants rich boy", and that kind of thing. Ok. Nothing new there either. Most of our Presidents have been fancy pants rich boys.
What else? Well, I hear from SJW types that Trump is a Nazi for not allowing transgenders into the military. For wanting to kick out illegals and not allow in people from Islamic terrorist countries. I happen to agree with Trump on these points, but even if you don't, these ideas are not new either. These ideas were even promoted by democrats before democrats suddenly were against them.
Russian collusion? 14 months and nada. In fact it appears that the DOJ and other accusatory parties are going to have egg on the collective face. It's pretty obvious that DJT is not a Russian mole. He wants to improve relations and partner with Russia whenever possible. Well, that is exactly what Obama and Hillary said before they were against it. Furthermore, if one is against war, one should be against antagonism toward the second most badass nuclear power on the planet. Clinton wanted to institute no fly zones that would have certainly led to shooting conflicts with Russia in Syria and to provoke Russia in the Ukraine and on the border with Poland.
I could go on, but, basically, my point is that Trump is taking old ideas and polishing them up and offering them up as viable solutions to todays problems. It makes sense. Nothing new under the sun. Much work has already been done assessing the viability of these ideas, the resource dedication necessary, etc. People that proposed them are, in many cases, still in office. Buy-in should be easy. The anti-Trumpers act like Trump is coming from bizzaro land with bizzaro concepts. He just isn't. It's something else. Something about the man himself that they hate. It's an archetype that sets them off.
I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm not saying they're right. I am saying that they don't appear, to me, to have examined themselves to understand the source of their impulses.
So what is it?
I do know, whatever it is, it ain't worth losing perfectly fine friendships over.
avedis
addendum:
As for tweets, I am ambivalent. We want transparency and tweets seem to be a good way for POTUS to maintain daily contact with The People. Of course tweets are simple statements by nature and the job of POTUS and the issues not so simple at all. So it would seem that tweets are not an appropriate or respectful means of communication. On the other hand I cannot see how a stupid tweet is so very different from a stupid, nasty, lying soundbite, the latter of which we certainly have had our fill of from previous POTUSs and other elected reps.
I see the nasty, lying soundbite as at least as unbecoming of the office. Then there are the day to day press conferences on policy formation where the lies get dressed up with various statistics and "study results" that make BS appear to be truth. I really resent that and all the politicians have done it. But Trump is somehow different?
Worse are the really huge nasty lies (e.g. Iraqi WMD, light at the end of the tunnel, victory is at hand).
Perspective is needed here. I think some people are putting form over content on this one.
I refrain from comment on the direction of RAW other than to say I like Jim's mil posts. That said, POTUS is CinC. Conditions inCONUS influence decision OCONUS and those decisions can lead to war.
avedis
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU JIM AND LISA!
I suspect, Avedis, you would not be so quick to dismiss the investigation as "nada" if, say, Obama's national security advisor and multiple campaign officials had been charged in connection with an investigation into colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, you once assured me that such collusion was very definitely ongoing on rather thinner evidence. If the charge is simply that they sought to make use of a foreign power to win the election, and vice versa, then presumably meeting with representatives of that foreign power in the hopes that it could supply incriminating information on Hillary Clinton qualifies.
Lisa, if your best argument in defense of the president is that people who feel, on fairly sound evidence, that he is manifestly unfit for office are simply being "partisan and divisive," I must say, that is pretty weak tea. If you think Jim is a partisan, then I must also ask, what party do you suppose he is a partisan for? Given his past remarks it surely cannot be the Democratic Party.
It has been simultaneously fascinating and tragic, sort of like a gigantic car wreck in slow motion, to observe the past year from the minimal safety of permanent residency in a foreign country. Fascinating in part because I had always imagined the sort of hyper-partisanship of an authoritarian regime in the making was directed from the centre by some greatly intelligent mind. Obviously, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, if a flimflam man is to be successful, he must be advanced by a bodyguard of partisans.
You might consider that some of his critics view continuous, semi-coherent rambling in public about his own amazing intellect and about the flaws of those around him as serious evidence that a man is unfit for office. Indeed it's hard to envision many private corporations who would have kept a man in position if he were to take to this habit on company time. I suppose, though, you view that as irrelevant.
I imagine you also don't mind the commander-in-chief attempting to censor and suppress private publications that are critical of him by force of law. I've seen that kind of behavior before but not normally in a country that prizes free speech.
David,
The Muslim Brotherhood is a sworn enemy of the USA. Russia is a major power in the world with whom the USA is not at war, with whom the USA shares common interests and with whom the USA has important diplomatic relations. Comparing the two is disingenuous. The frenzy against Trump is stupid because it has come down to accusations based on meeting with Russian ambassadors. Well, duh, what do you think ambassador are there for?
The rest of your argument puts form over content, which is all that anti-Trumpers can do, as far as I can see. So he brags. I haven't seen a presidential hopeful yet that doesn't get up there and tell us how great he or she is. Ditto actually elected presidents.
You merely object to *how* Trump does his bragging; which in turn get us back to my original question - what is it about Trump that so forcefully sets some people off?
avedis
Avedis,
I was not referring to a meeting with the Russian ambassador.
Hypothetically, if you meet with a foreign government expecting they will supply damaging information on your opponent in an election, clearly you are intending to collude with them, yes?
As for the rest, if you choose to believe a government attempting to suppress its critics through force of law is mere bragging and chest-thumping, that is for you to decide. We all have our own personal Rubicons, I suppose. Mine actually came and went long ago. I wonder where yours is.
David,
The woman Trump's son met w/ was not Russian govt.
The "dossier" that the Clinton team paid for did, allegedly, come from the Russian govt.
If everyone in DC is playing these games, then I'll take the guy who puts America first and implements policies that makes sense to me. It's that simple. That is what I have been saying all along.
avedis
I would take that, too, if I believed there was such a man in Washington.
You may remember I wished your movement luck last fall, and I meant that sincerely.
Sadly, since then I have seen little to change my original suspicion that Trump was anything other than the pampered elite he is. A man who cheerfully evaded the draft and now thinks it too great a sacrifice to divest the real estate holdings through which foreign powers now curry favor with him while ordering men younger than I to their deaths is not one I would follow, and at the end of the day, I would never believe a billionaire would represent anything other than the interests of his own class. That was my belief in the beginning and it hasn't changed.
Fusion GPS's investigation was originally funded by conservative media, not the Democrats. I suppose the chief flaw with the Clintons in your view is that they hired a private contractor to find dirt instead of asking foreign governments to do so.
And no, she was not the Russian government, merely someone he believed would be reporting on the Russian government's services for them. No strings attached, no doubt.
I once imagined America as an unusually nationalist country in the increasingly degraded Western civilization, but I have to say, it's hard to imagine any other functioning English-speaking democracy where a leader could survive the revelation that he had been seeking covert electoral assistance from any foreign government, even an ally. Perhaps this is the new internationalist, multicultural bent of American liberalism being manifest.
David,
The Prime Minister of Israel was in the Capitol building addressing congress when BHO was prez. No strings attached?
Steele was British MI6. That is also a foreign govt.
People are just having a hissy fit over Russia because they're stuck in the cold war, which ended almost 30 years ago. It's hysteria.
IMO, Trump is doing great things for the US economy.
You have managed to elude my question as to why the elevated ire when DJT has done nothing that others haven't done.
avedis
I have ltd. time online today, but thank our readers for putting minds together. I will give thoughtful reading soon.
Comments tomorrow ...
"You have managed to elude my question as to why the elevated ire when DJT has done nothing that others haven't done."
Since none of the things I have criticized Trump and Trump alone for have been done by other presidents, I simply considered it a pointless question. I assume, similarly, you saw no reason to respond to my query about what you would consider inappropriate behavior from a president, if not attempting to use the law to silence or censor dissent, to name just one recent eyebrow-raising moment. No, Trump is the Twitterfied president for a Twitterfied nation, a wealthy, self-entitled, short-sighted, prattling imbecile. Sadly that was my impression a year ago and, while I hoped for the best, not one late-night, misspelled, semi-coherent tweet has altered my opinion of him. If he was my employee using my company time for such nonsense I would have fired him long ago. So would you have.
There is a second category of ways in which Trump has merely continued on in Obama's and other predecessors' footsteps, for instance on the "right" of the president to conduct foreign undeclared wars, which we could also talk about, and have in the past.
David,
"I assume, similarly, you saw no reason to respond to my query about what you would consider inappropriate behavior from a president" High crimes and misdemeanors, etc. We have a body of law that tells us what is unacceptable. I don't get to decide.
I actually think his tweets are effective - odd technique, yet effective.
The US has been conducting undeclared wars for a long time. It's not just a Trump/Obama thing.
"A man who..... now thinks it too great a sacrifice to divest the real estate holdings through which foreign powers now curry favor with him.."
You have no proof of that.
"if you choose to believe a government attempting to suppress its critics through force of law is mere bragging and chest-thumping, that is for you to decide."
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Take away the fake news and it seems like you come down to exactly what I said people don't like about him. He's a rich guy that tweets and who evaded the draft. Other than the tweeting, he is just like many other presidents.
So, at bottom, you especially hate the man because he tweets. Tweeting seems to be a new trend among politicians. So some day soon, you won't even have that excuse.
avedis
I wouldn't say I hate the man because he tweets so much as that the vapid, self-absorbed, semi-literature cultural turn that his tweeting represents.
For what it's worth, the front page of CNN's website today is all about how Oprah may run for president in 2020, and if that were to happen, I hope Trump beats her, and if he somehow failed to do so, I would probably also despise her presidency.
And if Clinton had won, then we could have a different conversation about abuse of power, sans tweeting, more about -- as I assume she would have -- the growing authoritarian and unconstitutional power of the executive branch.
I told you a while back that America was looking more and more like a failed state and I meant that. In my view Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
On the censorship point, I'm referring to the one which very predictably threw liberals into such a tizzy last week, the letter ordering Wolff's publisher to cease publication of his "behind the scenes" book on the White House.
All that said, I think it is fairly safe to say that there has not yet been another president, on Twitter or otherwise, who performs Trump's trademark early-morning rants and there is unlikely to be another one after he is gone.
I'm not sure why you think such public utterances are effective. Instead they make the president look like a joke at best and mentally unstable at worst. It's not the existence of Twitter: it's the absurdity, rambling character, and frequently semi-literate nature of the tweets themselves.
As I say, if one of your employees used company time to represent your company in that fashion, I suspect you would have fired him.
David,
Ok. On the censorship point, there are liable laws. Wolff's book (I haven't read it and don't intend to) appears to be a big bag of BS, rumor/innuendo/gossip, etc. If someone is printing outright unsubstantiated damaging BS about you have a right to ask the court for relief, as well as damages.
I don't tweet and never will. I agree that it represents a further debasement of culture. Sadly, I must admit to having become a FB user. This started for me when both my children were deployed fighting in the undeclared wars and they convinced me that it was easier to get updates on their activities and well-being (or lack thereof) if I could log on because they had limited time to be online and blanket posts of FB was most efficient. I think FB is right there w/ tweeting, culture debasement-wise. I got caught up in the stupid thing for a while, especially during the election. Now I am seeking to wean myself off of it. That said, it - like twiiter - is what everyone does these days. When in Rome?
I appreciate your fairness and equality in sharing your distaste for corrupt jerks in office regardless of party. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about those who have special - frenetic - dislike of Trump.
avedis
If that's what you mean, then you'll have to exempt me. As I say, I don't view Trump as a unique phenomenon. It's a predictable effect of a collapsing government that the system will toss out increasingly less plausible candidates. In that respect I suppose it would be comical farce if the Democrats' answer to Trump really did turn out to be Oprah.
On the libel point, the determination of what is sufficiently truthful to print is not normally the function of the executive branch in the American system, especially via prior restraint in the form of cease and desist letters directed at a book not yet on sale.
Perhaps the Trump movement would be more comfortable in Britain, where libel is open to the government as well as private citizens and there is consequently a far freer use of censorship.
David,
Or in Canada, where the offending language could be labeled as "hateful". Thus resulting in its suppression and the arrest of the author.
avedis
--thank you to Pluto and Ael for being there and for sending goodwill. I believe the light always trounces the dark.
--Top o' the New Year to Mad Dog Massey. Please keep the candle lit (and away from curtains ;).)
--to avedis: as always, thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I am sad to hear of your experience with this phenomenon, too. How sad, yes: No more talking through what's on our minds or in our hearts. No more shared adventures; new or fondly remembered.
Sad, stupid and a great loss, for life is short. And I, too, anticipate Ranger's getting back in the saddle on the military front.
--to David, who says,
Lisa, if your best argument in defense of the president is that people who feel, on fairly sound evidence, that he is manifestly unfit for office are simply being "partisan and divisive," I must say, that is pretty weak tea. If you think Jim is a partisan, then I must also ask, what party do you suppose he is a partisan for? Given his past remarks it surely cannot be the Democratic Party.
David, please see that I defend no one, but I do pose questions. I write social critique, and am simply fascinated by the lack of serious inquiry into this momentous election. We are privy from the "best and brightest" of only petty potshots.
I feel I and my fellows deserve better than "Mr. Radioactive Cheetoes Man". Sorry, but I'm not laughing.
DJT has proven that he is anything but an authoritarion, despite the early clarion calls to that effect.
I do not know for whom Jim is a partisan; I always thought him a free agent. He is expressing the anger of the many, though. Because I do not join in the "Orange Man" dance, I must be a "DJT Lover." It is the old "either/or" fallacy, and he's not alone.
Per Tweets, I never have, and doubt I ever will. But the masses love it, and who are we to say that this will not become a norm for future presidents. None of us know the future.
My next post will confront some of the obvious questions which arise out of your dialog with avedis, namely, why will so many not move ahead and accept the reality?
Avedis,
And that is the truth, amen. But one must bear in mind that Canada was founded by the British loyalists who couldn't stomach independence and liberty, so perhaps it is unsurprising.
Lisa,
On norms -- Well yes. There was something rivoting in a perverse way in a way about the Oprah coverage today. Perhaps you are right: perhaps Trump is simply the vanguard of a new age. If so I will detest that age whether it comes in blue or red clothing.
I see Trump now has confirmed via Twitter he will be awarding awards for fake news to the media. One can see what sad depths the country sinks to. Either we must see the pathetic spectacle of a president turned carnival barker, or more likely, we accept that it isn't worth paying attention to what the president says because it has no connection to reality or policy. Your choice, I suppose.
One of these days I'll have to buy an iPhone, plug into utopia, and become one of the smiling masses if only to avoid being a conscious eyewitness to the drip-drip-drip, slow-but-steady collapse of Western civilization.
David,
With kindness, look around you: we already ARE this thing that you fear. I submit that we all mus stop gasping and wringing our collective hands, and just look around
If DJT was some sort of bellwhether for us, then perhaps that is to the good. If you think something needs to change, then perhaps it does. Perhaps is also reasonable to think that his electors think the same way you do.
Perhaps it is the DJT voters who had a desire for "hope" and "change" (Obama's 2008 slogan, "change we need.") This is all submitted for your consideration. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. I am just looking at what is.
DJT is not a golem, nor are the people who voted for him ... these are all just people. There was not some evil mastermind who upended the world just to give the news puppets a raison d'etre.
It is important to say: DJT is no wizard, and he did not create some sort of sudden societal comedown. One may not blame a man. No -- we did this to ourselves. He is not the phenomena, but we are.
Amazing that we are flapping our arms about our facticity now, while we have been stewing in the idiocy and vulgarity for so long. It has taken a shockingly short time of "living" in the ever-present world of ersatz social networking and the concomitant nothingness of flash mobs, etc., to create this dumbed-down world.
Before you join them, some good primers for you might be Kornbluth's short story, The Marching Morons; a viewing of Chayevsky's "Network" and the film "Idiocracy" (quite crass), and of course, Huxley's classic, "Brave New World".
While the comedown is surely a sad one, the Pollyanna in me recognizes that not all will join in to the sickness, and there are other places to be.
But, yes, it does look like the upward slope of Western Civ is now flattening, and it has been doing so for awhile. I wrote a piece on the "Great Middling" (the counter impulse to the Awakening). Perhaps I'll look for it ...
Post a Comment
<< Home