Saturday, December 17, 2011

Rage for Rage's Sake

With Christmas almost upon us and so much to do not to mention the other projects of mine with editing and re-editing and re-re-editing, and then my newest project which involves research and new writing, Rainy Day Things has suffered but not for lack of interest in what is going on politically. I find it an amazing time politically and still read from an assortment of sites.

One thing I realized though is that I personally do not read from any furious sites. Not from the right nor the left. If the site is there to inspire my anger, if it's there to ridicule in the nastiest sense, I might have started reading it, but I won't keep at it.

From my own experience, I suspect anger sites are the easiest to write. There is so much out there to inspire rage, and I don't care if it's from the right or the left. Rage for rage's sake is the rage for both ways of thinking politically.


So I am inclined to try and avoid doing that for this blog. If I don't want to read it, do I want to write it? Even though it's easy to use a site like this as a way to vent, I think it's better to use it to inform and inspire. This is not the easiest balance to find. If you read my blog, Rainy Day Thought, you will see more of my thinking on that as I write (when I get around to it) about the film The Tree of Life.

I have more questions than answers right now and that also complicates things. For instance, I have tried to think which Republican would I rather have for president if Obama cannot win and one of them does? Wow, now that is really really tough because by now I find them to all be abominations. The ones that seemed the worst in the beginning now seem less worse but purely by comparison.

At one time I'd have thought Romney, but he's sold out so many ways from Sunday that it's hard to imagine who he'd be selling out to once he got into the office. His  concept that he is a successful business man makes you see what is most likely. He was successful based on sending jobs overseas or removing them period which enhanced his own profits but led to big job losses for workers. Where does he send Americans to achieve that same success-- or more accurately who does he look at to determine whether he's been successful?

Then there is this-- to get this job, Romney has had to appeal to the meanest realm of the Republican party which has him, in terms of foreign affairs, calling Obama an appeaser which nobody who looks at what Obama has actually done overseas would call that... Now at home with Republicans maybe but that wasn't what Romney was talking about.

If appeasement is about us removing our military troops from Iraq, how many right wingers understand that if we left them there-- as Cheney is saying we had to do to keep his great victory intact-- and do it forever, I guess, as Cheney lied when he got us into it with a quick war for which he never bothered figuring out how to pay-- if we kept a limited military force there but no promised immunity from prosecution from the Iraqi courts.  

For anybody who has forgotten what Colin Powell said about the military-- they are sent in when it's time you need to kill and break things. We have asked a lot of them in Iraq to be peacekeepers but let's not forget that sometimes involves also killing.

So we should leave the troops there to satisfy the red meat bunch and end up with some of them charged in Iraqi courts when a wedding party is accidentally hit as it has been and would be again? You can bet that Cheney doesn't care about that. He never did care about American troops except as cannon fodder. Americans as a whole would care and Obama did. Foxies won't even hear that little detail about withdrawal. Iraqis want us out. It'll all be we should stay there until, I guess, Neocons finally decide it's time to go based on who knows what criteria for any president or presidential candidate to avoid being called an appeaser by the rage contingent.

If someone reads all the right wing hate sites, I suppose you would see Obama that way or be delighted when Gingrich said Obama was  Kenyan colonialist which just blows my mind if you think about how either of those two words fit together. I mean he's not a Kenyan to start, wasn't ever there until he was grown, but colonialist? Isn't that what the Neocons are?

Gingrich and Romney didn't say those things though because they likely believed them. They said them because there is a group on the right who feed on hate and if they don't see it, they consider it weakness.

Well it's the same on the left and that's the hard truth where if you don't go along with the harshest rhetoric which can be any of the following: the talk the earth is nearly dead, the earth is greater than ever, the poor ruined this country, the rich ruined this country. Then if you go along with either side and are at an extreme it's okay to use war and terrorist tactics (if it only destroys property in some cases). Rage feeds rage and it escalates and that's the simple truth of it.

Rage for rage's sake is what the media feeds on right now too. I don't know where this all ends up. Both extremes seem to be wanting a civil war, a revolution. One says they want a peaceable revolution. Except, how do you ever get that given Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were adherents of that and you know how that ended for them? Oh yeah, I know... their ideas went on to continue to attract followers-- but their blood was still spilled.

Anyway it's tough right now to write a political column without pointing out that Gingrich is big on not talking ill of other Republicans as he famously quotes their god, Reagan; but if you cannot point out where the other guys are wrong, how do you convince anybody else you are right?

The funny part about Gingrich is he puts himself out there as this great genius (one of the few of them who went so low as to bend over for Donald Trump). He, who now looks like a benevolent little troll with a sweet grandfatherly smile, slices up other people with the meanest of rhetoric before he slips back into the smile and mr. nice guy. I suggest anybody who buys that, the next time he starts talking about anything and I do mean anything, watch his eyes while he talks. They always say the eyes are the windows to the soul-- assuming there is one.

Well the simple truth is Gingrich says these vicious things interspersed into the rest, as I just did above, because he knows there is a rage out there whose votes he can win no other way. (Besides which, it's kind of fun, in a mean sort of way, to do it)!

3 comments:

Kay Dennison said...

I understand and totally agree with you!!! The meanness I've seen in the GOP of late grates on my last surviving nerves.

MerCyn said...

Meanness seems a prerequisite for Republican popularity, unfortunately. And the fact that the man who made it inside the belt way politically and financially, the king of mean, Gingrich, is #1 blows my mind. Of all the Republican candidates I believe the one who would best handle the job of President with dignity and intelligence is Jon Hunstman.

Rain said...

I agree, MerCyn. Huntsman's ideas are too conservative for my thinking but he is a real one at least. His problem is having to win in a party that has gone way beyond that and has other things it wants. All you have to do is read a few right wing blogs to know what those candidates had better say.