Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Clinton's best "friends" are our worst "enemies"

In spite of my strenuous efforts to avoid entanglements with people generally—and unpleasant people specifically—sometimes it is unpleasantly unavoidable. My sense of justice, reason and common sense often makes it impossible for me to keep my bleeping mouth shut, especially when an unhealthy dose of hypocrisy is added as topping. Take for instance a recent episode in which I found myself sitting in some informal eating establishment, and across the way there was an older white female of 70 years or so, and her companion, an even older woman, perhaps her own mother. The former was chattering on in a contemptuous, mean-spirited manner about the state of the country, and it is clear who she blames for it (I mean, Kent is Republican territory). The other woman never said a word, just sat there like a picture on the wall.

It was declared, for one thing, that all the “good” soldiers are leaving the military. Why? Because they are not being listened to by the “civilians” in government, and the “best” of them are not being promoted. Was she implying that those who were “not the best” were getting promoted, and who in a right-winger’s mind might they be? But then she swerved into another direction that suggested her politics were rather more complicated than initially assumed. She harrumphed knowingly that Hillary Clinton was going to reinstate the draft of the unwilling if she was president, which was what was needed to maintain a strong military. 

Could this person be in fact one of those “disgruntled” Hillary supporters? This seemed to be confirmed as she went on to assert that the Democrats were “mad” at Barack Obama, boldly predicting that he “very definitely” was not going to be “reelected,” and in a malignant tone, “Obama is an idiot.” 

Now, only an “idiot” would not know that Obama was “reelected” in 2012, and by constitutional amendment is barred from running for another presidential term. Funny how an “idiot” can win two presidential elections despite the “handicap” of being black and—according to Hillary fanatic Harriet Christian, “inadequate.” Surely millions of resentful Hillary supporters refused to vote for him out of pure vindictiveness. Yet even a white man with a Grecian profile who made millions in the financial gambling racket (using other people’s money) could not beat him despite Obama’s apparent “unpopularity” and “idiocy.” In regard to the draft, although there was some linkage between reinstating it and Clinton, on Fox News Hillary stated more or less emphatically that she had no intention of doing so if elected president. 

The reality is that there is no logical sense to suggest that the country is going down the tube under this administration any quicker than previous administrations. There have been gloom and doomsayers ever since there have been people; it is only morons who told us that it was “Morning in America” and then promptly put in place irresponsible policies for the benefit of the few, which left unchecked will lead the country into permanent darkness. The reality is that for the vast majority of the people little has changed in their workaday lives over their lifetimes; unless they win the lottery, life remains a struggle, consumed with work, sleep and some excuse for taking up space. 

This reality is beyond the comprehension of certain people, of course, especially those who have not had the privilege of experiencing misfortune. At the point where I heard the word “idiot” I decided I had enough of this talk in need of rebutting. I informed the speaker that the only “idiot” present was herself, and I went down the list of why this was so. Naturally this was not taken well. Now, some people would have just pretended I didn’t exist, while a lesser number would actually attempt to engage me in reasoned discussion. But the majority of people, like this individual, spontaneously combusted rather than clearly elaborate on her views, relying on “instinct” rather than logic. Actually, “hate” is a better word than “instinct.” Much too often, I find that in intolerant bigots feelings like “hatred,” “vindictiveness” and “revenge” tend to consume any recognition of conditions and actions, cause and effect. It is all almost a “personal” affront to them that they should be “forced” to confront the fact of want in a country of plenty. 

I managed to get myself involved in this frustrating exercise of attempting to insert logic and facts into a discussion where there was no appreciation for either. Various foul terms were ascribed to me, and bemoaning of the “fact” that the country was “paying” for people “like me,” and I should “get a job.” Are not these the same people who think certain groups are “stealing” their jobs? Make up your mind! Of course I knew what she was implying, given my presumed “ethnicity.” 

Addressing her (more) aged companion who never spoke and seemed content to be a sounding board, the speaker muttered that the country needed to come to its “senses.” I suggested it needed to have done so in 2000, before at least 4,000 soldiers were killed and thousands more maimed for no reason. She retorted that I should serve my country (“my” country now?). I told her I served seven years in the Army; how many did you? Taken slightly aback, she could say nothing more than that I should go back in the military, although it was now a little late at my age. As an aside, I once did attempt to re-enlist after I graduated from college; oh, you think that the Army would want a former NCO with a college degree? Of course not. At the time the first Bush was downsizing the military following the supposed “end” of the “Cold War,” and made the numbers almost impossible for people like me to get back in the military—because we were more likely to stay in long enough to retire, and that cost money. So much for wanting to keep “good” people. It was and still is a “budget” issue—new recruits and those who just enlist as a temporary job cost less.

The speaker recovered soon enough from this setback, claiming that she also “served” her country as a nurse (an RN, she puffed out, as if that made it more impressive) for 50 years. She further huffed that she was even “forced” to “help” people “like me.” What the hell did that mean? Did she mean “ethnic”—meaning not “real” Americans? Sub-humans? Human vermin? Minorities of a shade below jaundiced? I declared that I wouldn’t let a bigot like her near me, since she’d probably try to kill me if no one was looking. Once more I left her flustered, insisting that she never killed anyone while on the job. Realizing that she should have taken my assertion rhetorically, she declared that she wouldn’t “help” anyone like me anyways, and I believed her. Yes world, there are people like this in our world today. Some may be as old as the hills, but they have kids and grandkids to influence. Our "conversation" ended with her calling me a "communist," to which I retorted was better than being a "Nazi."

So here we have the not so uncommon intersection of bigotry, extremist political ideology, tyranny, and gender advocacy. Another example of this is Kathleen Parker, a right-wing op-ed writer for the Washington Post who also claims to be a “feminist.” Despite her reactionary politics—especially insofar as a black president is concerned—she put aside all ideological differences and recently gushed ridiculously in favor of Clinton, proclaiming that women can “save the world.” 

From what? Tyranny? Hypocrisy? Injustice? Double standards? How about this case about a local teacher named Darcy Smith, married with children who apparently had sex two or three times a week with a male student for at least four years, when he boarded with the family when he was 13? Former and current students and their parents are beseeching the court to drop child rape charges against her, because she is "well respected" by the community, and is a "good" person. The media doesn't seem much interested in "prosecuting" her either, let alone discussing the disparity in public perception and legal consequences between male and female perpetrators. Why is it that gender politics and hypocrisy seem to go hand in hand? Where is Seattle Times crime reporter/gender victim fanatic Sarah Jean Green to explain this for us? I mean, she can be "objective" for one millisecond, can't she?

And what about this recent report in the local alternative weekly The Stranger about how the state legislature intends to pass a law that will require any man convicted of attempting to do “business” with a female prostitute to be listed on the state “sex offender” list—pretty much a “death sentence” for any kind of life or reputation—while the prostitute is to be regarded as a “victim” of the “crime,” whether or not she is wholly responsible for both her actions and instigating the “transaction.” Gender victim fanatics and fraudulent “studies” are of course driving this issue, as well as hypocritical politicians masquerading as moral paladins. Yet most sex workers are so by their own free will. Why? Because it is “easy” money. It requires no “experience.” Because there are plenty of men out there who are “victims” of their libidos, and can be taken advantage of. I can tell you from personal experience that prostitutes desperate for cash can be pretty damn aggressive when they want to be (like, say, places like Killeen, TX when I was stationed at Fort Hood), although they were completely wasting their time with me. It has nothing to do with the “patriarchy,” as some victimhood fanatics claim; When it comes right down to it, for the most part it is the women who engage in this “business” who are in control.  Yet in this and in many other examples, the gender victim business is booming with no regulation of their irresponsibility.

Anyways, Clinton supposedly has learned from past mistakes, claiming that she is rethinking the way she responds to critics and criticism; she’ll have to, or she’ll be in frequent meltdown mode for all to see once again. We saw that in 2008 when Clinton discovered that merely being a woman wasn’t a free ticket to the presidency like she thought—and she has the temerity now to claim that she was and is the victim of “sexism,” rather than a victim of her own megalomania and sense of  “entitlement.” The problem with this “sexism” accusation is, as “The Angry Black Woman” intimated,  that we are supposed to pretend that something sinister doesn’t lie beneath the surface of this accusation—like racism, or at least the belief that (white) women are more “oppressed.” That is of course ridiculous and mendacious from a merely empirical standpoint. Isn’t calling Obama an “inadequate black male” a somewhat “racist” accusation? I’m certain that there were other Hillary fanatics who agreed with opinionater Bonnie Erbe, who idiotically “urged” Obama to vacate his nomination victory because “whites will not vote for you.” Of course, she probably was referring to white feminists like Eleanor Smeal, who once had the audacity to publicly rail against “racism against white women.” It is talk like this that elicited this statement from “The Angry Black Woman” on her website: 

“And I find it hilarious that the same women spouting racist clap trap (Erica Jong, Gloria Steinem) then have the temerity to demand that black women stand in sisterhood with them. Perhaps it is time for a little history lesson on racism in the feminist movement because clearly I’m supposed to ignore that huge elephant in the middle of the room. Am I meant to think that possessing a vagina automatically means you’re not racist no matter what kinds of things you say?”

There is no doubt in my mind that if Clinton runs, she will take advantage of this racist fringe made up of feminist extremists and “Real Americans”—you know, the “hard-working people, white Americans.” Of course the media will be loath to expose this, because it might alienate minority voters against her. It’s odd, but people like this person I encountered seem to have forgotten about this little fact. On the other hand, this might be a strategy for “victory,” meaning that Clinton is not the “progressive” we are led to believe by Fox News and hate talk radio; there are too many far-right white female elected officials to presume that electing a woman should be interpreted as “progressive.” It is not “progressive” when a person is selected for a post merely because of social ideology and “fairness”; Clarence Thomas is proof enough of that fact.

Here is for hoping that another charismatic, forceful (but with perhaps more “experience”) candidate emerging to unseat Clinton from her perch again. The reality is that she attracts too many people who hate, are not “reliable” Democrats but opportunistic voters who feel compelled to vote for whoever appeals to their sense of victimization, whether as a white person or as a woman.  

As a side note, later on in the day I was standing at a road intersection with a couple of young men who looked like techie types; with my outfit, I could have fit right in with them. While I was waiting for the walk light, I noticed that this woman and her companion just happened to be sitting in their vehicle right behind the crosswalk. I found it amusing that the former—apparently having seen me—was angrily muttering to herself, obviously trying to avoid eye contact; her companion was looking at me with a blank expression, content to be a sounding board as before.  An idea suddenly occurred to me, and when the light allowed me to pass their vehicle, I gave my protagonist—who continued to make a concerted effort not to meet her eyes with mine—something like a Nazi salute; I snickered as I saw her become flustered at the thought that someone actually had the audacity to expose her.

No comments:

Post a Comment