You know things are really wrong when even the Koch brothers have become disillusioned with the political process, and suddenly see the “light” of their wicked ways. Born again “liberals”? Not exactly, but their new-found concern for low-income folk is at least cause for amusement. Of course, all their billions couldn’t buy the last two presidential elections anyways; remember the “Tea Party”? That “movement” was largely fueled by the Kochs, but it was just a new name for a phenomenon at least as old as the “American” or “Know-Nothing” Party of the mid-19th century, which was also motivated principally by racism, xenophobia and scapegoating “aliens.” Today, they are just called Trump supporters. Not that the “alternative” offers any hope; evil concealed is more dangerous than that which one can see, since one can take action against the latter. In the former, the rot is hidden behind the wallpapered façade that people wish to see.
Hypocrisy and ignorance has made me cynical, but these past six months have added a macabre feeling to the proceedings. I scooped up a copy of the latest Seattle Weekly to check out its latest mendacities. First there is an editorial about the “surprising” fact that more than half of all shootings and shooting victims in the city involve black males under 30. Just because most of this is gang-related doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regard them as victims, although, frankly, the media generally ignores these incidents; the media is only interested if the victim is a white female, the more attractive the better (that only happens about once a year in Seattle—it only seems to occur more often since those are the only cases reported). There was some talk of how to bring this under control using surveillance technology, although such shootings usually occur quite randomly and not altogether “predictably.”
Nevertheless, I get the sense that this just a lot of “progressive” angst, to be forgotten as soon as it is written. At least it dispensed with the self-righteous hypocrisy of claiming that these are “innocent young children,” although I felt that this was just around the corner.
Then is a photograph of Colombian sculptor Fernando Botero’s “Adam” on Second and Madison in downtown Seattle. It is a big, bloated, naked Michelin Man thing with a tiny “member,” which apparently captures most observers’ “interest.” It is not only ridiculous, but it is pointless. Why? Because it means nothing unless paired with its “mate,” which of course is “Eve.” Where is the nude Eve? Local developer Martin Selig, who purchased the “artistic” pair, isn’t saying, but I suspect he is keeping it in his collection for his own personal “amusement.”
Seattle and its “artistic” community suffer from great angst about public nude representation of the female form (hell, even the Starbucks’ mermaid was forced to daintily cover up her no-nos), but none at all about the male form. The so-called “Father and Son” sculpture sitting in the Olympic Sculpture Park shows two completely nude male figures running toward each other. This thing has no artistic merit whatever; it is simply meant to be “provocative,” and probably elicited a few knowing sexist giggles from those who chose to display it. Just more hypocrisy.
Then there was a story entitled “Ruling the Roost,” which at least has the “honesty” of its politics. It is about the female-only open mike night at something called the Comedy Nest. Supposedly the purpose of this is “designed to curb embarrassing(?) gender bias while creating a supportive and safe…environment for comics and crowds alike.” Egads, doesn’t the self-righteousness make you sick? At least half the performers at the club must be female and “refrain from misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other hate-ridden material.” Oh really? The story goes on to say that it isn’t “solely” for “clean” comedy. Oh, I get it; note that the term “misandry” isn’t on the “refrain from” list. But misandry and gender hypocrisy go hand-in-glove, so what do you expect?
And finally there is this story called “Fostering a Crisis,” a rather confused treatise about how the foster care system is responsible for an “epidemic” rise in the number homeless children, or so we are supposed to accept as fact. Unfortunately, the writer didn’t pick an entirely sympathetic or believable case example, someone who calls herself “Emily” for anonymity’s sake. There are only two brief quotes from “Emily” in the whole article, yet she seems to say a quite a bit. Or is the writer filling in the blanks, “elaborating” on certain “facts,” injecting her own personal politics, or just plain making things up? We are given all sorts of claims and excuses for which evidence is lacking. “Emily” admits she was a meth addict, but this seems just incidental. We are told her mother was a drunk most of the time, but we are not told what kind of personality that “Emily” had. Was she ever in prison? Was she difficult and rebellious? Did she have psychological “issues”? She claimed to have been sent to her grandparents home in Montana, but she was soon back in Washington; did they kick her out merely because she was a drug addict?
“Emily” returned to her mother and her new boyfriend, we are informed, who she claimed “regularly” raped her; is this true, or just an “elaboration” of reality? Child Protective Services allowed her to “fall through the cracks,” we are told, which meant she faced the decision to return to a “physically and sexually-abusive” home. or the streets. How often have we heard that story before, providing a horrible tale so as to excise the “victim” of any responsibility at all? “Emily” supposedly got “several” jobs at 16 (which included selling dope) after having a baby (apparently not by her mother’s boyfriend, who we were told “regularly” raped her). Now she has a “degree” in social and human services and works at a youth center. Well, since we don’t know her real name we can’t actually follow-up on the truth of that claim or any claim made in the story.
Why should I go cowering under a rock for fear of being pelted by the brickbats of hypocrites? The people who support Hillary Clinton merely because she is a woman (they can’t care about her unclear policy “positions”) are completely blind to her career of crime—to include being personally responsible for the circumstances that led to the death of Vince Foster—and thus they have no credibility on any issue whatever. I don’t listen to hypocrites.