Jebus.
The fear and frenzy over Our Impending Doooooom! has reached fever pitch. So many online commentators are certain that The Hag will get us into a nuclear war with Russia -- over Syria, Ukraine or someplace -- that they are literally freaking out over it. We Are Doomed!
Now stop, I say. Stop. It. Right. Now.
The fear of Nuclear Annihilation time-honored tactic for control of domestic populations used by both the US/NATO and the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, though neither power had any intention of using nuclear weapons against the other -- except in the most extreme circumstance, a circumstance that never arose.
But boy was the fear of what might happen ever useful and effective.
What we're witnessing right now is a classic example of Cold War style Brinkmanship and propaganda which is being exploited to the max by both sides with the undeniable implication that one or the other will engage in a nuclear first strike --- and we're all gonna die!
Over Ukraine. Over Syria. Over... well, something, somewhere, somehow, some time.
And Putin is a Madman.
This whole frenzy depends on the underlying belief that Putin is a Madman who will sacrifice Mother Russia and the Russian people to demonstrate how low hanging and clangy his big brass balls are...
Right.
No. That's not how Brinkmanship works.
Yes, there are plenty of neoCon cage rattlers in the US/NATO governments who appear to want to engage in a Nuclear Holocaust with the Soviet Union, erm, Putin's Russia. Russia Hate is that strong, and "destroying" Russia is their aim.
But that can only happen if Putin is the Madman the propagandists try to make him out to be. I say he is not. Nothing like it.
And he has absolutely no intention of sacrificing Mother Russia to slow or stop the Imperial Juggernaut.
The cage rattlers will not get their Nuclear Holocaust, not this time, and with any luck, not ever.
But the fear of what might happen will continue to be ratcheted up, the better to control domestic populations, not so much to strike fear in rivals.
The propaganda campaign against Russia started up in earnest as Edward Snowden settled into what appears to be a very comfortable exile as the guest of the Russian Federation. I have long felt that the Snowden Thing started out as a Black Op -- part of a rivalry between The Agencies, meant to provide an upper hand to one faction of security/spy agents over another. The initial exposures of domestic spying by the NSA, for example, didn't tell us anything (much) that we didn't already know or suspect. Greenwald, et al., had to scramble to point out that this was confirmation of what we knew/suspected and that was the main point of the revelations, and that was good!
Whatever. There was little more than proforma outrage from the powers that be, styling to be seen as responsible adults and all that. But when details of foreign spying operations were published, everything changed. What The Agencies were doing to foreign governments was not supposed to be released, I guess, and at that point -- starting before then, of course -- Snowden became a real persona non grata, and his protector Putin became The Evil One as far as the propaganda machine was concerned.
In addition, WikiLeaks, which once seemed like a Honeypot to snag various malcontents, but as Snowden accomplice and helper, was subjected to increasingly intense pressure from all sides.
I think that much of the anti-Putin and anti-Assange propaganda is due in large measure to the continued presence of Snowden as guest of the Kremlin, and that (temporary) resolution to the current Brinkmanship will be found in withdrawing the Russian welcome extended to Snowden.
He's the card Putin can play to bring a (temporary) end to the present state of affairs.
That doesn't mean that it won't happen again (it most likely will; the Imperial Project is relentless, and the dismemberment of the Russian Federation is a long-ago announced goal); but its current iteration will become inoperative.
In the meantime, it's worthwhile to review how Brinkmanship works, and to understand that Putin at least is no Madman.
See all of this as a shadowplay, not as reality.
Showing posts with label Hysteria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hysteria. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2011
About That All-Important Deficit Crisis

[click image to embiggen]
I wanted to post this handy graph from the New York Times so that it wouldn't get lost in all the yammering about Debt and Crisis that will continue indefinitely. It shows you where the bulk of the deficit has come from (the Bushevik Wars and tax cuts combined with recessionary forces and massive unemployment) and who actually holds the debt Our Rulers are trying to default on (the People of the United States of America, either directly as bondholders, in their pension plans, or indirectly in the Social Security Agency.)
It's pretty clear.
And it's pretty clear who will be hurt if there is a default or downgrade (which, btw, there will be with regard to Social Security almost certainly).
That's what it is.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Hyperbole Level

I confess. I do it myself. Engage in hyperbole and polemics, that is. But mixed in there will be a grain of dispassionate truth, at least I hope so. From time to time, anyway.
But as the Debt/Deficit Issue becomes overloaded and quite overripe, the level of hysteria and hyperbole has reached a dissonant crescendo.
We are not about to go over the edge of the cliff, People.
We already went over that edge a long time ago. We hit bottom. Now the survivors, such as they are, are trying to sort out the mess.
As is almost always the case, the High and the Mighty are the ones to sort things out first, and not surprisingly, they are doing so to their own benefit while the rest of us are checking with one another to see who is all right and who needs help, we're fighting with one another for whatever scraps of the past we can salvage from the wreckage, and we're trying to figure out where do we go from here.
Part of the massive level of hyperbole of the moment is the claim that "They're trying to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Social Safety Net@!!!!" Hit the phones, people. Sign this petition!!!
Uhh. What? No, they're not trying to "dismantle" the social safety net. It doesn't really do all that much as it is, but they're trying to get you to think they're taking away what little is left, so that you'll fight among yourselves over the remainder. Hello?
Why would they want you to "fight among yourselves?" Simple, the Proles are much easier to control when they're fighting one another for the little bit they're allowed to hold on to, and furthermore, it's much easier to steal what isn't battened down (and a good deal that is) when the Proles are fighting among themselves. Hello?
And it's even better when we're panicked about this or that OUTRAGE!!!!™ being perpetrated (or at least threatened) against us.
We, being herd animals at base, are so easy to panic, after all.
No, they're not "dismantling" the social safety net. What they're doing is a classic case of "squeeze." They're making it harder and harder to access what few protections there are for suffering Humanity, and they're doing their best to take what money there is in Programs (those that haven't already been privatized, don'tchaknow) for themselves.
The Social Safety Net will still be there, it just won't work very well.
But the hype is otherwise; it's all in, all or nothing, this is the End, People! FIGHT!
But fight whom, for what exactly?
Set aside the hype and ponder that question, and maybe an Answer will be forthcoming.
At the moment, the hysteria and hyperbole are preventing any useful Answer from being revealed...
Monday, September 13, 2010
September Memories

I was in Seattle on September 11, 2001. I'd arrived the night before, and I was staying at a hotel next to the old public library that was under demolition. In the morning, I'd be conducting a training for new federal employees for the agency I was working for.
I woke up at 6:00am to the persistent sound of sirens outside; it sounded like a major emergency of some sort. I looked out the window and saw the partially demolished remains of the public library. There were some flashing lights somewhere in the distance, but I couldn't see where. Something was going on, but I had no idea what.
I turned on the teevee. I believe it was CBS news (with Dan Rather) was showing the World Trade Center tower on fire. They didn't know just what had happened or how, but it was thought that a small plane had collided with the building. Rescue efforts were under way. I flipped through the channels, and all the news shows were showing the same thing, from slightly different angles, but essentially the same. Much chatter about it, but no real news.
I did my morning routine, then went back to look at the teevee; I saw a plane headed toward the other tower and then a huge explosion out the side of the building. The astonishment I felt was mirrored by the newscaster, another "small plane?"
This couldn't be happening.
At that point, I did not think it was real. Call it basic denial, but what I was seeing struck me as some kind of staged spectacle -- which, if the stories be true, it was.
The report came in that the Pentagon had been hit by a plane or a missile. "We're under attack!"
The South Tower commenced to collapse. It was inconceivable.
I called the office -- located on an upper floor of one of Seattle's tallest buildings -- shortly after 7:00am when employees should be shuffling in to start their day. The person who answered the phone was someone I'd known for a long time, and she was in shock. She said she was almost the only one there, and she was terrified. "What if they hit here?"
"Who?"
"The people who did this."
She said that as far as she knew, everyone was called in to work normally, and she was frightened, terribly, for them and for her, and she asked me if I felt it was OK to go ahead with planned activities today. I asked her if they had heard anything from Washington.
She said not yet, she just got there. But she thought the Assistant Director should be arriving soon, and there would probably be a general message of some sort. She asked whether I was coming in (I was staying only a few blocks from the office.) I said yes, I'd be there about 7:30. She said, "Be safe." I said, "You too."
I continued to watch dumbfounded as the level of reporting deteriorated and hysteria increased. A huge cloud of gray dust covered lower Manhattan and out into the Hudson while the other tower continued to burn. There were reports of car-bomb explosions all over Washington.
I headed to the office.
When I got upstairs and into the secure area, most of the employees were gathered in a small auditorium watching television. The other tower had collapsed while I was on my way to the office. The level of shock was unimaginable.
There had been no word from Washington, but we were told that the Regional Director was on the phone with headquarters and we would receive word shortly. There were sporadic reports on the teevee about Bush and his activities in Florida and then getting on AF-1 and going... where?
Flights were being cancelled, then word came that all planes were grounded indefinitely. The Assistant Director told us that Washington was giving us the option of continuing with our schedule or going home today.
Probably half opted for home. The rest, including me, stayed. I couldn't exactly get home, as it were, since all flights were grounded. So I decided to go ahead with the training that was scheduled. It was a chore. But the trainees (who were also mostly from out of town and could not get home either) said they were grateful to have something to take their minds off... events.
We did a half-day training the first day. I let the trainees go watch teevee or make phone calls or whatever they felt they needed to do. We'd just take it one day at a time.
Meanwhile, I was trying to figure out if I could rent a car and drive home. Sure enough, Alamo had a special deal for Federal employees: one way rental at a reduced price and no drop off fee. I reserved a car for Saturday pick up, and another fellow who needed to be with his family in California and I decided to share driving on the two-day trek.
I was really in a daze most of the rest of the time I was in Seattle, and though I was a real chatterbox on the drive back to CA (unusual for me), I have no recollection of topics and only vague recollections of scenery. When I got home, it was with relief, to be sure, but that's when the shock really settled in.
My strongest impression then and now was that "this is not real."
But of course, it was -- in its own, horrible, way.
What really happened that horrible day is still not entirely known or understood. But the process of transforming our government and nation got underway in earnest almost immediately.
And we aren't going back to the way things used to be.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Documenting the Atrocities

Jeebus, the Hysteria.
The stark raving madness surrounding the now-admitted-by-everyone to be a pretty much ideal Republican Health Care Insurance Reform measure so infected the public square and the blogosphere that I just stayed away. The Crazy is catching, and I simply did not want to play.
When you have an amiable drunk like Dick Armey stirring up the masses to Rise and Revolt, and he's the only one doing it, then you know the situation is well out of hand -- and well out of your hands. When Men of Principle like the perpetually peevish Dennis Kucinich can be -- ahem -- persuaded to go along with what is arguably The Best Republican Health Insurance Reform measure evah, then you know the fix is not only in, it has been in for months if not years.
And the hysteria over it just won't quit.
This is politics in America today, and when things get this wild, even though all the Stakeholders are pretty well satisfied, then you know it's all for Show, a Show that is meant to keep the People entertained while their betters abscond with more of their loot.
That nearly the entire blogosphere fell into it and two sites that I frequent -- or used to -- FDL and dKos -- went balls-to-the-wall with rivalry and hysteria, mutual anathema and fury, simply confirmed to me that "Health Care" was being used as a business leader by both of them, with the primary desire and function to increase revenues for their proprietors.
Much as Dick Armey has very successfully done with his "Freedom Works" TeaBagger outfit.
TeaBagging is now the model. First they made it OK to bring up the R-Word, "Revolution". Now they make it OK to be bat-shit insane, and mostly to value myth and falsity over fact to make their point.
The shape and outline of the "Health Care" was set very early on last year, by April or May, and was all but complete by June and July. After that, everything was theatrics piled upon theatrics, and jockeying for attention by all and sundry. It really troubled me that it was being done this way. I still don't know whose bright idea it was to let things devolve into such a continuous goon show, but there you are. "Day of the Locusts" -- and it wouldn't end. It just kept going and going and going...
Couple of things happened, though, that made it almost seem smart (well, that remains to be seen...): 1) the factions pretty much exhausted themselves in virtual combat with one another and with The Powers That Be; 2) the bill that has been (is still in fact being) cobbled together comes across as "Moderate" compared to the foam-flecked fury it has unleashed among the commentariat and the proles. Moderate and wise, considered and responsible, a celebration of the Public Interest, the "Health Care" seems (almost) Just Right. Or something like that.
There is very little energy left to fight the Power, or to fight this fait accompli... or to do much of anything.
Jane posted her Manifesto over the Betrayal, yadda yadda, and something jumped out at me from it: She writes about how exciting and rewarding it was to cover what was going on. As a Journalist. New Media and all that. And then she refers to how difficult it was and frustrating it was to take what she learned as a Journalist and turn it into political action -- ie: to be a Player.
And how the next step has to be this or that to turn political knowledge gained as a Journalist into successful political action as a Player Without Portfolio. Basically to be as influential as any high priced lobbyist on K Street. Or as influential as any other noisy media outfit.
What is the point of Documenting the Atrocities if you can't use them for... good? Well, for what you want.
And this is the core difficulty among political bloggers. They want -- in some cases desperately -- to be Players on the political field, and they want to Win. (cf: Markos, Arianna, Aravosis) They believe that being Journalists is the way to Glory and Winning on the Field. Documenting the Atrocities (in the form of constant Media Criticism) is one of the core functions of the Blogosphere in general, and it is a sure way to -- eventually -- gain Notice. And Notice, somehow, is supposed to translate into Power.
Only it doesn't, not really, when it comes to Blogging. So called Progressives got nothing out of the "Health Care," not even a wink and a nod. At best they got a kick in the nads and a slap in the face, and a demand for their lunch money to boot. And like always, they pay up. It's their role and their function. Surprisingly, Jane has not yet gone into Kali-mode demanding the Heads of all who thwarted her again. Especially the Head of Obama Himself. But one shouldn't be surprised to see her turn when the situation is ripe.
Interestingly, some Republicans are complaining that they got "Nothing." Interesting especially because the measure is for all intents and purposes a Republican measure, barely recognizable as anything but a pay-off to vested interests at the crippling expense of the Public -- the way it is supposed to be in Republican Land.
It's arguably better in that regard than the Republicans on their own could possibly have made it. So what are they crabbing about?
Oh, I see.
They couldn't and didn't do it.
Someone else had to be brought in, Young Mister Obama.
That's the deal.
That's what they're crabbing about. And they will never forgive him for it.
Never.
Note: somebody at the Signing just said, "Thank you. 36 years trying to do this..."
Well, there you are.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Oil!

For months we've been inundated with propaganda from the Oil Companies and their worker bees in Congress and the White House that we've got to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!!™ endlessly everywhere NOW, NOW, NOW!!!™ or WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!™ and so on and so forth, to the point where hardly anyone can sort through it anymore.
Since "we" -- as in We, the People -- have nothing to do with it at all, except as passive consumers, it's startling to hear all the clarion calls for what "WE" have to do, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!™.
Yeah. Well.
As many have figured out, this is all -- absolutely all -- hysterical hype on behalf of endless expansion of Oil Company power and profits at the expense of the American People and ultimately the people of the Whole Wide World. Not to say there isn't already plenty of power and profit accruing to the Oil Companies as it is. They want more. Effectively, they want it all, and they are trying to get it by stampeding a panicked public into giving them what they want and then some.
They may get away with it.
There is very little and very ineffective push back, much as was the case with the Enron rape of California and the West over that phony Electricity Crisis in 2000/2001 that continues to lead to unending bullshit.
First things first, this hysteria has nothing to do with "us" except for what we can be fleeced of. You can know that by all the panic that is being induced without any clarity of purpose, and with all sorts of ridiculous claims about what and how much "we" are going to "save" by giving the Oil Companies whatever they want. NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!™
Well, no. "We" are not going to "save" anything. We are going to pay through the nose, whatever happens.
What do the Oil Companies really want? They want unlimited control over all known and suspected oil and natural gas reserves in the country and on the outer continental shelf. They will say that what they want is to DRILL!!!™ for oil in these places, but that isn't what really want. And we know that because they already have huge tracts of leased lands and underwater that they aren't drilling on, nor do they have any intention of drilling on them in the near future.
They want to control all known and suspected oil and natural gas reserves without restriction. Now why do you suppose they'd want that? Hmmm?
Surprisingly enough, if you control the supply, you control the price, and under the circumstances, you can create artificial shortages -- like for example the artificial shortage of electricity in California back in the day -- which will have the salubrious effect of driving up prices even more than they already are. Give the Oil Companies what they want, and expect to pay $10 or even $15 at the pump for gas whenever they want to charge that. Sweet.
We've already seen their tactics with regard to refineries. Domestic oil refining capacity is kept low enough to squeeze the market at any given time, and sometimes, it is deliberately reduced -- by "maintenance" outages and other factors -- to raise gasoline prices. We constantly hear about all the refineries "we" have not built in all these years, but the "we" is the Oil Companies, not the American People, and the reason is simple: fewer refineries=restricted supplies=higher prices. If, on the other hand, "we" had anything to do with refinery issues (apart from relatively modest environmental issues), "we" would have nationalized the Oil Companies long ago, and "we" probably would have shifted to alternative fuels. The price of gas might still be high, but it wouldn't make that much difference, because alternatives, particularly electricity, and conservation would have made the need for gasoline that much less.
But "we" are not in charge here. The Oil Companies are.
One of the most startling revelations came through Digby's post about Obama's apparent capitulation on "drilling." As was made clear earlier, "drilling" has nothing to do with the demands being made by the Oil Companies, it is all about control of natural resources. Until yesterday, Obama seemed clear, too, that "drilling" wasn't the answer. But now, apparently, he's changed his mind and believes it might be part of the answer. So he is willing to consider "drilling" in the outer continental shelf as "part of a package," yadda, yadda.
Of course, what he should say -- and won't say -- is that the Oil Companies are welcome to drill on the leases they already hold, and when they do so, and produce oil from their drilling, which they then provide and keep in the domestic market instead of selling abroad the way they do with Alaskan oil (most of which is sold to Japan), then maybe, the American People would be willing to talk about additional leases and drilling, but not until then.
Once it's put that way, what's going on is obvious.
But he won't do that.
So Newt will take charge of this issue because of Democratic and Obaman passivity.
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."
This sort of thing should have been deconstructed a long time ago, but no. The majority of people -- and that includes most Democrats, and all Democratic Leaders -- are in shock over the price of oil and the shock shows. They have some half-formed ideas about what to do, but have so far been unable or unwilling to forcefully (and coherently) present an alternative to the Republican Oil Company mantra summed up in Newty's little lie.
"The need for higher production and lower prices."
In fact, gasoline prices have been declining in recent weeks along with the futures price for oil. Reason? They say it is primarily due to reduced domestic demand for oil and gasoline, a reduced demand caused by higher prices. Newt tries to make the connection between higher production and lower prices, but fails to acknowledge that reduced demand is the real reason prices are declining, and further, he doesn't acknowledge that domestic production can be increased by the Oil Companies if they would drill on leases they already hold. But they don't do it. Why not?
"Don't want any baloney..."
Indeed. Yet the whole DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!!™ mantra has been driven on nothing but Baloney. It's a lie from start to finish.
"Brazil has found two large oil fields in the Atlantic Ocean; you know that the Brazilians are now independent from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia..."
"Brazil" in this case is the state owned oil company -- that is the socialized, nationalized oil company, not a Good Private Oil Company -- Petrobras, which should be enough to cause Newt to have his aneurysm right there. Brazil is not "independent" of foreign oil, however, because neither of the new oceanic oil fields has been tapped, in part due to lack of equipment. The same lack of equipment dogs the American Quest for Oil Independence. But there is no such American Quest, in fact, because any increase in domestic oil production goes on the world market. One would expect that Brazilian oil finds would also go into the world market, if they are ever brought into production at all.
"If??!!!" Indeed, if. The high price of oil has been a spur to development of alternatives as well as reduced domestic consumption. Reduced demand is no spur to increased production. Ergo, all these exotic oil fields may never be tapped.
Newt simply lies, straight out. It's not "illegal" to look for oil, and he knows it. But a lie always serves his interests, always serves the interests of the Oil Companies, and always serves the interests of the Republican Party. So he lies.
Will The American People fall for it again? Well, if Obama and his people are willing to "consider drilling", and there is no effective counter to the Republican propaganda machine, The American People won't have much choice.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
OMG! Look what they've gone and done now:

I love the New Yorker, have since I was little and was stunned by those Addams Family Cartoons. In fact, before I could really read, I was captivated by all those amazingly drole cartoons that appeared throughout the magazine, and I'd save copies just for the cartoons.

I mean who wouldn't love something like the Addams Family pouring boiling oil on a group of carolers at their door?
It wasn't until I was almost out of high school before I could actually read the articles and make sense of them, and then I was startled at how good the writing was, what high calibre of wit and insight and what an abundance of information the New Yorker provided, and they did it every GD week. It was and is amazing.
So now they've gone and done this cover, provoked a full on internet hysteria episode, and have ruined, absolutely ruined their reputation among the Obamamaniacs. Ruined, I say! Cancel my subscription! NOW!
Somehow, I'm sure the New Yorker will take it in stride, and soon enough, all those who are overreacting will come to their senses and desist.
Sometimes it takes a whack upside the head from people who really know how to deliver, to defuse what a nastier than ever campaign. The hint to the Obamas here is that maybe, just maybe, mockery and derision is the appropriate response to the smears they've had to endure. Ya think? Hm.
Labels:
Hysteria,
Media Crap,
meltdown,
New Yorker,
Obama
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Puritans Arise!
This Spitzer business would be funny if it weren't so stupid and sad. Once again, the country is being thrown into hysterics over other people's sex lives. Once againg, the only thing that matters to nearly everyone who opines on the matter is that Mr. Spitzer's sex life be denounced and that Mr. Spitzer be forced from office therefore.
It's Clinton's Cock on steroids, again.
Now I've been in New Mexico the last few days, where I don't have any teevee at all, and my only news is over the radio (generally NPR) or over the internets on those few occasions when the wireless works. So my perception of Hysteria in this latest Sex Scandal du jour is based on what I've heard and briefly read.
Americans' tendency to Puritanism and Hysteria, often at the same time, is well-known but rarely discussed. We take it for granted that other people's sex lives are the appropriate venue for discovering and declaring Morality Most Pure, and that Public Figures who violate the Puritan's Moral (Sex) Code can be (depending) subject to hysterical calls for denunciation and removal from office.
These denunciations and calls for removal can sometimes be most shrill from the target's own friends and/or colleagues.
While this particular outbreak of Puritan Moralist Hysteria is centered on Eliot Spitzer's sex life (which prurience is "justified" by the fact that He Broke The Law), the tendency to moralize and denounce can be much broader based than that.
For example, my local newspaper ran a big front page story about the mayor a while back. She was "accused" of spending money on travel. The whole point of the story was to make it appear that there was something corrupt and unethical about the mayor's trips to various countries and to various conferences. Over five years, she'd spent over $150,000 in taxpayers' money for these trips. Outrageous!
A close friend, who follows these things carefully, started calling and at first questioning the mayor's ethics then denouncing her for her profligracy. I said, "You know you're repeating the smears that were in the paper? Have you looked into the issue beyond what was in the paper? Her travel expenses are relatively modest, and her destinations have been completely in line with the obligations of her job. The only reason it's an issue at all is because it's in the paper."
Yet he could not be dissuaded initially. It "looked wrong" -- therefore the paper was doing a "service" and we should be grateful. But there was nothing wrong at all, it just something to stir the pot, and he was falling into that trap. It took weeks for him to realize that the paper had an agenda -- get rid of the mayor. By then, though, the damage had been done, and even now, he's suspicious of her.
So it goes. If a politician is targeted by Powers That Be, for any reason, doubts can be sewn, traps set, violations of this or that law or Moral Code can be found, and smears and denunciations can be generated. This can often lead to pressure to leave office, either by resignation in disgrace or through impeachment, which is sometimes followed through on. It's like pushing a button.
Why?
In the case of Spitzer, many of the commenters yesterday were pointing out how much he is "loathed" in New York by just about everyone. Therefore he "deserves" it.
Hysterical.
It's Clinton's Cock on steroids, again.
Now I've been in New Mexico the last few days, where I don't have any teevee at all, and my only news is over the radio (generally NPR) or over the internets on those few occasions when the wireless works. So my perception of Hysteria in this latest Sex Scandal du jour is based on what I've heard and briefly read.
Americans' tendency to Puritanism and Hysteria, often at the same time, is well-known but rarely discussed. We take it for granted that other people's sex lives are the appropriate venue for discovering and declaring Morality Most Pure, and that Public Figures who violate the Puritan's Moral (Sex) Code can be (depending) subject to hysterical calls for denunciation and removal from office.
These denunciations and calls for removal can sometimes be most shrill from the target's own friends and/or colleagues.
While this particular outbreak of Puritan Moralist Hysteria is centered on Eliot Spitzer's sex life (which prurience is "justified" by the fact that He Broke The Law), the tendency to moralize and denounce can be much broader based than that.
For example, my local newspaper ran a big front page story about the mayor a while back. She was "accused" of spending money on travel. The whole point of the story was to make it appear that there was something corrupt and unethical about the mayor's trips to various countries and to various conferences. Over five years, she'd spent over $150,000 in taxpayers' money for these trips. Outrageous!
A close friend, who follows these things carefully, started calling and at first questioning the mayor's ethics then denouncing her for her profligracy. I said, "You know you're repeating the smears that were in the paper? Have you looked into the issue beyond what was in the paper? Her travel expenses are relatively modest, and her destinations have been completely in line with the obligations of her job. The only reason it's an issue at all is because it's in the paper."
Yet he could not be dissuaded initially. It "looked wrong" -- therefore the paper was doing a "service" and we should be grateful. But there was nothing wrong at all, it just something to stir the pot, and he was falling into that trap. It took weeks for him to realize that the paper had an agenda -- get rid of the mayor. By then, though, the damage had been done, and even now, he's suspicious of her.
So it goes. If a politician is targeted by Powers That Be, for any reason, doubts can be sewn, traps set, violations of this or that law or Moral Code can be found, and smears and denunciations can be generated. This can often lead to pressure to leave office, either by resignation in disgrace or through impeachment, which is sometimes followed through on. It's like pushing a button.
Why?
In the case of Spitzer, many of the commenters yesterday were pointing out how much he is "loathed" in New York by just about everyone. Therefore he "deserves" it.
Hysterical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)