In an earlier post, I wrote that now there is no hope. I think the context of that statement is apparent, but perhaps not its meaning. It appears that some folks think that when hope is gone, the war is over, there is no more resistance.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope stays the desperate man from using all the tools at his disposal. When hope is lost, so is the last restraint.
My ancestors were murdered in Hungary, in Scotland, and in Pennsylvania, all because they stood up to thugs, tyrants, and oppressors. We have lost everything countless times, yet we still exist. And it is when we are hopeless that we are the most dangerous. I am neither violent nor unlawful, but I am still dangerous to tyrants, and men like me are everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am reminded of this from Fight Club.
"It is only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything."
The underlying fascism in that movie aside, this can sure apply to where we are now.
We've nothing to lose now by ditching the "reaching across the aisle" crap, and actually be strong in our opposition to the Dems.
In week three of the1992 NFL season a game was played between two undefeated NFC east rivals: the Eagles and the Cowboys. Both were undefeated.
The Eagles won in a blowout but Dallas head coach, Jimmy Johnson was hardly crestfallen. He had seen some positives. At times the Cowboys moved the ball at will against a very tough Eagles defense and the Eagles had a much better game plan.
The republican party today is in a position similar to that of the Cowboys in 1992.
The Eagles were the better team that night but not as superior as the finl score, 35-7 suggested.
A once-in-a century harmonic convergence of improbable factors made this election one republicans would need divine intervention to win:
the first, a sitting republican president unpopular to the point of being despised; the second, an econominc crisis at crunch time in the runup to the election which would be considerd a failure of republican policies and a lack of oversight by party
leaders, and the most anti-republican media since
that which participated in driving Richard Nixon to resign.
Just as a not insigificant element of luck assisted an opportunistic Eagle team to trounce Dallas in 1992, but who would turn the tables on the Eagles
in the playoffs, Barack Obama had hisshare of luck in winning the presidency.
The man has been on a roll since he first won a senate seat when the Chicago Tribune mysteriously
made sealed divorce records of Obama's opponents public, disclosures which led both men
to drop out of the race.
Now that Obama assumes he has an unassailable strategy to win at the national level, the question
is this: will he be able to acknowledge the immeasurable degree to which randomness (or luck) played in his victory or will he believe his
strategy is an irresistible political force that will continue to vanquish all comers?
Will Obama, for instance overestimate the probability that strategies which worked during the campaign will work with novel unknowns that are certain to insinuate themselves during his presidency.
For example, Obama's temperment awarded him major points in his response to the first days of the
economic meltdown and his confident demeanor seemed to be what Americans thought to be a an asset but would the same "coolness" elicit the same response if the economic crisis presented a dire imminent threat to not oneor two banks but the entire banking system?
Then, too, Obama has an established history of changing his story. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that but changed narratives almost always reflect changed positions. Just today--or yesterday,
Obama stated he was for Bush's missile shield--but only after it could be proven "safe".
Obama, too, has spoken much about what he will do to set things right--Bin Laden, the economy, and Iraq, but he has not suggested what he will do if things don't go as planned or where he will set a "stop loss" point if his asumptions on policy are proven wrong.
Finally, Obama has yet to agree that he has ben wrong on any major policy issue, which suggests
a capacity for denial that is consistent with a man who belives he has a "righteous" wind at his back,
a religious imagery to suggest he is in alignment with ultimately triumphant supernatural forces.
hoo-rah!
Post a Comment