Denial and Civil War?

When cat uses his bed
instead of litter box, he fires
handgun to “scare” it.

The right-wingers cannot accept the truth. They cannot accept the fact that a Black man is President of the United States. They are in a consistent and persistent state of denial. It looks like some may even be prepared carry their denial all the way to a civil war. Remember what I said a few days ago: they tried to deny Obama the Presidency because he was a Muslim. Then they tried to deny him because of his relationship to a Black Minister who (in context) used the phrase “god damn America.” The next attempt tried to link him to a (former and reformed) terrorist (even though Obama was six years old at the time of this domestic terrorist activity). When none of these charges seemed to work, and Obama was elected in spite of them, they started in on his birth, claiming he was not an American citizen and therefore could not legitimately be President. They publicly stated they wanted him (and by implication our nation itself) to fail (it just wouldn’t do for a Black Man to succeed at anything, just another form of denial). They even conspired to break up Town Hall meetings to keep anyone from hearing what he had to say. They basically continued this tactic when he was to speak to the nation’s school children, they went so far as to try to even deny the legitimacy of the Office of President itself. That is, if Obama could be President, the Office itself was not legitimate (the legitimacy of other Presidents to speak to our children has never been questioned). As none of this has worked, they now are arguing that the Nation itself is not legitimate. In fact, in their view, it is so illegitimate they are prepared to separate themselves from it by first invoking the tenth amendment (incorrectly). And, I gather if that fails, they may resort to civil war. So how’s that for denial? I can see no other explanation for this other than just plain old-fashioned racism. When Joe Wilson interrupted Obama’s very important speech by calling him a liar he was speaking as a White man talking to a Black man. This was totally unprecedented and would never have happened to a White President. This is why he refuses to make an honest and sincere apology. It would be, no doubt in his view, beneath his dignity to apologize to a Black person, even if he is President of the United States. It will be interesting to see if anyone can force him to apologize to the House itself, if he can bring himself to do it, as some are calling on him to do. Further, I doubt very much that anyone would be carrying guns to meetings if the President was White (and when did you ever hear of someone wishing a White President would die of cancer?). Racism is so much a part of American history, and still so ingrained in some of our citizens, I fear it is going to take much more than having a Black President for one or two terms in office to significantly change things (and I am certain there are some that would prefer he not serve out his current term, apparently there have been an unprecedented number of death threats). Racism is similar to a disease that can spread from one person to another and also from one generation to another. Education helps to do away with it, but we do not have a highly educated population. There is hope, however, as many younger people do not share the prejudices of their parents and the traditional black/white dichotomy means little to them (probably one of the few good things to emerge from television and the movie industry in the last few years, helped along, of course, by the Civil Rights agenda).

I think the last time I heard “Liar, liar, pants on fire,” was when I was in the fourth grade. I am not surprised to hear it from Republicans as that seems to be about the point when their average mental age was halted. What could possibly be more childish that shouting down other speakers, calling them liars, and trying to prevent others from speaking? This is the level Republicans have brought us to when it comes to serious discussions of anything. At least they seem conscious enough to know that whenever they try to engage in serious discussions of something they will lose, so what better way to keep that from happening than to resort to childlike behavior. I think Obama should put an end to this idiocy by simply refusing to pay attention to anything they suggest, just as they automatically say no to anything he suggests.

Things seem to continue pretty much the same in Afghanamess. Obama is faced with a choice of sending more troops or not, Pelosi is reporting there is not much sentiment in favor of it in the House. Good, I say. The best thing Congress could do is simply refuse to fund any more adventures in Afghanistan. If Obama is determined to continue trying to establish Bush/Cheney’s dream of a pipeline through that ravished land he will no doubt send more troops (and probably eventually destroy his Presidency just like Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam). If he thinks he is responsible for building a viable democracy there he should give up now rather than 100 years from now. Why should we be responsible for creating a democratic Afghanistan (modeled after our own rather questionable one)? The assumption seems to be that the Afghans cannot govern themselves, even though they have been doing so for a thousand years or so. Just because they don’t have a democracy doesn’t mean they don’t have a government at all. And if it is a form of government we do not think much of, it’s their country. If they want it ruled by a series of clans led by warlords or whatever, let them. I suspect that if it were not for our unwanted presence there they would manage to get by just as they always have.

LKBIQ:
There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
Bertrand Russell

TILT:
Houseflies watch each other to locate food, so when one discovers food others quickly assemble.