Has anyone yet pointed out that the song includes the lyrics "I won't get to get what I'm after till the day I die?" and made a snarky comment about his futile quest for a majority?
You know, I'm often accused of thinking that I'm smarter than everyone else because I call so many people "stupid" or I discount the abilities of many "conservative" politicians or thinkers. It's not true. Just because I say that a vote for most "conservative" politicians is based on stupidity or ignorance doesn't mean I think I'm a genius. If 50-60% of the population votes and slightly more than a quarter of them vote for a "conservative" that's something like 15% of the adult population, of whom, maybe half are simply ignorant of some important information (as opposed to being stupid). And I tend to neglect mentioning the proportion of "conservative" voters who are merely greedy, well-off people who live in big, beautiful houses and who want yet another tax cut as our health care system, our education system, etc., etc., are crumbling around them.
Thing is, I believe what I believe for certain reasons, and I feel very strongly about these things. So if some people believe that global warming is a hoax because the world isn't heating up but if it is it's caused by solar flares, or that Saddam Hussein put all his WMDs on a convoy of trucks and gave them to Syria, or that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or that a coalition of MPs is a "coup," I'm going to be unable to find a rational reason why they believe those things and conclude that those people are stupid and/or ignorant.
Same with the supposedly "evil geniuses" of "conservative" political parties. I don't think that a lot of them are particularly bright. John Baird? Ezra Levant? Stockwell Day? Jason Kenny? Cheryl Gallant? Sorry. Can't do it. (Mike Harris? Rob Ford?)
Ah thwap, thwap, thwap! It's dangerous to underestimate these people! Look at their record of success! You can't deny that?
What success? Success against what? In the case of the federal Liberals, success against Michael Ignatieff? Success against a party that doesn't fight back? Is it really "conservative" brain-power that kept the harpercons in power through all those votes in Parliament, or the fact that the Liberals didn't show up for the votes? Did stephen harper and Jim Flaherty (there's another moron!) display awesome cunning when they almost got thrown from power by a coalition, or was it more the case that their gelatinous asses were pulled from the fire by GG Michelle Jean's brain-dead decision to grant a prorogation?
And sure they sometimes win elections, mostly because the centre and leftwards majority split their votes in our archaic electoral system. And because the majority of the electorate is misinformed by an incompetent and/or wilfully duplicitous corporate media system. ("We asked Private Mcdonald if he supported the mission and he said 'Yes, he most certainly does.'")
Boy thwap! You're smarter than the voters! You're smarter than the politicians! You're smarter than the media! That's a pretty swelled head you've got there!
In all honesty I don't know what it is about the way that I write that produces this response in some people! Other leftist writers expose the follies of "conservative" politicians and parties. We're all familiar with how the corporate news media distort and lie. We all believe that "conservative" voters are often ignorant or deluded fools. But somehow the tone of my writing causes me to appear more arrogant than other people who write exactly the same thing.
I've come a long way from the title of this post. But I was anticipating a response to my next point about harper's singing and I guess I got a little carried away. Because my other observation is that harper's Christmas party performance is evidence of his mediocre political skills. You know this guy isn't operating with a full-deck. It's like this: apparently harper did a competent job of warbling through "With a little help from my friends" a while back. (I never listened to it. I have a visceral dislike for the man and couldn't bring myself to suffer it.) Deciding that the pleasant reviews constituted an artistic triumph, the pear-shaped, helmet-headed creep decided to invite the reporters in so that they could televise his super-star performance and get an even bigger boost in the polls. Except that he's not all that good. Except that the sight of that toad "rocking-out" just put people off their meals.
A show-business adage is "Always leave them wanting more." If your performance exceeds very low (or non-existent) expectations, you really have to stop and ask whether such results meant that people really wanted to hear you again. Or are you the sort who takes tentative applause as a sign to go all-out and perform a whole concert making people regret they gave you any encouragement at all? Methinks that the response of the majority of Canadians to harper's Christmas party antics was a collective rolling of the eyes and an "Oh Jesus!"
Well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Look, about 50% of what you do here looks like reasonably well-informed blogging (I enjoy the stuff about Haiti, because, well, I never see anything about Haiti. Someone has to blog about it, and it looks like you have that market cornered) and the other 50% comes across as, "I'm going to make myself look big by making others look small."
It doesn't take a genius to point out that Stockwell Day or Ezra Levant lack intellectual firepower. Anyone can do that. But if you're going to level that charge, you've got to pick up your game a bit. Go back and read my initial comments about global warming. Heliocentric, geocentric, elliptical orbits. That's not the kind of vocabulary employed by someone who watches Fox 24/7.
At the very least it indicates that I watch the Discovery channel every once in awhile, but it could also be indicative of someone with more than just a passing familiarity with the work of Thomas Kuhn. I don't see any evidence that you stray very far from your particular bubble, so why be so smug about the fact that other people don't leave their bubbles?
I think the other irksome thing is the assumption that people who disagree with you are "merely greedy, well-off people". I might be doing okay now, but I've had many, many more lean years than fat ones. Fat or lean, though, what I've believed has consistently remained the same. Income (or believe me, for many, many, many years, lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.
Mark,
Trust me. It wasn't just you. I had a big argument with other progressives about French voters picking Sarkozy.
Now then, I've heard about the theories positing an alternative to human-driven climate change. They used to give me much more pause than they do now but I still don't claim to really know the truth about it all.
But you did yourself absolutely no favours by referring to the entirely discredited hack Lomborg. Seriously. It means something that Yale University Press was able to publish a book showing that every footnote in two of his books are used fraudulently.
And, the people who I have chosen to trust on the issue, like "realclimate.org" have dismissed those other theories.
And, finally, the reason that I wrote that stuff today was because I wanted to get it across that I have a very low opinion of the abilities of our present federal government and I wanted to anticipate any challenges to that.
I think the danger is that a lot of people over-estimate the abilities of people like Rove, Cheney, harper, etc., and fail to pour the derision and contempt on them that they so richly deserve. Over-estimating them makes people search for reasons why they should be taken seriously.
Happy holidays. Over n' out.
Mark, it is not enough to claim that orbits of whatever kind are causing global warming.
You would also have to explain why all that CO2 that we are emitting is not the cause of global warming.
We emit CO2 which causes the earth to warm up. This is basic physics. The scientists predicted it would cause global warming, and that is what is happening.
Can you come up with a scientific explanation showing that CO2 does not cause global warming?
@ thwap
Fair enough:) Enjoy the holidays!
@ Holly
Orbits have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. The manner in which we determine orbits (I'm thinking more in terms of the process of discovery, and less about the actual math involved) does have relevance to the discussion, as the reasoning, and length of time it takes to get useful results in one area (astronomy) is relevant to the discussion of the other area (climate change), especially when policy is being determined.
I don't have to come up with an explanation to show that CO2 does not cause global warming. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in debating whether or not climate change is real. However, I'm even less interested in paying a lot of money for a brand new Hybrid or an electric car, or helping subsidize Archer Daniels bottom line by mixing ethanol and gasoline, when the math shows that it does less for improving the environment than buying a used car that runs on gas. I don't like having to recycle, again, because the math indicates that the net energy lost due to recycling is greater than the net energy gained.
I'm linking to Wired. Wired has an editorial line, that global warming is real, and something must be done to stop it. So if they don't think much of hybrids:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars
Why would I want to get behind people who claim to want to save the planet and cheer on these kind of mindless, useless policies?
Happy holidays Thwap - and don't change a thing.
It is the lot of intellectual sloths to accuse those who are knowledgable of "being arrogant" or "being stupid" - if only because they just can't face the bitter truth of what they are: parochial, uninformed ignoramuses who rely on ideology and faith as absolutes to hide that very same truth from themselves.
Aren't we damned bastards to hold up a mirror in front of them, eh?
;-)
P.S. oh, and by the way - I've removed the snapshot thingie from my site ;-)
Mentarch,
I thought it worked a little smoother today. Oftentimes I go to your page and my poor, overloaded computer freezes up while all your bells and whistles start downloading. Today I read your post and then fucked-off as quick as i could (to avoid setting something off) and it seemed pretty painless.
thwap, I agree that the CONs aren't smart, skillful, adept but I do think that there is a danger of underestimating them - underestimating how they really don't care how stupid they sound, underestimating how utterly devoid they are of conscience, how little harper cares about laws, legislation, even his own words.
I've heard many people say, "he won't do that because...it'll turn voters, he'll look bad, it isn't legal, he'll be sued..."
Or, "they won't do that. Even they aren't that stupid."
But the dumbasses do the stupid, the illegal, the about-faces.
I don't think harper's smart, nor most of his party. The danger isn't underestimating their intelligence, it's underestimating their stupidity and vileness, and staging an opposition based on what intelligent, skillful opponents would do.
That's not all of the problem for sure.
And I agree with Mentarch - don't change a thing. I hate seeing good points softened by an attempt at what's socially acceptable.
There are time I don't agree with you, but it's not because you don't present your points well, and that always makes me think and re-examine my own take on things.
900ft Jesus,
Thanks for your comment. I don't know what to say. It's a take on my argument that I hadn't considered.
I think it might be relevant to say that I don't try to predict what they'll do. I more respond to them.
As far as my tone, I've found that sometimes my self-righteous rants win applause for saying what others are thinking with gusto whereas other times I evidently sound arrogant and smug.
Oh well. I'm too old to change. And i get more bitter every passing year.
Post a Comment