?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hope or Hate, thoughts

So I'm thinking about this Palin person. And the speech given yesterday, and the tone of this whole election. And I think it is a lot like the last one and is coming down to a selection.

In 2004 it was Intellect or Hate. And hate won. Which is cool.

In 2008 it's shaping up to Hope vs. Hate. And boy is Hate going to do well.

Why? Well, Palin was a mystery to me once I saw her. She's flawed, totally unfit for office, a complete and utter fluke. She's also hot and a redneck. No biggie there. But why put her in the position of VP?

Answer: She can channel hate. Better than Romney, better than Rudy, better even than Thompson. Huckabee can try to do it, but with a name like that you just want to give the guy a good ole hug!

And even better, she's flawed. Which means her hate will resonate with a lot of people. People who have lost their homes, people who have lost their jobs, people who have cheated on their spouses or have kids pregnant and living with them, the bastards.

Because Palin's done that. Yes, I'm sure she had an affair, the Enquirer is sleaze but they tend to get the big things right. But you know what? It's not her fault. Someone else made her do it, maybe some gays, or darwinists.

And yeah her kid's pregnant and total drunk trash (ed: can't really say that the kid is trash. But she is a drunk). But you know what? That's not her fault either. It's the result of society, those liberals out there corrupting our young. It's the fault of immigrants or whatnot. It's not her fault as a parent.

And yeah she can't run a business either (her car wash shop was closed due to failure to pay taxes). But that's not her fault, it's the fault of those commiecrats in Congress!.

But you see, the key is that will resonate with other people. It's not their fault either that their kids are pregnant or they lost their jobs or they are doomed for buying massive SUVs. The firm application of HATE absolves them of responsibility for their condition.

She's all the things we're ashamed of, embarrassed by, or loathing of our selves. And instead of doing something we can channel it into hatred of others.

Contrast that with hope. With hope, you have to take responsibility for what you have done and take steps towards making it better. With hope there is no outlet for your fury other than your own self for being stupid enough to get yourself into a hole. With hope you have to take action to make things better instead of sitting on your couch in front of your repossessed house, curing the "government" or "liberals" or "blacks", or "wetbacks, slopes, wimps, gimps..." and so forth and so on.

With hope you become the change

And I don't think people really want that. People in general would rather die than change. They would rather kill than change. And quite frankly it's much easier to hate than to change. Just as it's much easier to borrow money on a credit card than earn it.

And that's why I think Palin is a master-stroke of a choice. Because every time the media or anyone criticizes her for being a shit-parent, they criticize YOU. Yes you who are also a shitty parent. Every time she takes a hit for not being responsible enough to park a car, they criticize YOU. And every time she takes a hit for fucking around it will be a direct critique on the 70-80% of people who also fuck around.

Isn't it delicious? No, with Hope you have to take responsibility. With Hate you can put it off for a few more days. Then when those days come, you pile on more hate. At a certain point it becomes a dollar auction game, where you can't stop the hate and can only continue to bid it up to new and amazing highs.

That's when things get interesting. And that's when in place of hope the only thing that can stop it is complete and utter destruction.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I think I will learn a lot. Last time I learned that hate can triumph over truth. Let's see how it does against Hope.

CZ

Tags:

Comments

( 55 comments — Leave a comment )
nancyblue
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:41 pm (UTC)
If they can prove that she did have an affair it would be like Mardi Gras and Christmas all in one!
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:46 pm (UTC)
No, I think it would be more problematic. Then she could be repentant. Which is even better than a sinner.

The true Mardi Gras is when we find that her husband isn't the daddy of her latest kid. Think about the ages: He had a bunch, then had a vasectomy. So nice long stretch, then look who shows up?

Then you're voting for a cuckold. Which crosses a whole 'nother line of feelings, far deeper than that God stuff.

CZ
nancyblue
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:54 pm (UTC)
He had a vasectomy? Really? That would be delicious! Yes, she could be repentant, but on top of the other stuff I'm not sure how far it would get her, especially since she didn't disclose it upfront and now McCain is threatening to sue on her behalf it would not look very genuine.

Fingers crossed!
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:59 pm (UTC)
No, that is a guess on my part. I've met a lot of men who have had a cluster of kids, then no more because as they confide in me: They had it snipped. So I have to wonder if they didn't do that when she started getting seriously into politics (which would have been a very responsible thing to do, unless of course you're sleeping around)

Let's see what happens.

CZ

Edited at 2008-09-04 07:30 pm (UTC)
aelf
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:52 pm (UTC)
I don't think calling a 17 year old who hasn't elected to be in the public spotlight "total drunk trash" is a terribly kind thing to do. Nor do I suspect it's 100% truthful. Mostly, I think it's cruel. And irrelevant.
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:59 pm (UTC)
The pictures of her drunk, passed out on the ground, and such are all over the net. Myspace apparently.

I see these things and wonder "gee, where were her parents"? What are their priorities?

It's a fair question.
CZ
motherwell
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:11 pm (UTC)
It's a fair question, to the extent that Rush Limbaugh asked it of Jamie Lynn Spears' parents.
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:21 pm (UTC)
Partially that, partially because her parent is running for public office and advocating SPECIFIC things that parents must either do or submit to (teaching of creationism in schools, teaching "abstinence" as the ONLY method of birth control, and so forth).

If you can't practice what you preach, then you are a hypocrite and people should not listen to you. Technically Jamie Spears does not set policy for my family. The President of the United States and the Vice President does.

Therefore it's more than valid.

CZ
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
aelf
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)
So you're using Rush Limbaugh as your standard for how good and decent people act?

And you're comparing a girl who chose the public spotlight to one who didn't?

Are either one of those things reasonable?
aelf
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:07 pm (UTC)
Ok, and there are pictures of her politely interacting with people. So why choose the one side and not the other? Again, for a 17 year old who has NOT sought the limelight?

When you were 17 were your parents in control of everything you did? Mine sure weren't, and they were good, caring, involved parents. But I was _17_.

If you want to critique Sarah Palin, that's great, she put herself out there. Critiquing her child in such a one-sided way is cruel, and irrelevant.
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:21 pm (UTC)
Because they don't fit the storyline that is sold as "a happy Christian family produces the best kids". I get that a lot in life. It's annoying.

When I was 17 my parents did not control me. I think of it as a rocket leaving the tower: Parents are responsible for prepping the launch pad, putting the rocket on it, making sure the fins are straight, then lighting the fuse. Lighting the fuse happens at about 13-14 these days.

Then you have to step away. If the parent put good fins on the kid, then the kid will probably fly straight. If the parent put warped ideas, warped beliefs, warped fins then the kid isn't going to fly very straight.

At that point the kid needs to start using their own guidance computer to make it through life. Loading the initial variables and setting the fins is the parent's responsibility.

(Oddly enough this is a great analogy since once the rocket hits space the fins are no longer used. It's up to the guidance computer from then on...)

I critique her kid partially because that kid is going to need some serious kicks to her guidance computer if she's going to have a chance. And now she's bringing ANOTHER KID into the world? It's time for the little one to grow up. And the parents as well.

(Oddly enough this is one of the reasons I believe teenagers who get pregnant should have abortions. They're usually not ready to start gluing on fins.)

CZ
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 4th, 2008 11:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
inlaterdays
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)
I agree. I feel sorry for Bristol. If you look at pictures of her holding Trig (who is supposedly not her son), it breaks your heart. She so clearly loves that baby and Sarah clearly couldn't care less. There was a story about this on thedailykos but it has been removed.

Teenagers who drink and get pregnant at a young age are usually acting out. I think this speaks volumes about Sarah's lack of parenting skills but I don't think it's fair to call a troubled teenager names. I hope she does better when she's a legal adult and away from her mother's influence.
motherwell
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:13 pm (UTC)
You're right -- but if the pregnant teenage daughter in question had been Obama's, would the Republicans show even one tenth of the restraint you rightly advocate?
inlaterdays
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
Of course not, but two wrongs don't make a right. I prefer to take the high road when possible.

As for the current Republican party, it seems hypocrisy is their stock-in-trade:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Ugh. Just ugh.
aelf
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:12 pm (UTC)
What "the other side would do" should never be an argument to behave badly, in my opinion. You raise the level of discourse. You don't throw it in the gutter.
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC)
The kid's a drunk. That's not name calling, it is what it is. Even *I* didn't get that wasted at 16. And let me say I was certainly acting out.

And aren't kids not supposed to drink at 16? Aren't there laws in some states where the PARENTS are held liable?

I feel very sorry for her kids. I'm sorry they were raised in an environment where the parents didn't do their JOBS which is to be a parent to their fucking kids. When you take on a kid, that's your JOB. It's your responsibility because let's face it: The kid didn't ask to be born, you brought it into the world.

I feel sorry for Bristol. But all the sorry in the world isn't going to change what is: She's going to get married at 17 and roll right down the statistics aisle. But she'll do better than the majority of kids who go down this path, she's a celebrity now.

I feel more sorry for the kids that aren't on TV but are 17 and pregnant and looking down a statistical black hole.

CZ
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 4th, 2008 07:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 4th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 4th, 2008 07:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 4th, 2008 09:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 4th, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 4th, 2008 11:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 4th, 2008 11:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 12:18 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 5th, 2008 02:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 05:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 6th, 2008 01:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 5th, 2008 04:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - inlaterdays - Sep. 5th, 2008 05:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 06:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 05:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 4th, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 4th, 2008 11:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 12:28 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 5th, 2008 02:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 5th, 2008 03:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 6th, 2008 01:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cz_unit - Sep. 6th, 2008 02:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelf - Sep. 6th, 2008 03:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Sep. 5th, 2008 04:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:28 pm (UTC)
However I will cede your point: There's no evidence that she's trash per se.

CZ
lillibet
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC)
The Democrats have traditionally done better when they are able to campaign on hope than on hard truth. I think that given the demographics (there are more Democrats than Republicans, so McCain needs all the Republicans plus the independents to have a shot) and the unpopularity of the current administration, he's very much a longshot at this point.

Do you read Talking Points Memo? I think you'd enjoy it.
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:50 pm (UTC)
No, I don't, I should do that.

I do hope you're right and the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot HARD on this one. Because if Truth can't beat Hate and Hope can't beat Hate then we have a serious problem and I have to seriously consider options and strategy.

Chris
skitten
Sep. 4th, 2008 08:09 pm (UTC)
oh dear *hides under the covers until November*
cz_unit
Sep. 4th, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC)
I really should stop reading the news. Because my mind jumps to some pretty interesting conclusions.

CZ
(Deleted comment)
cz_unit
Sep. 5th, 2008 05:16 pm (UTC)
All right! THE ANONYMOUS HORDE DESCENDS!

Anon posts will be laughed at and deleted!

CZ
mrsbrewer
Sep. 5th, 2008 05:21 am (UTC)
I find your take on this really interesting. I would never have thought of it, but it just seems so likely. Whether or not it was a conscious choice, I can't say, but I think the party will certainly benefit from people identifying with the flawed VP candidate.

I do feel, however, that this would only work with a Republican candidate. If the Dems tried to elect someone along the same lines, they would be shredded. It's a huge double standard.

Hope vs. Hate. I have more to say about that, but it's just observations about my own life, so I'll stop here for now.
cz_unit
Sep. 5th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
I think it's an interesting dynamic: There are advantages to flawed people, and maybe if people see others as flawed and accept them we can move further as a general group. Remember when men weren't supposed to cry ever and merely looking at a joint would mean instant insanity?

This woman smoked dope. How cool! How far we have come from the war on drugs.

And it all started with that supreme ct justice who was booted because he tried drugs once. Ginsberg I think. Then we had Clinton and his didn't inhale, now this.

Maybe in a bit we'll have an openly gay Republican president. I mean Craig may be a pioneer. And they do take the hits, but it makes it easier for others to follow in their wide-stance footsteps...

This is interesting.
CZ
( 55 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Dori
cz_unit
Musings from the CZ unit
Website

Latest Month

June 2017
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi