When I think of how Republicans and Democrats operate in America, I draw striking similarities to pro-wrestling, and believe both sides are avid pro-wrestling fans. In pro-wrestling, you have a face ("good" guy) and a heel ("bad" guy) "wrestling" one another, for one slab of dramatic reasoning or the other. They are "wrestling" not for sport, but specifically for an audience. See, the idea is to put on a show, rather than engage in Martial Art. The maneuvers executed are pre-arranged and rehearsed, because both sides not only want to protect one another in execution, but to ensure they can "wrestle" (and thus make more money) again. The key ingredient to making money is convincing the audience of the match's "authenticity"; the face and heel have to sell (convince) the "authenticity" of the drama, tension and worth of the "wrestling," or else no money is made. Granted, there are some spectators who know it's not authentic, but there's also the demographic who believe what they're seeing is authentic. Those who realize it's not authentic also realize the face and the heel are friends before and after the show; they understand the face and the heel are "wrestling" to make money off one another, and to make sure they can come back for more matches (and thus more) money. Despite this realization, they still enjoy the spectacle.
Whether it's elected officials or fat-mouthed talking heads, those in politics are clearly pro-wrestling fans; the show they put on for the public is not much different from pro-wrestling. The politicians and fat-mouthed talking heads aren't really at each other's throats, because they're all making money from this supposed "feud," and the public is buying it. While the elected officials and fat-mouthed talking heads are clearly huge pro-wrestling nuts, the biggest nuts are the spectators. While some spectators are casual fans, the biggest fanatics are those who follow the show, organize, protest and rally. The Vietnam War was protested. Bill Clinton lying under oath was protested. Every single thing George W. Bush did, whether it was invading Iraq or taking a shit in peace, was protested. Now, the impending Health Care reform agenda from President Barry Soetoro is (you guessed it) protested. The current crop of protesters are (depending on who you ask) either a "grass-roots movement" spurned by "patriots" and "great Americans"... or "radicals," "extremists" and/or "domestic terrorists."
As a Libertarian, I sympathize with the protestors, and strongly subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's theory that "government which governs least governs best." I even wanted to participate in the movement, but I do not agree with the approach Health Care reform protesters are taking. Instead of questioning politicians in a respectful but matter-of-fact manner, the rhetoric suggests they are acting the same way Vietnam War protesters and Iraq War protesters did: screaming, yelling and overall reacting like complete Neanderthals who fell off the Brooklyn Bridge and landed straight on their heads. While not all protestors act like this, there's a portion significant enough to harm their efforts. If they actually think an approach like that will dissuade government elected officials from embracing the current proposals, then they're not really thinking at all. Sure, they accomplish their task of making elected officials feel pressure and hear their point of view. But, will the elected officials actually be dissuaded, or think to themselves "what a bunch of imbeciles," and move forward with the agenda? Is it more important to be heard, and thus feel good, or is it more important to effectively persuade? In an age of the Internet, which provides an endless supply of information, is taking time out of one's day to yell and scream really an effective technique of dissuasion?
The amusing part is, the same people who are yelling and screaming about Health Care reform were likely criticizing the manner in which some protested the Iraq War, even though both manners are nearly identical. While the message reached some, the enraged messengers looked about as intelligent, informed, persuasive and credible as a season of "Daisy of Love." Now, if you question an enraged Health Care reform protester's approach, they justify their unnecessary behavior with something along the lines of "people are angry with the politicians who don't listen to and care about us," or "this is America; we don't want Socialism!" But, a child reacts to something they don't like, with the same anger and uncontrollable emotion that some protestors do; an adult is supposed to know better than to act like that. Moreover, if a politician wasn't listening before, they're certainly not going to start, in light of someone acting like a child. George W. Bush's administration didn't listen to Iraq War protesters, and I'm guessing the Socialist Joker's administration won't either. Instead, Soetoro will cock his head to the side, ask "why so serious," and do exactly what he intended.
If you don't like something, question it! But, question it with intelligence, facts and maturity. Screaming and yelling at Town Hall meetings or in the streets isn't going to accomplish anything but making the protesters look like complete jackasses, and they look no better than the Iraq War protestors. This behavior only fuels the opposition's rhetoric, and anyone who follows politics knows that rhetoric is a weapon deadlier than the flying guillotine.
Of course, the protester's favorite rhetorical weaponry (or rather, device) is the "buzzword"; "Fascist" (among other things) was the rhetorical sword wielded by peace-loving war protesters, and "Socialist" is the mighty sword protesters today wield. But, while a sword can puncture and draw blood, an even mightier sword awaits to defeat the wielders.
And sometimes, Shaolin Kung Fu awaits, which possesses the technique a normal swordsman can't outwit.
Oh and give President Clinton the credit he deserves for bringing the two reporters home from North Korea. It's time to get over the decade-old blow job and rim job he received. It's not the first time a married man got some action on the side, and Clinton certainly wasn't the first President to get some extracurricular service.
Whether it's elected officials or fat-mouthed talking heads, those in politics are clearly pro-wrestling fans; the show they put on for the public is not much different from pro-wrestling. The politicians and fat-mouthed talking heads aren't really at each other's throats, because they're all making money from this supposed "feud," and the public is buying it. While the elected officials and fat-mouthed talking heads are clearly huge pro-wrestling nuts, the biggest nuts are the spectators. While some spectators are casual fans, the biggest fanatics are those who follow the show, organize, protest and rally. The Vietnam War was protested. Bill Clinton lying under oath was protested. Every single thing George W. Bush did, whether it was invading Iraq or taking a shit in peace, was protested. Now, the impending Health Care reform agenda from President Barry Soetoro is (you guessed it) protested. The current crop of protesters are (depending on who you ask) either a "grass-roots movement" spurned by "patriots" and "great Americans"... or "radicals," "extremists" and/or "domestic terrorists."
As a Libertarian, I sympathize with the protestors, and strongly subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's theory that "government which governs least governs best." I even wanted to participate in the movement, but I do not agree with the approach Health Care reform protesters are taking. Instead of questioning politicians in a respectful but matter-of-fact manner, the rhetoric suggests they are acting the same way Vietnam War protesters and Iraq War protesters did: screaming, yelling and overall reacting like complete Neanderthals who fell off the Brooklyn Bridge and landed straight on their heads. While not all protestors act like this, there's a portion significant enough to harm their efforts. If they actually think an approach like that will dissuade government elected officials from embracing the current proposals, then they're not really thinking at all. Sure, they accomplish their task of making elected officials feel pressure and hear their point of view. But, will the elected officials actually be dissuaded, or think to themselves "what a bunch of imbeciles," and move forward with the agenda? Is it more important to be heard, and thus feel good, or is it more important to effectively persuade? In an age of the Internet, which provides an endless supply of information, is taking time out of one's day to yell and scream really an effective technique of dissuasion?
The amusing part is, the same people who are yelling and screaming about Health Care reform were likely criticizing the manner in which some protested the Iraq War, even though both manners are nearly identical. While the message reached some, the enraged messengers looked about as intelligent, informed, persuasive and credible as a season of "Daisy of Love." Now, if you question an enraged Health Care reform protester's approach, they justify their unnecessary behavior with something along the lines of "people are angry with the politicians who don't listen to and care about us," or "this is America; we don't want Socialism!" But, a child reacts to something they don't like, with the same anger and uncontrollable emotion that some protestors do; an adult is supposed to know better than to act like that. Moreover, if a politician wasn't listening before, they're certainly not going to start, in light of someone acting like a child. George W. Bush's administration didn't listen to Iraq War protesters, and I'm guessing the Socialist Joker's administration won't either. Instead, Soetoro will cock his head to the side, ask "why so serious," and do exactly what he intended.
If you don't like something, question it! But, question it with intelligence, facts and maturity. Screaming and yelling at Town Hall meetings or in the streets isn't going to accomplish anything but making the protesters look like complete jackasses, and they look no better than the Iraq War protestors. This behavior only fuels the opposition's rhetoric, and anyone who follows politics knows that rhetoric is a weapon deadlier than the flying guillotine.
Of course, the protester's favorite rhetorical weaponry (or rather, device) is the "buzzword"; "Fascist" (among other things) was the rhetorical sword wielded by peace-loving war protesters, and "Socialist" is the mighty sword protesters today wield. But, while a sword can puncture and draw blood, an even mightier sword awaits to defeat the wielders.
And sometimes, Shaolin Kung Fu awaits, which possesses the technique a normal swordsman can't outwit.
Oh and give President Clinton the credit he deserves for bringing the two reporters home from North Korea. It's time to get over the decade-old blow job and rim job he received. It's not the first time a married man got some action on the side, and Clinton certainly wasn't the first President to get some extracurricular service.
No comments:
Post a Comment