Uncommon Ground

Admittedly, the general tone of this site over the past week or so has been one of unabashed anger and outrage. While I won't apologize for this -- mostly because I feel like the more that people throw down the gauntlet against the rising tide of dangerous stupidity on the part of the new Republican ticket, the better -- I do want to address the small amount of criticism I've received. Although the response has been overwhelmingly positive to the recent posts railing against John McCain and Sarah Palin, a few readers have chastised me for resorting to crude insults and sweeping generalizations as opposed to "elevating the debate" in an effort to win over potential voters on the opposite side of the aisle. I've made it pretty clear that I don't believe that those who seem not to care about logic and reason -- who demonize, ridicule and distrust anyone who has the audacity to put intellect and analysis above blind faith or bumper-sticker-brand patriotism -- will be willing to find common ground with those who do. But our government doesn't work without compromise, despite what many on the right believe; so back in January -- when it looked as if the funadamentalist Christian contingent who'd been given such a deafening voice in our government for so long would be left without a voice at all in the coming election -- I wrote a piece advocating if not unity then at the very least inclusion for all points of view. It was exclusive to the Huffington Post and was never published here. If I heard more of this kind of talk from the right -- and less mockery, chest-thumping and overt bullshit from the GOP's army of bellicose mouthpieces -- I probably wouldn't be fighting back in the kinds of absolute, unyielding terms that I am right now. Here now is that column from January 20th, 2008.

As believers in faith and ritual over science, perhaps it's not surprising that they failed to heed the basic laws of physics.

Most people understand that when a pendulum is pushed too far in one direction, it will eventually, inexorably swing back just as far to the opposite side. This is the natural order of things, and it tends to apply across the board -- even to that bulwark of chaos theory, politics.

Is it any surprise then that America's Evangelical Christians, who for the past eight years have been allowed an astonishing level of ascendency within the corridors of power and in the determination of policy, now find themselves all but sidelined in the 2008 presidential race -- literally, a voting bloc without a candidate? Although nothing is -- if you'll pardon the pun -- carved in stone, it would seem that yesterday's John McCain victory in Florida has made his fast-track to the Republican nomination all but inevitable, and that effectively leaves the Jesus-Said-It-That-Settles-It crowd without a seat at the executive table.

I wish I could say I was sorry to see them go, but the truth is I can hardly mask my delight -- and that's what's unfortunate.

I have no doubt that the far-right religious elements won't abandon politics altogether; the most cynical -- or devout, depending on the side of the aisle we're talking about -- would claim that God still has promises to keep, and as such needs his mortal attendants to continue fighting tooth-and-nail to bring his Earthly kingdom to fruition via White House provision. But from here on out, even the naive among the faithful are likely to understand that any lip-service paid to Evangelicals will be just that -- lip-service. There are no True Believers left in the race, only boilerplate politicians pimping themselves for the almighty vote. What's worse, neither McCain nor Obama or Clinton -- whichever Democrat claims the nomination -- has to worry about his or her rival laying absolute claim to the powerful fundamentalist voting bloc, which means that even the tokenism won't be ladled on as thickly.

The lamentable truth in all of this is that the needs of Evangelical Christians don't deserve to be disregarded or downplayed, nor did they ever. Like any segment of the American population -- anyone willing to take part in our supposed democracy -- they deserve equal consideration. The problem, of course, is that for the past eight years they've had those who disagree with their agenda at a monumental disadvantage; the deference they've been shown by the Bush administration, to say nothing of the iniquitous sycophants of the mercifully defunct 109th Congress, has at times seemed destined to turn America into an authoritarian theocracy.

And it's led to a backlash, naturally.

Although the Evangelicals themselves, as well as the far-right contingent in general, may be inclined to hang their heads for now and bide their time -- believing that they don't have a dog in this fight -- that would accomplish nothing. For nearly a decade this country has been held hostage by all-or-nothing, unilateral politics, the prevailing modus operandi of which was to crush the dissenting opinion. It's all but laid waste to the American system of government, causing some to wonder if Jeffersonian Democracy is an experiment that's failed outright.

It hasn't -- not yet anyway.

Thankfully, the Evangelical political juggernaut has been beaten back for the moment. But it will cast a long shadow in its absence and return to fiercely dominate the debate, unless we not only abandon the politics of division and exclusion but go so far as to impress upon the fringes the need for them to meet us in the middle.

If we don't, the pendulum will only swing back, leaving another group of Americans without a voice.

Into the Mild

How can someone be arrogant and naive at the same time?

One of the Huffington Post's regular contributors just put into words exactly how I felt watching Sarah Palin speak last night -- the anger and unease that I couldn't quite put my finger on. This is probably the most dead-on assessment of her entire tone and attitude that I've read so far:

"Many pundits in reviewing her polished performance claim to see an unflappable and gung-ho winner on stage. My honest-to-goodness visceral reaction was quite otherwise. What I saw on that stage was the personification of small-minded smugness, an utter lack of humility, a kind of self-righteous entitlement based on little more than puffed-up narrowness. She struck me not as plucky but, rather, as stunningly immodest--to the point of arrogance. Some people are arrogant and maybe deserve to be. They know it, and flaunt it, while everyone else thinks they are jerks. But there's another kind of arrogance, perhaps harder to spot at first, an arrogance that apparently doesn't even recognize itself as such, a sanctified, self-satisfied presumptuousness that flows from sheer naïveté about oneself and the world and manifests itself in giddy ambition."

(The Huffington Post: "Sarah Palin: The Face of Ugly Americanism" by John Seery/9.4.08)

Don't Cry for Me, America

Bob Cesca makes my life so much easier. Every time I feel the urge to talk politics, he manages to put something together for the Huffington Post that not only says exactly what I'm thinking, but manages to say it better than I could have myself. So, once again, I tip my hat to Cesca and point everyone I can in the direction of his appropriately smart and vicious piece responding to our illustrious Idiot-in-Chief's public lament earlier this week that he'll be remembered as a "war-mongering" president.

"War mongering is a significant aspect of your legacy, but I think we can conclude, and without much debate, that your legacy will also be one of criminality, failure and a degree of incompetence rarely achieved by any American president, much less one whose deficit of character is rivaled only by his nearly unprecedented lack of humility in the face of his unprecedented roster of inadequacies.

Sorry.

As it turns out, you won't have much control over your legacy and the history of your administration anyway. You might have some cursory input, but no-one really takes you seriously anymore and anything you put forth will be taken as just another work of fiction; another bit of propaganda.

Your legacy will ultimately be written by those of us who have been actively documenting your presidency in real time -- millions of voices authoring the narrative of your awful regime and preserving it with digital clarity one trespass at a time.

And everywhere we look, we can plainly observe your smirking, affectless footprint."

(The Huffington Post: "Sorry Mr. President, But Your Legacy Is More Awful Than You Think" by Bob Cesca)

Surrender, Hillary

I wanted to write something about Hillary Clinton's destructive, delusional narcissism in respect to her unwillingness to graciously step aside in the wake of the big Obama win the other night. (Like a child demanding attention, she was perfectly content to pace back and forth stomping her feet, and would've remained that way had her own Congressional supporters not forced her hand in the strongest possible terms.)

But Bob Cesca, one of the Huffington Post's best and most prolific contributors, put it all out there a hell of a lot better than I or anyone else probably could've.

(The Huffington Post: "Even in Defeat, It's All About Her" by Bob Cesca/6.4.08)

Donald Grump

This is brilliant not simply because of how deliciously venomous it is in its indignation, but because if Hillary Clinton doesn't listen, the author can have his son, Jack Bauer, torture her until she drops out of the race.

(The Huffington Post: "Hillary's Popular Vote Notion Only "Popular" with the Punditocracy" by Donald Sutherland)

A Praise Chorus

"As a blogger, Chez Pazienza is filled with outrage, passion and insight -- delivered with a distinctive point of view, a wicked sense of humor, and a two-fisted style of prose. In Dead Star Twilight, he turns all these on himself -- and produces a fierce, funny, disturbing, but ultimately uplifting memoir. This is the book A Million Little Pieces dreamed of being."

-- Arianna Huffington

How cool is that?

Why So Serious?

It might be time to once again make an important point crystal clear: I'm neither conservative nor liberal. My attitude is that if each side of the aisle finds good reason to dislike the things I say, my opinions, my overall tone, etc., then I'm doing something right.

That said, I have a question for those who count themselves among America's "staunchly liberal" contingent; it involves something I've noticed as I scan the content on the Huffington Post -- the reaction to my pieces as well as the contributions of others.

Why the hell do liberals tend to take everything so goddamned seriously?

I bring this up because there's a tidal wave of righteous indignation gaining momentum across the blogosphere at the moment in response to an ill-advised but relatively harmless comment made by, of all people, Keith Olbermann. While discussing the future of Hillary Clinton's campaign with Newsweek columnist and sycophantic turd Howard Fineman, Olbermann responded to the notion that someone might have to step in to settle the Democratic primary by saying, "Right -- somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out." This was admittedly a really stupid thing to say and, whether forced to or not, Olbermann quickly apologized to those who might have felt that he recommended physically beating the hell out of Clinton. "It is a metaphor. The generic 'he' gender could imply something untoward. It should've been 'only the other comes out -- from a political point of view,'" he said in an official statement.

Only an idiot would fail to notice an undercurrent of sexism among MSNBC's male anchors: Chris Matthews, David Shuster and former MS host Don Imus have all made comments about women that they then had to retract. But likewise, does anyone with a brain really believe that Keith Olbermann was, in fact, suggesting that a man physically harm Hillary Clinton?

Like Shuster's infamous "pimping-out Chelsea" line before it, Olbermann's remark is nothing more than an offhand shot taken by a guy who's essentially talking to hear himself talk. And while it may reveal something about Olbermann's true attitude toward women, once again, I doubt very seriously that he was taking out a hit on Hillary.

And yet, judging by the response from some on the left, you'd think that was exactly what he'd done.

Keep in mind, this is Keith Olbermann we're talking about -- someone who's been a hero to liberal America by giving it the kind of public voice it hasn't had in years. As silly as I thought it was to pitch a fit over John Gibson's comments about Heath Ledger's death, or what O'Reilly and that buffoon Limbaugh have to say about anything at all, at least the outrage was aimed in the, pardon the pun, right direction. These people are the left's sworn enemies; it makes sense to try to play "gotcha" with them, no matter how ineffectual such outrage may be. But Olbermann is ostensibly one of their own; turning on him not only shoots your own cause in the foot, it actually goes a long way in proving why the Democrats can't seem to win an election to save their lives: Republicans are organized -- they get behind a set of people and a set of talking points, no matter how ridiculous, and they stay there. To the left, this kind of unwavering True Belief is stubborn and robotic and proves that your average red-stater can't think for himself. But guess what? It wins elections.

In the past couple of weeks alone, I've been castigated by commenters on HuffPost for titling a column about Gloria Allred "Burn the Witch" ("What's wrong with you? How can you say something like that?"); I've been accused of insulting children ("Kids should rule the world. Imagine a world where children could vote: 'Do you think your mommmy and daddy should be sent to Iraq? Yes or No?'"); and, my personal favorite, I've been raked over the coals for my insensitivity toward lunatic cults ("Saying that someone 'drank the Kool-aid' is cruel to those who died at Jonestown."). And I'm not out there by myself when it comes to facing the wrath of the supposedly free-thinking perpetually aggrieved: Earlier this month, Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi got into a blogging row with aging sex writer and pompous liberal cliché Erica Jong after he wrote a piece which referred to Hillary Clinton as "flabby." Jong didn't just go after Taibbi -- because that would be positively Philistine for someone as erudite and evolved as she is; No, Jong analyzed Taibbi's crack to death before finally coming to the conclusion that -- and I swear, she was serious about this -- insulting Hillary's appearance was a form of Freudian displacement designed to help Taibbi come to terms with the fact that he wants to have sex with his mother. In his own defense, Taibbi responded by just cutting to the chase and calling Jong a worthless hack -- which not only had the benefit of being true, it was infinitely more amusing to read.

Once again, Matt Taibbi is about as liberal as they come -- and yet those who consider themselves, I suppose, the humorless liberal "elite" (and I don't use that term the way the right often does) see no harm in eating their own. I truly believe that, as with Jong, it stems from the constant need to overcomplicate and overanalyze issues as a means of showing off one's superior intellect, and the inability to just go from point-A to point-B in a straight fucking line.

It would actually be funny if it weren't so sad -- and so antithetical to what the left hopes to accomplish, particularly in an election year. I hate the far right wingnuts like poison, but for the most part they can take a fucking joke and don't convene a press conference when somebody offends them, which is one of the reasons they've had such a powerful voice in this country for the last several years.

Jesus people, lighten up -- or you'll die trying (and by that, I don't mean that I'm advocating violence against you).