Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Lead This, Barry!

Lead This, Barry!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There are times when attempts at leadership intended to reclaim the support of the doubtful fail to achieve their desired effects, due to incompetence or downright cretinistic ignorance.  A specific example is a new video put out by the climate advocacy organization 10:10. This new video completely destroys the worthy effort to raise consciousness regarding ecological dangers facing mankind by emulating a totalitarian society which eliminates those who disagree with the official party line.

I found the video both offensive and inconsiderate, The terrorist tactic of blowing up non-believers and showering those who do believe in the goals of the campaign with the bloody remainders of the doubters completely erases the ecological message. It is not funny; it is gross and offensive. I agree totally with climate change activists of 350.org who are involved in organizing the completely unrelated 10/10/10 event, and who decried this sorry and misguided attempt at activist humor as, “the kind of stupidity that really hurts our side, reinforcing in people’s minds a series of preconceived notions … that we’re out-of-control elitists…”

This graphic video debacle is as ignorant, ill-considered, and oblivious as the recent Democratic Party campaign to herd those deemed by the party to be sheep back into the fold. Rabbi Michael Lerner, writing in The Huffington Post, explains that Obama-Biden “seems clueless” looking for that voter enthusiasm they generated in their 2008 campaign, and lost since. Rabbi Lerner puts his finger directly on the problem of why the “wayward” Democratic base exists when he exposes the deliberate delusion of the administration: that this lost enthusiasm is due to a belief by the administration that the “liberal and progressive base is naïve” and that we are not recognizing that all of the wonderful things Obama-Biden did for Corporate America are to be seen as good. “What’s good for GM [and Wall Street banks] is good for America”, and all that garbage.

Enthusiasm you want, eh Barry? Try this on for size: Ja wohl, Herr President! Ve vill fall into line, und ve vill enchoy it — nicht!

Those of us who don’t see the glamor of the administration’s accomplishments, and who don’t marvel at the corporatist’s new clothes on display for our impressment, are immediately blown up by Obama-Biden with a derisive dismissal of our reticence and repeated exhortations to “buck up” while being sharply ordered to “stop whining” about the poor performance of our elected public servants.  Just who the hell do you think you are toying with, Barry? Sarah’s Tea Baggers?

We will certainly stipulate that the Republican alternative is the worst of the two options you Beltway bozos seem to believe is the total range of our choices. But what makes you Democrats think that being the lesser of two evils is going to fly this time? The Republicans face the same problem that you do, in that many of their sheep have bolted the fold, and are roaming loose about the hinterlands with the insurgent radical TEA baggers. Your only advantage to this dilemma distressing your opposition is that we who have strayed haven’t coalesced into an opposing faction as the TEA baggers have. That isn’t likely to happen, as some of us are quite willing to let you eat the midterm losses your sorry so-called successes merit. Others of us will reluctantly cast our ballots in your favor and hope that we can reclaim the momentum in two more years. There is no critical mass either way.

But still others of us will vote for any alternative to the two-faced political monopoly, including “none of those listed.”  We aren’t all disappointed liberal progressives, either. With Obama’s approval rating at an all-time low, and with Sarah Palin’s approval rating at an all-time low, as revealed in a Washington Post poll, and with both parties’ approval ratings at an all-time low, I don’t know how to make it more clear that we American voters are mad as hell, and we aren’t going to take it anymore. We aren’t happy with maintaining the status quo, which is leaving us twisting in the winds of change. We will vote for Nobody before we vote for anyone from the two-faced political monopoly which abandoned us for corporate swag, a strategy endorsed by both The Wall Street Journal and Ralph Nader, and which covers a wider spread than does the two-faced political monopoly.

As a concerned voter, I have already performed the act of voting None of the Above many times, especially against that useless piece of Blue Dog crap who represents my district. I have also so voted for state-wide offices when there was no clear advantage to supporting any candidate. It is the only way that I can accurately express my displeasure over the malfeasance of our elected officials who, as Obama-Biden amply demonstrated this week, seem to believe that we are under their control and working for them, instead of their working for us at our pleasure.

One thing I would like to see is for the states to enact a law similar to that proposed in 2007 for Massachusetts, which stipulates that if “None of the Above” were to win the largest vote total, then voters have the power to call a new bye-election instead of electing a candidate. Wise political parties would then offer different choices to the voters, but we haven’t seen a wise political party in this nation since the The Stamp Act of 1765 was passed by Parliament. Voters would continually have to reject any candidates again offered, until the message gets across that someone else is desired.

“But wouldn’t this inhibit the function of the government?” you sputter, outraged. I counter that astute question with another: “How would we know?” We already have one Senator blocking all deliberation in the Senate, a move which continues the GOP strategy of bringing all government functions to a halt so as to make Obama look more inept than he’s already doing by himself. Thus, out of 535 elected legislative representatives of the public sitting in the Congress, not one is able to conduct the public’s business. How can the government be any more stymied than it now is? It cannot, yet there are so many issues oppressing We, the People that require addressing. Fooled us more than once, so shame on us!

It is time for us to stop relying upon self-serving incompetents and corporate sellouts to deal with our problems. The last ten years alone should be ample proof of the failure of that strategy. We have to reclaim our constitutional rights to self-government before the corporatists cement them into our deep sea diver boots and nudge us over the side in them. If that means bringing the corporatist duopoly to an end, and having to endure hard times while the reorganization takes place, then so be it. What have we got to lose that we aren’t already losing anyway?

Powered by

About pessimist

  • Arch Conservative

    That video is beyond ridiculous.

    Ridiculous is nothing new for the new American Left though.

  • Doug Hunter

    It’s good to see someone roundly condemn something lke the video even if it may be their position to support the cause. So many times people waffle and minimize and make excuses and ‘yeah, but’ when their side does something (me included).

  • zingzing

    “That video is beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous is nothing new for the new American Left though.”

    other than it being british and all…

    although the video is really misguided and a terribly fucks up its message, if you imagine it as a monty python or kids in the hall sketch…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Aw, buck up and stop whining….

  • Arch Conservative

    You got me there zing. I stand corrected. I was wondering why our own domestic moonbats would be speaking with British accents.

    And I guess Realist would qualify as a domestic moonbat and he’s criticized the video so maybe there’s hope for this nation.

    Regardless of what one thinks of the climate change issue there were a million and one much, much better ways the makers of this video could have chosen to express their view.

    It’s not as even if the video were slightly offensive. It is a completely beyond the pail manifestation of the inner workings from the minds of a group of deranged individuals. “Reduce your carbon footprint or we’ll blow you up, even if you are only eleven years old.”

    Environmentalism, Al Queda style.

  • John Wilson

    Of course, the video may be a strawman created by an anti-environment agent provocateur. We know The Right is prone to such pranks from the infamous ACORN/pimp video forgeries.

  • Arch Conservative

    So you’re claiming that beyond this video the entire 10:10 movement, seeing as they’re the ones that made the video, is a right wing counter operation?

    There can obly be one appropriate response to that implication………..

    Hello hello……..anybody home? Think Mcfly, think.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    A note that 10:10 took the video down the same day they posted it, with an apology:

    With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh.

    We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis — writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others — agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign.

    Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

  • zingzing

    “”Reduce your carbon footprint or we’ll blow you up, even if you are only eleven years old.””

    well, i kinda think the point is that the global warming deniers are doing that to us all right now. they’ve got a lazy gun to our heads. the idea is WHAT IF we did that right back to them? wouldn’t that be ridiculous? wouldn’t that be evil? what if we thought we were doing the right thing, just as they think they are?

    but the filmmakers didn’t really make that clear. and i’ll admit i had to stretch good reasoning to get there. but, if you subscribe to our point of view, that’s exactly what it feels like you guys are doing to humanity every day. sort of.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I saw the video and laughed before I read any of the subsequent commentary telling me I was supposed to be offended. Not once did I consider it to be anything more than a creative and provocative expression akin to those old school stop smoking advertisements where they use fear and trauma to make a point.

  • Arch Conservative

    First of all that’s the stretch of the century zing.

    Second the science is not settled. There is much politics involved in the issue than there is objective scientific debate. The scientific method does not dictate that you claim something is fact and never entertain any serious discussion to the contrary yet that is exactly the type of behavior the econuts have been engaging in.

    I’m skeptical of the whole anthropomorphic global warming idea but I can garentee you that I have a much, much smaller carbon footprint than Al Gore and many other AGW cause celebre. So if AGW were true who is doing the real damage zing?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    It just makes Realist so mad when someone disagrees with him.

    The continuing specific targets of his anger are [yawn] TARP and the auto-company bailout. The fact that these two items also arouse ridiculous and irrational anger in the Tea Party and among free-marketeer right-wingers in general should possibly give him pause, since I bet he rarely agrees with Tea Partiers or fierce free-marketeers on much else.

    And there is the fact that the bank and auto bailouts have basically worked, at a net cost to taxpayers far, far lower than was estimated a year ago.

    Continuing high unemployment is a good reason to be frustrated. But do you really think that if there were a specific remedy for unemployment that would achieve results, the Obama administration would deliberately avoid it? Even the dimmest of politicians wouldn’t do that.

    The simple fact is that no one knows a way to create employment quickly. There have been marked improvements [from monthly job losses of 800,000 to monthly increases of 50,000 and more], though we still have a long way to go.

    Do you have some brilliant ideas of your own? Pray share them then.

  • Arch Conservative

    “But do you really think that if there were a specific remedy for unemployment that would achieve results, the Obama administration would deliberately avoid it? Even the dimmest of politicians wouldn’t do that.”

    If there goal was to have the population become more dependent upon the state why wouldn’t they avoid it?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch, science is, by nature, never settled. So if that’s what you’re waiting on to see if this global warming thing is going to pan out, you’re in for a long haul.

    In terms of the politics of the issue, that all depends on where you are. In Canada, there isn’t much of a mainstream debate over climate change. It’s generally, with a few exceptions as with anywhere else, a consensus fact that is a part of the lexicon. My conservative parents are as concerned with it as I am, for instance.

    The grand folly here is when certain public figures, like say Al Gore, decide to profit from their hypocrisy. You are right when you say that Gore has a more significant carbon footprint than you ever will and that sucks, but it doesn’t mean the science behind global warming is suspect.

  • zingzing

    “First of all that’s the stretch of the century zing.”

    it’s a stretch, but not that much of one (does it really make no sense to you?), and how else do you explain it? that people are ACTUALLY, REALLY insisting we detonate non-believers using some sort of remote control bomb system we’ve placed inside each and every human being at birth, just in case one day, they refuse to comply with our simple request that they reduce their carbon footprint?

    don’t take things too literally, archie. it’s a stretch.

    “Second the science is not settled.”

    neither is evolution, but it’s pretty much done. it’s bleeding obvious.

    “There is much politics involved in the issue than there is objective scientific debate. The scientific method does not dictate that you claim something is fact and never entertain any serious discussion to the contrary yet that is exactly the type of behavior the econuts have been engaging in.”

    you can say that all you like, but we’ve been researching this shit for decades. they’ve heard other ideas. how do you know of the alternative theories? through secret underground channels?

    “So if AGW were true who is doing the real damage zing?”

    individual efforts or a lack thereof make little impact, archie. sure, al gore has a larger carbon footprint than you do. but that’s a lazy argument. great. you’re better than al gore. want a round of applause? (and al gore’s life is kind of in the crapper right now, so don’t think of yourself too highly.)

    it’s as a social, worldwide effort that we can really get a handle on global warming. you’ll say “but china… but india…,” and i say “but what? china’s air is one big carcinogen! you want maybe we should become like them?”

    you’ll say that al gore profits from this shit, but what does that suggest to you? there’s money to be made. a whole new economy to spiral upwards uncontrollably, then crash and burn. but it’ll get us through the next decade.

    there is no downside. it’s like being given a choice between a free lottery ticket or a game of russian roulette.

  • zingzing

    archie: “If there goal was to have the population become more dependent upon the state why wouldn’t they avoid it?”

    because that’s not the goal. crackpot conspiracy theories are stupid. all there is to do is sit back and chuckle.

  • Arch Conservative

    “You are right when you say that Gore has a more significant carbon footprint than you ever will and that sucks, but it doesn’t mean the science behind global warming is suspect.”

    You’re right Jordan, the fact that Gore’s carbon footprint is bigger than mine will ever be does not have anything to do with the underlying science of the issue. It justs means two things.

    1. Al Gore is a big fat annoying hypocrite.

    2. As zing extrapolated from the video, Al Gore should be blown up by a mysterious red button before I should because he’s doing more damage to the global climate than I am.

    Zing I don’t believe the econuts actually want to blow up non believers. Th ad is a visiaul metaphor. I do believe that all believers want oa avoid debate and silence all non believers. By blowing them up with a little red button, they are, in effect, silencing them.

    Althoug I’m an American I know that leftists in the Uk can be just as tolerant and fascist as our own domestic whackadoo lefties. There is a group in England called the UAF (United Against Fascism) which are themselves the most fascist little piggies you could ever have the misfortune of running across. They are led by an unsually reprehensible little cretin named MArtin Smith, a man who looks like Brciktop form the move snatch and has the political inclinations of Pol Pot.

  • John Wilson

    Arch lives in a reality-free bubble, and knows nothing about science (except, maybe, what he reads in National Review).

    Science advances by adopting the best looking hypotheses, provisionally, then moving forward, with nay-sayers trying to develop a better hypothesis, and sometimes they do. Indeed, the improved theory may evolve from the skeptics. But the original theory remains intact to the extent it’s useful. For example, Newtons gravitational theory is corrected by subsequent improvements (e.g., Einstein) but is still used for most celestial navigation. Similarly, the predecessor epicyclic theory manifests itself in Fourier analysis.

    Arch should stick to subjects he knows something about, if there is any such subject.

  • zingzing

    “I do believe that all believers want oa avoid debate and silence all non believers.”

    well, that’s taking things a bit far. obviously, i don’t want to avoid debate and silence all non believers. so… what you say can’t be true.

  • Arch Conservative

    No offense to you zing but you’re not exactly a mover or shaker in the world of science or global politics are you?

    What I meant was those who believe in AGW and actually have some type of influence as to how the debate will go generally seek to silence those who disagree with them and it’s usually done through ridicule or character assasination. It’s often heard to be said of any credentialed person skeptical of Agw that “they’re just a bought and paid for shiill of the oil companies,” or soemthing to that effect.

  • zingzing

    well, if that’s what you meant, don’t couch it in such absolute terms.

    and do you really think the oil companies AREN’T trying to have some sort of role in the debate? that they aren’t actively funding people? the oil companies are pretty smart (most of the time). the oil companies most certainly manipulate politics. they’d be dumb not to.

  • John Wilson

    For example, Bush was fond of appointing political operatives as heads of scientific agencies, to the point that a flunky named “Cooney” changed the actual words in a report over the signatures of scientists to soften and change the meaning of the report. Over their signatures. That’s fraud.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch, who the hell cares about Al Gore? Why does he have any specific bearing here at all?

  • Clavos

    …who the hell cares about Al Gore?

    Good point, these days, not even Tipper does…

    Just sayin’