31 August 2012

Tír na nÓg


Dear Dr. Bones,

[new] The Clint Eastwood Revelation


Last night Mr. Romney tried their best to put a good face on their intentions. Mr. Romney peered into the audience and camera and promised jobs, a strong America, and a decent life. But for whom? The answer showed up in the “secret guest,” Clint Eastwood. Steve Schmidt on MSNBC tried to wipe it away by reminding the TV viewers that the movie star was 82 years old. We know better than that. Mr. Romney’s oath to revive America does not extend to everyone. Even those who sung his praises as a business person or as a humane person belonged only to certain tribes. You had to be a member of the Church of LDS and not deviate form its dogma, you were struggling and not poor, top associates in his business world, a community member traveling in similar circles. No evidence that there is help coming if you are poor, struggle with behavioral issues, or if you are female that you get any recognition of needed rights. In short his tolerance only goes so far. As a more global scale his jingoistic talk should disturb anyone. There is a complete lack of responsibility of what caused this nation’s economic and social woes and as part of the problem he rejects that his business world had anything to do with it. He was successful and made lots of money, that’s what counts. He is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

oetkb @ Fri 31 Aug 5:45 AM




Considered as the poster boy for American Decline, however,

(( fold here ))



as an emblem of everything that "America's Throwback Team" would like to throw us back to -- though of they won't be able to -- there is quite a lot to be said for Citizen Clint.

I wonder, though, what Fabulous Fernie Fehrnstrom


or any similar high-up Republicanine ‘operative’ makes of it? Paddy McTammany's views on how to win friends and influence voters are not to be taken seriously, yet even an ignoramus can ask an occasional question. In this case, "Your freelordship, ¿What appeal, exactly, was that sideshow supposed to have for members of either the female or the Blacks-and-Tans community?"

American Decline is herself nonpartisan.

Almost certainly, therefore, Fernie an' the b'hoys will be able to get some mileage out of portrayin' us donkeys as the Geezer Defense League, who only want to tell wicked, demonizin' fibs about how Citizen Clint's Medicare--¡even his monthly pension from the Ponzi Security Administration!--would lapse into great an’ imminent peril, should the POTUS of us all not be reëlected.

Since Paddy (who date from 06 October 1945 and even have the papers to prove it) has been sucking at those twin Fedguv teats meself for a couple of years now, I suppose one should be flattered to find that the pols of all persuasions have agreed that Clint and I are really "What America looks like." However attractive obsolescence may look, though, especially when skillfully packaged for delivery via the MacL@@han Tuba, it certainly does not feel all that great. Rarely has better free advice been given an ignored than "Don't ever get old!"

Here is a good test of Mr. Blake's "to generalise is to be an idiot." ¿Was Paddy being an idiot?, then, when I just got struck by the idea that a gerontocentric politics is among the features that one certainly should have -- but as usual did not -- expect American Decline to include.

I am for our team, right or wrong. That, after all, is what "McTammany" MEANS Nevertheless, I sincerely think that we do our gerontocracy better than America's Otherparty do theirs. With us, those not gifted at the moment with senesence/senility may look forwards to qualifying for it (¡and its rewards from Uncle Sam!) at a latter date.

The Smirk of Janesville, on the other hand, in the "Thirty-Year Plan for OnePercenter Ascendancy" that he keeps tryin' to market as a Fedguv budget for whatever FY happens to be next, envisions a split-level genrontocracy. Only those born before 1958 (were SmirkCare™ to be promptly enacted in 2013, which is not likely, even if Mittius Coriolanus Pompo makes it), would get all the bennies. Latecomers would be decidedly second-class gerontocrats. Forever. [1] [2]

Assuming that gerontocentricity is unavoidable under conditions of American Decline, clearly the good guys would do it better. However, Paddy and Eye are not yet willing to admit that unavoidableness. Possibly no previous set of Decline victims has actually managed to avoid such gracelessness, but there is always a first time, ¿no? Moreover, unlike, say, the Madrileños of 1650, we possess a couple of centuries' worth of Social Scientism. Unlike our ignorant ancestors, we can at least recognize the edge of a cliff after we fall off it. Maybe even shortly before we fall off. [3]





___
[1] Naturally with a Peruna like that to flog, the Otherparty cannot bark an bellow loud enough about how ‘divisive’ Barák Husâyn O’Bama and the whole "Democrat Party" are, what vile underminers of opportunity.

[2] Dear Kruggie really nailed the bustards for once this morning:

[T]he promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.

(( Kruggie is not 100% sound on American Decline, which, properly factored in, turns these ‘odds’ around. In fact, the ‘cohorts’ of Tír na nÓg would be clobbered badly. ))


[3] That is a qualified of expurgated ‘we’: anybooby who cannot spot Anthropogenic Global Warming at ten paces in the afternoon of a late August day will sincerely have no trouble believin' that to speak of "American Decline" is not just factually mistaken an’ ethically immoral, but positively self-contradictory. "¿What do you mean, this is not the top? ¿WE are here, aren't we?" &c. &c.




No comments:

Post a Comment