|
In my home, the television is on all day. Like a techno-twisted version of Frank Lloyd Wright’s philosophy, it is the heart and the hearth of my home. As such, it is almost entirely ignored by nearly everyone in my family even as taught, well-trained baritones roll out and lay the latest news of wildfires, killer cats, and Paris Hilton all over the rug by the coffee table. All the various enticing product ads seem to slither into our ears, bounce thwarted off our subconscious, and out the other side. The children, whose excited entreaties over the colorful kinetic wonders they see are in turn thwarted by their parents with measured tones of de-hypnosis and back they go to their reading or coloring or antagonizing the cat. “You wouldn’t do that if you knew what cats were up to lately…”. They are blissfully oblivious of the rambling picture-box once more.
Every once in a while I hold my finger up to that gregarious radioactive wind beckoning from the corner… and I can feel a certain ‘current’. Now who hasn’t felt those soft, almost indiscernible breezes of intent issuing from all around them? We all do.
But there is a very definite wind, with a very definite direction, blowing all of us now.
When we see their figured faces, our candidates on the screen, they are invariably adorned with cosmetic commentary from careful commentators. The commentators are artists in the makeup of makeup. They employ subtle tease to train the eyes, ears, and minds to see, hear, and think what is wanted by wont by the wanters. They play masking games when they tape and paint all the right phrases in all the right places so we get the picture we don’t really see.
What do they say?
They say different things, but they say them the same. They denigrate our candidates… the ones with a shot at the nomination that is. They serve up a pu-pu plate of balanced fare with equal helpings of derision and praise. But like single-serving portions, the spice is right for only one dish.
When we hear, “What’s great about this candidate?” The wind picks up and forms little eddies around the words; “Well, this candidate has youth and energy” (inexperience)
“Their campaign is trying new things” (uncertainty)
“They’ve been proven successful in the private sector” (indulgent)
“They’re passionate” (prejudiced)
-And we find ourselves thinking, “Gosh… I’d really love to see that fresh, passionate person in office…*But*…”
But you don’t hear the ‘but’. Not out loud in your mind… but whispered in your mind’s mind. We know it’s there. Sometimes it ‘buts’ out and butts around where it’s not attached to our pseudo-certainty deep in our thoughts… but it’s still there.
When we hear, “What are this candidate’s drawbacks?” The powder-puffer pulls out an ugly rouge; “Well, the people see this campaign as a juggernaut.”
“Unstoppable” (strong)
“Methodical” (meticulous)
“Cold” (objective)
“Ugh… I don’t trust someone who’s not like me… *But*”
But this ‘but’ is a ‘but’ of a different color. This is the but that knows you don’t want to be President, or have anyone like you be President because you know you’re too ‘passionate’ or ‘uncertain’ or ‘can’t play ball’. But that’s another ‘but’ altogether.
So you know who you want to vote for, but you know who you should (are supposed to) vote for.
And make no mistake… the MSM has told many of us who that will be. And what will be will be.
No ‘buts’ about it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
