Open Thread 1-19-17: Insanity the Day Before...It!
We've seen the amusing Twilight Zone comparisons. You know...the photo of Rod Serling standing in front of a dismal, glowering Trump who's sitting in the Oval Office. Or that Scottish preview of the inauguration. What? You haven't read that? Wait a sec...
After a long absence, The Twilight Zone returns with one of the most ambitious, expensive and controversial productions in broadcast history. Sci-fi writers have dabbled often with alternative history stories - among the most common is the "What If The Nazis Had Won The Second World War" setting - but this huge interactive virtual reality project, which will unfold on TV, in the press, and on Twitter over the next four years, sets out to build an ongoing alternative present.
The story begins in a nightmarish version of 2017 in which huge sections of the US electorate have somehow been duped into voting to make Donald Trump president. It sounds far-fetched, and it is, but as it goes on it becomes more and more chillingly plausible. Today's feature-length opener concentrates on the gaudy inauguration of President Trump, and the stirrings of protest and despair surrounding the ceremony, while pundits speculate gravely on what lies ahead. It's a flawed piece, but a disturbing glimpse of the horrors we could stumble into, if we're not careful.
ho ho ho, that's hilarious. I think there could also have been a Twilight Zone built around Hillary Clinton if she'd won. It'd be different, maybe subtler. Anyway, I've been thinking that our entire existence is like science fiction now. There were stories back in the 60s and 70s about how political types would put hallucinogens in the air to make the population docile or angry or whatever. I bet the Army thought it was possible. But sci-fi writers liked how ridiculous it would be, so they used it for stories.
And now here we are. I think there must be something in that air. We've gone crazy. I'd say 95% of the country is totally insane. Not you, of course...or maybe you, too. And when I say "you" I mean me as well. But for sure, 95%, maybe a higher number, is whacko. When the two worst candidates ever get 95% of the vote then the voters have to be nuts. I was discussing this on my football chat group, how there are instigators on both "sides" who do nothing but stir up outrage and hatred, so much so that normal people will end up believing the stuff and think "yes, I'm voting for this terrible candidate AND convincing myself that this terrible candidate is great!"
Now we've got some protests coming up against Trump and, jeepers, they seem to be pro-Hillary too. What, you might ask, does protesting Trump have to do with still pushing Hillary? There's something hinky ["Something as yet undefinable is wrong, out of place; not quite right" - Urban Dictionary] about this Woman's March on Portland. I normally hate our local centrist weekly, the Willamette Week, but there was something of interest in the issue that just came out. This March is scheduled for Saturday.
Activists complained the event's original organizer, who lives in Eastern Oregon, refused to give a platform to minorities, immigrants and trans people.
(That organizer, who asked not to be named because she fears being targeted by anti-government militias, declined to discuss those specific claims. "It's really sad that we have to be fighting these same battles again and again," she says. "The real reason that Hillary did not win is, she's a woman.")
There's more here:
I'm really uncomfortable with some sort of protest against Trump that keeps the Hillary zombie alive. Meanwhile we have all of these rumors, no doubt pushed by the Clinton circle, that she could win a race for New York City Mayor. I doubt it. But CBS News has this headline:
Hillary Clinton would dominate a hypothetical race for mayor of New York City against incumbent Mayor Bill de Blasio if she were to run as an independent, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday.
The poll found that 49 percent would back Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, while only 29 percent would support de Blasio, a Democrat
She'd be inevitable! Like how she had the 2008 nomination sewn up in October 2007. Or how she was 40 points ahead of Bernie, or 13 points ahead of Trump. But this is science fiction time where everyone is deranged. Now she can return and all her fans can, one more time, talk about how wonderful she is.
So, to sum up (have I said anything yet?) we have people divided into two camps. Each side is completely bonkers, believing the other side is all that's wrong with the world. Thus they perpetuate this acceptance of the worst, the Clintons, Trump, Pence, Kerry, Lieberman, the Bushes. And they just can't let go long enough to look directly at what's in front of them.
How long will the Hillary delusion last? I'm thinking six months before my friends stop saying she was a great candidate. They'll still be nuts, though, just saying some other crazy #$%&.
You know what's coming, right? Here you go!
and this one...
and so on...