Well, so how's this relaxed relaxed blog schedule working out for you? It's working out too good for me because now I've got the excuse for mental indolence that says: what are you worried about? You told everybody you were cutting back on the pace of your blog entries, and that's exactly what you're doing. But, comes the rejoinder from the angel on the other shoulder, you said you would be writing every three or four days, or something close to that, maybe even three or four times a week. You see, says the devil from the initial shoulder, you can't even remember what it was you said, so how can it be important?
Of course, in the larger scheme of things, it's not important at all. But then "the larger scheme of things" is itself a nebulous and slippery concept. Does it apply personally? Just to me? Or is it considerably larger, encompassing the entire country, perhaps? Or even larger than that . . . the entire globe? It matters a great deal how one thinks about "the larger scheme of things." It's pretty difficult, for example, to get concerned about guns or global warming if your larger scheme encompasses only yourself, your friends, your family, your interests. Which is what bothers me about some of the reaction to President Obama's second inaugural address yesterday. You would think the man called for the immediate seizure of all the means of production by the forces of state centralism. Innumerable pundits and assorted other observers (that would be people like me and those who chose to blog even more frequently) have observed that Obama's speech was the "most liberal" he ever gave. Well, let's not go crazy.
What we heard was an elevated defense of the role of government in the progress of the American people. (Maybe that's why it's also called a "progressive" point of view.) What was so "liberal" about what the man said? Well, let me suggest that what's got some people's briefs in a bunch is a couple of things. First, Obama's stout defense of the social programs that constitute the social safety net for this country: social security, medicare, and medicaid. As if these programs were some radical departure from what civilized societies all over the world have enacted. It's difficult to believe, but there are apparently millions of people who stand quite ready to gut these programs and the people for whom they are truly vital be damned (one presumes). As far as I'm concerned, these programs aren't even up for discussion as long as we have a military establishment that spends more than the next 20 or 30 military establishments in the world.
And then he uttered those utterly shocking sentiments about global warming. To the effect that he was going to address the problem despite those who disputed the "overwhelming" opinion of science. One has to wonder what it is going to take before people come to the realization that this problem is real and that we simply cannot mess around with it anymore. I've already read and heard scientists opine that it's already too late for us, that in our folly we've set ourselves on the path to extinction by our refusal to take seriously the warning signs the earth has been giving us for decades. And what the wise among us have been warning about.
So I suppose we're all about to be inundated by a tidal wave of liberalism. Really? Don't make me laugh. Obama is still committed to endless American military interventions abroad; he is going to do nothing about the banking mafia. Exploitative capitalism is still quite safe, thank you.
But how they hate him. And how they hate the idea that they must endure four more years of him. Even though they have nothing to worry about.