May 24th, 2008

band-aid tooth

Bojic analysis of Senator Clinton’s words

First, let’s get this out of the way. I had thought, very weakly, that Senator Clinton’s mistaken speech might be resignation material, but this feeling was so weak that I have given up on it. Really I was feeling a bit spiteful; my bad.

Now on to the real subject of this posting.

There are two likely interpretations of Clinton’s words:

1. ‘There is vivid memory of there having been an unresolved contest in June of 1968.’

2. ‘I am waiting in case Obama gets assassinated.’

The interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

My analysis: The existence of interpretation (1) is widely acknowledged, but a defense of Hillary Clinton on grounds that the correct interpretation is (1) doesn’t eliminate her problem. Here we are, US citizens, sitting around biting our fingernails at the thought that Barack Obama, the African-American presidential nominee, might get assassinated, and to keep ourselves from falling into a terrified despair we just ‘don’t go there’. Hillary Clinton’s fundamental problem here is that she ‘went there’, and did so nonchalantly—doesn’t she sit around biting her fingernails like the rest of us? Is she actually hoping Obama gets assassinated, or is it just that she doesn’t worry like the rest of us? How could she ‘go there’?

I believe that Hillary Clinton’s emotional detachment, when speaking about people getting killed, is freaking people out. It had freaked me out already:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."


(brackets in the original). I watched her, and she didn’t say this with feeling. In a way that is good, because the scenario is a fantasy used by Bush-Cheney to justify another war of aggression, and it would be terrible for Hillary Clinton to get worked up about malicious fantasy. On the other hand, how could she ‘go there’ like that, and so blandly? She’s scaring us.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has, since her poor showing in Iowa, consisted mainly of fearmongering, of making people feel insecure and unwell, and they are sick and tired of this candidate, Hillary Clinton, making them, innocent citizens, feel frightened and unwell for her electoral benefit. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants innocent citizens to feel hopeful and capable, and that is the main reason why he will be the next president of the United States and Hillary Clinton will not.
AK autograph

bojic quotation of the day

The present day theories of `meaning' are extremely confused and difficult, ultimately hopeless, and probably harmful to the sanity of the human race. Of late in the United States some members of the progressive education movement have written much on `referents' and `operational' methods, in the abstract, based on verbalism. Let us consider some facts, and how the theories of referents and operational methods fit human evaluations. Here is, for instance, Smith1 who, through family, social, economic, political, etc., conditions has become `insane'. Smith1 finally, in ordinary parlance, kills Smith2. From a human point of view it is a very complex and tragic situation. Let us account for it in terms of referents and operations. The body and the heart of Smith2, the hand of Smith1, the knife, etc., are perfectly good referents. The grabbing of the knife by Smith1 and plunging it in the heart of Smith2, the falling down on the ground by Smith2 and the kicking of his legs are perfectly good operations. However, where is human evaluation? Where is concern with `sanity' and `insanity'? Here we deal with some of the deepest human and social tragedies which, in this case, involve not only the killing of Smith2 by Smith1, but the sick, unhappy, twisted life of Smith1, affecting all his life connections, and with which we must be concerned if we are to be human beings and different from apes.

Alfred Korzybski, 1941