Someone on Twitter pointed out last night that today there will be Comey’s testimony and UK elections, meaning that Twitter is going to go wild. I need to try and stay away – it is manifestly bad for mental health to try and watch two movies simultaneously. And I don’t mean one about Comey, one about the UK elections. The “two movies” thing is something I’m seeing crop up in a number of tweets, right and left. Not sure if it “originated” with Scott Adams, who’s a Trump supporter, or whether it predates him (I’m sure it clearly does – it’s an obvious metaphor) or whether someone else has been propagating it. It’s apt, at any rate, which may be why it’s being used more.
The “two movies” I mean are about the same topic, not two different topics, and show two completely – but truly utterly – different stories. Yesterday it played out with Comey’s pre-testimony written statement, released to the press. One audience basically believes it gives just cause to file impeachment papers against Trump; the other side is going, “So? There’s nothing incriminating here.” Trump asked for loyalty, Comey reported. One side takes this as evidence – evidence – of treason; the other side says, “business as usual.” I have to admit, despite believing that Trump is dangerous in his policies, I’m not seeing the “This is impeachable” movie. The other side has also lost the plot, but at least they’re not in the studio, manufacturing desperate red herrings.
Now, yesterday was just the pre-testimony stuff. I can’t imagine what Jesuitical and scholastic parsing will go on today, as every utterance and facial twitch and other “body language” gets dissected, while the “intent” of anything Comey says about anything or anyone gets subjected to exegesis and legal “analysis.” Ditto for whatever happens in the UK today. But Britain seems – emphasis on seems – relatively sane compared to the craziness that is the US right now.
When we had the Salem witch hysteria back in the 17th century, the flames of fear and titillation were fanned – and enjoyed – by everyone who had no skin in the game. Amazingly, the insanity died down when Mrs. Hale, the wife of one of the flame-fanning reverends and prosecutors, was herself accused. Suddenly, the Hales had SITG (skin in the game), and, poof!, the bubble deflated. When I hear that either Donald Jr. or Eric (forgot which one – actually, never bothered to ascertain) said something about how the Democrats persecuting Donald Trump weren’t even people (paraphrasing here) – and, I’m a generous person: I assume he meant they’re not individuated, they’re some kind of mob force that’s not quite human – I thought, “Gee, you sound like Marie Antoinette, another person who had no SITG.” Until, that is, she found herself up against Mme. Guillotine.
Somehow, this hysteria is hurting us more than we know (read an article yesterday afternoon, in Common Dreams, which exactly got at this problem, especially as articulated by Nina Turner from Michigan), and the people or the issues which should be the object(s) of investigation, of wrath and of change, etc., are not in focus. The “bad guys” (both sides – I believe Hillary Clinton is literally a cancer) have no SITG and continue to wreak havoc. It is truly astonishing. In its article, Common Dreams linked to another article about how the “seventeen intelligence agencies agreed” shibboleth is absolutely untrue, yet Hillary Clinton gets to repeat it unchallenged and it’s believed as gospel by the faithful – er, I mean, the unhinged.
Why am I writing, wasting time writing, about this stuff? Because it’s more than the usual side shit-show these days. It really is starting to feel like end days or something, with a generalized insanity distracting and occupying our energies. I dislike Trump, but not like these #impeach and #resist nut-jobs do. And I dislike Clinton even more.