Let’s play a game. It’s called Despicable.
I saw an on-the-street interview during which the reporter asked what people thought of the current president’s reelection bid. Basically, one conversation went thus: “Did you vote for the current President?” Reply: “Yes.” “What do you think about his seeking reelection?”
Pause. Really long pause. Kind of an embarrassed smile. Reporter: “What do you like about the current President.” Reply: “He’s not the last President.”
There isn’t much logic or substance in the answers of many on-the-street interviewees. But that probably occurs on both sides of the political spectrum (I say “both sides” because there doesn’t seem to be any middle nowadays with more polarization than that in a bar magnet). Apparently, the media did such a good job in establishing the alleged despicableness of the last President that any despicableness in the current President is unimportant to his “side.” And apparently, also, no one bothers to look at policy over appearance.
The word despicable derives from the Proto-Indo-European “spek-“ that we see in English words across the alphabet, from aspect to suspicion. It’s a root that fosters a perspective across the spectrum of human nature and the prospect that many of us could profit from a little introspection on why we think the way we do. For example, the prospect of reelecting an 82-year-old who just recently couldn’t remember that he was in Ireland the previous week and who his staff says works from only 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. makes me skeptical that he is in control. Is he merely a conspicuous frontispiece for behind-the-scenes manipulators? His apparent inability to withstand the kind of barrage of shouted questions to which his predecessor was subjected makes me suspect a creeping dementia that encroaches upon an already present lack of perspicacity. You could label me a skeptical auspex with regard to his ability to serve another term as President without the prospect of a further mental decline and the possibility of a further loss of respect for the country in both allies and foes. Am I just being a haruspex who merely expects the inevitable outcome of electing an especially obvious failing brain?
But there’s more to his mental decline that makes me circumspect about his serving another term. There’s the matter of possible corruption, long-term corruption as evidenced by the wealth his family has ostensibly accrued through his political connections. And that makes me suspicious that he might be subject of foreign espionage, not necessarily intentionally on his part, but as a consequence of his family’s relationship with foreign entities, such as Elena Baturina, the Russian billionaire, Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm, EEFC China Energy, and even Novatus Holding, which purchased a $142,300 car with money passed from Rakish to Rosemont Seneca Bohai during the then Vice Pesident Biden’s visit to Kyiv in 2014. Coincidences? All the suspicious business transactions of the President’s son and those of seven other of his family members that I have not mentioned make my head spin like a gyroscope (and yes, that’s another word that’s derived in part from the PIE spek-). Do I espy the potential for espionage, or am I lacking the full scope that his supporters on the street have that I don’t have. It’s possible, of course, that in retrospect America will discover that Biden did not trade favors for cash. But then, it’s also possible that America, even his rabid on-the-street supporters, will see him as a scopophilic lech about whom stories have circulated, such as his daughter’s supposed claim that he showered with her after she had reached the age of reason, his apparent sniffing and embracing women, and his alleged fondling of a Secret Service’s date at the VP’s Christmas party. But then, to the person on the street, “at least he’s not Trump.”
But apparently, again, none of this—the mental decline, the social behavior with women, and the suspicious business dealings—means anything to his supporters. And he even seems to have the respect of the episcopal class. As a Catholic, Biden supports abortion, a position on an act that Catholic bishops have declared to be both despicable and immoral.
In retrospect, I find little in the man’s past that makes his first term an auspicious foreshadowing of any second term. The debacle in Afghanistan, the weakness that seems to have emboldened the country’s enemies, the runaway spending on pet projects of special interest groups, the abandonment of an independent energy status in a country with enormous energy resources, the reliance on “scare science” that says a change in climatic conditions spells doom, and the unwillingness to acknowledge that an open border has led to the deaths of over 100,000 Americans through fentanyl and crime—all this makes me wonder how the person on the street can entertain the prospect of another four years.
There. We’ve just played the Despicable game. Was it as much fun for you as it was for me?
I saw an on-the-street interview during which the reporter asked what people thought of the current president’s reelection bid. Basically, one conversation went thus: “Did you vote for the current President?” Reply: “Yes.” “What do you think about his seeking reelection?”
Pause. Really long pause. Kind of an embarrassed smile. Reporter: “What do you like about the current President.” Reply: “He’s not the last President.”
There isn’t much logic or substance in the answers of many on-the-street interviewees. But that probably occurs on both sides of the political spectrum (I say “both sides” because there doesn’t seem to be any middle nowadays with more polarization than that in a bar magnet). Apparently, the media did such a good job in establishing the alleged despicableness of the last President that any despicableness in the current President is unimportant to his “side.” And apparently, also, no one bothers to look at policy over appearance.
The word despicable derives from the Proto-Indo-European “spek-“ that we see in English words across the alphabet, from aspect to suspicion. It’s a root that fosters a perspective across the spectrum of human nature and the prospect that many of us could profit from a little introspection on why we think the way we do. For example, the prospect of reelecting an 82-year-old who just recently couldn’t remember that he was in Ireland the previous week and who his staff says works from only 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. makes me skeptical that he is in control. Is he merely a conspicuous frontispiece for behind-the-scenes manipulators? His apparent inability to withstand the kind of barrage of shouted questions to which his predecessor was subjected makes me suspect a creeping dementia that encroaches upon an already present lack of perspicacity. You could label me a skeptical auspex with regard to his ability to serve another term as President without the prospect of a further mental decline and the possibility of a further loss of respect for the country in both allies and foes. Am I just being a haruspex who merely expects the inevitable outcome of electing an especially obvious failing brain?
But there’s more to his mental decline that makes me circumspect about his serving another term. There’s the matter of possible corruption, long-term corruption as evidenced by the wealth his family has ostensibly accrued through his political connections. And that makes me suspicious that he might be subject of foreign espionage, not necessarily intentionally on his part, but as a consequence of his family’s relationship with foreign entities, such as Elena Baturina, the Russian billionaire, Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm, EEFC China Energy, and even Novatus Holding, which purchased a $142,300 car with money passed from Rakish to Rosemont Seneca Bohai during the then Vice Pesident Biden’s visit to Kyiv in 2014. Coincidences? All the suspicious business transactions of the President’s son and those of seven other of his family members that I have not mentioned make my head spin like a gyroscope (and yes, that’s another word that’s derived in part from the PIE spek-). Do I espy the potential for espionage, or am I lacking the full scope that his supporters on the street have that I don’t have. It’s possible, of course, that in retrospect America will discover that Biden did not trade favors for cash. But then, it’s also possible that America, even his rabid on-the-street supporters, will see him as a scopophilic lech about whom stories have circulated, such as his daughter’s supposed claim that he showered with her after she had reached the age of reason, his apparent sniffing and embracing women, and his alleged fondling of a Secret Service’s date at the VP’s Christmas party. But then, to the person on the street, “at least he’s not Trump.”
But apparently, again, none of this—the mental decline, the social behavior with women, and the suspicious business dealings—means anything to his supporters. And he even seems to have the respect of the episcopal class. As a Catholic, Biden supports abortion, a position on an act that Catholic bishops have declared to be both despicable and immoral.
In retrospect, I find little in the man’s past that makes his first term an auspicious foreshadowing of any second term. The debacle in Afghanistan, the weakness that seems to have emboldened the country’s enemies, the runaway spending on pet projects of special interest groups, the abandonment of an independent energy status in a country with enormous energy resources, the reliance on “scare science” that says a change in climatic conditions spells doom, and the unwillingness to acknowledge that an open border has led to the deaths of over 100,000 Americans through fentanyl and crime—all this makes me wonder how the person on the street can entertain the prospect of another four years.
There. We’ve just played the Despicable game. Was it as much fun for you as it was for me?
RSS Feed