Skip to main content

i'm still waiting for when we look back at all that and laugh

"kiss my ass, history!"
when i was in grade eight, we used to have a weekly period in school where we were just supposed to sit and read. if we didn't bring a book with us [i.e., if we were too thick to figure out that we could use the time to read stuff we were assigned but didn't want to bother with during our free time], we were told that we should just put our heads down on our desks and nap. i'm not making that up. it's what we were told to do, a rule obviously invented by someone who had never seen what happens when you close your eyes in a room full of thirteen year-olds.

one week, i decided to use this forty-five minutes of "quiet" time to write something and, since i'd been watching a lot of the station called "cnn", which was new to my house, i decided to make it a political parody, i wrote a little jingle [to be sung to the tune of "she'll be coming round the mountain", which also makes excellent backing music for the poems of miss emily dickenson] about ronald reagan and how he was hell-bent on bringing the world to nuclear destruction. it was kind of funny, for something written by a thirteen year-old and to get some sense of peer affirmation, i slipped it to my best friend to read.

she read it, laughed and got spotted by another bored classmate, who wanted to know what was going on. so then the paper with my protest song got passed to her. and then to another person and another and then people started adding their own verses and then more people wanted to look at it and, well, you can see where this is going. the problem is that once something starts to pique interest, silence goes out the window and i believe that the only purpose of "reading period" was to make us all try our best to shut the hell up for forty-five minutes.

my homeroom teacher, a rather unpleasant character called mr. wilson, who i swear i will punch in the nose if i ever see him again, confiscated the offending document and that was the last i ever saw of it. but for that afternoon, i was a political hero [which was kind of amazing, since i was one of the least popular kids in the school and when i said my "best friend" earlier, i really meant "only friend"]. i had mocked ronald reagan and his tunnel-vision cold war policies and, although some of the kids in my class insisted i was some sort of communist traitor, it made me feel very important to have gotten people talking.

my point- yes, there is one- is that at thirteen, i'd managed to figure out that ronald reagan's politics were extremely divisive and quite likely dangerous. and yet every time i tune into one of the republican presidential debates, each of the candidates talks about ronald reagan the way that most people talk about mother theresa. i've followed campaigns before and, while i know that republicans have always expressed an admiration for reagan, this sort of genuflecting is not something i've seen before. and it raises many questions.

actually, it raises just one question: why?



here's a newsflash for those of you too young to remember: the eighties were fucking horrible. seriously. i don't mean the neon colours and the dancing boy bands and hair metal and the incredibly overdone makeup. i mean politically, the eighties were like something scooped out of the nether regions of kafka's brain pan.

remarkably, not the worst bit

the entire decade was crammed full of stories of the american government propping up the most heinous dictatorships on the planet, brokering shameful arms deals to curry favour with supposedly populist leaders who were clearly unstable and fomenting unrest throughout the world in the name of protecting imperial interests. furthermore, every time you said something like "hey, those guys we're arming to fight off the soviets in afghanistan have some wacky ideas and this deal might come back to bite us in the ass", you were dismissed as a crank, a conspirator, a communist sympathiser. no matter how obvious something was, no matter how egregious the trespass, no matter how clearly flagitious the action, the government would simply shrug and defend itself by saying that it was all in the interests of fighting communism, an enemy which provoked this wrath through a long-standing campaign of doing fuck all except getting blamed for shit. [seriously, these were not well-oiled anti-democratic machines, no matter what horrifying bedtime stories you might have been told.]

it's time to face how bad things really were.

if you were a rational person, the reagan years sucked. so what's with the adulation-fest?

this is someone who severely damaged the world's view of the united states and who mired his country [with the help of his vice president] in some pretty questionable squabbles which, thank you lens of history, have come back to bite the collective american backside in the most shocking of ways. he set in motion many of the fiscal policies which would eventually cripple the middle class. he made public policy of vilifying the poor, which made it easier for people to stomach the idea of cutting off what few resources they had. he was the architect of the failed system of trickle-down economics and the great proponent of the culture of greed [no matter what you might think from that clip of him talking about how the rich should pay their fair share, because it turns out he didn't actually mean it]- this is not something people should back on with such maudlin nostalgia.

the more i think about it, the more i come up with one incontrovertible fact: the man could give a speech. seriously, who doesn't remember the "tear down this wall" bit? he wasn't called "the great communicator" for nothing. the man could sell ice cubes to polar bears, he was that smooth and there's no better testimony to that than the fact that all those people who were making perfectly rational points about the potential problems of arming religious zealots, drug lords and the generally insane were easily dismissed by his tasty, tasty word-cakes.

so in my mind, the math goes something like: people voted for barack obama... barack obama can give good speeches... people like good speeches... ronald reagan gave good speeches... if the gop could reanimate ronald reagan [or, if necessary, find a reasonable facsimilie], people would vote republican in 2012.

sure, you could argue that reagan got stuff done and that he stood up to people in order to get his way. and sure, there are those who wish obama would grow a pair and stop trying to negotiate with a republican party fringe who are in serious need of a time out. but wishing that obama was more like reagan because you wish he was stronger-willed is like saying you want to spend a million dollars on a burnt out crack-house because you like the doorway.

rather than one who can offer the succor of sweet words, what i really long for is someone who could instigate some positive change for once.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

write brain

i was talking to a friend of mine about coffee, specifically about our mutual need for coffee, yesterday and, literally as i was in the middle of a thought, an idea occurred to me that i felt like i had to note. so there i am, scribbling a note to myself that was really just a word salad of related terms, which i later transformed into a weird but more comprehensible note that i could refer to later. [i don't want another beatriz coca situation on my hands.] i feel like this idea isn't a story on its own, but something that i could incorporate into a larger project, which is good, because i have a few of those.

now, of course, i need to sit down and do research on this, because it's become terribly important to me that the details of this weird little idea that i'm planning on incorporating into a larger thing be totally plausible, even though no one but me is ever going to care. i'm increasingly convinced that the goal of every writer is to find someone who will t…

presidenting is hard :: these people are not your friends

hello mr. president! a while back, i promised that i would periodically be giving you some advice on how to do your job, since you seem a little unclear on how everything works. i didn't mean to go so long between missives, but the fact is that i've been busy and you're administration has been in overdrive giving me things to write about. what i've realised is that many of those things are ones i can't help you with: if you or anyone in your immediate circle worked with russians to compromise the 2016 election, that shit is done. robert mueller is going to find that out, because he's the kind of person who looks like the theme from dragnet just automatically starts playing every time he enters a room. so that's your problem. i'm just here to talk to you about what you can do now that you are, by law, the president. because, while chief detective mueller is doing his thing, we all need to live with your decisions. i'm even less happy about that than…

making faces :: women's rites

the magic of the internet, specifically the magic of instagram, recently brought me in contact with rituelle de fille, a new brand [launched in 2014] and completely new to me, although some of their products have apparently received plaudits from the media. their branding reminds me very much of the early years of illamasqua: a well-edited collection of colour products [there are no base or complexion products as of yet, except blush] with an emphasis on including shades that are daring and unexpected. 

i picked up three products, which are offered individually or as a set, as the "fleur sauvage" collection, inspired by "lush overgrowth, the deadly allure of carnivorous plants, and the strange chromatic language whispered between flowers and pollinators". there is no price difference between buying the items separately or individually, it's just a matter of selected partnering [and i believe all three products were launched together in spring 2015]. there are tw…