HBO’s highly anticipated movie, “Game Change,” finally aired a few weeks ago. A dramatized look at the Republican campaign for President in 2008, it focused on the GOP’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential candidate, and the attempt to make her a “game changer” in the uphill campaign against then Senator Barrack Obama.
Knowing that just the name “Sarah Palin” generates bitter controversy in political circles, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the movie. The one thing I did know, is that the Left would hope it painted her as the blundering, unintelligent soccer mom they saw her to be… woefully inadequate as a national political figure, and scary as someone who might end up being just a heartbeat from the Presidency. The other thing I knew for sure, is that the Right would want her to be portrayed as a charismatic political prodigy who was unfairly defamed and caricatured by not only progressives, but rendered unelectable by a partisan liberal media. The one thing I didn’t know, is in which political direction the movie might tilt.
In truth, I don’t believe either side was fully satisfied with how the Palin story was told. That’s because, at least in my opinion, the presentation seemed reasonably objective in its characterization of the Governor. As such, both sides got only some of what they wanted. For Democrats, the movie made clear that Sarah Palin was a political neophyte, a “not ready for prime time” candidate with a rather shallow understanding of national and world politics. It also made clear, that at that moment in time, she was more a soccer mom holding elected office than a seasoned political figure ready and capable of dealing with the rigors and complexities of running for national office.
On the other hand, the movie portrayed her as having a charismatic connection with the conservative wing of the Republican party unlike anyone since perhaps Ronald Reagan. It showed she had the potential qualities to become a political star, being verbally quick on matters she knew, and believable as a “maverick” who would help shake up the Washington establishment. And while it’s true her unraveling did begin as she interacted with the national media, it was mainly due to her lack of experience and preparation, not intelligence.
That said, I came away with two major thoughts about the movie, “Game Change.” The first was that the Republicans showed great ineptitude in selecting Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential candidate. Had they been more thorough in their vetting of the Governor, they would have seen she was the right choice, but at the wrong time. By acting impulsively and almost in desperation, they not only ended up losing the election, but cut short the political career of one who might have someday shined on the national political stage.
My other impression was sad, but not unexpected. The movie reinforced my strong belief that politics, not prostitution, is still the world’s oldest and dirtiest profession. Campaigns are all about WINNING, and have little if anything to do, with finding political leaders who are the best for this country and the American people. It’s not about a Sarah Palin or any other candidate. Political campaigns do whatever they must to seize power, and they do it by running anyone they think can win those annual popularity contests known as “elections.” Unfortunately, the result for us all , is reflected in that phrase which originated in the early days of computer technology: (In a political sense), “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Recently I learned of a high tech gadget that can duplicate one’s signature as perfectly as if it was hand written. It seems the President was in France on one of his “Emperor’s New Clothes” world visibility jaunts, and unavailable to sign an extension of certain Patriot Act provisions passed while he was gone. So, he simply authorized the bill to be “signed” using the White House autopen.
Costing up to ten thousand dollars, the autopen uses plastic templates of the President’s various signatures, and a mechanical arm that moves a pen which accurately copies his name. This machine signs letters at about the same pace as if he were doing it himself. And it can sign around five hundred signatures per hour, rendering them as accurate as handwritten originals. Some say that the autopen is the second most guarded thing in the White House after the president himself. Duh… I wonder why?
As with all new technology, I would imagine there are negative implications in the fact that nowadays some of the documents “signed” by the president and others of note, are fake. I mean, if you’re hobby is collecting autographs, and you’re unknowingly paying for certain signatures you think to be authentic, you’re getting ripped off. The most dangerous implication is, however, that a machine like the autopen now gives our often “questionable” government another tool to dupe the American public. I’ll let you imagine what that could mean, depending, of course, upon your level of trust in the body politic.
Think of it this way. What mischief could a device like the autopen hatch if a kid had his mother’s signature template and a hate relationship with school? How about if an employee had a perfect way to forge the signature of his boss? What if a person of “weak” character had a few of their rich relative’s blank checks and a way to sign them convincingly? Sounds to me like the autopen might be the “auto” that transports persons of questionable honesty to the “pen.”
As a lover of words, I understand I’m probably oversensitive to the level of bad language one hears these days as humans try to communicate with each other. No, I’m not talking about what might seem obvious… the use of obscene or vulgar vocabulary so common today. I’m not even talking about the new script so much a part of the texting and tweeting scene, you know… that veritable mish-mash of fractured sentences and abbreviated word snippets that still make old-school lexophiles like me cringe.
No, I’m talking about a specific linguistic travesty that desecrates our ears more and more these days. And it’s become so common that most people no longer even flinch when it’s bandied about in everyday conversation. What’s more, it’s been insulated from ridicule by people who push the theory it has “ethnic” roots, thus is culturally valid and off limits to those who might want to label it as a sign of illiteracy. And even teachers have avoided facing it head on, mainly because it’s not on the year-end standardized test, and would constitute a waste of precious “test prep” time trying to correct in their students. Shame on them!
Anyway, this rant was ignited by a “so called” educated young lady’s appearance on a recent television program. Two minutes into the interview, the following sentence came out of her mouth: “It’s something everyone should AX before they apply.” AX??? How in the hell could anyone use this word to replace the verb “ask,” then sit there smugly beaming about her prestigious college education, and the “cream of the crop” sorority in which she held elected office?
I guess it’s a sign of the times. We live in an era where picky issues like incorrect word usage, and the slow degradation of our rich language, in general, seems unimportant in the overall scheme of things. And to make it worse, rather than fight back and rail against such verbal contaminants, the “sell out” choice of most people is to quietly acquiesce, then end up embracing the anomaly as our new truth.
I especially take strong issue with those who say the substitution of “ax” for “ask” is an impossible habit to break. My disagreement stems from the fact that I have actually gotten kids in the classroom to correct this blatant error in their everyday speech. Of course, it wasn’t accomplished by me teaching brilliant lessons on the basic use of the correct English. And it wasn’t snuffed out by me nagging them whenever the word “ax” came out of their mouths in error. It was taught using tongue-in-cheek humor, one of the most effective teaching weapons a good teacher can wield.
For example, if a child came up to me and said, “Can I “ax” you something, Mr. Paisano?” my response might be, “Sure, but you‘re going to have to clean up all the mess after I stop bleeding.” Initially, of course, I’d clarify my comment by reminding him that an “ax” was a sharp, long handled tool meant to chop things down rather than “ask” about them. But from then on, every time the mistake was made I’d come back with a similarly wacky response made up on the spur of the moment.
If I was told that someone “axed” him something, I would look concerned and say, “Are you badly cut? I’d be glad to send you down to the nurse so she can bandage you up.” Or I’d say, “You know, he could get in big trouble bringing a dangerous weapon like that to school.“ With relentless hard headedness, then, I painted the mental picture of an ax being a tool to inflict serious bodily injury, and a word used to describe interaction with a tree, not other human beings.
On the few occasions I was caught off guard and unable to instantly come up with a new “ax” response, I turned to Drama as my teaching tool of choice. The moment the offending word was uttered, I’d slowly back away from the student with a look of terror on my face. And if a chair was nearby, I might even pull it between myself and the student as if needing it for protection. This non-verbal shtick worked just as effectively in getting my linguistic point across. Not only that, it got quite a few laughs from those in the peanut gallery.
Anyway, over time these techniques worked. Students began stopping themselves before “ax” popped out of their mouths and chopped away at my verbal sensibilities for the day. And, with a sheepish smile, they proudly inserted the word “ask” where it belonged in the sentence… a simple correction that made my heart glad. For now there was a good chance that years hence, those students would not be excluded from an important job interview or opportunity for advancement, simply because they sounded uneducated and from the wrong side of the tracks.
It looks like one campaign “theme” in the upcoming election, will be that the wealthy are to blame for every woe and misfortune suffered by the under classes here in America. And the charge will be trumpeted that these rich need to pay “their fair share,” (whatever that means), so the poor can be elevated to a level of economic security to which they are somehow entitled. Only then can the country begin healing from the financial wounds inflicted upon it by those opportunistic capitalists of the evil one percent.
Now, I grew up in a family that was relatively poor…… but only in a financial sense. In truth, we and our neighbors were a proud band of citizens whose motivation to improve our status was evident on a daily basis. And over many years, it happened. Most of us worked our way up to solid Middle Class status, or better… mostly because of our determination to use the talents, abilities, personal attitudes, and work ethics we were taught from childhood.
Interestingly, I don’t remember wasting much time resenting those with more money than myself, or categorizing them as greedy individuals that were bad for the country. Instead, I saw them as a resource for jobs that moved me up the financial ladder. And these “well to do” were not only of practical benefit in an employment sense, but a clear example of how unlimited the possibilities were for someone like me, to achieve upward financial and social mobility.
Now, while I don’t know how this “class warfare” theme will resonate with voters in the 2012 elections, I am certain about my take on the issue. And, whenever there’s someone who can explain my point of view better than I can myself, I share what he or she has opined with anyone who will listen. Obviously, this takes less time away from my always strenuous Senior schedule, and offers a scent of creditability to subject matter that my own style of writing often renders odorless.
So, I introduce to you Dr. Adrian Rogers, an Evangelical minister who was not bashful when it came to mixing politics with religion. And in a 1984 sermon he said the following regarding the destructive nature of class warfare, and the foolishness of using wealth redistribution in order to strengthen a sovereign nation:"Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half's going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea it does no good to work because somebody's going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation."I couldn’t have said it better. And these insightful words from the pulpit (which were later posted in the Congressional Record on January 24, 2009), should constitute a stark warning to the policy makers of this country. To me, it’s more than the ideology of one political party or another. It’s even more than partisan theory that can be backed up with conclusive research that proves it either true or false. To me, it’s just plain common sense.
In my years as a teacher, the issue of how much help to offer children as they learned new things, seems to absolutely parallel the truth of what Dr. Rogers said. There was always a fine line between giving kids the tools and support they needed to solve learning problems on their own, and doing too much for them so that they became dependent on YOU for any progress made. And when the latter occurred, success was usually temporary. For over time, those who knew their teacher would sooner or later give them all the right answers, learned to sit back and wait for that to happen. Uninterested in doing the work needed to become achievers, they became intellectual “takers” who accomplished little on their own unless it was being spoon-fed to them by those who had the knowledge.
It was a classic play-out of that Chinese proverb that says, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” Kids who refused to take responsibility for their learning, were only successful when others helped them think and apply new concepts. Those that embraced how to learn by applying their abilities to new tasks after appropriate teaching and practice, always ended up as the best students.
So, on the basis of common sense alone, I believe that Dr. Rogers was correct. Convincing people that taking from the rich to give to the poor is good fiscal policy, is a cruel hoax that will NOT solve the economic problems this country faces, even temporarily. And while many of our current lawmakers would love to engender political popularity by dressing up as Robin Hood and reenacting his larcenous adventures in Sherwood Forest, it’s obvious by doing so, they’re not smart enough to see the forest for the trees.
HBO’s highly anticipated movie, “Game Change,” finally aired a few weeks ago. A dramatized look at the Republican campaign for President in 2008, it focused on the GOP’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential candidate, and the attempt to make her a “game changer” in the uphill campaign against then Senator Barrack Obama.
