Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 192 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

You Just Didn’t Hope Enough

Once you choose hope, anything's possible Christopher Reeve

That sure is a lovely, comforting yellow flower. That sure is a lovely, comforting notion.

And yet, despite the considerable hope Christopher Reeve communicated, over and over, it wasn’t possible, was it? It didn’t happen, did it? He never walked. He’s dead.

The message behind the faux-serenity yellow-flower making its way across social media is not uplifting. It’s a denigrating message: if with hope anything is possible, then if what you hope for doesn’t happen, then it’s your fault, you worm, because you just didn’t hope enough.

8 comments to You Just Didn’t Hope Enough

  • henry gibson

    It’s a denegrating message:

    Or, perhaps you just don’t know how to use spell check.

    • Jim Cook

      I don’t typically use spell checkers, actually. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that denigrating can be spelled with an “i.”. Thank Zalbub that humanity is blessed with the power of learning.

  • henry gibson

    Isn’t Tony Zalbub the guy who plays “Monk” on TV?

  • Tom

    Just like the situation with climate change. Everyone hopes the effects don’t get them, but when they do . . . .

  • Tom

    Or we could apply this hopium to government, which we all thought was OF, BY, and FOR the citizenry.
    (As Dom Deluise said in Blazing Saddles)

    WRONG!!

    http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/fascism.html

    Saturday, 8 February 2014
    Fascism

    Op-Ed: Why Scalia’s remarks on U.S. internment camps should terrify you

    Honolulu – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told law students in Hawaii that they should expect the court to issue a ruling similar to the one that allowed U.S. citizens of Japanese descent to be interned without trial during a future conflict.

    Justice Scalia quoted Marcus Tullius Cicero when he said that laws are silent in times of war (inter arma silent leges). Scalia was asked by a law student his thoughts on the Korematsu v. United States case, in which two men were convicted of refusing to comply with an order to report to a prison camp even though the men had committed no crime. Scalia said the court was wrong for upholding the convictions, however he followed with:

    But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.

    This statement should strike every single American with fear for two reasons. First, the longest-serving Justice on the Supreme Court has openly stated that the court does not adhere to the Constitution of the United States, but rather allows laws to wither in times of war. The highest court in the land will gladly send you to a prison camp out of fear, knowing that it is wrong.During World War II, when Japanese internment was taking place, it was easy to determine who the probable enemy was. Today, the United States no longer fights conventional wars where the enemy is a single nationality. Instead the U.S. declares wars on concepts such as the “War on Terrorism.” The reason this is troubling, is that it allows the government to define probable enemies in any way it chooses and incarcerate them without trial for the purposes of national security.

    Who is already considered a potential terrorist according to government documents?

    There are dozens of documents put out by government agencies that already establish the signs of suspected terrorists. What can be used to classify an American as a potential terrorist will surprise most.

    In 2011, an unclassified Tactical Reference Guide on violent extremism was released. As signals of potential violent extremism, it cautioned about someone who:

    •complains about bias
    •believes in government conspiracies to point of paranoia
    •is frustrated with mainstream ideologies
    •lacks positive identity with country, unit, family, or friends
    •is sympathetic to radical groups
    •visits extremist websites or blogs
    •attends rallies for extremist causes
    •associates with known radicals

    The guide lists many other indicators. The most disturbing factor in all of the reasons one might become a suspected extremist, is that they are all terrifyingly vague. The Tea Party and evangelical Christians have been labeled extremists, as have supporters of Ron Paul.

    Another point that should be noted in detail is that all of these actions are legal, and in some cases protected by the United States Constitution; though Scalia did make it clear that the Constitution was no hindrance to government action. They all relate to what a person thinks, rather than any illegal activity they may or may not be involved in. It seems very likely that Orwellian thoughtcrime is on its way to the United States.

    The all-encompassing terminology and vague statutes make any American that disagrees with the government a potential terrorist.

    Justice Scalia may have not been advocating this action with his words in Hawaii. In all likelihood, he was trying to
    slip a warning out to the American people. In 2004, Scalia used the same Cicero quote when he slammed a decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which allowed the detention of an U.S. citizen without charge. At the time, he said

    Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.

    His 2004 statement pierces straight to the heart of the argument for America’s erosion of rights in the name of national security. A free nation cannot remain free when it allows itself to destroy the very freedoms the society treasures. It is past time for the American people to stop waiving their rights every time a politician waves a flag.

  • Tom

    Oh, and don’t forget – there’s no such thing as chemtrails – they’d never do that!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlDHWawuFo#t=162
    CBS News: Declassified Documents Reveal Chemtrails Are Real

    • Bill

      While the St. Louis incident is an old story, Tom, I’ll agree with you that it’s quite dreadful, too. Where we would have to part ways, though, is with regard to what the heck this has to do with ‘chemtrails’ in the 21st century. To the best of my knowledge, no reasonable skeptic’s argument has ever been “they’d never do that!” Our argument is “you have concocted an intricate conspiracy theory that is based on zero evidence, and the stuff you claim is evidence for your ranting (“look, a picture of spray tanks in a plane that I found on the web!” or “contrails never lasted that long when we were kids,” or “somebody assayed some aluminum in some water!”) is embarrassingly clueless.

Leave a Reply