Thursday, November 01, 2007

When politics and UFOs collide:



This sad excuse of a "debate," in which Kucinich is essentially asked to apologize for seeing an object in the sky he didn't understand, typifies the mainstream response to a phenomenon that, by all counts, qualifies as a genuine scientific enigma. (For his part, Obama diverts attention from the subject at hand with consummate finesse, his condescension greeted by applause.)

It's not just UFOs, of course -- it's anything that doesn't jibe with the rhetoric of the political "here and now." I remember a near-identical exchange between Gore and another Democratic contender when the subject of Mars exploration was broached; both presidential hopefuls took pains to evade the topic entirely, with Gore smugly emphasizing the need for a "mission to planet Earth."

We can do better than this. We can explore the unknown and cure our social ailments. American politics fail -- at least for me -- because of the dutifully tended schism between idealism and talking-point banality.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

9 comments:

Paul Kimball said...

Mac:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2007/11/kucinich-ufos-and-media.html

Paul

2:36 AM
Anonymous said...

Exactly Mac. And the topic does spill over into the American psyche concerning regular space exploration as well. The MSM is very complicit in spreading the meme also.

America has willingly given the high ground of space exploration over to the Asians. It is truly sad to behold.

7:21 AM
Dustin said...

There's no way for politicians to get at the subject, unfortunately. Kucinich did his best, but what's he going to say?

Much of the reason why we can't have "real" debates and we have to stick to this phony BS is the two party system, but that's a different discussion.

2:12 PM
e said...

What a joy – Fortean McCarthyism.
Are you now, or have you ever been, the perceiver of an anomalous flying object, a Blessed Virgin Mary, a Devil in New Jersey, a wild Kangaroo in Ohio, Spook Lights over Lake Erie or a stunning blond with impossibly long legs standing alone in an elevator whilst holding the door open for you?
Answer the questions, Mr. Kucinich!

6:02 PM
Anonymous said...

yep, even admnitting you have seen something unidentified in the air is the latest "kook" litmus test, unless of course the politician who said it belongs to your favorite political party, then its "ok" I guess.

6:23 PM
Anonymous said...

"This sad excuse of a "debate," in which Kucinich is essentially asked to apologize for seeing an object in the sky he didn't understand, typifies the mainstream response to a phenomenon that, by all counts, qualifies as a genuine scientific enigma."

I agree. In typical mainstream media fashion, the question was asked simply to embarass Kucinich. No one was interested in the truth of his UFO experience. They only wanted a convenient excuse to label him a "crazy" and move. Dennis really should just have sidestepped the question and completely avoided the issue the way shrewd pols unfortunately have to do in this arena of the politics of the lowest common denominator. I think the fact that Kucinich is TOO honest about this kind of thing probably reflects his lack of success as a national politician.

--W.M. Bear

11:07 PM
e said...

Well, a day after I mentioned the new McCarthyism, the same reference is made in the media:

courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-harris1102.artnov02,0,333717.story

Courant.com
Kucinich And The UFO
November 2, 2007

I have never seen a UFO.

But if I did, I'd think twice about telling anyone.

I'm sure there are millions of Americans who'd think twice too after watching Tuesday's Democratic debate in which moderator Tim Russert launched the equivalent of a space probe into the mind of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. He asked Kucinich about his reported experience with a UFO.

It was an out-of-this-world question dripping with levity to the point that if the representative had even a moon shot of a chance at the nomination, it was certainly zapped by the ray gun-like effect of Russert's question. It was said tongue in cheek. Like a joke said to a mentally challenged one.

Who can take Kucinich seriously now that he has acknowledged seeing a UFO?

As I watched Kucinich with that strange smirk on his face - which didn't help his cause - I couldn't help but think about Sen. Thomas Eagleton, who in 1972 had to withdraw his nomination for vice president on George McGovern's ticket. Eagleton stepped down after he acknowledged undergoing psychiatric treatments, which raised questions about his mental stability.

Once your mental stability has been questioned, it's all over in terms of the White House. Considering the power that comes with the presidency, one can certainly understand the need for presidents and vice presidents to be mentally sound.

But does reporting the sighting of a UFO mean one is unstable? Does it mean those millions of people who have said they've seen a UFO should be subjected to ridicule? If so, then there is a danger that awaits us all on many levels.

Danger Level 1: Russertism. This is the effect that occurs when a powerful journalist singles out those who have seen UFOs for questioning. If you thought McCarthyism was tough ...

Danger Level 2: Being Kucinichized. This is the chilling effect upon those who witnessed the representative being handled cavalierly with regard to his experiencing a UFO. The fear of being Kucinichized will not only discourage free speech but the expression of truth from those who may have seen something.

Danger Level 3: Being labeled a UFOist. Worse than communists in the '50s, these are those who have purported to have seen UFOs or associate with those who have seen UFOs.

The last one has me worried because I was in New Mexico last week and, although I didn't go to Roswell (famous for UFOs), I was maybe 200 miles away - in the vicinity. Under Russertism, anyone associated with a person who saw a UFO or traveled within a state with reported ties to a UFO will be labeled a UFOist.

For the record, I was in New Mexico at a teachers conference. But as we know how rumors and innuendos go, it won't be long before there will be a probe into my past that will reveal the shocking story I told my little sister when we were kids.

Me: You know that spot out in the woods where the ground is flat and round and a different color?

Little sister: Yeah.

Me: That's where a flying saucer landed.

Little sister: For real?

I was just kidding. It was just a joke. I told her so then because I didn't want her telling all her little friends and having their parents coming after me. But that was a little danger compared with the big danger over the nature of Russert's question to Kucinich at Tuesday's debate.

Laugh if you want, but the big danger of Russertism is that it opens the universal door for the day when legions of aliens are massing to come rushing in from the galactic borders. The problem is anyone who knows they are there will be afraid to say anything.

Sure. Radar can spot the UFOs coming before they get here. But who now wants to risk their career and reputation by announcing the arrival of UFOs?

And as for those standing guard in the backyards with flashlights in hand who see ET himself waddling over asking for a piece of candy, you're better off just turning off the light and keeping your mouth shut.

Of course, when we are overrun by the ETs and legions of intergalactic aliens who have swept the planet and made it theirs, it will be Kucinich who will have the last laugh.

Yes, Kucinich will not only be America's new president but Earth's new world leader selected by a thankful and powerful new fourth party known as the UFOs.

Thanks, Timmy.

Frank Harris III is chairman of the journalism department at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven. His column appears every other Friday. He can be reached at harrisf1@southernct.edu.

Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant

6:07 AM
Dustin said...

In typical mainstream media fashion, the question was asked simply to embarass Kucinich. No one was interested in the truth of his UFO experience. They only wanted a convenient excuse to label him a "crazy" and move. Dennis really should just have sidestepped the question and completely avoided the issue the way shrewd pols unfortunately have to do in this arena of the politics of the lowest common denominator. I think the fact that Kucinich is TOO honest about this kind of thing probably reflects his lack of success as a national politician.

Couldn't agree more, and there's no way I could have said it better. It's sad that being too honest is a detriment in today's political climate, but without a doubt it is. Kucinich will never be President, not because he's a bad person, or isn't qualified, but because he's too honest and decent. Sad, isn't it?

3:14 PM
Anonymous said...

Despite Russert's disingenuous manner in asking the question, it was based on prior news reports reviewing Shirley Maclaine's new book and her recall of the incident that involved Kucinich.

While Kucinich replied to Russert that he had seen a ufo, and then further defined the obvious, that what he observed was unidentified, as opposed to the common "cultural" error created by the military and intelligence communities in the early 1950's (see: the Robertson Panel report), that ufo means alien spacecraft, and thus, due to that being unlikely, deserves dismissal and ridicule, which is not real logical thinking, note also that Kucinich _began_ to say that the other things Maclaine wrote about, that it was an extremely moving encounter, felt a connection to his heart, and heard directions in his mind [!] were NOT true. He has said [?] it was a dark trianglular object that was silent and hovering (according to Maclaine, at least) but as for Kucinich himself, who joked he was moving his campaign offices to Roswell and Exeter, New Hampshire (which does show some knowledge, in the Exeter mention, of some knowledge of ufo history),
I would have to say basing a "serious question" to Kucinich on what Shirley Maclaine recalls of the incident at her home and particularly her characterization of Kucinich's emotional or psychological reaction to his sighting begs certain questions, such as why Russert would use her interpretation as the basis for his question to Kucinich, rather than a more direct, straight-forward question which would have been far more honest--Russert meant to demean and pigeonhole Kucinich just based on the phraseology and source of his question.

He's the one who should be ashamed, but of course, in his MSM arrogance, he'd never admit or acknowledge that, even if it occurred to him to consider it.

Kucinich could and should have reframed and characterized his sighting with more detail and direct clarity as to his actual impression and reaction, which would have gone a long way to not falling for Russert's setup and frame of reference to Maclaine, who has written and believes, IMHO, some rather esoteric and questionable new age myths without sufficient discrimination and logic. Kucinich began to, but did not complete his statement before, I guess, trying to make a bit of a flat joke. Watch the video to see what I mean. I'd also like to know where Russert's quick comment that 14% of the US population has seen a ufo came from.

Roughly 45 to 50% of the US population thinks there is some reality to UFO's, depending on which polls and when and how the question was asked seem to show, and an even higher percentage thinks the US government is witholding data about what it knows about UFO's, both of which are more relevant statistics than how many may think they have seen one.

Kucinich should have mentioned Reagan's sighting(s) also, as potentially relevant, but then part of the setup was that this question was asked during the 30-second limit "lightning round" for responses. Russert's own personal views and agendas colored his efficacy and objectivity as a moderator in this case. And not for the first or last time, either.

And again, the acronym UFO only should mean what it says, that some unidentified object, or an anomalous light, etc., was seen, not UFO ='s alien spaceship, which is another demeaning, sub-rosa element behind Russert's question, source, and intent in asking, whether he was conscious of it or not. He could have been "MSM oblivious," to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Feh on Russert, that all too slick, smarmy asshole. Disinfotainment at it's best.

1:18 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)