Veggies Fill Bill
He used to be an unapologetic steak man,
And he’d eat anything that came from a fry pan.
But these days Bill Clinton
I watching what he’s eatin,’
Ever since he turned into a vegan.
He used to be an unapologetic steak man,
And he’d eat anything that came from a fry pan.
But these days Bill Clinton
I watching what he’s eatin,’
Ever since he turned into a vegan.
In her Los Angeles Times column on Thursday, Meghan Daum made note of the rise references in political commentary to the movie “Idiocracy,” a 2006 burp-and-fart, sci-fi political comedy set 500 years in the future, written and directed by Mike Judge, the creator of the animated series “Beavis and Butthead” and “King of the Hill”:
References to the film seem to be everywhere, and not just in op-eds penned by cranky columnists (I mentioned it in a column last year about public spaces being sold as advertising space). The latest issue of the Economist has an article about the business-sabotaging effects of the battles in Washington, headlined “American Idiocracy.”
A recent blog post on the Psychology Today website was headlined “Idiocracy: Can We Reverse It?” Meanwhile, it’s popping up in causal conversations, Internet comments and, most notably, on Twitter, where it often appears as a hashtagged topic…
Daum suggests that the movie has been given a second life — it bombed at the box office — because are behaving like idiots. She cites the sexual antics of Arnold Schwarzenegger on the right and Anthony Weiner on left, as well as “a Congress that gets the nation’s credit rating lowered thanks to toddler-like stubbornness over an issue that many of its members barely seem to grasp?”
Daum’s hope is that interest in “Idiocracy” and the shock of recognition of that society is being driven toward the future it predicts will give pause to partisans on both sides and bring them to their senses.
“Maybe it’s naive,” she writes, “to think that ideological opponents can be brought together by a common fear of mass stupidity: Call it idiocraphobia.”
But, see, the problem here is not naivete. The problem with this analysis is a reflexive reliance among media types on the equivalency meme: both sides are equally guilty, equally bad. A pox on both your houses.