He wasn’t supposed to be right. He was supposed to be a comedic entertainer.
But he was right. While many folks like to illustrate parallels between the modern era and George Orwell’s dystopian future, maybe it was Aldous Huxley whom we should’ve been worrying about all along, considering how true Carlin’s recent observation seems to be panning out: our silence and complacency has been bought with toys and games.
I’m no history professor. But it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in history to know that America’s supposed to be the shining example of freedom, liberty and the rule of law to the rest of the world. We’re supposed to show that world that a constitutional republic can work, and just how awesome it is when freedom reigns sans prejudice; whence all men are created equal, to practice their beliefs — whatever they may be, and pursue their own happiness.
We’re supposed to be the good guys here, held up by pretty lofty standards, is what I’m saying.
Having said that, how then, can it make any logical sense, that we must, then, destroy our freedoms and liberties in order to protect our freedoms and liberties from being destroyed? Once all threats to our way of life have been neutralized, by any means necessary (I’m looking at you, NDAA), what, then will be left to protect?
This isn’t just hyperbole or rhetoric. I really, like, want an answer to this.
Consider the following, and then consider how you would feel if…
- A fireman told you that your house must first burn down in order to keep it safe from burning down in the first place
- A policeman told you that in order to keep from getting robbed, you simply have to get incrementally robbed first
- A banker tells you that in order to save your money, you must first spend it until it is gone
- A mechanic tells you that if you don’t want your car to run out of gas, you just have to run out of gas a little bit at a time until you’re out of gas
- A steward of your rights tells you that in order to preserve your rights, you must first relinquish them
I don’t care how crude, crass or simplistic these are to the Ivy League trained pedant. The working, voting public does not have the luxury to laze about like ancient Greeks and navel-gaze about the minutiae found in books heavier than lead bricks. So, with the exception to #5, I imagine that these examples would be tolerated by, um, well, exactly zero people. No standing citizen of these Unites States of America would tolerate the systematic and deliberate erosion of the very pillars to what makes America, America.
Unless, of course, Carlin was right.
For the only alternative I can see in my feeble, uneducated, small mind, apart from the Carlin hypothesis, is the deliberate nomination of ineffective candidates to deter a voting public from participating in the democratic process. After all, I have heard it said that if voting mattered, it wouldn’t be allowed. I’m really beginning to wonder.
I fear that our descendants will look back upon our era and regard George Carlin and Mike Judge as prophets, not jokers.