There is a fear that dares not speak its name in the the bosom of some of my confreres.  It comes out in little ways, like facial ticks and high-pitched laughter whenever President Obama's approval rating is mentioned, or any time "hope" and "change" are used in the same sentence.  Like the Herbert Lom character in the Pink Panther movies, my friends are vulnerable to the quiet dread that comes with knowing not only that you are the only person in the room who gets what a fool Clouseau is, but you may be the only person who gets that for a long time.

(Note:  To the extent that people are reading this at all, it might be inferred by some that I am implying that President Obama is something less than the walking cerebral cortex he has been portrayed to be.  Notwithstanding his tendency to blue-screen every time his teleprompter fails, I am suggesting no such thing.  Foolishness, popular misconception aside, has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with pride.  That's what makes comedies comic and, unfortunately, tragedies tragic.)

The latest manifestation is the possibility that the much anticipated groundswell in 2010--the one that will decimate the Democratic Congress and leave President Obama peering down from his lonely tower like Saruman--might not materialize.  On its face, there isn't a whole lot to recommend optimism there:  the Republicans are firing all their guns at once, mostly at each other,  the Democrats are taking over everything that isn't nailed down (until of course they get around to nationalizing nails) and the mainstream media is pretty much perpetually torn between trying to prove that Obama invented penicillin and Rush Limbaugh invented syphilis.  Against this backdrop, the reactions of the American people--if polls and the aforementioned MSM are to be believed--run the gamut from "woo-hoo" to "I can't believe the other guy didn't win American Idol".

Against such things one wants to offer a ray of hope.  At the same time one does not want to sound crazy-desperate like whatshisname in the fuhrer-bunker, commanding armies that no longer existed to fend off hoards of Russians who very much did.

That said, I still think my friends overlook an obvious point. 

It's all about me.

Okay, not me exactly.  I don't work alone, and besides there are enough self-proclaimed Messiah's setting up shop as it is without my adding to the congestion.

It's all about me, as a sort of unofficial and imperfect poster-child for the kinds of people who are now getting into this game.

Like many of my ilk, I coasted into middle age with no particular involvement in politics.  I have been blessed with interesting and profitable work, a family of whom I am entirely unworthy, and all sorts of diverting activities and hobbies.  (If this sounds like a segue into " ... and I enjoy long walks on the beach,"  take heart, I am moving on.)  On the odd occasion news of some obvious injustice has crossed my transom, I have always reserved the right to grumble about it, then vaguely assume that someone in government, the loyal opposition or the media would get around to fixing it eventually. 

Accordingly, in default mode, I don't do protests, especially in the middle of a work-week, or phone, write or otherwise harass my elected representatives.  I don't spend hours blogging and developing social networks, and I certainly don't eschew my must-read copy of "Mastering Data Warehouse Aggregates" so I can dig into "American Progressivism." 

The thing is, I am now doing all these things and more, and inasmuch as I am demonstrably not alone, this may represent more of a problem than the Masters of the Universe would like to acknowledge. 

My personal, and admittedly unscientific, opinion is there is a growing body of people just like me who have gone through or are about the go through, a similar epiphany.  They are smart, accomplished and come with a work-ethic already installed.  What they don't know about history, government, strategy and tactics they are learning very quickly.  The Tea Parties were basically a shakedown cruise; we got some things right, we got some things wrong, but everybody took notes.

I don't honestly know how 2009 is going to work out, much less 2010.  I do know that for many of us the toughest step, that creaky sort of lurch out of inertia, has already been taken. 

The message of the Tea Parties, completely lost on the mainstream media, is that the couch potatoes have left the couch.  And you will be truly astounded where they start popping up.

There is a famous scene in "A Guide for the Married Man" in which Joey Bishop, caught in bed with another woman by his wife, gets up, gets dressed, straightens up the room, and sends the other woman on her way--all the while responding to his wife's escalating outrage with protestations of "What bed? What girl?"  Once the last of the evidence has been removed, the wife's umbrage dissolves into bewilderment and Joey lives to (um) do whatever, another day.

This illustration, while hardly a teaching moment in morality, is nonetheless a perfect analog for the political/social climate in which we find ourselves.  We are repeatedly told words and actions don't mean what we clearly know them to mean, while the deniers play for time with an audience not exactly renowned for its long attention span. 

A current case in point of course is Sonia Sotomayor.  Much has been made of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and others have labeled certain of her remarks racist.  The remarks in question, delivered at University of California, Berkeley in 2001 were as follows:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." 

If we define racism as the ascription of superiority of one race over another, by what objective standard does the foregoing quote not apply?  If, as some have suggested, this was taken out of context, what possible context (apart from "I don't agree with my Aunt Matilda who once said ... " or "ha ha kidding, got you there didn't I") would materially change the meaning?

It is similarly considered almost gauche in some circles (including moderate Republicans) to describe President Obama or any of his minions as socialist in any way.  Again, the proper question (in the spirit of "if it walks like a duck...") is what is the term commonly understood to mean and does it apply?  Merriam-Webster defines it as:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Let's see:  de facto nationalization of the auto industry, impending takeovers of the banking and energy industries (the latter through Cap and Trade), universal health care on the order paper ... seems to me you could make the case.  It is, in fact, ridiculous to even debate this.  In terms of where Obama and the Congress are taking this country, "socialism" is probably a mile-marker in the rear view mirror.

It is pointless, and often disingenuous, to reject the use of any descriptor on the basis that it might be misunderstood, or might be offensive or inflammatory, or might deflect debate from the core issues.  If the descriptors are valid and true, they are valid and true (and typically at least part of the core issue).  If they are not, let's hear the arguments.

Just stop telling me there is no girl and no bed.  Like many others, I am showing up with a camera and a private eye these days.