Stop Laughing So Hard: Your Election Doubting Congressman Wants Your "Feedback"

Ta

"Submitted...for your perusal:

A Congressman who proved

receptive to Trumpian claims 

of election fraud in 2020,

wants you to fill out a survey.

"Truly -- a conundrum that

can only exist in the middle ground,

between light and shadow,

between science and superstition...

Only...in...The Twilight Zone."

<i.>

I wouldn't have gotten wind of this item, had a friend of mine in Congressman Bill Huizenga's Fourth District not passed it my way. Huizenga, for those who don't know his name, happens to be among those who signed on -- at least initially, and we'll get to that shortly -- Trump's deranged, yet calculated attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss, and remain in power indefinitely.

Unlike most of his cohorts, though -- specifically, the 147 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, who voted to overturn Joe Biden's victory over Trump -- Huizenga though he could have it both ways. He signed onto an amicus brief filed by Texas's shapeshifting Attorney General, Bill Paxton, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to slap down Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, for making changes to the election process during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But when push came to shove, Huizenga didn't end up actually voting to decertify Biden's election. Not because it was somehow intrinsically seditious, nor based on a questionable premise -- as Trump signaled, in his notorious statement, "Frankly, we won this election" -- but simply because it wouldn't have lifted Trump over the finish line. Since it wouldn't have made any difference, it was best to move on. Call him one of the election ambivalent, perhaps.

Now comes this single-question "survey," which seems like a scam to pad Huizenga's mailing list. You can see the disclaimer buried underneath the lone question he asks, in greatly reduced fine print: "Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from my office."

My friend has never done that, and I wouldn't advise anybody else to do it, either, because if you don't support the so-called survey's premise, what's the point of doing it in the first place? Here's the email that went out:

<ii.>

Huizenga gives away the punchline right in the opening sentence: "President Biden’s failed border policies jeopardize our national security and leave our country vulnerable to serious threats." The premise of the next paragraph, which implicitly links those six million illegals to drugs and terrorism, is not only dubious, it's downright racist.

We all know who Huizenga and his election denying brethren want to protect us from, right? Hint: it isn't the rich white entitled class, whose financial terrorism is proving way more devastating than whatever products the Mexican cartel masters are shipping across the border.

Of course, as the Mexican government has pointed out, numerous times, the gringo who hoovers such products up their schonzzer bears some of the responsibility, too. As a former rock band manager once told me: "It takes two tango. One has to offer it, but one has to be interested." Makes sense to me.

The other purpose seems clearer when -- or if -- your eyes make it to the final paragraph, which puts in a plug for the Secure The Border Act, yet another one of those performative monkeyshines that Huizenga knows full well is DOA in a Democratic-controlled Senate. For a slightly more objective analysis, see the link below, but this paragraph sums up the gist eloquently enough:

"While some elements of the proposed legislation might prove effective and helpful, like additional investments in personnel and technology at ports of entry, the bill’s enforcement-only focus and failure to address lawful pathways is deeply flawed.

"The bill’s overarching focus on physical barriers and deterrence measures — but not increased numbers of asylum officers or immigration judges — presents a vision of the U.S.’s southern border where people fleeing violence and persecution would be quickly removed, without meaningful access to protection.

"Further, by interpreting 'operational control' through the circumscribed definition in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the bill is predicated on an unrealistic standard that the U.S. must prevent all unauthorized crossings along a roughly 2,000-mile border."

Undoubtedly, if Trump slithers back into office, and gets his long-desired American Fourth Reich, he can look forward to making good on those aims...without all those pesky Democrats and "deep state" civil service appointees getting in his way, right?

And if he does, we'll know that Huizenga was among those marching beside him. Elected during the so-called "Tea Party" wave of 2010 certified Huizenga as well to the right of most issues, but his subsequent votes -- such as against Trump's second impeachment, and the establishment of the January 6 investigative commission -- should make it plain where his flag actually flies, so to speak (see link below).

Nevertheless, he says he wants to know what you think. On a certain level, it's a surreal proposition, coming from somebody like this, though on another, it's not as far-fetched as it sounds; the tracking of public opinion is a common feature of many autocracies.

For example, Hitler's propaganda overlord, Josef Goebbels, took regular polls throughout the Nazi era. Not because he cared what Germans thought of the beloved Fuehrer he served so ardently, but to help him work out the government line -- what appeals worked best, which groups to target, and what themes to stress harder, or skip over, depending on his needs of the moment.

Surveys like the one we're discussing fall into what I call the "Rod Serling moment" category, which I consider an event that would trigger a commentary from the late, chain-smoking sci-fi TV host, if we could call him back from the Great Beyond. It's the kind of moment, when people wonder, "What is surrealism," that prompts me to retort: "You're already living in it." --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry, Before
They Build A Detention Center Fit For You)
MLive.com: Michigan GOP Congressman Dispels Election Myths...:
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/michigan-gop-congressman-dispels-election-myths-from-constituents-asking-to-oppose-bidens-win.html

National Immigration Foreign Forum:

Bill Analysis: The Secure The Border Act Of 2023:

https://immigrationforum.org/article/bill-analysis-the-secure-the-border-act-of-2023/

Republican Accountability:

Rep. Bill Huizenga: Democracy Score:
https://accountability.gop/profile/rep-bill-huizenga/

The Roe Bombshell Drops (So Shove It, Civility Cops)

<i.>

Here's a simple test we can all try at home. How do you know when anyone in a leadership position is no longer relevant anymore, has reached their sell-by date, so to speak? Simple. When they stop speaking truth to power, and tell us to do likewise.

I mean Dick Durbin, Illinois's senior US Senator, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose responses to the Supreme Court's recently-dropped bombshell -- the now-infamous draft opinion that Roe v. Wade is dead, because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, meaning, we only have the rights they deign to grant us -- rank among the stupidest and most jaw-dropping.

Pelosi's faux pas came first, during the Aspen Climate Ideas Conference, on May 9, in Miami (the same city where they're starting to openly fret about sea level rise). Asked what it would take to move the Senate on climate legislation, with Republicans ruling out such measures, Madam Pelosi opined:

"Well, we have to defeat them, so let's just try to persuade them. I want the Republican party to take back the party, take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman's right to choose, you cared about the environment. Hey, here I am, Nancy Pelosi, saying this country needs a strong Republican Party, and we do, not a cult, but a strong Republican Party."

When I read this, I rolled my eyes, and sighed aloud: "Nance, not to be mean, but the GOP seems quite robust nationally. Six of the nine Justices essentially carry their water at the Supreme Court. They control 26 state delegations, thanks to varying combinations of gerrymandering, and pushing their voters' darkest, most primal buttons.

"Oh, yeah, and while we're at it, let's not forget that January 6 insurrection thing, for which our Attorney General, Merrick Garland, is spending endless amounts of time prosecuting the little guy who swipes a coat rack from the Senate cloakroom, yet so far, has left Trump and his inner circle of planners -- including the infamous lawyer, John Eastman, and far right Congressmen and women, like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Marjorie Taylor Greene -- blissfully untouched."

This is the same Republican Party that's working overtime to subvert democracy, however and wherever they can -- from running conspiracist-minded candidates to seize control of the electoral machinery, to the increasingly authoritarian bent that states like Florida and Texas are taking, to suppress the vote, or take total control of it, even when the results say otherwise. To put it charitably, they've never looked less persuadable.

Judging by what I'm seeing on the Hill's Twitter thread, the suggestion isn't going down well: "So the guy who said we can't "bully" the Supreme Court to act a certain way is married to the woman who bullied Arizona lawmakers to fabricate a different set of electors and helped organize a mob to bully Congress into not certifying the duly chosen electors? Got it." (Tristan Snell)

Or we might go this response, from MeidasTouch.com: "Republicans are holding major events with Kyle Rittenhouse and Viktor Orban. Spare us the BS that it's the Democrats who have gotten too extreme." Suffice to say, Madam Pelosi's room reading skills have atrophied a tad, now that she's sat on top for so, so, so long. Godfather III-era Michael Corleone would know the feeling well, I'm sure.

<"Scenes From An ACA/Pro-Choice Picket"/

Take I/Photo: The Reckoner>

<ii.>

Yet Pelosi isn't the only senior Democratic leader stuck in some endless 1980s and 1990s-era feedback loop, when the Republicans recruited the Christian Right to help do their bidding, though few talked as openly as they do now, about subverting the wishes of the majority (the 80 million who turned out in 2020 to rid themselves of Trump) to the tyranny of an aggrieved minority (the 74 million who wanted to keep their Dear Leader around). 

Sadly, you can also count Durbin, the party's second-ranking Democrat, among those leaders unable to meet the moment, as he made all too clear, when asked how he viewed the protests that immediately surfaced outside the five most authoritarian-leaning Justices' homes: 

"I think it's reprehensible. Stay away from homes and families of elected officials and members of the court. You can express yourself, exercise your First Amendment, but to go after them at their homes, to do anything of a threatening nature, certainly anything violent, is absolutely reprehensible." 

Once again, I found myself asking: 

“Are you 

f#cking kidding me?”

First, nobody has been violent to any of the five reactionary Justices, judging from the clips I've seen of their activities, anyway. Hell, nobody's even said so much as "Boo!" Considering the unhinged authoritarian bent of the draft opinion, it's not hard to understand why it's freaking people out. As almost every mainstream legal scholar has already noted, the draft opinion comes across as though the Fourteenth Amendment had never happened. 

If Roe can be struck be down, on the basis that no constitutional right to privacy exists, what does that reasoning bode for other rights -- ranging from contraception access, to interracial marriage, gay marriage, and so on -- that were granted on similar grounds? Nothing good, let's put that way.

People have every reason to be alarmed, and honestly, if our chief concern is that Alito, and his equally tawdry, unsavory crew -- Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorusch, Brett Kavanagh, and Clarence Thomas -- aren't able to go about their repressive business blissfully undisturbed, then we've gone a lot farther off the rails than I could ever imagined.

To put it another way, they should have to face their handiwork, starting with those that they're angering. They should have to account for what they're contemplating. They should have to answer for the harm that they're potentially getting ready to inflict on a majority of Americans who have consistently sworn, in poll after poll -- for as long as I can remember, going back 30-odd years or so -- that they don't want Roe overturned.

Honestly, who takes the ethically-challenged likes of Thomas seriously, and his solemn vow that the court won't be "bullied?" Really? I guess the bully privilege only extends to himself and his infamous blonde trophy wife, who worked hand in hand with those scheming to keep Trump in power, the 80 million who wanted him swept out of the White House be damned. Their votes, of course, didn't rank among the "legal votes" that the GOP's senior mummies stoutly vowed to see counted. That didn't matter to them, then or now.

In all fairness, though, I can't blame Thomas for a tad feeling confused, given the dynamic he's seen since his ascension to the court, in 1992 -- the Dick Durbins of the world falling into their role of playing good cop to the GOP's bad cop. It must unsettle Thomas, I'd imagine, to see the hornet's nest that has already stirred in response. But if he didn't see it coming, that makes him even denser than I imagine him. Or how he already imagines himself.

<"Scenes From An ACA/Pro-Choice Picket"/ Take II/Photo: The Squawker>

<iii.>

At any rate, I no longer respect Durbin, nor anyone who talks along the same lines, like Bill Kristol, another card-carrying member of the commentariat who still seems to think it's 1996. Surely, they will see the light, because they'll listen to reason, right? Hence, his own equally stupid. wishy washy advice, dished out via his Twitter account: "Please don't protest at people's homes. Please don't intrude on people attending their houses of worship. Organize politically, be civil civically."

Jon Rosenberg's response strikes me as way more relevant: "No. Fuck this. Go to people's homes. Go to their places of worship. Make them as uncomfortable as they are trying to make you. This is not the time for civility, this is the time for mass resistance and demonstration."

Crudely stated, but well stated. If you prefer a more eloquent version, Arwa Madhawi's commentary in the Guardian (see link below) should suffice, as well, particularly this comment:

"Here’s the thing though: civil rights have never been won by groveling at the feet of people who hate you and saying, ‘Please sir, can I have a few more rights?’ You simply do not owe civility to people who don’t see you as a full citizen. It’s worrying how many people seem to think otherwise."

Of course, this doesn't faze the Civility Cops, as I call the likes of Durbin, Kristol, Pelosi, and others of their ilk, who are mentally trapped in various nostalgic time warps, depending on their ideology or inclination. To hear the mainstreamers tell it, the soccer moms they spend so much time courting put away their bad girl sides -- careful with the bong -- long ago, so why bother telling them, "You can't have it all?" This is the default response of a Democratic Party that's been negotiating against itself for way, way too long. But when you see people clutch their pearls, and tell you that power really might concede without a demand, if you just lobby long and hard enough, that's when you know the world has passed them by.

<"Scenes From An ACA/Pro-Choice Picket"/

Take III/Image: The Squawker>

<iv.>

Yet it's worth recalling these seven words, and writing them in fire, on every so-called Democratic centrist's brain: It...Didn't...Have...To....Be...This...Way. At a certain point, the Democratic Party got used to the idea of Roe serving as a bargaining chip, one it viewed as key to keeping the faithful happy, and in the fold, whenever an election rolled around.

Dangling Roe as an empire building device to raise money and lock in votes seemed a far easier path to take than, say, codifying it into law, beyond the reach of meddling politicians (read: Republicans). Vote for us, and don't forget to donate, the traditional midterm pitches reminded us. Otherwise, women will lose their right to choose.

Democrats largely gave up on codifying Roe after the collapse of a Clinton-era push to do it, in the 1990s. However, it's an oversight they surely could have rectified in 2008, when Obama won the Presidency, and his party enjoyed a virtual supermajority in the Senate (57-41), until the 2010 midterms, when it shrank to 51-47. That's before we get to other major sins, like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg swatting aside suggestions that she step down during that time. Imagine what we might have been spared, if only she hadn't let hubris overtake common sense (see link below). And let's not forget the strategic malpractice of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, the foul-mouthed moron who infamously told a roomful of activists, "I don't give a f#ck about judicial appointments."

We all know who did, and how wonderfully that movie has played out for them. Emanuel's dimwitted outburst is the kind of stupidity that inspires the GOP's bad actors to toast him privately, and chuckle, "It shouldn't be this easy. But it is!" With opponents like this, who needs a fair fight? Not them, of course, since they'll never experience one. And this is what makes the hypocrisy of the Democratic Establishment such a bitter pill to swallow. They'll never have to face the consequences of their choices, or if they do, it won't be for long, given the ages of Durbin (77), or Pelosi (82) and her trusty sidekicks, James Clyburn (81) and Steny Hoyer (82), eternally content to play the malignant Robin to her equally toxic Batman. Their loved ones won't have to worry about getting abortions, nor losing any of the other rights that will presumably tumble to the wayside, like so many wayward dominoes. When in doubt, they'll move to another country, an escape hatch that's always been available to the celebs, and the swells. Those who don't fall into either social category simmer slowly in the pot, like the vast majority of Nazi persecution victims did in 1939.

Honestly, don't sign up for another tour of duty with the Civility Cops. Their indifference and lack of empathy brought us to this pass, so why let the Durbins and Kristols and Pelosis of the world dictate the terms of our fight?

What's the point of trusting them to wield power anymore, when they do so precious little with it, on those rare occasions when they finally wriggle out of the penalty box long enough to claw back some of it? They've had plenty of chances. What have they done with them lately? What have they done for any of us lately? (Cue the sound of crickets chirping.) Right, exactly.

So no, sorry, Uncle Dick, and sorry, Aunt Nancy, forgive me if I don't feel like breaking bread with our potential downpressors. We understand if you aren't up to the fight anymore. Please, go sit down, shut the f#ck up, and let the rest of us get on with it.

Go to the Supreme Court goons' homes, or their gala rubber chicken dinners, and those of their acolytes, whatever event, or unseemly setting that you may run across them, and let them know -- to coin a phrase from "Janie Jones":

"EXACTLY -- HOW -- YOU -- FEEL."

So yeah, as full-on dramatic as that first sign sounds -- by all means, rage, rage, rage against the lying of the right. Because our survival depends on it. And those who have to follow this particular dystopian act will curse us forever, if we get wrong. --The Reckoner

Declare yourself an unsafe building

Suffer the indignation of your world,

To climb the ladders 
you've gotta suss out the snakes

Remember your height 
remember to never look down.

'Cause now you've made your choice
you've gotta take your chance

Find a way out now
you're

Unsafe, unsafe
<The Alarm, "Unsafe Building">

Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry, Before 

They Start Passing Out The Handmaids' Uniforms)

ABC News: Election Experts  Warn Of "Emergency" As Trump-Backed Election Deniers Win Primary Races: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-backed-election-deniers-could-205400544.html BIll Kristol 's Twitter Feed: https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1523288322671788033 Jon Rosenberg's Twitter Thread On Bill Kristol: https://twitter.com/jonrosenberg/status/1523311316089602051 NBC News: Election Deniers Running In 2020...: https://www.yahoo.com/news/election-deniers-trump-won-2020-132726637.htm Politico: "Extraordinarily Self-Centered": As A Roe Reversal Looms, RBG Admirers Wrestle With Her Legacy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/rbg-admirers-wrestle-regret-anger-083000049.html

Reddit: WhitePeopleTwitter: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/ulu58j/this/ The Guardian: Overturning Roe V. Wade Will Destroy Our Civil Rights -- So Don't Ask Us To Be "Civil": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/10/overturning-roe-v-wade-will-destroy-our-civil-rights-so-dont-ask-us-to-be-civil

Conservative Propaganda Gone Weird:: "Brink Of Disaster"/"Tragedy Or Hope" (1972)

Dr. Harden: "Don't worry, son...

if you play your cards right, 

you'll end up 

running the government some day!"

 

<i.>

If you're a dedicated vampire like me, you can find anything to watch, if you try hard enough. A good video and/or audio soundtrack is an absolute must, when you work all night, as I often do. But sometimes, you have to take what you get, which explains how I sat through Brink Of Disaster!, and its sequel, Tragedy Or Hope?, a two-part anti-hippie agitprop epic produced and released by Searcy College, a fundamentalist college in Arkansas, in 1972. I found them during my usual 3:00 a.m. channel surfing, as part of a "Reel America" series on C-SPAN3 (American History TV).

Conservative agitprop has a long history in America, for anyone who cares to trawl through it. Notorious examples include the camp classic, Reefer Madness (1936) and The Terrible Truth (1951), which frets that "the Soviet Union was pushing drugs in America." From those efforts, it's not a big leap to the videos featured on PragerU, right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager's brainchild, like "Do You Understand The Electoral College?", and its immortal tagline, "Pure democracies do not work." Tell me more, Dennis, tell me more...

As low budget projects go, Brink Of Disaster! and Tragedy Or Hope seem a notch lower than most. (I had to make liberal use of my Fill Light function, because the prints I saw looked so muddy and washed out.) Both films take place in a college library, with a skimpy plot to match their equally skimpy budgets, as the lone Internet Movie Database review makes plain: "Johnny, one of the leaders in a gang that is against anything and everything, breaks into the library to study (?) and also to protect the library from the hooligans when they arrive. This already doesn't make sense."

That's putting it mildly, as we'll see, but the filmmakers caught one break. Although American involvement in Vietnam, and the campus protests, sit-ins and strikes that accompanied it, were gradually winding down at this point -- as President  Richard Nixon seemed certain to cruise to a second term -- there was enough unrest going on to pad out both films with stock footage galore, Ed Wood-style.

<"Brink Of Disaster": Opening Montage

AV Geeks: YouTube Screen Grab>

<ii.>

Deep down, I suspect that Ed Wood would have felt perversely proud of Brink Of Disaster!, and not just because he apparently held his own conservative views. As proof, commentators point to Wood's speechwriting work for Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty, for whom he also directed segments of a local talk show that the city's chief executive fronted throughout his tenure (1960-74). (Then again, maybe we're reading too much into the association. Wood, like countless creatives, took quickie gig jobs for money, whether he believed in a project, or didn't.) 

Yorty became remembered (and reviled) for a cranky brand of populism that tilted sharply rightward as his tenure continued. The same harsh critic of busing, feminism and civil rights had no problems with his city's notoriously brutal and creepy police force, and its bareknuckled response to the 1965 Watts riots. Yorty attributed them to "outside agitators" (Communists, in far right-speak). Sounds a lot like that antifa hard-on that Trump and company got during last summer's unrest, doesn't it?

Hence, you get ample footage of campus unrest -- featuring H. Rap Brown and Jerry Rubin, the antifa boogeymen of their era -- contrasted with generous images of every day Americana, from assembly lines, to large farming fields, and clips of people going about their business in classrooms, libraries, and hospitals, presumably designed to give the viewer a warm, fuzzy feeling about the good ol' US of A, of course.

This trope takes a truly racist turn in Tragedy Of Hope, when Dr. Harden snaps back at Johnny's ambivalence about capitalism, by sneering, "What's wrong with this type of materialism? It's the difference between life in the jungle, and life in civilization."  Cut to a stereotypical image of "natives" dancing with oversized shields. All that's missing is the bone in the nose.

From eyeballing that scene, you'd never know that institutions like Makerere University, in Uganda, or the National University of Singapore were already well-established as world-class institutions. Stock they may be, but such images tell you, better than anything else, where the filmmakers were actually coming from.

"Stop this bad historical acting...

right now! Please!"

<iii.>

That said, Brink Of Disaster! boasts some big names, as a quick scan through IMDB reveals. Producer Jerry Fairbanks arguably had the most glittering resume, as his bio suggests (below). He'd started as a cameraman during the silent era, before graduating to more complex assignments, like choreographing the aerial dogfights in Hells' Angels (1930), an early Howard Hughes sound film. Fairbanks became one of the first directors to recognize the promise of television, and is considered the real pioneer of the three-camera setup that became its common production currency.

Although Desi Arnaz and Karl Freund reaped the credit for using the three-camera shoot, as co-producers of I Love Lucy, Arnaz freely acknowledged where he'd gotten his inspiration. (Fairbanks claimed that he didn't bother patenting his idea, because he cared more about helping the fledgling TV industry, than personal credit, or money) He still managed to keep himself busy, mostly with short films, like Letter To Moscow (1959), an industrial flick that slammed the Soviet way of life (and allegedly wound up hand delivered to Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev!).

Director John Florea had overseen hit shows like Sea Hunt, and Mission Impossible, while screenwriter Leo Rosecrans specialized in short films like Anatomy Of An Accident (1961), and such curiosities as Charlie's Haunt (1950) a comedy that features Edgar Bergen's famous wooden companion haunting a small town. As the cliche goes, you couldn't make up this stuff, if you tried.

Ed Nelson -- who plays Dr. Hartman, the professor and mouthpiece for the filmmakers' presumptive views -- is the only "name" actor here. Best known as Dr. Michael Rossi, in "Peyton Place," Nelson amassed nearly 200 credits (see below). Brink Of Disaster marked one of seven appearances for him in 1972 alone, between guest spots in period shows like Night Gallery, Sixth Sense, and Owen Marshall, Counselor At Law.

Gary Crabbe, cast as the imaginatively named John(ny) Smith, wannabe student agitator -- notched just four TV gigs between 1969 and 1974, the bulk of them as an uncredited dancer on The Julie Andrews Hour (1972-73). You can only imagine how his agent pitched this assignment: "Hey, kid, everybody's gotta start somewhere..." It probably sounded better than the alternative: "Fame is a harsh mistress," I guess.

"We could rule the world, 

if we could only find the parts..."

<iv.>

So what happens in these films? Not much, honestly. Brink opens with Johnny bent over a desk at the library, to research a paper he's writing about the heartbeats of turtles (!), but the baseball bat he's carrying suggests that something sinister is afoot. It falls to his Revolutionary War ancestor, Jonathan Smith, to explain that he's returned from the spirit world to see if his descendants really appreciate the country he worked so hard to build.

Jonathan doesn't show up until about the 3:30 mark, as a buttery acoustic jazz bassline burbles in the background. He warns Johnny about seeing a crowd of radicals plotting to burn down the college library, and asks what he plans to do about it. Johnny helpfully explains that he just wants to protect the medical books. As for the rest of the volumes? "That's not my responsibility," he scoffs.

"Now, look, son, " Jonathan scolds. "You can't stand on both sides of the fence at once." He demands that Johnny take a firmer stand against the radicals, saying that he and his spirit world buddies discussed trying to arrest the whole lot of them. "We just don't stomach a bunch of hooligans trying to tear down what we've given our whole lives to build," Jonathan frets.

They yammer on for a few minutes more, in classic turgid '70s style. At one point, as Jonathan rhapsodizes about the role of family and religion ("They kept us straight"). he wonders if finding the right girl might make Johnny feel more contented with his lot.

"I've found dozens of 'em," Johnny leers. "Why keep a cow, when milk's so cheap?" That freewheeling bit of cynicism is among the only authentic elements here, if only because I've heard so many so-called Christians hurl that metaphor in my face, too, when I acknowledged my own live-in relationship. That I'm happily married, decades later, never entered their heads. Then again, it never would, if films like this one were the end result.

<"Tragedy Or Hope"

YouTube Screen Grab:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNCRBqnhE6o&t=9s>

Dr. Harden: "Captain, do you think anybody 

will sit through this piffle more than once?"

Captain Smith: "Aye, mate. They've got to. 

There's nothing else at 3:00 a.m."

<iv.>

Not to worry, though. Three minutes before Brink finally wraps up, one of Johnny's professors, Dr. Harden, arrives to give him the philosophical beatdown he deserves. He telegraphs that intent by scoffing at SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) as "Students for a dirtier society." It's an odd jibe to hurl, since SDS's influence had waned drastically, after a much-publicized split in 1969; its dissolution was only two years away when these films came out. Either Fairbanks and company had no clue, or figured nobody would care.

Dr. Harden also has little truck with popular culture ("Freedom of speech is now freedom of filth"), in general, and pornography, in particular ("filthy books that no decent people would read"). He's also not terribly keen on young people living together, which is happening, anyway, like it or not, as Johnny retorts: "A lot of us guys and girls think that sleeping together because you want to is a lot better than sleeping together because you're supposed to." 

His cage suitably rattled, Johnny lights up a joint, which sets up another dreary round of verbal jiu jitsu with his older antagonist. 

Dr. Harden invokes the fear of being "weakened from within," another classic anti-Communist trope. Yes, he concedes, using pot isn't like shooting heroin. However... "No one goes directly to heroin," Dr. Harden barks. "But nearly everybody on heroin started with marijuana."

Just then, we hear the radicals screaming and pounding away. As the door buckles and shudders under its assault, Johnny waves Dr. Harden off with his bat, apparently ready to fling it open, and admit the mob -- until a whack on his noggin from Jonathan's musket knocks him stiff, and he falls to the floor, like a limp, wet rag.

"Sorry, Johnny, but I couldn't see you being a part of that wrecking crew," Jonathan sighs.

Brink Of Disaster! ends with a freeze frame of Jonathan and Dr  Harden weighing their options, as the final title card heaves into view: WILL YOU LET THIS BE THE END? 

We know it's not, because we've got another 25 minutes to yawn through, so buckle up, boys and girls.

<"Tragedy Or Hope":
Final Scene:

YouTube Screen Grab>

Our plucky defense team prepares to show the mindless mob "what's right about America."

<v.>

Tragedy Or Hope? begins with a rerun of the climactic three minutes from its predecessor, as an anonymous narrator intones: "Let's see if we can work out an allegorical second chance for John Smith, and incidentally, see what we can come up with for ourselves."

Cue another sensational title card ("Will it Be Tragedy, Or Hope?"), and more bad historical acting, from two more ancestors come to set Johnny straight: Captain Jack Smith, an 1850s-era steamboat captain, who wheezes out his insights in a cod Irish accent that sounds eerily close to those Leprachaun horror movies ("In America, people are always free to dream"), and John Jeremy Smith, who happens to be Johnny's recently departed grandfather. (Neither actor, like the guy playing Jonathan Smith, is credited, which is probably just as well for them, right?)

"Smitty," as Gramps prefers to call himself, just happened to have worked for Henry Ford! Imagine that, eh? Smitty recalls the Model T's creator as a genius who always outpaced his competitors ("He just put his mind to it, and built a better one"), one raised on religious principles, of course. Apparently, he never heard about Ford's anti-Semitic and union-busting proclivities.

Not to be outdone, Jonathan rhapsodizes about the wonders of "electrolicity," and modern farming, though I suspect he might change his tune, if somebody could explain the horrors of Monsanto's tactics to him. Dr. Harden also gets in a few more rhetorical punches, including a pitch for pure capitalism ("It's the greatest economic system ever known").

With so much yammering chewing up screen time, it's easy to forget the pretext for these films, which heats up when the door begins to buckle, once more, and the mob's full-throated roar rises a few more decibels. Jonathan, Captain Jack and Smitty hoist their makeshift weapons -- a musket, piece of mood, and Model T hand crank, respectively -- and gird for action. 

How (or where) they find them isn't explained, which sets up another unintentionally comic moment, as Smitty frets over the unimpressive nature of his weapon: "It's the best I could find. It's a little crooked, but I'll straighten it out on somebody." Glad we've cleared that issue up, then.

The intrepid group rushes forward, until Johnny raises his hand. He lowers his bat, momentarily, to deliver the climactic line: "I'm gonna tell 'em what's right with this country. That's still our best weapon."

Cue freeze frame, final title card, in all caps, so you get the message ("WILL YOU LET THIS TIME OF OUR LIVES BE TRAGEDY OR HOPE?"), which is delivered amid the stirring orchestral strains of "My Country, 'Tis Of Thee." Assuming you've made it this far, you probably won't feel stirred to watch this onslaught of cinematic word gruel ever again.

Grandpa Smith regrets to inform you that he didn't bring a suitable blunt instrument. 

<Coda>

Looking back now, I can only wonder, "Who was this for, exactly?" Not the "silent majority" who supported Richard Nixon, and already agreed with the message, presumably. Certainly, not the "dirty hippies" that Dr. Harden's character derides so gleefully, and so freely. 

That leaves one other option: most likely, "fence sitters" like Johnny, but I doubt this nearly hour-long epic would have stirred them to do anything but head for the exits. Or maybe get back to some heavy petting action, wherever this curiosity actually got shown. I can't imagine either film made it on too many screens.

Nowadays, of course, that angle wouldn't be a problem, starting with that wonderful digital octopus we call social media, like YouTube, where period pieces like this one can now enjoy a second act, of sorts. As we've seen from the likes of Fox News, or PragerU, the far right has considerably sharpened its professional and presentation A-game.

For all I know, somebody out there's thinking of rebooting these two films, weird as they are, only with stock footage of last summer's post-George Floyd unrest taking center stage, and a leaner, hungrier-looking Johnny bantering with a different set of ancestors, like a great-grandfather who helped Ayn Rand get lecture bookings, for example. 

Sound far-fetched? Not when you consider the constant "Stop the steal" messaging, brought to you through the above platforms, that's left us in our current predicament. Going after such messaging in a post-Trump era, is a much bigger job than taking down the man who inspired it, and lit the fuse for it. And therein lies the problem. And the challenge. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Click Fast, Before

The Bad B-Acting Overwhelms You...)

Brink Of Disaster: Full Movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uc1pumNKNw&t=392s

Internet Media Database:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0291054/

Jerry Fairbanks: Wikipedia Bio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Fairbanks

Ed Nelson: Wikipedia Bio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Nelson

Tragedy or Hope?: Full Film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNCRBqnhE6o&t=562s