Apr 21, 2015

Ignore at your own risk ... inferiors are waiting to govern your ignorance

                                         Vote fer me ... I'm tuff on stuff

Who said this:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors?
Got a campaign coming up. Doesn't it seem like a circus of performing inferiors. Well, at this point based on who is saying what, who is doing what and who is pointing at what ... they all act like the inferiors in their heads have overruled the wisdom of their hearts.

"I would govern you!!" they shout, and then behave as if meditated and well-considered thoughts are exactly what should be avoided. No ... it's better to blurt out stuff

... cause there's a lot of us guys in the audience who are well-trained blurtees. We buy into the shallowest of notions and think a doofus is wise because he can wrinkle his brow and tell you what's wrong with everyone else.

But ya know, it ain't so much the outrageous stuff that comes from the minds of the candidates who want to get our attention.

It's our own - yours and mine - shallow and gullible minds that consider angry and inflamed self-righteous talk from candidates as serious and believable fare that brings all this stuff on.

Ask any bartender. The best way to shut down the loudmouth in the tavern that always says the dumbest stuff is best quieted when the rest of them either ignore him or toss him out the door in exasperation at the time being wasted.

                                                  Tom Bumbouncer

Apr 9, 2015

the worst president we've ever had ... who? Baby Boomer Shame

Desperate to Leave the Scene of His Own Accidents ... 
and be remembered as ... what?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney took another swipe at President Barack Obama on Tuesday, criticizing him over the Iran deal framework put in place last week.

Cheney, who accused Iran of having "one of the most radical regimes in history" and being "sworn to destroy Israel," told radio host Hugh Hewitt the deal will be a "burden" on the next occupant of the White House.

"This is a totally radical regime that is the premiere sponsor of state terrorism in the world, and Obama's about to give them nuclear weapons," Cheney said. "

It's, I can't think of a more terrible burden to leave the next president than what Obama is creating here."

Cheney went on to call Obama "the worst president we've ever had.

If you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama's doing," Cheney said. - Source:HuffPo 4/8/15 
Now mind you, as a practicing curmudgeon, the single most important thing I've learned as a member of an audience in the present of one guy saying stuff about the other guy who he wants to make look worse than himself ... well ... 

is to personally follow up on what is said. If, as it was most of the time, I was unable to speak to the declarer in person, I had to go into forbidden territory ... you know, do some work ... look stuff up ... don't depend on lefty or righty talking heads to define what I just heard or read.

Seems to me there should be more personal assessment of things and less gullible-belief of them there mindslinging broadcast stampeders and political candidates.

Nuff said about looking stuff up.

Let me get this straight: Mr. Cheney says that Obama is the worst president and, I presume has logic, history, research and honesty on his side as he asks you and mean to be the judges.

I have no need to defend Mr. Obama other than to say that if Cheney is right, President Obama has to come in under a bar his predecessor - with the help of Mr. Cheney - set pretty ... well ... low.

Now I'm going to offer the following pictorial resume with some commentary and refer you to that famous Fox News chestnut: I report and you decide.

We know that in terms of executive privilege, what Mr. Cheney says about Mr. Obama looks a lot like what we were saying about Mr. Bush for 8 years.

Liars liars pants on fires ... you decide.

And if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were telling us truths, is this what we really needed to make us and the Middle East more secure?

Here's the essence and harvest of the Bush, Cheney & Associates wise leadership plan for American security and stability in the Middle East

When things got even butt-uglier, desperate times called for desperate measures eh? And the Dick-Cheney-we're-not-the-worst-presidency launched this sort of thing. Did that do anything to ameliorate the passions of our supposed victims/enemies whenever they had the opportunity to inflict physical messiness on non-Middle-Easterners in the name of their own foreign policy and their own superior religion?

Which American President has done more to impose the following image on the rest of the world when our interests are threatened?

 Well ...

In the interest of full disclosure, I am and have not been a respected of Republicans since they quit selecting honorable men to run against Democrats and that was back in the 1990s.

Nor am I a respecter of Democrats since they have proven to be a spineless posse who won't stand up for the American people and have been unwilling or afraid to start a public bar fight with crooks and liars in the other party.

But I am an American citizen, and American Veteran and I believe in but don't see a lot of civic honesty.

But I want to speak as a Veteran.

I've listened long enough to Dick Cheney's pretenses to knowing more about what it means to command in wartime than veterans who've been there and done that. Mr. Cheney hasn't ever been there.

Pretending to speak as someone who has been there and has done that demonstrates the desperation of ignorant arrogance. Giving public speeches that preach only to a Reflublican choir where you most likely won't be challenged-  that's what chicken hawks do ... desperate chicken hawks.

Posturing as one so wise about real leadership is part and parcel of the shallowness by which he pretended to govern and administer responsibilities in a way that respects the country and its citizens.

The reason for that in view of his lack of personal military experience is the intellectual hubris and academic assumptions. Book learning is still just book learning. A college education without on-the-job experience and exposure is still limited to textbooks and theories.

A Vice President's inability to express empathy with the American military's day-to-day reality continues to broadcast much more powerfully and loudly than his criticisms around who is fit or unfit for leadership - particularly in a military role.

In partnering with George Bush, who seemed to think that substance communicates itself in swagger, bravado and foolish stubbornness, they pretended to the wisdom of Lincoln and Roosevelt, both of whom actually demonstrated wise wartime leadership.

Mr. Cheney and his president revealed something more like the rash arrogance of George Armstrong Custer. Political advisers then and now have been so blatantly devious, manipulative, and disingenuous that it is no longer possible to separate the candidates from their managers regardless of a pretense of aloofness and no connection to campaign negativity and dirty tricks.

Mr. Cheney's discredited opinion will ultimately have significant impact on a terrorist attack. Such an attack, if it comes, will have occurred at a moment whose impact could have been diminished if Cheney and Bush had given a higher priority to America's need for greater preparation and homeland protection while on watch and not wasted our resources in a singularly misguided and mismanaged context in Iraq.

The least helpful Americans are those currently elected and former officials who have demonstrated a fear of straight talk, an unwillingness to accept responsibility, a willingness to manipulate and even falsify truth in an all-out attempt to stay in office. They include politicians who have compromised legitimate conservative values in an unwise desire to further the interests of one party at the expense of the country.

Even the members of the Republican choir have offered opinion about Cheney's assertions. Would you believe the propaganda flagship, Fox News?

Megan Kelly interviewed Cheney live last June and quoted from Cheney's article, in which he and his daughter Liz Cheney wrote: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."

"But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir," Kelly said. "You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; you said we would be greeted as liberators; you said the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes back in 2005; and you said that after our intervention, extremists would have to, quote, 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?"  - theweek.com

It has been asked, "Who wants to be the last soldier to die for a lie?"

An equally important question to be asked is, "Who wants to be remembered as that part of an electorate persuaded to vote for candidates whose most powerful political efforts demonstrated an acute lack of moral and ethical integrity, on obsession with secrecy and little reverence for the truth?"

Dec 30, 2014

BattleStar Democratica-Republica seeking Mythical Core Values

The notion of "America's Core Values" haunts our society in a manner not unlike the frantic crew of Battlestar Galactica hunting for the rumored Edenesque "Planet Earth. "

Some of us voice the yearning but most do not register feelings until someone in prominence - this cycle it's Obama - touches that tender nerve of idealism.

Yes yes ... baseball, Mom and apple pie are internally reinforced images, but they constitute merely the gate to the family homestead. The homestead itself is where the house, the property and the family members sustain themselves by mutual trusting dependence on a value system based on love, tolerance, economic equality, industry and opportunity.

That homestead has never existed in this country.

However, as an internal visualization, it has driven the grandest, most successful and most popular events, changes, adjustments, creations and reforms that we've seen in our history.

Our idealized homestead never included a unanimous endorsement of supposed free-market economics. It never included subordination of individual rights and freedoms to the priorities of corporate dominance and certainly did not include evolution of the government into a source of camouflaged corporate welfare.

In that regard, a pure and successful free-market society has never existed, has never proven itself a successful nor universally beneficial system for public well-being.

When pondered and considered honestly; when valued for what they truly represent, our mythical core values reflect the undeniable rebuttal to politicians who declare that government should be run as a business.

At best, that notion reflects a very narrow view of economic reality in this country and is perhaps best exemplified by the contemporary conservative candidacies of those knowledgeable and those who only pretend-knowledgeablity.

In 2012 Mitt Romney typified most politicians who have come to equate their personal financial success as a blend of entrepreneurial wisdom fortified by civic understanding of the laws of economics which somehow generate a natural entrepreneurial compassion for the less successful. Most of these prominent megaphones want you to believe that justice for all is found on the back of a dollar bill more so than in any Constitution.

We seem to hear this nonsense more from conservatives and/or the Republican Party who have for the last 50 years portrayed themselves as economically wise fiscal conservatives.

In reality, once unleashed by their political successes beginning in the 1990's, with great fanfare they put on the Miter of reform and picked up the Scepter of change to affect a "fiscally responsible makeover " that in reality represents today's most powerful contemporary economic embarrassments.

For example, we saw a welfare reform in the 1990's that has only marginally resolved even half the problems of poverty in this country. We also saw a rebuttal of the Clinton presidency's attempt to address national health care inadequacies. Resistance to the Clinton efforts was foolish, ideological, partisan and primarily greed-based. These were un-American refusals to reform or change health coverage in this country. This has remained even more radically unchanged with the political lack of will to do anything in terms of health care reform but propose repeal of Obamacare which in itself was the best of the worst that was compromised into law. Why? In my opinion it has been the Republican party's willingness to harm the citizens in the name of opposing anything Obama or Democratic.

We saw how the "fiscally responsible" party of change actually changed many American core value freedoms into unprotected vulnerabilities subject to the whims and greed of corporate capitalism.

These same fiscal hypocrites continue to campaign as if they were successful self-made representatives of a mythical American Dream available to all voters. Republicans have never satisfactorily explained at a national or state level how running the government as a business specifically benefits and protects the physical and economic well-being of the majority of citizens.

One simple example is that any effective business will look at its bottom line and look for ways to refuse to spend money as a means of generating greater profits. They HAVE to look for ways to say No. A government run as a profit-motivated business would do the same.

What does a government do with "greater profits" created from denials and refusals to spend on the social infrastructure that supports and protects all citizens? Are refusals to expend funds to the needy or most vulnerable in the name of "fiscal responsibility wise and good public policy?

If not the citizens, then who are the shareholders to whom government business-runners owe their highest allegiance?

What is to be done with those profits generated by an elected government run as if it were the same sociopathic "person" based on self-interest inherent in the non-human entity in this country known as a "corporation?" Yes, folks, based on it's need to survive and grow is by definition sociopathic.

Having taken some whacks at Republicans, I'm not about to imply that Democrats would have been able or even willing to reverse many of the legislated mistakes of the past 20 years in this country.

It ought to be obvious to those citizens who are not blinded by partisan perspectives and propaganda that neither party's victories in the future will guarantee any movement for genuine reform unless among those victories a specific mandate is included. It must be a mandate that reflects the will of the people; a mandate opposed to bought-and-paid-for civic policies enacted at the behest of monied lobbyists.

Voters must simultaneously have opportunity or means of formalizing a mandate to remove, severely restrict or equalize the playing field when it comes to lobbying our representatives for change.  We need to intervene and force corporate lobbyists out of our elected official's waiting rooms.

In this regard, any pretend apologetics from Hilary or other candidates trying to justify accepting corporate donations is worthless. What is simultaneously real and imagined in an almost mindless and tragically immature assumption - rarely expressed but always the basis of attitudinal and tactical thinking - is the self-serving notion that pragmatism usurps any desire or commitment to an ideal.

Partisan activists who consider themselves wise and who are intimately involved in the campaigns of their most beloved candidates almost always belittle ideal thinking. They use the chestnut that you have to play the game in its forever-deteriorating manner in order to win power.

Only then - once in power - can the victor look up the core values even he/she have probably forgotten and restore America to its mythical former glory. Such thinking neither proves nor wins anything but individual personal advocacy duels.  It also demonstrates and reveals a cynicism that fuels the ever-increasing loss of a civic appreciation for how things work in this country. This is an obvious tactic non-religious candidates of both parties have had to utilize.

That's why too many of us - and I mean this literally - are too stupid to see through political tactics generated by polls and political consultants.

Candidates wearing real or memorized earphone prompters so as to conceal their inability to think on their feet and give genuinely honest answers are not the candidates who believe in America's Core Values.

We're losing our trust in whatever the Mythical American Core Values ever were. Nothing is taking the place of that trust except perhaps cynicism and an ever deepening self-absorbed behavioral pattern; a pattern that only underlines what historians will eventually describe as the reason for the fall.

A future mythology may be only a speculation about an American Dream once believed to exist.