Republicans at war, while Democrats sip tea
By Rrrandy Wurst | February 11, 2010
Rachel Maddow recently spent considerable air-time on her recent show listing and commenting on the large number of Republicans who railed against and voted against the economic stimulus bill. As smart as Rachel is, she’s missing the larger point, which is the tactical game adopted by the Republicans. They know that people expect inconsistency in their elected representatives, while Democrats and left-leaning commentators are stuck in their horror of it, expecting people to have similar disdain when the right-wing inconsistency is pointed out.
Wake up! For Republicans, politics is war—for them everything is war—and they are willing to use any tactic available, if it works. And all their illogical and under-handed tactics do work because Democrats don’t seem willing or able to counter them or come up with their own tactics. They just hold their faces in horror and cry out, “For shame, for shame!”
Politics is war because one side says it’s war and plays the game that way, while the other side recoils from the dirtiness of it or tries to discuss things over tea. It’s football for keeps, without referees. Democrats are constantly getting blind-sided while they thumb through the rule book. The result is that Republicans win even when they lose, as in 2008.
And here’s something to ponder in a spare moment or two: Would Obama even have won if Bush hadn’t been so bad? I think the Republicans think not, and they’re operating as if, with Bush gone, the turf will shortly again be theirs. Why? Because, with few exceptions—Alan Grayson of Florida, for one— Democrats don’t like to fight.
Mr. Obama, get outside your conciliatory head, see what’s happening on your watch!
Ms. Pelosi, show the mettle that your forbears in Baltimore politics showed.
Mr. Reed, go back to your chicken ranch in Nevada.
…Because what lies in America’s future could be worse than Bush.
*******************
Okay, I’m back. I had “hope,” for “change,” so I opted for silence…let Mr. Obama win…get a House-full of Dems and a “super-majority” Senate…let them take the reins and straighten out the mess perpetrated by bad and greedy leadership from Reagan (at least) through the Bush-whackers. But we’re back in crisis mode, America. So, I’m back.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Barak Obama, Congress, Democrat, Football, George W. Bush, Republican | No Comments »
Hope and Trust? No way, Barack!
By Rrrandy Wurst | May 25, 2009
It’s a good and honorable thing to respect those who have given their lives for the war-prone decisions of American governmental and corporate leaders. Those who serve in the military don’t make war, they simply perform—kill and die—because America’s leaders demand it of them. Leaders make war; citizen soldiers simply follow orders, often blindly because they are taught that’s what’s expected of them to protect the American way of life. Obey orders, pure and simple.
This has been the way throughout human history, the elite making wars for their own benefit in which their citizens/peons/serfs die. You’d think we would get smart and refuse; put the elite who want war into a cage for them to fight it out. But we’re not that smart. The first American war was to gain our freedom, so that was, from our point of view, a good one. The next one in 1812 was against the guys we beat in the first one, because the Brits were acting like they hadn’t lost the previous one. Since that time, from the 1830s, Americans (particularly Marines) have fought and killed and died beyond American shores primarily to “protect American interests,” the phrase consistently used through the years which means, basically, that an American corporation which has wormed its way onto foreign soil to do its business, has pissed off the natives who are causing trouble. So the Marines, etc., are needed by the bosses to come in and kill the insurgents…”From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,” a rousing song with a subtext of Empire.
Democracy is a grand idea. Democracy and how it is laid out in our Constitution, if not played out in America’s reality, is what we love about our country and much of the rest of the world loves about us. The idea of democracy. It sounds great, and it plays great, but only when it plays true. Monarchy can be imposed. Fascism and other totalitarian regimes can be imposed. Democracy cannot be imposed. It must be chosen, just as in a true election, leaders are honestly chosen…although once in power, chosen leaders may behave less than democratically, always of course, “for the good of the nation.”
So let’s get to Barack Obama, our source of hope to end the all-too-seamless Regime of Bush-Reagan-Clinton, which was so skilled at the 20th/21st Century game of making war and licking corporate boots. We believe in President Obama because we want and need to believe that he will be different. He is clearly different, being a black man. But I am increasingly concerned that this is his clearest difference from the prior regimes.
It’s a good and great thing that a black man occupies our White House. It says much about America that (a) it took so long and (b) we finally got it right. But do not believe that simply because the election turned out right, that all things Obama will be right, if we’ll only trust him to make things right. This is foolish. What’s more, it’s dangerous. It will mean that having suffered the worst president in American history, we are now willing to be happy with a less bad leader.
Yes, he’s doing some good things. He’s also doing some terrible things he either promised or implied that he wouldn’t do. He has backtracked on full disclosure and open government, both of which are necessary for a true democracy to work. (What is a true democracy? It’s one in which you know what you are voting for.) He is backtracking on such issues as torture and revealing torturers. He is failing to uphold our Constitution and treaties by not pursuing those who have, before him, defied our Constitution and its mandate to uphold treaties, which were violated by Bush/Cheney. Who has he chosen to make our foundering economy right? The very folks who made it go wrong, including those great minds who have given bailouts intended to strengthen failing industries, only to watch, supposedly helplessly, those bailouts go straight into the hot pockets of those who caused the failures. These have been Obama’s choices. He has given power and control over economic and financial and matters of justice to those who in the previous administrations have crapped on the American people in these areas. Why in the ever-lovin’ world would someone who ran on a platform of change select people who were the same old bad actors of the prior administrations?
The answer to that question, we and the press and the pundits may assume, is the “importance of continuity” in this complex world. As if President Obama is saying to us, “Yes, I spoke to you of change, but I didn’t precisely say quick change.” So, are we to trust that he is gaming the old system, putting in these old boys so the opposition won’t cry too loudly, then he’ll get rid of them in due time? Haven’t we yet learned not to trust politicians, even those we think are on “our side”? The best of our Founders warned us not to trust politicians, to always keep informed about their shenanigans, to assume that they enjoy power and association with the monied-gentry and can be trusted only to make as much of that power and money as they can.
I want President Obama to succeed. I’ve waited for someone like him to succeed most of my adult life. I thought it would be Bill Clinton, but I was wrong. Sure, the Republicans are doing everything they can to make Obama fail. For them it’s dirty-dealing politics as usual. But, Barack Obama is doing much of that monkey-wrenching to himself. We cannot tolerate someone who is only marginally better, someone about whom we think, “Well, at least he’s not George Bush.”
What do we do to get things going right for the people of America and the world, rather than for the big corporations-big governments-big militaries? If you have a good idea, let me know.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Barack Obama, Corporations, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Political Corruption, The Constitution, War, iraq war | No Comments »
“The Bird” is Down
By Rrrandy Wurst | April 13, 2009
Get the picture. A major league pitcher on his knees, his face close to the dirt, moving it around with his hands, then when it’s just right, patting it into place. Then rising, all gangly arms and legs and wild and woolly blond hair barely captured by his blue De-troit ballcap, rearing back and mowing down the American League for one great season and four okay ones. (The Bird’s record)
Topics: Baseball | No Comments »
…and this: follow-up to Obama’s bad-guys in the saddle
By Rrrandy Wurst | March 27, 2009
Following yesterday’s words of wisdom from me questioning President Obama’s economic and financial industry appointments, read this Buzzflash article by Dave Lindorff.
Topics: Barack Obama, Financial Industry, Wall Street | No Comments »
President Obama’s Tactic: Hiring the Bad Guys?
By Rrrandy Wurst | March 26, 2009
I was among the joyously hopeful millions who welcomed President Obama to the helm of our nation, at the same time realizing he may not have made it there had Bush/Cheney not been so god-awful cruel and unusually bad.
I’m still glad Obama is leading us, but I maintain my right and duty (read Thomas Jefferson and listen to Thom Hartmann) to be wary of our sitting government and openly critical of those holding down the seats.
Okay, P.M. Carpenter in Buzzflash makes good points in showing what he believes (and I hope) to be Obama’s apparent plan of putting out the fires first, then going after the arsonists. The problem I have is in Obama’s tactic, quickly becoming a habit, of hiring the arsonists to douse the flames. The latest is Gary Gensler, 18 years with Goldman Sachs (again!), being brought aboard to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Are there no other candidates to get us out of this financial mess than those who got us into it, or at least worked for those who got us into it? Reminds me of a town in Georgia near where I spent several years, in which the town council hired criminals into the police department under the belief that it takes a thief to catch a thief. You can imagine how that town was run.
So, I suggest to our president, if he wants to see what New York looks like, don’t cruise on the Goldman Sachs yacht, take The Circle Line with the rest of us commoners.
Topics: Barack Obama, Financial Industry, Wall Street | 1 Comment »
Rrrandy’s Pre-Post Bush Era “Bad Governors Quiz”
By Rrrandy Wurst | December 13, 2008
This is a test of your gubernatorial (an odd locution which actually means governorly) knowledge. A perfect score of 15 makes you eligible for the governorship of whichever state you choose. If you get fewer than 10 correct, go straight to jail, no impeachment necessary.
1. What states have or had the two strongest governors? (Talking muscles, not governing ability.)
2. What state has twice elected a professional actor (Grade B-) to the governorship?
3. Who was “Governor Moonbeam?”
4. What governor had a major rock star as his “First Partner” while in office?
5. What state elected a professional wrestler to the governorship?
6. What state elected a “Robber Baron” to the governorship?
7. What state elected as governor the most far-sighted person in human history?
8. What state elected a governor who was assassinated in its State Capitol Building?
9. What state elected a governor whose name became, as a result of his behavior, an ambitransitive verb?
10. What state elected a governor whose name became an adverb synonymous with stupidity, greed, and arrogance?
11. What state elected a governor who armed his black employees with ax handles to keep black protesters out of his restaurant?
12. What other states elected openly racist governors?
13. Which state had a governor whose reputation was stained by a blue dress after he left office?
14. What state’s governor was forced to resign over hiring prostitutes after being elected for having broken up prostitute rings?
15. What state is said to be adding a “Governors’ Wing” to its state prison?
“FREE” BONUS QUESTION (as the answer is open for discussion and opinion):
Which public office is more prone to corruption, stupidity, self-aggrandizement, greed, arrogance, and general dirty-dealing? State governorship, U. S. Senator, U. S. Representative, or President of the United States?
+++++++++++++THE ANSWERS (but don’t peek!)++++++++++++++++
1. California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Minnesota (wrestler Jesse Ventura)
2. California (R. Reagan and Arnie S.)
3. California [again?] (Jerry Brown)
4. Governor Moonbeam (Linda Ronstadt)
5. Minnesota (Jesse Ventura, again)
6. CA (broken record) electing Leland Stanford, or maybe NY or WV with their Rockefellers.
7. Alaska, of course. Sarah Palin claimed she could see Vladdy Putin’s belly-button from her back porch.
8. Louisiana (Huey P. Long, the Kingfish)
9. Illinois (to Blagojevich, as in “Go Blagojevich yourself!” [tr.] or “Oh, Blagojevich!” [intr.])
10. Ditto Illinois. (As in, “She governed Blagojevichly.”)
11. Georgia (Good Ol’ Boy Lester Maddox at his Pickrick Restaurant)
12. Let’s start with Alabama (George Wallace) and Arkansas (Orville Faubus). Add your own.
13. Arkansas (Grinnin’ Bill Clinton)
14. New York (Salivatin’ Elliott Spitzer)
15. Illinois (Blagoyevich could be the 4th of the last 8 Illinois governors to find a home in prison.)
BONUS Q: We did not include federal judgeships on this list as the answer then would be obvious, given the life-time tenure of federal judgeships.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Political Corruption, homo (un)sapiens | No Comments »
Pardon my presidential pardon
By Rrrandy Wurst | December 1, 2008
The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws. This standard began to fray at the highest level when, with overblown self-regard, Richard Nixon saw himself, as president, an exception to and above the law.
Now we have a president in his waning days of power who is likely to pardon law-breakers in his administration and perhaps try to pardon even himself. If this happens, we should not expect future elected or appointed officials or their associates to obey our laws.
Senator Feinstein has stated that George Bush and his cronies should not be legally pursued because, this would be partisan politics. America has come to a sad state when the pursuit of illegal and unethical behavior is considered partisan and thus is forgiven.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This is the last and only vestige in United States law of kingly power.
In support of and justification for this piece of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 74) wrote that,
“… in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.”
And further,
“… a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted… to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body [i.e., Congress].”
Let’s take a closer look at key phrases:
- “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion”: What insurrection or rebellion? Is that why Ford pardoned Nixon, or Reagan pardoned Mark Felt and George Steinbrenner, or Poppy Bush pardoned three Iran-Contra bozos, or Clinton pardoned his brother and major financial scum-sucker Marc Rich? What insurrection or rebellion did I miss?
- “pardon to the insurgents or rebels”: What did George Steinbrenner (owner of the New York Yankees baseball team) ever rebel against? Which would make him a Rebel Without a Cause. Ditto the others.
- “Critical moments”: The only critical moment regarding these presidential pardons is that they’re done at the president’s last moments in office.
- “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth”: Whoo, boy! What tranquility? All these pardons do is piss off that portion of the citizenry who believe in justice and law.
And how about:
- “man of prudence and good sense”: Er, umm, ahh, would that be George W. Bush we’re talking about?
- “balance[d] motives”: Let’s face it. At least in modern times, the motives of these pardons have been anything but balanced. They have been personal and partisan, as in partisan politics.
Is it just me, Rrrandy Wurst, a poor Nebraska-bred porker, or do you see that the reasons for the existence of the presidential pardon have withered, warped, and otherwise cancerously mal-formed to the point where it amounts to a “Get Out (or Stay Out) of Jail Free” card issued to cronies and back-room cohorts in crime? Except for that old Nixonian Standard: “Well, of course, if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
Congress can’t alter the Constitution without a Constitutional Convention, throwing the whole document open to revision. But our elected representatives in the House could start impeachment proceedings against the law-defyers of G. W. Bush’s administration, which is the only way to halt his power of pardoning and would have the great and necessary benefit of putting on record for the future that the Bush brand of self-serving, law-defying activities will not be tolerated. In the long run it’s less important that Bush, etc. get convicted than that an official statement be made by our lawmakers that “We ain’ta gonna take it anymore.”
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Parents gone wild: Sports & Science
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 30, 2008
“Joshua, you WILL play soccer. Your genetic profile shows that this is your best chance of ultimate success, which means that soccer is YOUR sport. Daddy and I don’t care what you want. Put down that basketball, put on your shinguards, and shut up!”
“Amanda, stop your whining and jump into that pool. Your genetic profile says that you are a natural-born swimmer. Amanda!, you come right back here this instant or no dinner for you!”
Isn’t science wonderful? Now some company in Colorado is selling a DNA test–just a Q-tip swipe inside the little one’s mouth–that tells Mumsie and Dad which particular sport they should shove their kids into. One Colorado Mom, Donna Campiglia (no relation to this piglia), said knowing what her two-and-a-half year old kid’s best sport will be is very important because, “I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration.”
Right, lady, that’s what it’s all about, saving your frustration. No matter what the kid wants. Because a kid “properly directed” with “no wrong turns” or “wasted effort” and using “utmost scientific efficiency” might some day make you famous, save you from having to pay for a college education (maybe get that lakeside cabin, instead). The kid might even turn professional some day or at least make the Olympic team to give you bragging rights on the golf course and at dinner parties. If all goes well, of course. Because there might be an injury. Or a dumb coach who couldn’t see talent if it was poking him/her in the eye. But at least you gave the kid a good start with the DNA test and then shoving the kid in the direction that good old Gene# ACTN-3 said to shove.
Humans have 20,000 genes. (I don’t know how many pigs have, and I don’t want to know. I’d rather read all of Heidegger under water.) ACTN-3 is the specific gene which these scientists in Boulder, Colorado, believe determines a kid’s particular sport-related strengths. Ain’t knowledge grand. Albert Einstein thought so. Later in life he also learned that it’s more important what you do with knowledge than that you “discovered” it. Something to do with consequences.
One researcher from Maryland isn’t so hot for the ACTN-3 test. “It seems to be important at very elite levels of competition,” Dr. Stephen M. Roth said. “But is it going to affect little Johnny when he participates in soccer, or Suzy’s ability to perform sixth grade track and field? There’s very little evidence to suggest that.” Which isn’t likely to stop the Boulder folks from peddling their test at $149 a pop.
But even that offering of common sense misses an important point, more important certainly than a parent’s frustration or not “maximizing one’s potential. What about the kid? Is he a machine? Is she the source of parents’ financial and psychic well-being? Well, regarding that question, a lot of people seem to think that’s the proper way to “conceive” of and raise a child. Which may be why we’ve raised so many Henry Paulsons and other highly self-regarded executives who believe that maximization of profit is what life is all about. ALL about. It’s the mind-set that leads to sports perfection in China (and the former East Germany if you can remember back that far), to Barry Bonds-type arrogance and the general current state of overblown self-regard.
There must be a better way to help our kids find stuff to do not seated in front of an electronic screen. How about, say, er, lemme see, the way WE and our own folks got into things. Either that or just forget the whole child-bearing thing and go down to the local robot store. It’ll be located at former General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler dealerships.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Truth and slander
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 6, 2008
Barack Obama, last night, said a great deal in his victory speech as President Elect of the United States, all of it good to the minds of Americans who believe in the original national dream. I believe that the heart of his message is in two statements: “It’s been a long time coming,” and in the mantra of his campaign, “Yes we can.” The former sentence reflects on the past, while the latter looks to the future. The space between them is immense, and that is the space he and we need to focus on and begin to work in. To say that it’s a big job grossly understates the task. Barack Obama, himself, pointed out that we should not expect the needed changes to happen in the span of a single presidential term.
Today I sit back on my haunch, look up at the blue autumn sky, and wonder why it should take so long. Why can’t good stuff be accomplished quickly in an America that has promised for 240 years such good stuff as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens? In an America that was founded on such ideals and principles that, though we are not a “Christian nation,” were espoused by Christ and adopted into our Constitution. (Someday I’ll get my choppers into the topic of the chasm between Christ’s words and the beliefs of many of today’s Christian fundamentalists. But not today.)
Actually, there is a solid, if not good, reason why we can’t expect America to become America within four years, much less on this glorious and promising day, or even next January 21 when Barack Obama settles into the Oval Office. Things are not going to just get better. That’s because a lot of people in America, some of them exceedingly powerful, do not want America to become America. As Right Wing guru Paul Weyrich said (I may be paraphrasing), “Government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans.”
Echoing this are the Rush Limbaugh’s and Bill O’Reilly’s, and Michael Savage’s, and the less vocal but infinitely more dangerous Neocons who can be found at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Project for the New American Century ( the infamous PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute, and other Right Wing think tanks, big money pits, and enclaves. They remain populated by people who hate giving up power, the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Yoo, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Elliott Abrams, John Poindexter, “Scooter” Libby, William Kristol, Daniel Pipes, Bill Bennett Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Midge Decter, and even that fount of deep wisdom, J. Danforth Quayle, former Vice-President of these United States, upon whose narrow shoulders Sarah Palin would have stood had she somehow jived her way into the Veepency. And this is only a short-list of the architects of the last eight years, during which the ideals of America were hijacked, with the world to follow.
Do not expect these people to give up their hold on power lightly from a mere landslide election against them. Expect a four-year blizzard of the following, all in the service of keeping the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress from doing business efficiently…or at all:
Besides that old quasi-legal stand-by, Senatorial Filibuster, you will see a Right Wing-generated rash of
- Fear-mongering
- Smearing
- Spreading of lies and innuendo
- Hindering legitimate change irrespective of its reasonableness or benefits
- Threats of impeachment and other forestalling tactics
Why? Because [repeat] “government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans.”
Who then should government be left to, according to these folks? To the large stake-holders, of course… To the “insiders.” Those with the “long-term view.” Those who “understand” the critical importance of American Empire. That America is meant (by God) to rule the world… That the “white race” was meant to dominate people of color (all the more galling that these ordinary Americans elected a person of color)… That men were meant to dominate women… That Christians (and a few like-minded and malleable Jews) were meant to dominate the false religions… And (most galling to yours truly, Rrrandy Wurst) their fundamental belief that “Two legs good; four legs bad.”
[Okay, I go too far here in reversing George Orwell’s eternal verity (from Animal Farm), but it is true that the Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian doctrine of Dominionism holds mankind dominant over “lower” animals, which is rather conveniently self-serving.]
Fear-mongering. Smearing. Lies and innuendo, etc. Why do Right Wingers use these emotion-laden tactics? Because they work. Because emotion can be appealed to among those who don’t have knowledge, those who distrust knowledge because it comes from smart people, intellectuals, college professors, and “such like. ” Truth as seen through the eyes of manipulative politics is far less effective, and thus infinitely less important, than negatively-charged psych-tactics. Hell, truth is not important at all, because most people not only don’t know what’s true, they distrust those who try to tell them. (Unless, of course, it comes from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, who, when faced with his lies, weasels into his standard defense that, Hey, I’m just an entertainer.) Most people don’t have the tools even to question the “truth” that is shoved at them. So why even bother, because if you do engage in the battle of “my truth” versus “your truth,” “the people” won’t believe either. Much better, the Right Wing has learned, to slander the other side, because people are very willing to believe their “gut,” their feelings.
Having figured this out, and using it as their primary weapon against anyone who believes differently than they do, is the “genius” of the Right Wing, as perpetrated by Karl Rove, including media hit-men like Steve Schmidt, Scott Howell, and Dan Bartlett. Some of them go all the way back to Nixon’s prime henchman, Lee Atwater. (Who died at the age of 40 regretful of the Pandora’s Box of personal propaganda that he had opened.) For these operatives, sowing fear and doubt is their modus operandi. Truth does not even enter the conversation.
Problem is, these truth-defying tactics work because people don’t know what truth to believe. So they resort to believing what they feel. Our nation’s leadership has changed, but that hasn’t changed. The Right Wing will continue to use their tactics, maybe even ramp them up now that they’re out of power, especially to tap into whatever residual racism Americans may harbor. Rattle the little corner of the brain that might think, “I wonder whether a black man is smart enough for the job.” While ignoring, forgetting, or ever caring to know the things that Barack Obama has accomplished, which prove his over-whelming brain-power. (Harvard Law Review, graduating at the top of his class, ….Oh, forget it! That stuff is mere truth, which to the average Joe or Jane gets swamped in the tide of slander.)
Which, ironically, lends some truth to those Right Wing Neocons’ belief that government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans. If voters can be fooled by personal attack so easily, why even let them vote for their leaders? That’s a hard one to deal with if you believe in democracy. I guess the answer is to fall back on the “truth” that you can’t fool all the people all the time, and hope that that’s enough to keep the self-serving corporatists and militarists and religionists and smiling fascists in check. Smack down their fear-mongering slander tactics. Figure them out for what they are: Domestic and Foreign Imperialists. Hope that an election such as we made happen yesterday is enough to keep The Good Ship Democracy afloat and aimed in the right direction.
Forewarned is fore-armed. (Or maybe that should be four-armed.)
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
HUZZAH!
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 4, 2008
GOOD ON YOU, AMERICA!
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
