Crazy People

A crazed woman claiming to be from Minnesota was seen screaming at an angry crowd, that “they” shouldn’t take away her health care. Clearly delusional, and in need of psychiatric medication, the woman was overheard repeatedly muttering under her breath, “hoist up the ladder, Jack, I’m aboard”, that well known mantra of compassionate-conservatives. The woman seemed to be suffering from some form of republican PTSD, that now common psychopathic state induced by the withdrawal of someone named Dickie-Bird Cheney from her life. The crowd was seen comforting her by chanting “Heil Hitler” over and over again.
And elsewhere, The New York Yankees decided to move to Peoria as a protest against the re-election of Mike Bloomberg. A Yankee spokesperson stated, “we’re the world champs, and we don’t want to be associated with rich assholes like that. Even we have standards, you know.”

Off Years

So what did we learn from this off-off year election? It depends on where you sit. Republicans seem to be breaking out the champagne, letting the good times roll. Democrats are savoring their victory in upstate New York, the first for a Dem since the 1800s. The sensible view this election landscape as a signal that the few people who actually cared enough to vote are expressing their concern for the economic wreckage that continues to sprawl across our land. The recession may be over, but only for the economists of the country. For the unemployed, or simply the employed-scared, the economy continues to suck. Certainly, for those whose mortgages are now higher than the value of their homes, the recession continues.
Some Republicans are announcing that Democrats should be very, very scared right now, for the ground is rumbling underneath them. But I find myself wondering, just why Republicans should be so giddy. The wreckage, after all, occurred under their watch, and largely because of actions taken by their core base—rich republican greed-masters at the helm of the nation’s financial institutions, and their government lackeys who allowed them to do whatever they wanted, until it was time for the public to rescue them. I understand that some republicans continue to insist that the current government is responsible for our current mess, but they are simply wrong. They refuse to face facts. I know it is tiresome to continue to blame George Bush, but he really did wreak havoc across the globe—two wars, one of which was entirely unnecessary, and the other of which was badly mismanaged, a tax policy that was fiscally irresponsible, producing deficits beyond belief, and a broader government mismanagement that is leading this nation toward second class status.
We are certainly a nation in decline, thanks to republican mismanagement. Whether Obama, or anyone else can arrest the decline is at least questionable. Obama may turn out to be the right man at the wrong time. He still has time to pull a Roosevelt out of his hat, but he may not be given the time by an electorate with the attention span of a gnat. The United States is suffering from ADHD, and the people want their revenge. George and company slunk out of sight like a pack of hyenas banished from their kill. Whines are heard occasionally from one or another, mostly from Dickie-Bird who refuses to disappear.
We continue to hope that this decent man we elected last year will inspire a turnaround in the world, or at the least in our economy. But time is not on his side. Perhaps he will be lucky. Often, it is better to be lucky than good. We hope he will be one of the chosen lucky ones. Good luck President Obama. The hyenas are beginning to bark again. They need to be silenced.

Monopartisanship

I guess if you look hard enough, there’s probably an upside to most situations. Every time the “news” people report on a political event or process, they are bound to inform us that, while the Democrats have to attempt to balance their initiatives so as to appease both the liberal and the not-so-liberal wings of the party, whilst the Repubs present a solid front—united in their nay-saying. They have “No” down to a fine art it would seem. So, what might the upside to such a situation be? Well it occurs to me that, if the Repubs have settled in as the official government nay-sayers, marching in lockstep to their very right wing drummers, then it no longer matters what the Dems actually do. It has been established through multiple attempts at “bipartisanship” that, it matters little what one promises the “loyal” opposition, they will, in the end, say No. But I regard that as a freeing signal. Now, it would seem, the Dems can do whatever they like. The Repubs will say no, but everyone already knows that.
So, on health care “reform” they should proceed with a public option in whatever form they can devise that will satisfy their own conservative wing. And on Afghanistan, the President is free to do what he believes to be in the best interest of the American people, and the world actually. And on government regulation of our various “too big to fail” commercial entities, regulate away.
Now, with every upside, there is always a potential downside—the yin and yang I guess. The downside is that, whatever they do, the Dems will own the solution, and the repubs will use any negative outcomes as ammunition during the election. So, it behooves the Dems to be sensible and to attempt to craft solutions that might actually work—i.e., produce the intended results without any awful unintended consequences. But any successes can also be claimed as “mono-partisan”, i.e., without regard to the “loyal” opposition.
And, Guys, lay off the Fox News shtick. They are not worth the time it takes to blow them to hell. So, forget about them. They’re an entertainment outlet, not a news outlet. Treat them accordingly. That means, you should laugh at them more often.

Wandering in the Forest of Thoughts

This morning’s Charlotte Observer contained a column in the Living (Religious) section of the Saturday paper. The columnist was reporting on an interview he had with Richard Dawkins, and the responses he had received from his readership on that interview. The responses were entirely predictable here in Charlotte, where the only thing that exceeds the number of Wal-Marts is the number of churches.
Most people were adamant that Dawkins is unworthy of any space in the newspaper, and a few were equally adamant that Dawkins is of course, correct in his assertions that there is no God. Having read Richard Dawkins, I concluded that he was at his silliest when he reached his “conclusive proof” that there is no God. It made me wonder, though, why we even bother to publish such material, either in book form, or in the columns of local newspapers. To be fair, I have read Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris, to try to understand whether they had anything to share with me that might enlighten me on this troubling subject. Please note that I read such writers not because I imagine they can shed light on the fundamental issue of whether there is, or is not a God. I long ago concluded that, whether there is or is not a God, we will never understand the truth in any of our lifetimes. Instead, I read them to see whether they could shed light on the basic issues of religion, and why and how organized religion manages to hold onto the world’s population. Also, I always hope to understand why the world’s religions seem so firm in their conviction that science is their enemy (perhaps that is a Christian thing??). I assume that religion is always at risk when people become educated and begin entertaining doubt. But many people obtain education, while holding fast to this basic belief in an ultimate being. And that seems ok to me.
What is not ok is this notion that believers and non-believers should not occupy the same planet. That is why I keep hoping that some religious leaders will emerge somewhere, sometime in the future, who will be able to connect with the agnostics of the world in order to reach an accommodation that allows everyone to live in peace.
But maybe that is just another silly idea, like Republicans and Democrats sitting together at a table to work out solutions to the Nation’s many problems. Silly, I know . . ..

Bankers & Organized Crime

I received the other day in the mail a nice note from Chase, the banker of note on one of our two bank credit cards. It explained how much they cared and how they were driven to providing us with the highest possible service. And they just wanted us to know about this little issue of rates and how they might be changing. One of the rates was the base rate, I guess, for people who largely pay on time, but still revolve. That rate might be going up to, hmmm, I don't know, maybe 15%. And if we were naughty, or were experiencing some serious financial problems, you know, like losing a job, or something, and if we had some difficulties paying on time, the rate might be, umm, maybe 30%.
And so it set me to thinking. See, there's this Canadian crime program, called Intelligence, all about how Canadians fight organized crime. And in one episode, the bad guys (in this series it's a little hard to always tell the difference between the bad guys and good guys) decide they need a place to park their ill-gotten gains, after they have succeeded in washing it. So they basically buy a bank in the Bahamas. And then, see, I got the letter in the mail from Chase. So, I began wondering about bankers and organized crime. So, how would I know if our bank credit card company was being piloted by good guys or, you know, the bad guys. I mean, 15-30% interest? Doesn't that begin to sound like your friendly neighborhood loan shark? And what else does Chase have in mind here? Do they contract with guys like Blackwater, who will offer to kneecap you, if you fail to pay the 15-30% interest rates?
And these are the guys who are "too big to fail", and therefore deserving of a Federal bailout?? So, how much worse would Federally run banks really be?

And elsewhere, Glenn Beck has made his first bid to become the US Surgeon General under the next republican doofus administration. By telling his listeners not to get the flu shot, he has placed himself as the pseudo-physician of record in the republican camp. Way to go repubs.

Governance vs. Electioneering

Governance turns out to be tough stuff and Obama must now be asking himself, "why in heaven's name did I do this to myself?" We all know that Congress avoids taking on governance at all costs. Their normal routine, when presented with evidence of a problem, is to pass some piece of legislation, preferably one involving the spending of public money, and then to move on, as in, "alright, we've solved the problem of poverty in America, what's next?"
Having worked within government for a few years, and studying it for several decades, one thing became clear. Congress has the attention span of a gnat. So, governance, or in their case, oversight, gets short shrift. Maybe, they just don't know enough; they're not, after all, the brightest lights on the planet. But they also seem incapable of focusing on big problems like war, poverty, health care, fiscal meltdowns, and even outright thievery by banking executives, for more than a few days at a time, before changing the subject.
But we expected a bit more from our President. He is, after all, a very smart man, and a highly principled one (also a foreign notion in Congress). He promised us the moon, and hasn't yet delivered, despite the Nobel award vote of confidence.
It is true that he received from President Doofus, a giant platter of dung--two wars, both of which bore more than a passing resemblance to Vietnam, and a wrecked economy, caused by Bush, Congress, Clinton, and criminal CEO's.
His promises on health care reform may have been just silly, given the health insurance industry's death grip on Congress. I mean, what could have been worse--trying to extract the guns from a bunch of cold dead republican hands???
It's just possible that he should have avoided mention of health care reform during his campaign. He probably could have won by simply not being Bush, given his opposition, the Bush-Lite and Barbarella Barbie team. Maybe the next time, a democrat even thinks about reforming the health care financing system in this country, he should adopt a stealth campaign. Build up his credentials by accomplishing a few things the public likes, then quietly introduce a law that "tweaks" the insurance system by introducing a single payer for Democrats only.
Try to get it passed during some twilight hour period, when republicans are too drunk or strung out on drugs to notice.
But now, instead of following through on his promise to Gays, and his promises to all of us to rid the Nation of corrupt banking system CEO's and their hired guns, he's picking a fight with Fox??? I know, I know. Fox is a nasty piece of business, and yes, they are an enemy of sorts. But they're not Al Qaida. They're not even Al Jazeera. It seems to me they are best left alone, even to simply ignoring them altogether. Glenn Beck is nuts, Rush is a fat dopehead, and the republicans deserve them. They are the perfect representation of what republicans stand for now. Leave them to their own devils. Let's get on with the governance thing, Barack.
And elsewhere, Bob Dole objected to having the Dems agree with him. He wants to go back to the folks what brung him--Rush, Glenn and the Christian Taliban. Have at it Bobby.

Peace

Yaaaay. Our President wins the Nobel Peace Prize!!
That’s good, no???
I mean, after eight years of a unilateralist, and essentially incomprehensibly ignorant foreign policy machine in Washington, we are regaining our position as a force for peace in the world. Yes, Obama has taken over the Presidency with two wars underway (has it really been eight years). And yes, it is to be acknowledged that he has a lot of time left in his term of office. But it’s a start. Someone recognizes that he is essentially a man of peace.
Now, I can’t wait for Fox News, to see Glenn Beck foaming at the mouth. I realize that he needs to be medicated, and probably should be warehoused in a state hospital, but he is the leading light and intellectual leader of the republican tea party. So, whatever Glenn Beck shrieks, will become the mantra for republicans. And I imagine George Will will weigh in with his usual pseudo-intellectual commentary, asserting perhaps that this award demonstrates the idiocy of the Nobel awards committee. George is never at a loss for words in such events.
But for at least some of us, sitting on the sidelines, and still hoping for good things to emerge out of this presidency, this is a hopeful sign, a recognition perhaps, that Obama was handed a giant dumpster of republican dung, and he is still trying to turn it into something meaningful. Maybe he will succeed, and maybe the nation’s conservatives will yet prevent him from accomplishing reasonable goals. We’ll see, and the world will see.
In the meantime, I rejoice at this modest recognition. He joins an august body of people. Thank you Nobel Committee.