It's about time we had a woman president, and Hillary has earned it by battling in the trenches against the Republicans for decades. She has proven her toughness. She has been in the crucible and emerged whole and still willing and able to fight. There aren't many who could stand up to years of the right wing onslaught and still stand strong and unbowed. She had Bill's back (at least in public, I can't imagine how she punished him in private) and endured both private hell and public humiliation, never once allowing what must have been a volcano of anger and hurt on the inside to show on the outside. So if now she comes across as lacking spontaneity, as cold and calculating, that's okay. She's earned the right. I imagine iron self-control practiced for years can't easily be set aside. Besides, while it doesn't make for a good political candidate by today's show-business standards, an over-abundance of self-discipline wouldn't be a bad characteristic for a president to possess.
While the November election should be a slam dunk victory for an intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable candidate over an ignorant, incompetent, dishonest bozo, it appears it's going to be close, and could go either way. It looks as if a sizable portion of the electorate has been influenced by the unrelenting attacks on her for more than twenty years by the right-wing propaganda machine doing what they do best: attacking those who would dare promote equality and equal opportunity in this country. I don't understand how any reasonably intelligent person could be influenced by Fox News and right-wing radio, two of the most dishonest entities to ever exist, but, then again, you have to admit, they are very good at what they do.
I'm not claiming that Hillary is a saint. After all, she's a life-long politician. Honesty isn't something she has much practice at. But I do claim that she is more honest than any of the Republicans that continually attack her. But the right wing propaganda is insidious in it's relentlessness. Even if an individual is aware of it's partisan, self-serving nature, after years of being exposed to it, like a carcinogenic substance it can cause internal changes which can be damaging. As a result of this long-term exposure, a large segment of the population will respond "dishonest" or "untruthful" when asked to describe her. Ask for specifics, though and you'll get only some statement like, "she just is, always has been, everyone knows it." Or the answer might be something about Benghazi or emails, although they seldom know exactly what was wrong with whatever she did concerning Benghazi or emails.
Republicans, while not good at governing or anything else useful, are very good at investigating and charging Democrats with a variety of transgressions, as they have with Hillary for two decades The fact that nothing results from an investigation doesn't matter at all. Republican spokesmen will call attention to all the investigations (they like to refer to them as scandals) Hillary has been involved in dating back to Whitewater, but don't mention that all of them were initiated by themselves. People need to keep in mind that each investigation, each charge, each claim, has resulted in nothing, and that 0+0+0+0+0 will always add up to 0 no matter how many zeroes are added, and waving your hands around saying they go, "On, and on, and on..." doesn't change that.
She has admitted using a private email server instead of a government network server during her days as Secretary of State, but Republicans aren't satisfied with calling this an error in judgment; instead, they talk of criminal charges being brought, and hint darkly at classified secrets being discussed with ...someone, and passed to...someone. But like the Benghazi investigation, nothing substantive will result from the email investigation, but that won't stop the Republicans from adding another 0 to the list of Hillary scandals, hoping that eventually adding enough zeroes will add up to something. Or just as good for their purposes, that the public will perceive that it does.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
Hubris
Hubris - from the ancient Greek, defined as a tragic character flaw consisting of foolish, arrogant pride. It was one of the Greeks' favorite emotions. They loved to write about its power to destroy the lives of everyone it touched, usually in dramatic, calamitous ways.
Whenever I think of hubris, I think of Ralph Nader, the third party candidate in the 2000 Bush versus Gore presidential election. I grew up in the sixties, and he was one of my heroes: a champion of the little guy against the depredations of corporate America, a consumer watchdog, a warrior for the environment, defender of the earth.
In 2000 we were on the cusp of the golden age of America - the true golden age, not the make-believe fantasy of the fifties. President Clinton had finally repaired the economic damage done by a succession of Republican presidents and managed to generate a budget surplus while retaining the safety net of programs for the poor and disabled, and while Republicans had begun to show signs of the brain-eating disease which would ultimately consume them all, there were still a few that were hanging on to their sanity. And most importantly, the Clinton policies were about to be extended into a third term by an experienced, intelligent, progressive politician with a passion for protecting the environment. It was right there before us - the golden age of America, and the world. All we had to do was reach out and take it.
But hubris intervened in the form of Ralph Nader, a man unwilling to pass the torch on to the next generation of environmentalists. Old, bitter, consumed by hubris, he mounted a third party campaign, making the absurd claim there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
He wasn't the only reason Bush won: Gore wasn't a great campaigner; the Republicans had no compunction about lying about anything and everything; and half the electorate preferred to vote for someone who was a "regular guy" rather than someone who seemed more like a college professor. But Nader did his part, and everything he had accomplished in his long, distinguished career was wiped away by eight years of Bush.
Where would this country be if Gore had been elected? Where would our economy be? Where would race relations be? Where would global warming be? I hope Nader is satisfied to some degree by the realization that he was influential enough to affect the world. I imagine the fact that it was an extremely negative impact makes little difference to the god of hubris.
Now we have the latest example of hubris in the person of Bernie Sanders. Again old, bitter, unwilling to step aside and let others take center stage. I feel the same anger toward him I felt toward Nader. Both of them so consumed by hubris they would rather allow pain,suffering, and irreparable damage to be inflicted on the planet rather than see someone other than themselves be the one to defeat the purveyors of hate and ignorance that threaten to destroy us.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Whenever I think of hubris, I think of Ralph Nader, the third party candidate in the 2000 Bush versus Gore presidential election. I grew up in the sixties, and he was one of my heroes: a champion of the little guy against the depredations of corporate America, a consumer watchdog, a warrior for the environment, defender of the earth.
In 2000 we were on the cusp of the golden age of America - the true golden age, not the make-believe fantasy of the fifties. President Clinton had finally repaired the economic damage done by a succession of Republican presidents and managed to generate a budget surplus while retaining the safety net of programs for the poor and disabled, and while Republicans had begun to show signs of the brain-eating disease which would ultimately consume them all, there were still a few that were hanging on to their sanity. And most importantly, the Clinton policies were about to be extended into a third term by an experienced, intelligent, progressive politician with a passion for protecting the environment. It was right there before us - the golden age of America, and the world. All we had to do was reach out and take it.
But hubris intervened in the form of Ralph Nader, a man unwilling to pass the torch on to the next generation of environmentalists. Old, bitter, consumed by hubris, he mounted a third party campaign, making the absurd claim there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
He wasn't the only reason Bush won: Gore wasn't a great campaigner; the Republicans had no compunction about lying about anything and everything; and half the electorate preferred to vote for someone who was a "regular guy" rather than someone who seemed more like a college professor. But Nader did his part, and everything he had accomplished in his long, distinguished career was wiped away by eight years of Bush.
Where would this country be if Gore had been elected? Where would our economy be? Where would race relations be? Where would global warming be? I hope Nader is satisfied to some degree by the realization that he was influential enough to affect the world. I imagine the fact that it was an extremely negative impact makes little difference to the god of hubris.
Now we have the latest example of hubris in the person of Bernie Sanders. Again old, bitter, unwilling to step aside and let others take center stage. I feel the same anger toward him I felt toward Nader. Both of them so consumed by hubris they would rather allow pain,suffering, and irreparable damage to be inflicted on the planet rather than see someone other than themselves be the one to defeat the purveyors of hate and ignorance that threaten to destroy us.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Caitlyn Jenner
I'm old enough to remember when Bruce Jenner was an honest-to-goodness, real American hero. The undersized all-American kid who became the world's greatest athlete by defeating the Russian and east German supermen. This was back in the day when the USSR, for propaganda purposes, invested heavily in identifying potential Olympic champions at a young age and enrolling them in state-run athletic mills where they were immersed in the the most up-to-date training, nutritional, and drug regimens. While American Olympic athletes, on the other hand, were pretty much on their own. So, it was quite an achievement when he won the grueling Decathlon in the 1976 Olympics.
Even later, when he revealed his Republican leanings, he remained a hero to me. As the years, passed, though, and the GOP moved ever further to the right, becoming ever more bigoted, hate-filled, and intolerant, and he chose a career as a professional celebrity, it became increasingly difficult to hold him in high regard. Then it became impossible. It wasn't his decision to become a woman; I had no problem with that. I imagine the misery must be suffocating for individuals who perceive themselves trapped in a body not conforming to their true gender.
But as he, now she, maintained her loyalty to the Republican party, with no objection to it's ever-strengthening alliance with groups that are the primary persecutors of transgender people, a tipping point was reached for me, and she became a shallow, self-centered man with nothing inside, who became a shallow, self-centered woman with nothing inside. Nothing to see here, unfortunately. Just another of the multitude whose moral compass points nowhere.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Even later, when he revealed his Republican leanings, he remained a hero to me. As the years, passed, though, and the GOP moved ever further to the right, becoming ever more bigoted, hate-filled, and intolerant, and he chose a career as a professional celebrity, it became increasingly difficult to hold him in high regard. Then it became impossible. It wasn't his decision to become a woman; I had no problem with that. I imagine the misery must be suffocating for individuals who perceive themselves trapped in a body not conforming to their true gender.
But as he, now she, maintained her loyalty to the Republican party, with no objection to it's ever-strengthening alliance with groups that are the primary persecutors of transgender people, a tipping point was reached for me, and she became a shallow, self-centered man with nothing inside, who became a shallow, self-centered woman with nothing inside. Nothing to see here, unfortunately. Just another of the multitude whose moral compass points nowhere.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
The Great Game
When I was a young man I
remember reading about the Great Game, which was played out on a global scale
between Great Britain and Czarist Russia as Britain strove to maintain its
dominance of the seas by preventing Russia from obtaining a permanent warm
water port. Those must have been the days. But they are long gone. Now the term
means something else entirely. Now the Great Game is the effort by Republican
leaders to hide the true effects of their policies on working class white
Americans - the group that most strongly supports, and votes, for them.
Over the years they have
become experts at hiding the damage their policies inflict on their supporters.
But once in a while the truth is mistakenly leaked, as Donald Trump recently
did when he revealed that if Republicans succeed in having abortions made
illegal, then women who have abortions will be treated as criminals. Now to the
rest of us, this revelation came as
no surprise. It's pretty obvious that those engaging in a criminal activity
will face criminal penalties. If you are surprised that this revelation caused
so much uproar, you haven’t been paying attention and aren't familiar with the
rules of conservative world.
Because, actually, the
Great Game, as it is played in conservative world, is more like a ponzi scheme,
which can only operate successfully if both victims and perpetrators mutually
agree not to reveal the con that is taking place. Whether it is Republican
welfare policies that will only cut assistance to those that don’t deserve it and leave it alone for everyone else, economic
policies that will only cut the wages of immigrants and raise them for everyone else, or social policies that will
criminalize abortion but only punish providers, Republican leaders promise and
their supporters invest.
It’s entertaining, and
sad, when the Republican ruling class occasionally reveals the truth of the
arrangement, like Trump recently did, or several years back when a journalist
asked wealthy Republican women if they wanted the option of having an abortion
for themselves or their daughters if it were to be necessary. While many of them obfuscated, some of them
in fits of honesty said that yes, they wanted that option, but that if it
became necessary, they would only have one for the “right” reasons.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Uncivil War
I'm old enough to remember when there were sensible Republicans - defined as ones who didn't wish the south had won the war. I even voted for some of them. That's hard for me to imagine now. That was before the two parties flipped their roles, back when GOP politicians were often more progressive and the party more inclusive than Democrats. That was so long ago it wasn't even back in the day, it was more like back in the day before the day. It was before the terms conservative and Republican were synonymous.
Now I hate Republicans for what they believe, for what they represent, for what they are. That's not literally true - I know some individual Republicans I don't hate. I don't like them, but I don't actively hate them. But as a group, I do hate them for what they are doing to this country. They seem determined to destroy it along with any hint of fairness, tolerance, compassion, charity, inclusion, and create a new country in their own image. A new country dedicated to fear, intolerance, bigotry, selfishness, and ignorance.
Republicans and their political leaders don't even seem to consider themselves Americans. Don't believe me? Ask them if Obama is their president. They are citizens of conservative world, with its own rules of governance, its own principles, and even its own reality that have little in common with the United States and its place in the world as the rest of us know it. The way they describe it, the U.S is a weak, poor, dangerous country, governed by an ineligible president not respected by the rest of the world. In conservative world, George W. Bush kept us safe and Barack Obama hasn't. In the reality the rest of us live in, the opposite of all those statements is true
I live in the middle of conservative world, at least geographically, so I'm familiar with this alternate reality. I see it on television, I hear it on the radio and in conversations. I get angry at the racism and determined ignorance of the Republicans that surround me, but I get even angrier at their leaders who mostly know how they are damaging our country, but can't force themselves to risk their elected offices by challenging their constituents.
I wonder if any of the leaders of the south in the years leading up to the civil war tried to talk their fellow citizens out of tearing the country apart. If so, I haven't read about any of them. But I'm no historian, so there could have been some. Are there any today? I'm more confident in my answer to this one. There aren't any. Not one who will stand up and take the side of America over the interests of conservative world. And as usual they create their own reality in which they are the patriots. Not in this universe.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Now I hate Republicans for what they believe, for what they represent, for what they are. That's not literally true - I know some individual Republicans I don't hate. I don't like them, but I don't actively hate them. But as a group, I do hate them for what they are doing to this country. They seem determined to destroy it along with any hint of fairness, tolerance, compassion, charity, inclusion, and create a new country in their own image. A new country dedicated to fear, intolerance, bigotry, selfishness, and ignorance.
Republicans and their political leaders don't even seem to consider themselves Americans. Don't believe me? Ask them if Obama is their president. They are citizens of conservative world, with its own rules of governance, its own principles, and even its own reality that have little in common with the United States and its place in the world as the rest of us know it. The way they describe it, the U.S is a weak, poor, dangerous country, governed by an ineligible president not respected by the rest of the world. In conservative world, George W. Bush kept us safe and Barack Obama hasn't. In the reality the rest of us live in, the opposite of all those statements is true
I live in the middle of conservative world, at least geographically, so I'm familiar with this alternate reality. I see it on television, I hear it on the radio and in conversations. I get angry at the racism and determined ignorance of the Republicans that surround me, but I get even angrier at their leaders who mostly know how they are damaging our country, but can't force themselves to risk their elected offices by challenging their constituents.
I wonder if any of the leaders of the south in the years leading up to the civil war tried to talk their fellow citizens out of tearing the country apart. If so, I haven't read about any of them. But I'm no historian, so there could have been some. Are there any today? I'm more confident in my answer to this one. There aren't any. Not one who will stand up and take the side of America over the interests of conservative world. And as usual they create their own reality in which they are the patriots. Not in this universe.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Election time
I'm going to vote for Hillary, even though as a liberal I like Bernie's policies better. I like his policies, but don't like him very much, and it's vital for the survival of our country that a Democrat be elected in November, and I think Hillary is more electable than he is. And when I say the survival of our country is at stake, I'm not being melodramatic. The Republicans have gotten so bad, that to elect one as President could actually mean the United States as we know it will cease to exist.
I feel an affinity to her that I don't feel towards him. I'm about the same age as her, and I feel as if we've been through the wars together. I've worked in the public sector for many years developing housing for low-income people with disabilities, and I followed the budget wars Bill waged with Republicans in the House and Senate as they fought to zero out the housing and other programs that were the only hope for a decent life for millions of the neediest Americans. I remember the relief I felt when the final budget numbers came out and he had managed to restore enough funding to keep these programs alive. I knew that Hillary was his partner in these efforts, and I was one of the many thousands who wrote to her encouraging her efforts to extend health insurance to the millions who had none. And later, it was good to know she was there, encouraging President Obama as he fought the Republicans on the same issues.
And now comes Bernie, looking down from on high, declaring that nothing that has been accomplished by Democrats is good enough. Nothing measures up to his standards. Everything is inferior, lacking in the purity and integrity that he demands. There's something irritatingly patrician in his manner, like a Roman Senator holding forth on the Senate portico, not willing to come down and mix with the mob. Closer to home for me, he reminds me of the many politically-appointed administrators in the agencies I've worked for and with in every sector of government. The ones who were unwilling and unable to do the actual work of the agencies, but who were more than willing to criticize the work everyone else was doing.
Do I wish that Hillary weren't so close to Wall Street? Yes, absolutely. But Wall Street wasn't always the cesspool of avarice and corruption that it became under Bush. I have to believe that when it comes time to lance the boil that it has become, Hillary will, as she has always done and Republicans are incapable of doing, put the well-being of all of us above that of the richest and most privileged of us.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
I feel an affinity to her that I don't feel towards him. I'm about the same age as her, and I feel as if we've been through the wars together. I've worked in the public sector for many years developing housing for low-income people with disabilities, and I followed the budget wars Bill waged with Republicans in the House and Senate as they fought to zero out the housing and other programs that were the only hope for a decent life for millions of the neediest Americans. I remember the relief I felt when the final budget numbers came out and he had managed to restore enough funding to keep these programs alive. I knew that Hillary was his partner in these efforts, and I was one of the many thousands who wrote to her encouraging her efforts to extend health insurance to the millions who had none. And later, it was good to know she was there, encouraging President Obama as he fought the Republicans on the same issues.
And now comes Bernie, looking down from on high, declaring that nothing that has been accomplished by Democrats is good enough. Nothing measures up to his standards. Everything is inferior, lacking in the purity and integrity that he demands. There's something irritatingly patrician in his manner, like a Roman Senator holding forth on the Senate portico, not willing to come down and mix with the mob. Closer to home for me, he reminds me of the many politically-appointed administrators in the agencies I've worked for and with in every sector of government. The ones who were unwilling and unable to do the actual work of the agencies, but who were more than willing to criticize the work everyone else was doing.
Do I wish that Hillary weren't so close to Wall Street? Yes, absolutely. But Wall Street wasn't always the cesspool of avarice and corruption that it became under Bush. I have to believe that when it comes time to lance the boil that it has become, Hillary will, as she has always done and Republicans are incapable of doing, put the well-being of all of us above that of the richest and most privileged of us.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
2016
I don't pretend to be a modern-day Nostradamus, but sometimes the future is so obvious that one can't help but know it. This is one of those times, unfortunately. Besides, old Nostro was a fake, couching his predictions in such obscure language that no definitive judgement can be made about their accuracy. But this prediction is crystal clear:
Sometime in 2016 there will be a mass killing at a mosque in the United States. And after it happens, Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican political leaders, along with Fox news and the right-wing radio crowd, will mock and insult anyone who dares to suggest their hate-filled rhetoric against Muslims had anything to do with it; instead, they will blame it on Democrats for somehow not identifying and treating the delusional individual who is responsible, and hours after it occurs, the NRA will issue a press release stating that the high-powered, high capacity rifle the shooter used can't be blamed and the only way to have a safer society is to make more of them available.
I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I bet I'm not.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Sometime in 2016 there will be a mass killing at a mosque in the United States. And after it happens, Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican political leaders, along with Fox news and the right-wing radio crowd, will mock and insult anyone who dares to suggest their hate-filled rhetoric against Muslims had anything to do with it; instead, they will blame it on Democrats for somehow not identifying and treating the delusional individual who is responsible, and hours after it occurs, the NRA will issue a press release stating that the high-powered, high capacity rifle the shooter used can't be blamed and the only way to have a safer society is to make more of them available.
I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I bet I'm not.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)