Do you watch people who do the pat-hug? It is a curious half-hearted combination of two very personal actions, showing that neither is very sincere.
Just watch the end of a round of golf in the LPGA. The pat-hug has become the de rigueur counterpart to the male hand shake when competitors wrap-up a day's play. (Those hand-shakes can come across as pretty uninspired, too!) The pat-hug is used in many other situations as well, but to me anyway, it seems most practiced and least effectual here in the LPGA.
Perhaps I am totally wrong in this observation, but I do believe I see something that screams insincerity. And it can show up by surprise in varied circumstances.
In my estimation, the whole miss-managed action should be forsaken altogether. Think about it. If you know someone well enough that you feel a proper hug is called for and would not be offensive, then by all means, give a real hug. Let that person know you mean this personal gesture as your outward show of whatever love or condolence or congratulations the situation calls for. If you feel a person deserves a pat on the back, then give a sincere pat-on-the-back. That's it! No half-hug, piddly-pat combination gesture that lessens both in meaning.
Ever notice a referee in a wrestling match when a hold needs to be released? He gives a pat on the back to tell the person committing the disallowed hold that it's time to break it up. When I see a person involved in any hug that includes the little flutter pats on the back of the huggee, it says to me that the hugger is making that referee call on himself to his own desired end - that he entered the hug with the thought in mind that it needed to be broken up immediately. No lingering body togetherness to be endured for more than a split second. That's no hug! And the patting part is not really intended as a sincere pat-on-the-back with gusto. It merely says, "That's it, now I've done what I needed to do; please pull away!"
Recently I witnessed a man giving the pat-hug to his wife. That is really ugly. It literally made me wonder whether they might be fighting but had to show a good front to the public. My wife and I have been together for eighteen years, during which time I do not believe I have ever given her one of these less-than-real hugs. If my arms are around my wife, my hands on her body at some natural position gained when the hug began, the hands stay there, firmly saying "it's good to be next to you, holding you." If my wife deserves a pat on the back, I can also do that, and with full meaning, physically indicating "Congratulations," or "Well done," or whatever the case calls for. But since I am a hugger, she usually gets that full-bodied treatment over the pat because it goes farther to show my warm delight in her. She does NOT get both together in that silly little pat-hug.
When I hug a good friend, female or male, my hand on the back does not flutter in a method that calls the hold "disallowed." I hug meaningfully or I do not hug at all.
Have I ever committed the pat-hug? Yes, I confess to having done it, which is how I know what it means. Maybe it isn't the same for others, but it was clear to me that I was about to hug someone I didn't really want to pull against my own body, yet the circumstances seemed to say I should. Well, I don't do that nowadays. Because when I did it I felt myself allowing a "should" concept to override a desired (lack of) action, I gave myself permission to drop such half-meanings in the future. If you're getting a hug from me, prepare to be hugged, not patted! If you deserve a meaningful pat-on-the-back, I will stop short of knocking the wind out of you, but you will know I sincerely mean the pat!
Friday, July 13, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
What Do ____ Want?
No, this is not another installment of my series, Rattle of the Sexes. It might better be billed under Prattle of the Nexus - or some other contrived creation of an ethereal heading. That's because the query I am posing is not one for which I can clearly produce an answer. Unfortunately, there may never be a clear answer forthcoming from any quarter.
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Beginning of the End
Actually, the beginning has already phased in with no single event being the signal. Now some clarity emerges.
Monday, June 25, 2012 was the day our democracy staggered off to its sick bed, perhaps never to return. The election this November will determine whether the sick bed becomes the death bed.
I purposely held back and slept (fitfully) for two nights on this so I can state my case clearly and say the blunt truths that need to be said, while not doing so in the rush of hot anger I felt when hearing the news. In the note at the end of my recent post on Steve Bullock and his fight to save us from this day, I bitterly thanked the Supreme Fools for their unconscionable allowance of dark money in our elections. Today I can hardly contain my wrath for their new and deliberate action.
Montana, along with twenty-one other states trying to maintain some small hold on fairness in elections, was denied the right. Corporations and tycoons are now free to fix any and all elections wherever they see fit. We are all being stomped by the jackboots of the Supreme Fools! If our electorate does not wake up in time - in barely over four months - the damage will be complete and democracy as the United States has practiced it will be dead. Gone!
The steps are quite simple and those yet to fall are easily seen in advance:
1.) The court began in 2010, in two foolish decisions, allowing big money to have its way through super pacs and the idiotic equating of money with speech.
2.) These same fools now tell us that no state even has the right to prevent corruption in its own internal elections by limiting the dark money being spent unabated in order to influence voters.
3.) Big money will now very likely double or tripple the huge amounts that were spent by the deep pockets who were able to save the unimaginably destructive governor of Wisconsin from being ousted.
4.) NO candidate who is not backed by the wealthiest Americans and/or big business will be able to withstand the overwhelming influence of money on voters this fall.
5.) Once the unthinkable happens - the setting up of an incompetent puppet of the 1% in the presidency and further filling the congress with bribe-accepting (mis)representatives - what can stop the onslaught?
6.) After a puppet president chooses and seats new toadies of the rich (to match up well with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts!), the court will assure no democratic ideals can ever be returned to us.
7.) No political party other than Republicans will have any influence in our country. A one party system, answerable only to the wealthy, equals Plutocracy. Mundane ideas such as voting will end one day, perhaps within twenty years.
The Supreme Fools were smart in one way: they gave themselves wealth for life. They did as they were told to do. Mind you, they will begin to have no power whatsoever after the sell-out is complete, but they will remain in the seats of perceived power for life and be handsomely paid by the 1% to make sure all remains firmly in control.
So, kudos to the fat cats of the court! Oh, to be sure, they will be soon if they are not yet. I am absolutely confident that the personal accounts of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have been enhanced hugely in the last two years. Now it has to be assumed that Kennedy is also suddenly very wealthy. No more is he the voice of (cautious and limited) reason on the bench. And now, the voices of the four remaining, intelligent and perhaps quite honorable judges, are merely irritating squeeks in the room with the five who sold out. Soon, under a Republican administration, those other voices will begin to be replaced by staunch and greedy toadies yet to be named.
Now if I am proved wrong in my accusation of payola at the highest level in our justice system, and if these people are actually honest in their personal dealings but are merely fools, I can apologize for only one portion of my tirade. The damage to our country remains the same. We will not to be able to maintain any democratic future. So, be they honest and honorable or totally corrupt, it matters not. I will not apologize for calling them fools for that they certainly are!
A deer-in-the-headlights Democratic Senator was asked how we can ever return to any sense of fairness in elections, and he suggested that a constitutional amendment will be needed. You know, he's right! Now, just figure out how any bill is ever again going to get even the narrowest of majorities to overturn any self-serving actions of even the existing lower house of congress, much less the future far more Republican legislature. Forget it! This coming November is the end of democracy in our nation IF we do not stand as citizens and shout down right-wing stupidity with our votes!
NOW, in the next few months that remain for the practice of our democratic ideals, a thorough investigation by capable journalists could reveal some of these (alleged by me) truths. There has to be some way of determining how much under-the-table cash is changing hands, even on this high level. They were able to find Romney's off-shore accounts (and see how little Americans cared!), so they could also find how much money is being accepted and secretly stashed by those Supreme Court Injustices who are now gaining wealth by way of their decisions that help the rich. SOON there will be no way to trace this activity because new laws will be passed to prevent any meddling from journalists. Our democracy will be no more, and the money flow will soon drown out any voices from any quarter, just as those weak voices on the bench are sure to be eleminated.
Mark this date and check back in twenty years to see whether I need to apologize. My blog, by then, may be launched from some European country where justice is then being practiced and the many once-accepted freedoms of U.S. citizens will be commonplace. Very likely, anyone trying to write as bluntly as I have done here will have to go into hiding if he stays in this country. More likely, such subversive calls for fairness in the coming U.S. Plutocracy will land people in prison to shut them up. But if I am wrong in any of this and I can possibly stay in this country due to a recovery of a modicum of sanity in government, I will write that apology sooner - and gladly.
I have no desire at all to leave my home country, but I will find a way to do so when democracy leaves.
[UPDATE on Thursday, June 28, 2012: NO, I will not at this time take back anything I have said above due to today's ruling that the Affordable Care Act will not be overturned by the court. The moment I heard the news on ABC, while I was pleased to hear it initially, I told my wife that I do not trust Roberts as far as I can throw him; that he no doubt had a political slant that would redound to advantage Republicans and the 1% crowd. A moment later, the respected network reporter said that the way Roberts handled this case probably means he had a concern that the court could be seen as activist and perhaps cause a public backlash in November if the ACA were thrown out during the election year. Yes, I'd say that even these lifetime appointees I still will call fools are not without insight and cunning. They are playing a massive game of political chess and we pawns are still being moved at their calculated whim.
If progressives and Independents can, by any wild stroke of luck, retain the Presidency and even more wildly unlikely, regain control of congress this fall - one very timely new amendment needs to be enacted. Slow the madness of future corruption potential by setting term limits on Supreme Court justices. They are very fallible humans and their lifetime appointments offer them a huge temptation to see themselves as INfallible and entitled to make laws rather than help enforce them.]
And while I have your brief attention, please click on this link a friend just sent me. Disregard the actual meaning of WTF if it offends your ears, but just follow the simple line of thought about how our country is doing things and the obvious question of when are we going to say we've had enough?
July 3, 2012 Double your pleasure, double your base!
I claim no clairvoyant capacity, but may I remind you of the comment above about not trusting Roberts? This chief protector of justice is actually a political chess master. Polls out today show that twice as many voters from the Republican base are ready now to vote because of the court's ruling on healthcare! Would the chief conniver risk angering a few big money cohorts (only those running corporations in the healthcare field) for the time being in order to charge up the larger body of voters? Of course he would! Why not?! Besides, he can easily have them returned to full income and power soon after pushing the Republican puppet up onto the presidential throne. And best of all (for Roberts and his partisan henchmen), he can look forward to more right-wing injustices being appointed as soon as openings occur. All will soon be RIGHT with his world! And it's all WRONG for democracy and for our struggling country.
Monday, June 25, 2012 was the day our democracy staggered off to its sick bed, perhaps never to return. The election this November will determine whether the sick bed becomes the death bed.
I purposely held back and slept (fitfully) for two nights on this so I can state my case clearly and say the blunt truths that need to be said, while not doing so in the rush of hot anger I felt when hearing the news. In the note at the end of my recent post on Steve Bullock and his fight to save us from this day, I bitterly thanked the Supreme Fools for their unconscionable allowance of dark money in our elections. Today I can hardly contain my wrath for their new and deliberate action.
Montana, along with twenty-one other states trying to maintain some small hold on fairness in elections, was denied the right. Corporations and tycoons are now free to fix any and all elections wherever they see fit. We are all being stomped by the jackboots of the Supreme Fools! If our electorate does not wake up in time - in barely over four months - the damage will be complete and democracy as the United States has practiced it will be dead. Gone!
The steps are quite simple and those yet to fall are easily seen in advance:
1.) The court began in 2010, in two foolish decisions, allowing big money to have its way through super pacs and the idiotic equating of money with speech.
2.) These same fools now tell us that no state even has the right to prevent corruption in its own internal elections by limiting the dark money being spent unabated in order to influence voters.
3.) Big money will now very likely double or tripple the huge amounts that were spent by the deep pockets who were able to save the unimaginably destructive governor of Wisconsin from being ousted.
4.) NO candidate who is not backed by the wealthiest Americans and/or big business will be able to withstand the overwhelming influence of money on voters this fall.
5.) Once the unthinkable happens - the setting up of an incompetent puppet of the 1% in the presidency and further filling the congress with bribe-accepting (mis)representatives - what can stop the onslaught?
6.) After a puppet president chooses and seats new toadies of the rich (to match up well with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts!), the court will assure no democratic ideals can ever be returned to us.
7.) No political party other than Republicans will have any influence in our country. A one party system, answerable only to the wealthy, equals Plutocracy. Mundane ideas such as voting will end one day, perhaps within twenty years.
The Supreme Fools were smart in one way: they gave themselves wealth for life. They did as they were told to do. Mind you, they will begin to have no power whatsoever after the sell-out is complete, but they will remain in the seats of perceived power for life and be handsomely paid by the 1% to make sure all remains firmly in control.
So, kudos to the fat cats of the court! Oh, to be sure, they will be soon if they are not yet. I am absolutely confident that the personal accounts of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have been enhanced hugely in the last two years. Now it has to be assumed that Kennedy is also suddenly very wealthy. No more is he the voice of (cautious and limited) reason on the bench. And now, the voices of the four remaining, intelligent and perhaps quite honorable judges, are merely irritating squeeks in the room with the five who sold out. Soon, under a Republican administration, those other voices will begin to be replaced by staunch and greedy toadies yet to be named.
Now if I am proved wrong in my accusation of payola at the highest level in our justice system, and if these people are actually honest in their personal dealings but are merely fools, I can apologize for only one portion of my tirade. The damage to our country remains the same. We will not to be able to maintain any democratic future. So, be they honest and honorable or totally corrupt, it matters not. I will not apologize for calling them fools for that they certainly are!
A deer-in-the-headlights Democratic Senator was asked how we can ever return to any sense of fairness in elections, and he suggested that a constitutional amendment will be needed. You know, he's right! Now, just figure out how any bill is ever again going to get even the narrowest of majorities to overturn any self-serving actions of even the existing lower house of congress, much less the future far more Republican legislature. Forget it! This coming November is the end of democracy in our nation IF we do not stand as citizens and shout down right-wing stupidity with our votes!
NOW, in the next few months that remain for the practice of our democratic ideals, a thorough investigation by capable journalists could reveal some of these (alleged by me) truths. There has to be some way of determining how much under-the-table cash is changing hands, even on this high level. They were able to find Romney's off-shore accounts (and see how little Americans cared!), so they could also find how much money is being accepted and secretly stashed by those Supreme Court Injustices who are now gaining wealth by way of their decisions that help the rich. SOON there will be no way to trace this activity because new laws will be passed to prevent any meddling from journalists. Our democracy will be no more, and the money flow will soon drown out any voices from any quarter, just as those weak voices on the bench are sure to be eleminated.
Mark this date and check back in twenty years to see whether I need to apologize. My blog, by then, may be launched from some European country where justice is then being practiced and the many once-accepted freedoms of U.S. citizens will be commonplace. Very likely, anyone trying to write as bluntly as I have done here will have to go into hiding if he stays in this country. More likely, such subversive calls for fairness in the coming U.S. Plutocracy will land people in prison to shut them up. But if I am wrong in any of this and I can possibly stay in this country due to a recovery of a modicum of sanity in government, I will write that apology sooner - and gladly.
I have no desire at all to leave my home country, but I will find a way to do so when democracy leaves.
[UPDATE on Thursday, June 28, 2012: NO, I will not at this time take back anything I have said above due to today's ruling that the Affordable Care Act will not be overturned by the court. The moment I heard the news on ABC, while I was pleased to hear it initially, I told my wife that I do not trust Roberts as far as I can throw him; that he no doubt had a political slant that would redound to advantage Republicans and the 1% crowd. A moment later, the respected network reporter said that the way Roberts handled this case probably means he had a concern that the court could be seen as activist and perhaps cause a public backlash in November if the ACA were thrown out during the election year. Yes, I'd say that even these lifetime appointees I still will call fools are not without insight and cunning. They are playing a massive game of political chess and we pawns are still being moved at their calculated whim.
If progressives and Independents can, by any wild stroke of luck, retain the Presidency and even more wildly unlikely, regain control of congress this fall - one very timely new amendment needs to be enacted. Slow the madness of future corruption potential by setting term limits on Supreme Court justices. They are very fallible humans and their lifetime appointments offer them a huge temptation to see themselves as INfallible and entitled to make laws rather than help enforce them.]
And while I have your brief attention, please click on this link a friend just sent me. Disregard the actual meaning of WTF if it offends your ears, but just follow the simple line of thought about how our country is doing things and the obvious question of when are we going to say we've had enough?
July 3, 2012 Double your pleasure, double your base!
I claim no clairvoyant capacity, but may I remind you of the comment above about not trusting Roberts? This chief protector of justice is actually a political chess master. Polls out today show that twice as many voters from the Republican base are ready now to vote because of the court's ruling on healthcare! Would the chief conniver risk angering a few big money cohorts (only those running corporations in the healthcare field) for the time being in order to charge up the larger body of voters? Of course he would! Why not?! Besides, he can easily have them returned to full income and power soon after pushing the Republican puppet up onto the presidential throne. And best of all (for Roberts and his partisan henchmen), he can look forward to more right-wing injustices being appointed as soon as openings occur. All will soon be RIGHT with his world! And it's all WRONG for democracy and for our struggling country.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Epiphany TWO
My earlier epiphany involved politics and religion. I maintain my strong opinion on the matter of an unholy amalgam that has developed in our nation. And thus far, though stats tell me it was read by a good many people, no vehement refutation or even strong criticism has resulted. Perhaps many quietly agree with me, and perhaps many hated my view and simply won't dignify it with comment. Either way, I stand by my statements about Republicans and Christians, in that post as well as some writing since then.
Today's E-TWO would have appeared here prior to that other epiphany if it had crystallized in my mind as it has more recently. The axiom is more profound and of greater importance to mankind - and my flat statement of it will surely be more roundly despised because people hate to be reminded bluntly of things they already know deep inside.
The Golden Rule is at its core. For many years, since the days in 1976 when I rejected the Worldwide Church of God along with all religious cult(s), the general life-standard for me has been the purest of guidelines: The Golden Rule. Is it not yours? Or if not, why not?! If you are a part of any belief system on Earth, the tenet which is labeled more simply as The Golden Rule is ostensibly part of your cult - your church - your belief system.
Even the very self-righteous among believers, the holier-than-thou folks, know that the very idea that one could ever actually "love thy neighbor as thyself" is pure crap. It's just not going to happen! But the more palatable wording of the simple rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is essentially accepted by all as what was really meant.
My big epiphany is simply this: If any action does not measure up to the Golden Rule, it is fundamentally detrimental to human life. After all, we are all humans and we all must share this life and this planet (for the time being, anyway). How does all this sharing happen and how can we progress much farther as a species? Will it be strictly by the rule of law? By that endless string of laws created by fallible humans and enforced usually by even more fallible humans? Not a single religious entity would accept this concept; it's why religion exists! Humans distrust other humans, so they buy into a supreme being concept in the hope of eventually being rescued from those other humans. Until such time as that rapture occurs, they will pass their laws, all geared to their own protection against each other, and the most devout believers always want those laws to be guided by God's Law. May I overstate the obvious? The Golden Rule is a standard plank in the platform of all those many divergent slants on what is called God's law! Why not USE it?
In my return last year to the practice of real estate, I was required to take extensive exams on rules, etc. No problem; we all need to be aware of how best to do the job. But I was highly disturbed at the final set of requirements for me to begin my practice; I had to pass an exam on ethics. Now this would not have been a major concern since my lifestyle is one of ethical behavior. But the way it was handled in the real estate requirements irked me tremendously. There are seventeen rules we were told we needed to grasp, learn and use in our sales of properties. Rule #3 was "Practice the Golden Rule." Then all the other big, supposedly important rules were spelled out. I recoiled in real anger at this ludicrous list. The other sixteen rules were totally extraneous; rule #3 should obviously be the only rule. It's all that is needed. But in typical litigious human fashion, many little legalistic insertions were placed in the instructions on how to be ethical in our dealings with others. What a waste! What an admission that we are not really capable as weak humans to do the right thing without picky laws and tiny points of potential conflict. [Can you spell, Pharisees, everyone?] The one rule, that GOLDEN one, is all anyone should ever need.
If a Christian actually believes what he reads in his accepted holy book, what does it mean to him that his purported Lord, the Son of God narrowed it all down to the simplest terms in saying just two laws really were required of anyone: to love God and to love neighbor? The weakness of humans led them to continue making all kinds of ancillary laws to make sure others were following the instructions properly. You are told how to love God and how to get around actually loving neighbor but to somehow live near him.
An old friend with whom I had lost contact for over forty years read my statement of being a Humanist and living by the Golden Rule as my only guide. She wrote that it saddened her that I had "lost" my spiritual connection and pointed to a comfort in knowing there is love and forgiveness available to her when she fails in fully abiding by the truly fundamental Golden Rule. She stated that through weakness, both Christians and Humanists fail in our efforts, a point I concede without argument. The real rub, in my estimation, is that Christians pay only lip service to the concept in the first place. We Humanists definitely fail at times in our dealings with others, but we accept the ultimate responsibility to make it right. Christians can fall back on the old idea that God loves a sinner and can rest easy because they pray for forgiveness - but they don't necessarily feel the need to return to their wrong-doing to even try to make it right! They would shudder to think of actually facing other humans who may have been hurt or offended and offering either apology or help or both. It's far easier to relax in the waiting arms of a phantom being who (mystically) licks the offender's wounds and offers sanctuary. Nice escape!
[ I'm editing here a bit to say that I am obviously not branding all Christians as hypocrites who pay lip service and do nothing to attempt living peaceably among other humans. I assert only that the cocoon of Christianity, indeed, any belief system, invites escapism.]
I do NOT love all my neighbors, but I also do not treat them in any way other than the way I want to be treated. Simple as that! Since I am no longer compelled by any religious cult to live in that way of making a show of loving God and doing good works, (or praying a lot and looking devout) etc., I can be a simple, decent human being. The problem, as I see it, with all the various religious groups is that believers identify with this or that labeled belief and this mantle is enough for them. "I'm a Catholic," I'm a Baptist," "I'm a Mormon," "I'm a whatever," and the cocoon of acceptability and godliness wrapped around that group automatically allows everyone to assume certain tenets are being followed. The individual believer now has no real responsibility to mankind; he is safely coddled in the womb of his mother church. Deeds? Works? Oh, those are such legalistic ideas! Grace is all that is important. [I understand the former WCG is now even carrying the term grace in its new name. Probably out of guilt for no longer trying to do much of the all-important work that sustained us back in the days of Herbert Armstrong's heavy-handed form of religion.]
Do unto others...
Would I like to be shot? No! That's why I will never shoot anyone. Do I want to be bashed in the face with a fist? No! That's why I will never hit anyone. Do I want to be judged by others about my personal life? No! (Although that doesn't really hurt me much at all.) But I do not judge others. Do I want to be suspected of being gay, thereby suffering all the injustices heaped upon gay people? No! Therefore, knowing my accidental state of being heterosexual should not entitle me to better treatment than anyone who is gay, I repudiate the very idea that the state of gayness has anything to do with any one's rights. Do I want to be picked on for my race? No! The fact that I am a pasty-white human does not mean I deserve to be treated any better than anyone of any skin tone on Earth. We are, after all, on the same Earth! Therefore I detest any form of racism and ill treatment of anyone whose skin is not like mine.
Some will doubtless read these words and call me a goody-goody, or something judged to be even worse, but that bothers me not at all. Others will assume I am simply deluding myself and that I secretly (even unknown to myself) have my own set of judgments and hatreds. Oh, I do have some of these, but I submit that I harbor fewer hidden putrefying human sins than do most self-righteous people who populate the many churches on their chosen sabbaths and holy days. As to judging people, some will say that if I so hate the racism I witness around me, then I must hate the racists themselves. Not so. In the mode of hating the sin but loving the sinner (a very self-righteous claim many folks make but carefully maintain it within the concept of an ethereal set of tenets held by mother church), I customarily make it known to the raw racist that I see him for what he is and will not partake of his slurs and jokes. Still I can be his neighbor and even friend. And even if he is someone I would not likely seek out for his good company, I might be his best friend because he could become a better person due to my example of decent humanity.
Much more boils up from my depths, but perhaps I will save other thoughts to include in later posts along these lines.
What still eludes me is why mankind finds it impossible to live by the Golden Rule entirely as the only real requirement for a safe and happy existence. Most likely it all stems from early man's search for meaning and the need to find a shelter from the monumental fear of the unknown. Once a concept took root and grew, a concept of some higher power in the heavens waiting to rescue faithful followers and remove them from this domain of frightening other humans, the belief in and the clutching to some hope for a future better place became easier than trying to solve human problems for today. And the solving of so many human problems begins merely by accepting others as equals and showing simple respect. By NOT choosing shooting over communicating, we could solve the vast majority of human ills.
Today's E-TWO would have appeared here prior to that other epiphany if it had crystallized in my mind as it has more recently. The axiom is more profound and of greater importance to mankind - and my flat statement of it will surely be more roundly despised because people hate to be reminded bluntly of things they already know deep inside.
The Golden Rule is at its core. For many years, since the days in 1976 when I rejected the Worldwide Church of God along with all religious cult(s), the general life-standard for me has been the purest of guidelines: The Golden Rule. Is it not yours? Or if not, why not?! If you are a part of any belief system on Earth, the tenet which is labeled more simply as The Golden Rule is ostensibly part of your cult - your church - your belief system.
Even the very self-righteous among believers, the holier-than-thou folks, know that the very idea that one could ever actually "love thy neighbor as thyself" is pure crap. It's just not going to happen! But the more palatable wording of the simple rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is essentially accepted by all as what was really meant.
My big epiphany is simply this: If any action does not measure up to the Golden Rule, it is fundamentally detrimental to human life. After all, we are all humans and we all must share this life and this planet (for the time being, anyway). How does all this sharing happen and how can we progress much farther as a species? Will it be strictly by the rule of law? By that endless string of laws created by fallible humans and enforced usually by even more fallible humans? Not a single religious entity would accept this concept; it's why religion exists! Humans distrust other humans, so they buy into a supreme being concept in the hope of eventually being rescued from those other humans. Until such time as that rapture occurs, they will pass their laws, all geared to their own protection against each other, and the most devout believers always want those laws to be guided by God's Law. May I overstate the obvious? The Golden Rule is a standard plank in the platform of all those many divergent slants on what is called God's law! Why not USE it?
In my return last year to the practice of real estate, I was required to take extensive exams on rules, etc. No problem; we all need to be aware of how best to do the job. But I was highly disturbed at the final set of requirements for me to begin my practice; I had to pass an exam on ethics. Now this would not have been a major concern since my lifestyle is one of ethical behavior. But the way it was handled in the real estate requirements irked me tremendously. There are seventeen rules we were told we needed to grasp, learn and use in our sales of properties. Rule #3 was "Practice the Golden Rule." Then all the other big, supposedly important rules were spelled out. I recoiled in real anger at this ludicrous list. The other sixteen rules were totally extraneous; rule #3 should obviously be the only rule. It's all that is needed. But in typical litigious human fashion, many little legalistic insertions were placed in the instructions on how to be ethical in our dealings with others. What a waste! What an admission that we are not really capable as weak humans to do the right thing without picky laws and tiny points of potential conflict. [Can you spell, Pharisees, everyone?] The one rule, that GOLDEN one, is all anyone should ever need.
If a Christian actually believes what he reads in his accepted holy book, what does it mean to him that his purported Lord, the Son of God narrowed it all down to the simplest terms in saying just two laws really were required of anyone: to love God and to love neighbor? The weakness of humans led them to continue making all kinds of ancillary laws to make sure others were following the instructions properly. You are told how to love God and how to get around actually loving neighbor but to somehow live near him.
An old friend with whom I had lost contact for over forty years read my statement of being a Humanist and living by the Golden Rule as my only guide. She wrote that it saddened her that I had "lost" my spiritual connection and pointed to a comfort in knowing there is love and forgiveness available to her when she fails in fully abiding by the truly fundamental Golden Rule. She stated that through weakness, both Christians and Humanists fail in our efforts, a point I concede without argument. The real rub, in my estimation, is that Christians pay only lip service to the concept in the first place. We Humanists definitely fail at times in our dealings with others, but we accept the ultimate responsibility to make it right. Christians can fall back on the old idea that God loves a sinner and can rest easy because they pray for forgiveness - but they don't necessarily feel the need to return to their wrong-doing to even try to make it right! They would shudder to think of actually facing other humans who may have been hurt or offended and offering either apology or help or both. It's far easier to relax in the waiting arms of a phantom being who (mystically) licks the offender's wounds and offers sanctuary. Nice escape!
[ I'm editing here a bit to say that I am obviously not branding all Christians as hypocrites who pay lip service and do nothing to attempt living peaceably among other humans. I assert only that the cocoon of Christianity, indeed, any belief system, invites escapism.]
I do NOT love all my neighbors, but I also do not treat them in any way other than the way I want to be treated. Simple as that! Since I am no longer compelled by any religious cult to live in that way of making a show of loving God and doing good works, (or praying a lot and looking devout) etc., I can be a simple, decent human being. The problem, as I see it, with all the various religious groups is that believers identify with this or that labeled belief and this mantle is enough for them. "I'm a Catholic," I'm a Baptist," "I'm a Mormon," "I'm a whatever," and the cocoon of acceptability and godliness wrapped around that group automatically allows everyone to assume certain tenets are being followed. The individual believer now has no real responsibility to mankind; he is safely coddled in the womb of his mother church. Deeds? Works? Oh, those are such legalistic ideas! Grace is all that is important. [I understand the former WCG is now even carrying the term grace in its new name. Probably out of guilt for no longer trying to do much of the all-important work that sustained us back in the days of Herbert Armstrong's heavy-handed form of religion.]
Do unto others...
Would I like to be shot? No! That's why I will never shoot anyone. Do I want to be bashed in the face with a fist? No! That's why I will never hit anyone. Do I want to be judged by others about my personal life? No! (Although that doesn't really hurt me much at all.) But I do not judge others. Do I want to be suspected of being gay, thereby suffering all the injustices heaped upon gay people? No! Therefore, knowing my accidental state of being heterosexual should not entitle me to better treatment than anyone who is gay, I repudiate the very idea that the state of gayness has anything to do with any one's rights. Do I want to be picked on for my race? No! The fact that I am a pasty-white human does not mean I deserve to be treated any better than anyone of any skin tone on Earth. We are, after all, on the same Earth! Therefore I detest any form of racism and ill treatment of anyone whose skin is not like mine.
Some will doubtless read these words and call me a goody-goody, or something judged to be even worse, but that bothers me not at all. Others will assume I am simply deluding myself and that I secretly (even unknown to myself) have my own set of judgments and hatreds. Oh, I do have some of these, but I submit that I harbor fewer hidden putrefying human sins than do most self-righteous people who populate the many churches on their chosen sabbaths and holy days. As to judging people, some will say that if I so hate the racism I witness around me, then I must hate the racists themselves. Not so. In the mode of hating the sin but loving the sinner (a very self-righteous claim many folks make but carefully maintain it within the concept of an ethereal set of tenets held by mother church), I customarily make it known to the raw racist that I see him for what he is and will not partake of his slurs and jokes. Still I can be his neighbor and even friend. And even if he is someone I would not likely seek out for his good company, I might be his best friend because he could become a better person due to my example of decent humanity.
Much more boils up from my depths, but perhaps I will save other thoughts to include in later posts along these lines.
What still eludes me is why mankind finds it impossible to live by the Golden Rule entirely as the only real requirement for a safe and happy existence. Most likely it all stems from early man's search for meaning and the need to find a shelter from the monumental fear of the unknown. Once a concept took root and grew, a concept of some higher power in the heavens waiting to rescue faithful followers and remove them from this domain of frightening other humans, the belief in and the clutching to some hope for a future better place became easier than trying to solve human problems for today. And the solving of so many human problems begins merely by accepting others as equals and showing simple respect. By NOT choosing shooting over communicating, we could solve the vast majority of human ills.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
NORMAL
Is being normal something desirable? The very meaning of the word is derived from finding norms and making them standards or pars to shoot for. Setting a norm is done by researching a matter through a large number of people and coming to a numerical mean representing the most often encountered approach to such a matter. It's all very clinical or scientific, but not very personal.
Since norms are found through numbers, you would expect the mathematical explanation of the term to be clear and precise. Which I suppose it is. Here is the mathematician's meaning of norm; you decide:
Norm - a real-valued, nonnegative function whose domain is a vector space, with properties such that the function of a vector is zero only when the vector is zero, the function of a scalar times a vector is equal to the absolute value of the scalar times the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the function values of each vector. The norm of a real number is its absolute value.
Boy, you really said a mouthful, Mr. Math Man! And of course, a mathematician reading this will wonder why I am so mystified.
What I suppose I need to discuss here is actually the term, Social Norms. These still are devised through math but are usually made somewhat more easily understood, translated to English.
There is also an extensive, multi-linked write-up on the subject in Wikipedia, a bit of which I quote here: It is important to note that what is considered “normal” is relative to the location of the culture in which the social interaction is taking place
I need to break this down further by saying it is relative to a pin-point location of the micro-culture. Where I live, in a small village of fewer than 500 homes, the norms have been set mostly by "birds of a feather" caprice. The guideline of the 55 & older, senior community requirement naturally begins the process of refining the micro-culture, but then it is apparently influenced by those coming here and seeing others who are already living here, then feeling a comfort zone of sorts among the established residents. Or if that zone doesn't seem to offer comfort, there is less likelihood an offer to buy a home will be forthcoming.
In my Dec., 2011 post entitled Clear as Black and White, I mentioned some of the racial comments that are uttered around here. And I may have told about one individual who spoke to me as a realtor with the hope that I would do my part to make sure only our type of people moved to our village. Don't you wonder what he meant by that? Probably more than just racial prejudice was being hinted at in his appeal. He would undoubtedly love it if we could somehow direct our selling to only white, Christian, "straight," Republican, friendly folks. As I've indicated elsewhere, my sole desired pre-requisite would be the friendly part, but that would still go against ethical practice. If a curmudgeon wants to buy here, I will write the offer. Same goes for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Muslims, gays, lesbians, transvestites, atheists, and even Hoosiers! (This is my light-hearted claiming of the right of familiarity; my wife and I are from Indiana.)
But my point is, I would feel at least as much comfort around any of the types listed here (as long as they are friendly!), as I do around white, Christian, "straight," Republicans. Still I am forced to hide any personal thoughts at times - actually have to even keep quiet about my neutrality - or else my few sales here would drop to NO sales and I might be ousted from the men's golf club and/or any other activities of my community. This micro-culture has its set of norms, and other than being an old fart, I really don't fit within them. Shhhh! Keep my secret, please! I need to earn a living for another decade or so! Meanwhile, using casual joking as a shield, I toss off something about how much I would hate to be seen as normal, and all the folks accept me in good humor as one of their own type. One day, they may all find out that I am dead serious.
Normal? Who wants to be that guy?!
There is also an extensive, multi-linked write-up on the subject in Wikipedia, a bit of which I quote here: It is important to note that what is considered “normal” is relative to the location of the culture in which the social interaction is taking place
I need to break this down further by saying it is relative to a pin-point location of the micro-culture. Where I live, in a small village of fewer than 500 homes, the norms have been set mostly by "birds of a feather" caprice. The guideline of the 55 & older, senior community requirement naturally begins the process of refining the micro-culture, but then it is apparently influenced by those coming here and seeing others who are already living here, then feeling a comfort zone of sorts among the established residents. Or if that zone doesn't seem to offer comfort, there is less likelihood an offer to buy a home will be forthcoming.
In my Dec., 2011 post entitled Clear as Black and White, I mentioned some of the racial comments that are uttered around here. And I may have told about one individual who spoke to me as a realtor with the hope that I would do my part to make sure only our type of people moved to our village. Don't you wonder what he meant by that? Probably more than just racial prejudice was being hinted at in his appeal. He would undoubtedly love it if we could somehow direct our selling to only white, Christian, "straight," Republican, friendly folks. As I've indicated elsewhere, my sole desired pre-requisite would be the friendly part, but that would still go against ethical practice. If a curmudgeon wants to buy here, I will write the offer. Same goes for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Muslims, gays, lesbians, transvestites, atheists, and even Hoosiers! (This is my light-hearted claiming of the right of familiarity; my wife and I are from Indiana.)
But my point is, I would feel at least as much comfort around any of the types listed here (as long as they are friendly!), as I do around white, Christian, "straight," Republicans. Still I am forced to hide any personal thoughts at times - actually have to even keep quiet about my neutrality - or else my few sales here would drop to NO sales and I might be ousted from the men's golf club and/or any other activities of my community. This micro-culture has its set of norms, and other than being an old fart, I really don't fit within them. Shhhh! Keep my secret, please! I need to earn a living for another decade or so! Meanwhile, using casual joking as a shield, I toss off something about how much I would hate to be seen as normal, and all the folks accept me in good humor as one of their own type. One day, they may all find out that I am dead serious.
Normal? Who wants to be that guy?!
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Steve Bullock, American!
Not in any alternate universe I can conjure would I be singing the praises of a lawyer/politician above all other Americans. But at the moment, I can see no one more worthy of my praise and whatever support I could manage to give. As I see it, Steve Bullock, Attorney General for the state of Montana, may represent our last hope to remain a democratic nation.
Bullock is now running for Governor of Montana, but it is his dedication to his work as Attorney General that has my attention and appreciation. If he is elected Governor, naturally he plans to continue to push for his principles. Managing to get elected, however, is going to be a hard, up-hill fight. And quite suddenly, the up-hill struggle is facing a likely avalanche of money ready to bury an honorable candidate.
From the Missoulian newspaper, 5/30/12 ... a forum hosted by Attorney General Steve Bullock and titled “By the People: A Conversation about Corporate Influence on our Democracy.” Bullock is defending Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act before the U.S. Supreme Court, and his office teamed up with the UM law school to spread the word in Missoula about the case pending in the wake of the high court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
For a century, the political scene in Montana has maintained logical, civil and effective election practices. Its Corrupt Practices Act, ushered in in 1912, was established to protect the state against corruption and lift it above its former disgrace of having big money and corporations influence the outcome of elections. Politicians were bought openly; the concept of democracy and seeing the people being fairly represented was a joke. Montana was losing any semblance of actual democracy until the people chose to limit corporate influence on elections.
Are we not right there again today as an entire nation? Are we not floundering in a sea of store-bought politicians and rigged elections? And today, it is largely the result of our vaunted Supreme Court's most ludicrous and destructive decision in our history, the very bad joke known as Citizens United. It was supreme lunacy to toss aside our founding principle of government ...by the people, and invite big money interests to take over control of who wins elections.
Will our Supreme Court return to being somewhat supreme? Being worthy of our respect again by showing they know how to correct themselves and their egregious error?
Doubtful. One would imagine that the humans (with human frailties) on the bench are also watching their personal bank accounts mysteriously grow. Once big money has accomplished much of the goal of getting rid of pesky progressives (particularly that sitting president, the black !$*%&@!) and their desire to see the people governed fairly, then what's to stop the country from the final plunge into a plutocracy? Have you caught the nuances lately in the use of this word? Only a year or two ago, most pundits and writers were talking about the lean toward a plutocracy; recently more are willing to label our current political structure as our plutocracy. And the take-over of democracy is nearing completion - the success of the 1% uber-rich class owing to the idiocy of the Supreme Court. (Perhaps that could be said with a lighter tone as - of all people - Sen. John McCain recently phrased his view of the court. From the Washington Post, May 20 article by Robert Barnes: McCain has in turn been dismissive of a court — without a single member who has ever run for public office — that he says is hopelessly naive about how campaign finance affects the political process.)
So, was the Citizens United ruling the proverbial bridge too far? Will the court see any chance of pulling back from the brink of democracy's demise? The answer may well rest with this case of Bullock vs a dastardly D.C.-based entity that was able to get the court to prevent the enforcement ofMontana
But consider the other road: If the court bows further to big money in this case and Steve Bullock is then run over and squashed under corporate influence, then he will not be the big loser. The nation will be the real loser. We all (99% of us) will lose and the Supreme Court will lose its ability to ever be supreme again. At this point, the court itself appears to have been influenced by big money. Once it has completely capitulated and the plutocracy is in place with strength, the court will march to all orders of the 1% from then on.
Actually, I had considered coining a new term for the ungainly beast that will come to power once democracy has been ousted. I see it as right-wing radicalism which has come to mean the rich and the religious somehow marching in lock-step to combine their strengths. So methought perhaps a new name such as plutheocracy would cover it. But this is not necessary to consider. The final outcome will actually be nothing more than the plutocracy at the helm because the 1% cares no more for religionists than for pagans such as I. Christianity is simply being used as a means to an end. The plutocrats will ride rough-shod over us all and make all decisions on any and all matters public and private. And I will have to seek a new country.
Or maybe Steve Bullock will just come through!
June 6th note:
Now the weight on Bullock's back is heavier than ever; Wisconsin let us down yesterday. The whole progressive world was damaged badly in Wisconsin by the failure of the people's effort to oust the wretched excuse for a governor, even after so much uproar over his policies had made it easy to petition for his recall. The reason for the failure? Big money! And what's being called dark money. The groundswell for democratic action and justice in one state was run over and squashed under national unlimited influence. Thank you, Supreme Fools!
Bullock is now running for Governor of Montana, but it is his dedication to his work as Attorney General that has my attention and appreciation. If he is elected Governor, naturally he plans to continue to push for his principles. Managing to get elected, however, is going to be a hard, up-hill fight. And quite suddenly, the up-hill struggle is facing a likely avalanche of money ready to bury an honorable candidate.
From the Missoulian newspaper, 5/30/12 ... a forum hosted by Attorney General Steve Bullock and titled “By the People: A Conversation about Corporate Influence on our Democracy.” Bullock is defending Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act before the U.S. Supreme Court, and his office teamed up with the UM law school to spread the word in Missoula about the case pending in the wake of the high court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
For a century, the political scene in Montana has maintained logical, civil and effective election practices. Its Corrupt Practices Act, ushered in in 1912, was established to protect the state against corruption and lift it above its former disgrace of having big money and corporations influence the outcome of elections. Politicians were bought openly; the concept of democracy and seeing the people being fairly represented was a joke. Montana was losing any semblance of actual democracy until the people chose to limit corporate influence on elections.
Are we not right there again today as an entire nation? Are we not floundering in a sea of store-bought politicians and rigged elections? And today, it is largely the result of our vaunted Supreme Court's most ludicrous and destructive decision in our history, the very bad joke known as Citizens United. It was supreme lunacy to toss aside our founding principle of government ...by the people, and invite big money interests to take over control of who wins elections.
Will our Supreme Court return to being somewhat supreme? Being worthy of our respect again by showing they know how to correct themselves and their egregious error?
Doubtful. One would imagine that the humans (with human frailties) on the bench are also watching their personal bank accounts mysteriously grow. Once big money has accomplished much of the goal of getting rid of pesky progressives (particularly that sitting president, the black !$*%&@!) and their desire to see the people governed fairly, then what's to stop the country from the final plunge into a plutocracy? Have you caught the nuances lately in the use of this word? Only a year or two ago, most pundits and writers were talking about the lean toward a plutocracy; recently more are willing to label our current political structure as our plutocracy. And the take-over of democracy is nearing completion - the success of the 1% uber-rich class owing to the idiocy of the Supreme Court. (Perhaps that could be said with a lighter tone as - of all people - Sen. John McCain recently phrased his view of the court. From the Washington Post, May 20 article by Robert Barnes: McCain has in turn been dismissive of a court — without a single member who has ever run for public office — that he says is hopelessly naive about how campaign finance affects the political process.)
So, was the Citizens United ruling the proverbial bridge too far? Will the court see any chance of pulling back from the brink of democracy's demise? The answer may well rest with this case of Bullock vs a dastardly D.C.-based entity that was able to get the court to prevent the enforcement of
But consider the other road: If the court bows further to big money in this case and Steve Bullock is then run over and squashed under corporate influence, then he will not be the big loser. The nation will be the real loser. We all (99% of us) will lose and the Supreme Court will lose its ability to ever be supreme again. At this point, the court itself appears to have been influenced by big money. Once it has completely capitulated and the plutocracy is in place with strength, the court will march to all orders of the 1% from then on.
Actually, I had considered coining a new term for the ungainly beast that will come to power once democracy has been ousted. I see it as right-wing radicalism which has come to mean the rich and the religious somehow marching in lock-step to combine their strengths. So methought perhaps a new name such as plutheocracy would cover it. But this is not necessary to consider. The final outcome will actually be nothing more than the plutocracy at the helm because the 1% cares no more for religionists than for pagans such as I. Christianity is simply being used as a means to an end. The plutocrats will ride rough-shod over us all and make all decisions on any and all matters public and private. And I will have to seek a new country.
Or maybe Steve Bullock will just come through!
June 6th note:
Now the weight on Bullock's back is heavier than ever; Wisconsin let us down yesterday. The whole progressive world was damaged badly in Wisconsin by the failure of the people's effort to oust the wretched excuse for a governor, even after so much uproar over his policies had made it easy to petition for his recall. The reason for the failure? Big money! And what's being called dark money. The groundswell for democratic action and justice in one state was run over and squashed under national unlimited influence. Thank you, Supreme Fools!
Friday, June 1, 2012
THANKS, NFL!
Who would have dreamed those gnarly, brawny guys who make a living playing football could actually bring tears to my eyes? They just did!
No, I would not be likely to cry over football, per se. But this week I heard something quite touching about the NFL and the management of some teams. Last week when I watched the news report of a budding high school football star who lost out on college ball and a possible pro career due to the lie that sent him to jail, I felt terribly sad for the man. Now twenty-six years of age, he is free from incarceration after the woman, a girl friend of the sixteen year old a decade ago, now confessed to the lie accusing the boy of rape. So he is free suddenly, but he's a twenty-six year old with no real football experience since his high school playing that showed him to be a likely future star.
Probably most people would think his head would be in the stars, or at least in the clouds, if he even hoped there might be a distant chance of redeeming a career in the sport. Daunting idea to say the least after missing out on the best years for his personal development. But I told my wife that it would be only right, no matter how unlikely, for a professional team to at least invite this fellow to a training camp - just to see what he might still have.
Now we are told that half a dozen NFL teams have approached this man with the thought of giving him a try-out. I immediately broke into tears at the news. Hard to believe a crusty business like pro football could have at its heart - well, heart! But here we are. And I can now only hope that this young man has the physical stamina and strengths required to make the grade. Even a foreshortened career in that league can go a long way toward restoring a life to someone who lost his youthful opportunities as the result of a lie.
Way to go, NFL! Go get 'em, Brian Banks!
No, I would not be likely to cry over football, per se. But this week I heard something quite touching about the NFL and the management of some teams. Last week when I watched the news report of a budding high school football star who lost out on college ball and a possible pro career due to the lie that sent him to jail, I felt terribly sad for the man. Now twenty-six years of age, he is free from incarceration after the woman, a girl friend of the sixteen year old a decade ago, now confessed to the lie accusing the boy of rape. So he is free suddenly, but he's a twenty-six year old with no real football experience since his high school playing that showed him to be a likely future star.
Probably most people would think his head would be in the stars, or at least in the clouds, if he even hoped there might be a distant chance of redeeming a career in the sport. Daunting idea to say the least after missing out on the best years for his personal development. But I told my wife that it would be only right, no matter how unlikely, for a professional team to at least invite this fellow to a training camp - just to see what he might still have.
Now we are told that half a dozen NFL teams have approached this man with the thought of giving him a try-out. I immediately broke into tears at the news. Hard to believe a crusty business like pro football could have at its heart - well, heart! But here we are. And I can now only hope that this young man has the physical stamina and strengths required to make the grade. Even a foreshortened career in that league can go a long way toward restoring a life to someone who lost his youthful opportunities as the result of a lie.
Way to go, NFL! Go get 'em, Brian Banks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)