Throw Out the lifeline part deux

I don't think we will make it to the election.


So many crisis', all at once, so many candidates pontifications, I predict we will all suffocate in bullshit prior to November 4th.

Sorry.

Just my $0.02.

Throw Out the Lifeline....

That is a pretty decent Jerry Garcia band tune if you are interested.

Since I got a mac, (you know, it just works), I don't get any audio with the blog, can anybody tell me if it is still there?

But I digress...

Last night, apparently, the lame (duck) president addressed the nation on the importance of taking action on the economic crisis that faces us.

Duh.................

For the record, I am not certain that the plan that seems to be taking shape is for the best, it will greatly devalue the dollar, not that it is worth a lot, and make the government the owner of a lot of the now private property in the nation. Taken in one light, that is a form of enslavement and one ugly facet of facism, (not that I am making accusations here...).

I am not sure that I will be better off under this plan or under doing nothing at all.

I mention that just so I can say I told you so when the next Joe Stalin emerges from the economic ashes next year, when fuel prices skyrocket, (again) and we are back over a barrel.

That is not what this post is about.

John McCain has announced that he is bailing out of tomorrows debate to work on the economy, has stopped campaigning, advertising, the whole nine yards. Talk about catching a break! Every time he or the Vice-Bimbo opened their mouths something embarrassing emerged, and now he has a good reason to stop embarrassing himself, hell he may even come out with a boost from it.

Dan Quayle should have been so lucky....

some more political bullshit

the "A" and "T" words

I got into a bit of a discussion on the 'A' issue this weekend, (actually, I was on the periphery of the discussion--I kept my mouth shut and attempted to learn something), and all I heard was a round robin repeating of the same emotional appeals and the same mantra's.

First, I need to say that these are not invalid, and the truth is, I share the emotion and believe that the mantra's are for the most part, true. They are just ineffective, and as moral as they are, they do tend to shine a bright light selectively on one side of some situations and tend to selectively ignore all the other details that often go with these circumstances. The discussion/recitation that I witnessed reminded me a lot of a scene from a film called "Animal House", (and please, this in no way is intended to ridicule anyones position or manner). The scene depicted a marching band in a blind alley, up against a brick wall, still marching and attempting to go on as if the wall did not exist.

I had to ask myself, what is this issue, in social and political terms, and how can change really be effected? The answer to the first part is that it is a whip or a club, (depending on who is doing the wielding and the metaphor one wishes to use). The short answer to the second part of the question is I don't really know, but I truly believe that a solution to the issue will depend more on the caliber of the people involved than the rules or laws governing them. Keeping this an "issue" in the manner that it is, by all parties, on all sides of the argument, does no good service to the public or the problem that they appear to address. It's function, is a fundraiser and a teaser, it attracts attention and draws a crowd which in turn allows the airing of other "issues".

This is a very significant matter, the lack of a civil and intelligent discourse is the wall that the band are marching against. It is time to change all that. Thing is, that might be like holding a boating safety meeting on the Titanic.

The other issue, the "T" word is coming into its own in this role. One could insert that word into the above paragraphs and be pretty much on target. these two nouns are coming online just in time to replace the "D" word, a dimension where we are beginning to show signs of saying No to "Just Say No".

As a follow-up to something I mentioned in my last post, I want to say that I have a friend whose wife is running for a local position in an adjoining county, something akin to an alderman in a very loosely incorporated area known for its snobbishness and low taxes. The position is on a board that is responsible for water usage, (they are too cheap to improve or expand the local water system), and, oddly enough, regulating the types of grass that is planted in local lawns, (again, related to water usage and soil conservation). In her fifteen minutes of political fame, (an interview in the local newspaper), she cited illegal immigration and terrorism as the most significant issues facing the district. I have no doubt that the county is swarming with terrorists who are peeing on the lawns and spreading crabgrass. (It won't be long before jaywalking and speeding will be classified as 'terror' crimes, just so the police can get some really cool tricked out stuff to play with).

Where do we go from here?

I really would like to hear the party on the right talk, at length and in great detail on the topic of family welfare, planning and how these issues tie in with the 9th Amendment, (on which the historic Roe v Wade decision was predicated), and the governments role in fostering, encouraging and enforcing these concepts.

I would like to see the party on the left address in a similar manner the notion of taxation and gun ownership, (both longarms and handguns) and how these issues tie in with the 2nd Amendment, and how the government can both uphold our freedoms while protecting the people, and where lines in both should be drawn.

Finally, both parties should address the issues that arise in the so-called war on terror, which is a war on an unseen and undefined enemy, that has served, to this point, only to exact a cost on us, in terms on our rights and liberties, and now, our economic well being, (more on that in another post).

Over the past year or so, I have often closed with the line, 'stay focused'.

I think it's a good idea. From this point forward, I might add, keep your powder dry and your head down.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

In scanning todays news, (Thursday, 9/11/08), I saw two competing headlines, one from the Boston Globe, and one from Fox News.

I am not real familiar with the Globe, but I suspect that it may have a bit of a liberal view of things, but the gist of its story was that the war on terror has slipped a little in ther minds of the electorate in terms of its weight in the decision making process on what candidate to support on November 4.

The Globe pitches the statistic that 30% of voters fear a terror attack 'in the next few weeks', down from last year and down very significantly from the first anniversary of the attack in 2001. The modifiers, "fear" & "in the next few weeks" throw me a little. For the purposes of this poll, what do they mean?

Then we have FOX News. Fox reports that 80% of Americans think that the war on terrorism is as important today as it was on the day of the attacks. That is the headline. The fine print goes on, (admirably), to break down the stat's by party affiliation and circumstances, although the modifiers are still a bit slanted towards a Republican outcome.

As a well known movie character once lamented, "what we have here, is failure to communicate".

Maybe not. What we have here, is repetition of a notion that somebody wants to stick in our minds on election day. The so called "war on terror" is quickly taking its place along side abortion as one of those clubs that mean everything and mean nothing. It won't be long before we see the term creep into local issues, such as street repairs and local community elections.

"Vote for Joe Blow for Dog Catcher, he's tough on terrorists".

In my own community I have seen local politicians state, for the record that illegal immigration was the biggest problem that we face. This, in a state whose closest border is a mere 800 miles away, that, by its own audit, has eliminated most, if not all, undocumented persons from the relief rolls, and cut benefits by a large percentage for the documented, (of all ethnic persuasions).

The time has come to ask simple questions and demand simple answers.

What is "the war on terror"? What are it's goals? I have a sick feeling that there is no clear answer, and that the driving philosophy behind it is that "doing good has no end".

If Obama or McCain wanted to impress me, they would deliver bin Laden and ten miscellaneous al Qaida stooges and parade them through the US before they were tried and convicted. They ought to be stored in a nice prison someplace, maybe with Charlie Manson, or a few lesser known serial killers, and trotted out every year or two for a procedural court appearance, just to show we care. The rest can be shot while escaping. The chief cash crop in the Afghanistan region, opium poppies, should be purchased at a very fair price and eradicated. teach them to grow something else and warn them that we are watching and won't pay the next time we burn the fields. The world will scream for a week or so, then move on to the price of music downloads from iTunes or something really important.

My point is that there needs to be a clear ending to these issues. If they pop up again, take care of them in a decisive but quick way. Sooner or later, it will no longer be advantagous for them to pop up. I am tired of messing with them. There is a middle ground between just stopping and saving the money, and milking things, hoping for an everybody wins victory. it ain't pretty, in fact it is ugly, but at least the ugly gets spread around.

a good comment

Penn Jillette made a pretty good commentary on the CNN webpage on what he wants from the election, see it here.

Knocked Up

 

 

That seems to be a pretty apt description for this particular presidential campaign.    Both of the conventions have been beset with little drama's of their own.  The GOP had Hurricane Gustav stealing the show.    The Dem's had Hurricane Hillary.    Both turned out to have been a tempest in a teapot.    But hey, not watching that stuff beats not watching a bunch of drunks raising their hands, stomping their feet, showing theirenthusiasm, and trying not to puke or fall over while the camera is on.... 

It may be my age speaking, or a certain myopia regarding the 'good ol' days', but it seems that we have no statesmen left, just a bunch of guys of questionable character and qualification in suits trying to sell us something.

This is a lot like trying to pick between the lesser of Jimmy Hoffa or John Gotti.   Anyplace I look, in any particular race, I don't see a candidate who conspicuously passed on an opportunity, (I might add the adjective consistently to that phrase) to enrich themselves in their present positions while they tireless strove to defend the rights and ideals of the little guy.

Face it, those that want to end the war are not getting enough of the profit from it, and those who want to make health care universal are heavily invested in that particular industry.  The other party seems to think that there are a few dividends yet to be had from the status quo, then they will get on board with something that will pay.

There are no good choices here.   We are on our own, very literally.

I think that all there is left to decide is whether we the people wait until the system collapses on its own, and there is nothing left to salvage, or whether we bring it down beforehand and have something left to (possibly) build with.

 

I want to see and hear a candidate who favors the individual, a strict de-constructionist if you will.   I am not against the rich, (hell, if given a choice, I would choose to be in that class, but I hope I would have the scruples not to step all over my peers getting or staying there), but I am not in favor of government defending and protecting their position at the expense of all else.   I am in favor of a tax code that protects individual effort and rewards initiative, but taxes speculation and usury in all its forms, (btw, usury is not necessarily a bad thing).    

 

The Constitution of the United States gives no rights or prerogatives to business or corporate entities, and yet our government seems to exist by and for them, even at the expense, (literally and figuratively), of the individual.  The questions of legality and constitutionality are covered and mired in so much legalese BS that even the most seasoned of jusists couldn't reason his or her way through it with any degree of certainty of outcome.   Legal principles are so murky that they need to be restated in simpler terms, distilled if you will.  That process entails some risk as well as benefit, but inaction entails all risk and no benefit.

In the past twenty years or so, there have been a couple of candidates that have really caught the imagination of the public, albeit for a short while, (the kinda faltered when it came to donations and popular support when the full extent of their agenda's became known).    Think Steve Forbes and the flat tax and Ron Paul and his smaller, non-intrusive government.   Their ideas were not bad, it was just perceived by many that they went too far with them, or that they were slanted in favor of one demographic over another.    A successful candidate would do well to use the ideas of the libertarian movement as a sort of moderating element, to keep from becoming altogether too Democrat or too Republican.   

Just a reminder:     a restructuring of the tax code is a good way to keep everyones attention.    

Do you think it will happen?     Don't bet on it.

 

How is that for a stark vision?   A bit like a "Mad Max" sequel, crossed with "Escape From New York".

 

     _______________________________________________________

In other news, Karl Rove was heard at the RNC to refer to Joe Biden as a  "blowhard doofus".   He must have seen him at a club meeting or something.....   

It seems that the seventeen year old (unmarried) daughter of the GOP VP nominee is in a family way.    And the nominee's husband has had a DUI.     Kind of refreshing really.    After all, they are living out on the last frontier, and its not like they are better than the rest of us or anything.....

Mr Obama should quietly issue a denial that he is the father of the child and let it go.  That  should be followed by a similar release from John Edwards.   And maybe a sly grin from Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton....

 

 

There.   Those are my observations for the week.

How the hell are you guys doing?