If Your Election Lasts More Then Four Months You Should See a Doctor

Ah, yes so the candidate I voted for for president (the socialist who some how managed to get on the ballot in Ohio) got less then 1% of the vote, which in a manner of speaking makes me part of a (not THE) 1 %.  Fewer votes even then the Green candidate.  Not that I expected that he would get many, but although I live in a "battle ground" state I could simply not bring myself to vote for one of the two corporate candidates.

So Obama won and we are now hoping against hope that Boehner prevents a "grand bargain" during the lame duck session of congress (although I'm not sure who will be able to do so in the new congress).  Lucky us.  I have waited a couple of days to post this, but Greenwald came out with his the day after the election.  Unfortunately, I think that he is probably correct.  We will of course be told by the usual suspects that whatever way we are sold out, it is all Obama and the democrats can possibly do, and also to when we voted for him we knew that he wasn't liberal or progressive, but rather a centrist, so I guess we shouldn't be shocked[?], disappointed[?], disgusted[?], or whatever.

One of the fascinating things for me is the reaction of the conservative/reactionary/christian base to the loss by Romney.  It is amazing.  Because my wife is a christian of the Beatitudes  type she seems to have more Facebook friends who are shall we say of the crazy persuasion then I do and she has been reading me their hysterical take on this election.  It is essentially "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," or alternatively we forsaken God our traditions and christian beliefs to follow the Kenyan socialist with some variations on that.  TBogg, I must admit, is fun when he deals with that sort of thing.

I simply cannot understand the incredible hatred of Obama by people who claim he is a socialist or communist Muslim who wants to introduce the homosexual agenda with Sharia law followed up with a socialist (by which I think they mean communist) program.  I do understand that there is some racism involved, but then that doesn't explain why most of these people held the same beliefs concerning Clinton.  If anything, Obama has it a little easier then Clinton.  Neither Obama nor his wife have been accused of having a kill list of their enemies (well excepting those who happen to be poor brown people

living in various third world countries), of loading cocaine on planes in small air fields in third world states in the U.S. and having their gay lovers killed (or do I repeat myself?).

Nor do I understand the willingness of the very wealthy to spend massive amounts of money on defeating Obama, unless it is as Counterpunch suggests some sort of strange convoluted double reverse incredibly long game.

What Obama is is a "moderate" democrat which means he is conservative, which means he is to the right of both Eisenhower and Nixon and the first Bush and not much if at all to the left of Reagan.  He joins a long line of democratic presidents that includes Cleveland and Carter and Clinton who really aren't all that into unions or working people.  They just don't consider them totally sub human.  So why is he hated with such a white hot intense hatred?

The simple answer for the very wealthy is that they always want MORE, without a lot of consideration as to where that will leave things for even their own great grand children.  I generally do not like those kind of basic simple explanations, but I really have no other.  Perhaps there is the added thought by the very wealthy that this time they and their descendants will make sure that the riff raff do not push them off their piles of money. Not this time.  This time it will be different.  And since it is only rarely that they get over thrown:  think France once and Russia once; they are playing the odds.

But where do the rest come from?  I've taken to suggesting that people actually look up the definitions of communism and socialism in even a cheap dictionary, but that doesn't seem to help.  There is the old joke that half of us all are below average in intelligence, or the mandatory Blazing Saddles reference.  Still?

To reiterate  there isn't much difference between the two so why the intense hatred?  Why the huge amounts of money invested?  Interesting questions Guy?  Why don't you provide some answers.

More Assange

It strikes me that we should all be writing about Julian Assange and his situation, and yet there seems to be little to nothing.  Except in some not particularly mainstream left wing blogs.   Lawyers, guns, and money, haven't written about him since they lost their shit back when the big Wikileaks dump happened and one of the posters there, who has since left, became hysterical and demanded that he be arrested, or perhaps killed I don't remember which.  I was able to point out that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with Lynn Chaney, which seemed to upset them quite a bit.  Some fun.

Greenwald has written a couple of things about him at the Guardian.  I do find the comments section to be depressing to put it mildly.  It does appear as though the people who are commenting either cannot understand English, which is disturbing since their country is the one that invented it.  Or perhaps they just read the headline, it is so much easier that way, don't you know?

The incredible hysteria about his attempt to get asylum is creepy to say the least.  The threat to storm the embassy from the government in order to drag him out is just interesting to watch from the country that gave Pinochet asylum.  There is no self awareness on the part of the government and there is no recognition on the part of most of the media of the hypocrisy.

Then the U.S. chimes in (for what reason no one can tell since we certainly do not want to extradite him to stand trial [or not] to our country or perhaps Cuba) and says that we never did believe in that asylum stuff anyway.  Although someone might tell that to the Chinese government and then someone might want to mention it to the Hungarians also since we sheltered Cardinal Mindszenty for over a decade.  But then that is really very different don't ch no.

The point is that stench of hypocrisy and mendacity as Big Daddy said is nearly overpowering.  It is clear that the only reason Sweden won't agree not to extradite Assange to the U.S. is that they are planning on doing just that.  It is also clear that the only reason we want him is to punish him for trying to practice journalism and force us to practice democracy. .  Well, who cares at this point, we've made our point and have probably stopped many others who might have tried to allow a little light into the decaying carcase of what used to be called a democracy, or a democratic republic, or even for that matter a republic.  The last best hope, etcetera etectera and so forth.    If one gives the people too damn many facts it will just in the end confuse them, after all.

Pointless Blathering

Here I am reading how people are attacking Obama because of the "sins" of his father.  And pointing out that his father apparently fornicated with white wimmens.  AND WAS A DRUNK.  Pretty shocking and exciting.  Which of course helps prove that the attacks on Obama are all racially motivated.

I've been thinking about that and I have to come down on the side that some of  the attacks are racially motivated, some of the attacks simply use race as a vehicle to attack him for other issues, and some are combinations.   I really do not see these attacks as any worse than those on Clinton.  I really don't.  Now when one says that then one has to acknowledge that the attacks on Clinton were about as vile and full of lies as any could be.  Obama is accused of being a (kind of) foreigner, since no one can deny that his mother was a good white American girl and a communist anti-American.   While Clinton was accused of being a murderer, thief, drug runner, and communist anti-American.  Incidently, does anyone really believe that Michelle Obama has been treated worse than Hilary Clinton?

Why the right wing engages in these insane attacks on two presidents who were and are nice conservative republicans is beyond me.  It does remind one of the attacks the right waged on Roosevelt while he fought to save capitalism.  So while I can see a historical precedent, I still cannot for the life of me understand the minds behind it.  Unless these minds simply want to live in a world that has all the same rules that applied to the French aristocrates under Louis XIV.

A follow up thought is that at least Roosevelt was liberal or progressive, where as Clinton and Obama are simply corporate bag men, so it made even less sense in the 90s or now.

All's Well That Ends Well

I've been wandering around reading stuff about the up coming elections (no really it is going to happen) and the kind of school teacher like chastising of the liberal base by the Obama people.

I've come across a couple of points from different blogs. One on Crooks and Liars points out that most if not all of the liberals are not going to be going around telling people not to vote. What is going to happen is that people are not going to work for these candidates nor give them money. And in my case probably not vote at all.

Another other point made by a commentator on another site (I wish I'd marked it and I didn't) who pointed out that the democrats could accomplish nearly nothing that they wanted with super majorities, so how will the republicans with smaller majorities, probably in only one chamber and no control of the White House accomplish anything? Or perhaps I missed the sarcasm.

I know I know. Republicans can do every thing while democrats can do nothing, unless the republicans let them. Still it is an interesting point.

But do remember: First, and most important is the naming of a scape goat who is not the president; Second, and almost as important is to make people think that Obama is not a minion of our very own plutocracy but is prevented by ...............someone or something he has no control over. (Cough bullshit cough).

True Believers

Well, maybe I can't leave it alone, I am trying to work out my thoughts on just why Obama and the democratic party are not worth my support as they are now and why so many people become so angry when one dares to seriously criticize them. I would guess that the thing that bothers me most about the "enthusiasm gap" is not so much the attitude of the politicians themselves who simply can't understand why we don't love them any more, but the attitude of so many of their supporters.

Greenwald wrote a pretty good essay (again) not succinct, but insightful dealing with the issue of political leaders actually attacking their base for not being enthusiastic enough and questioning how they think this will help with the enthusiasm gap. "Does it help to insult the people who might be your voters when you are already going out there with the message, We're not quite as bad as the other guy?"

The other thing that interests me is the need to believe by the Obama centrist voters. Perhaps I should go back and re-read Eric Hoffer.

When I go and argue on other blogs I find that the people are angry with me for criticizing the president and angry with me if I threaten to use the only weapons I have against him: my vote, my energy and my money (little as it is).

"You do not know how serious things are going to become if you do not get out and work and vote for the people who wouldn't do a whole lot for you before."

Been watching World at War videos and in one of the early ones there was an interview with a German who was not in Hitler's thrall. He talked about going into a speech to see if there was anything to hear and it was all the same nonsense he said. He said he looked about him and wished he could believed like the others there, but could not. That is kind of how I feel.

And No Obama is not Hitler, he is not even like Hitler, except they both give good speeches. I am talking about the followers being willing to excuse anything.

As a Speices We Are Not Fit To LIve

This does not give me much hope for us as a species. This is a guy who helped get us into this mess and now he is telling us it's all better. He knew nothing last year, why should we believe him now. Incidentally, his song was the same last year just before the plunge.

It was said of the French aristocracy: That they forgot nothing, and they learned nothing. I think that our ruling class and money managers remember nothing and learn nothing.

Already

So it's started already. Two days after the election and already unnamed sources are telling Obama that he will have to renege on his basic promise to get us out of Iraq.

They'll do this with everything. Unsourced stories telling us all that we must not do whatever it is that the beltway mob and the closet fascists who were in control until just now do not want us to do. It is their long war, it will be a constant battle for every advance.

This is just the same thing that happened with Clinton. They did everything they could to destroy his presidency. And let's face it Clinton was really moderately conservative. The best Republican president since Eisenhower.

You know, this eternal vigilance stuff is really hard.

Joe The Plumber

Is it possible for America and the media trivialize everything? Even serious questions concerning taxes and who should pay for this government is so trivialized as to be meaningless.

Essentially, you have some one lie to the candidate and unless he lies to the Republican candidate he becomes a media star.

UPDATE: I had forgotten about Grahaem Frost the 12 year old who was hounded by the right because he spoke out about S-Chip. Did his parents have granite counter tops?

Whenever I think that things can't get any worse in our political discourse, all I have to do is wait around and boy oh boy, here comes another right wing blast.

Oh, so the answer to my question is: YES.

Vile assholes again

Been reading the kerfuffle about Obama mistaking Auschwitz for Buchenwald and his great uncle for his uncle in a speech.

Several thoughts:

First, I had several aunts and uncles who were really my great aunts and uncles. That's what I called them and that's what they answered to. That sort of language was normal in the middle of America that I grew up in. Those folks were my grandparents brothers and sisters, but often they were as close as or closer than some of my real uncles and aunts.

Second, calling Buchenwald Auschwitz seems to be not a very big deal. Anyone who has had to speak publicly has made minor mistakes like that, It happens to trial attorneys frequently, you correct and move on. The jurors or judge will simply correct in their head realizing that you truly "miss-spoke." I mean lets face it the [great]uncle was really there.

Third though, is the bazaar insistence of various Republicans and right wingers who continue to attack the entire speach. Going so far as to try to prove that the guy wasn't even in the war in Europe, then when they get slapped down (by a WWII vet who was there) they keep gong on to try to justify their bullshit.

I guess it worked in 2004 and 2000, but those were not the kind of campaigns that this one seems able to be. The fact that in both those elections they were able to attack people who really did serve in Vietnam as well cowards and get away with it with enough people to get real cowards elected continues to amaze me. However, this time the response was immediate by Obama and effective. In fact, that has been what has been happening right through the election up to this point. They should have figured out that things have changed and their vile lies are not being accepted quite as easily.

As a trial attorney I know that sometimes one does not get the answer one wants from a question. Sometimes it's an important question. What you do at that point is (unless you have some way of proving the witness was lying) simply go on to the next question and pretend that the answer you got wasn't all that important after all. You don't keep digging.

That is just what these guys have continued to do in this case and in so doing they look a little sillier and anything else that they throw out there is going to be a little less likely to stick (hopefully).

Get yer racist and sexist slurs here

I've wondered what it was about the different way Clinton and Obama are attacked in the media and online. I think I now understand.

Explicit racism is just no longer accepted in this country. At least not out side the klan and klan lite folks. Therefore, when Obama is attacked it is necessary to use code words and phrases. Oh, you can still attack him racially, but it has to be done in an acceptable way that doesn't use the (gasp) "n" word.

Sexism is I think alive and well (racism is too, but it has to be covered up a little -- not too much cause we do want the knuckle dragging mouth breathers to get it). Sexism can be engaged in without the apparent need to use code words. You can call a 50 year old woman a girl, but you really can't call a 50 year old African American mad a boy. If you do you are forced to kind of sort of apologize for it. The same I think for the harsher "c" word (although really used in comments and locker room discussions) and "n" word. You get away with cunt much more ofter than you will be allowed to get away with nigger.

Of course, all that doesn't mean that there isn't enough hate to go around.

Childish

Ok, call me childish,but I prefer childlike.