Juneteenth?

https://www.inclusiongeeks.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-affirmative-action-eeo-and-dei/

Juneteenth? What the heck is that? June 19^th, that’s what it is. So why isn’t it called June 19^th?

Juneteenth, officially Juneteenth National Independence Day, is a federal holiday in the United States. It is celebrated annually on June 19 to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States. The holiday's name, first used in the 1890s, is a combination of the words June and nineteenth, referring to June 19, 1865, the day when Major General Gordon Granger ordered the final enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in Texas at the end of the American Civil War.

That’s from the Wikipedia page. Not much of an explanation, I’ll grant you. Somewhere along the line, June 19^th got shortened to Juneteenth, as if June 17^th or 14^th weren’t just as qualified for that abbreviation.

Do I object to Juneteenth? You bet I do! But not for racial reasons. Just because it’s bad English. It’s not a word. It makes no doggone sense. To me, the people who make it a point to think of Juneteenth as a big deal, I’m sorry, you sound like doofuses. Is that a word? What is the plural of doofus, anyway? Doofi?

For the record, I have no objection to inclusion whatsoever. I think it’s great. I think everybody should be treated equally. And, yes, I’ll admit that, in many instances, they aren’t. We aren’t. African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native-Americans, Polish-Americans, and all other hyphen-Americans have something in common: We’re Americans. Perhaps that should be listed first, such as American-Africans? Nah, doesn’t sound right. If we said it like that, we’d all sound like doofi.

It seems to me, as a lay-observer—lay-observer-American?—that Juneteenth is just the latest in what will surely be a long line of federal holidays expressing the nation’s intention to prove it’s not racist. In the last generation, that was done with Martin Luther King Day. I guess the luster has faded on that, so we need another one; hence, Juneteenth. Now we have one in the summer, and one in the winter. We can continue like this for another 363 generations before we exhaust the calendar.

Somebody pointed out to me once that it’s a shame that all this anti-racist gesturing seems to be focused on Black people, or, more appropriately, brown people. We now have two specifically African-American holidays, but how about one for Latinos? Or Asians? Why not celebrate the end of WW2 internment camps on behalf of the Japanese-Americans?

Now that I think about it, that would actually make sense. When was the last Japanese internment camp closed after WW2?

In my lifetime, we’ve had EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity. Then came Affirmative Action, which never got reduced to initials, probably to sidestep any copyright infringement lawsuits by Alcoholics Anonymous. Then we got DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

All of which I’m for, by the way. I’m all for diversity, and equity, and inclusion. I believe affirmative action, which allows minorities to be considered for positions for which they might not be otherwise qualified, is a good thing. I think that everybody should have the opportunity to be employed as an equal.

It reminds me of when I lived in Sacramento, California, for a while. I’m a country boy from rural New Hampshire. I don’t think I ever had a conversation with a Black person before I joined the US Navy. I thought it was cool; exotic, even. I was crossing cultures and learning a lot. I found myself being treated with as much respect as I gave others, in most instances.

When I arrived in Sacramento, I needed to find an apartment, and it had to be affordable. As I made friends, I would often find myself flopping down on their couches. One night, I was at an open mic at the Fox and Geese, a sort of Irish pub that is still there. I got up, played my three songs, and sat down.

One of the acts that followed me was a small, black man. He went up, opened an electric piano, screwed on the legs, and proceeded to amaze everybody. He played all original material, and played it well! Had a beautiful voice, reminiscent of Lou Rawls. To have someone of his talent show up at a humble open mic on a back street in Sacramento was stunning.

What was more stunning was what happened next. He broke the electric piano back down and came to my table. “Hi,” he said, “I’m Jerry Folmar. Everybody calls me Jerry Keys.” You could’ve knocked me over with a feather.

He liked what I was doing. He had just left a big club band in the Bay Area known as the East Bay Connection and Soul Food Crew. Wanted to do something different. “I like you, kid,” he says. “You sound country.”

I laughed, wondering what country he might be referring to.

Anyway, he invited me over to his place in a couple of days for a jam session. It turns out he was the superintendent at an apartment building. I arrived at his apartment and found that we were being joined by a tall, handsome Black man about my age, whose name I can’t recall. He could really sing, though.

Jerry would start playing one of his songs, none of which I’d ever heard. The other guy shared vocal duties with Jerry, and I stumbled along behind. I was mainly trying to figure out what key they were playing in and how the chord progression went. The other guy would grimace at Jerry as if to say, “Are you serious?” Jerry would smile, nod at me, and keep playing.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I managed to get something together for everything we played. After a couple of hours of this, Jerry offered me the guitar spot in the band he was putting together. How could I possibly refuse? By then, even the singer was indicating that he was okay with it.

“Where do you live?” Jerry asked.

“Um, well …”

“No problem. We’ve got an empty apartment here.” The rent was manageable, so he gave me a ride to where I was staying, grabbed my belongings, and I had a place. Over the next few days, he moved all his equipment into what was now my apartment, a small ground-floor studio, and it became the band’s rehearsal space, much to his girlfriend’s delight.

As time went on, I learned that I now lived in a relatively rough Black neighborhood. It was on 18^th Street, near the intersection with J Street, as I recall, in case you ever want to check it out. Once word got around that I was a friend of Jerry’s, I was cool. I discovered that there was precisely one other white man in the building. In the year or so I lived there, I never met him.
As time went on, I got up the nerve to ask Jerry, “Did you take me on just because I’m white?” Turns out, not so much that I was white, but that I played white. I brought a different flavor to the music that made us stand out. So, I guess I was a DEI hire.

That’s not why I don’t mind DEI/EEO/Affirmative Action. My parents instilled in me early on that everybody is equal, or should be. I was taught that it’s a person’s character, not their background, that determines their value. I suppose, if you considered every word I ever spoke and every action I ever took, you could “prove that I’m a racist.”

If that’s where you get your thrills, have at it. I know this much: I don’t want to be a racist, and when I find glimmers of it in my own character, I take corrective steps. I’m not obsessed with it, but I would hate for anyone to think I hate them, for any reason. If Jesus loves you, how dare I not?

The only time it bothers me is when it’s used to hire someone who is clearly incompetent. Claudine Gay springs to mind, the former President of Harvard University. First Black president, and second woman. Forced to resign because of accusations of plagiarism, along with some other things, I guess. I’ve heard numerous accounts of actions on her part that suggest she wasn’t qualified for the job.

Or how about Kamala Harris? I recall Joe Biden stating publicly that he intended to select a Black woman as his running mate. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. I’d be willing to accept that there are, no kidding, thousands of people in the country who could adequately perform the duties of President of the United States, which should be what you want in a VP. A significant number of those are bound to be Black women. I wouldn’t have to agree with their policies to accept that they’re qualified for the job. But Kamala Harris? Seriously? Halle Berry wasn’t available?

What? She’s smart. I’ve seen interviews. Seriously great actress, too.

One problem, of course, with DEI is … it’s racist. It may not be the correct thing to say, but it is racist! It’s choosing someone based on their race, and sometimes, their sex.

The reason I’m cool with it is that there are countless examples in history of personnel choices being made for the exact same reason. Examples where the only applicants seriously considered were white males. As a white male, maybe I could object to being removed from consideration for my race and sex, but I’ll live. What would suck would be getting passed over for somebody who was totally unqualified.

Besides, how long is long enough? I think that’s the argument that was already being made decades ago. When can we be colorblind? How long do we have to deliberately pass by the qualified white guys and just choose someone on their merits alone, regardless of their race or sex? How many times do we deny the white man the job, the spot in the following college class, the promotion, just because they don’t fit in the correct box?

When are we allowed to stop being racist?

I guess only when racism stops. Which may be, sadly, never. In the meantime, every unqualified DEI hire will continue to tarnish the reputation of DEI. For every Claudine Gay, there may be a dozen highly qualified Black women who would do a great job as President of Harvard. For every Kamala Harris, a dozen highly qualified Black women who could be outstanding Presidents of the United States.

My main hope is that these unfortunate DEI choices don’t prevent good ones from happening.

Answering a friend's questions

This list was posted on Facebook by a friend of mine, whom I will not name, because I don't want to embarrass them. The questions are from their post. The answers are my own. If they embarrass me, then so be it.  The words in bold, italicized type are from their post.  The answers are my own.

~

Copied in part...You call this great? I don’t.

Do you support separating families at the border.....put them into concentration camps? They are applying for asylum.....what he is doing is against international law. You do realize that?

- Okay, let's take this a bite at a time:

- If these same people were caught burglarizing homes, or stealing cars, or killing people, or committing any other crime, they would be separated from their children. People who are in holding awaiting trial for crimes they are accused of get separated from their children. Like it or not, entering this country illegally is a crime. It's a crime in every nation in the world. Just out of curiosity, why don't you find out what the penalty is for entering Mexico, or Guatemala, or China, or Luxembourg for that matter, illegally.

There is an alternative, though. Make it not illegal. It's a matter of passing a law, which would require electing representatives committed to doing just that. What you are asking the government to do, essentially, is let there not be a border. If crossing the border brings no penalty, then you don't have one. If you're cool with that, talk about that and not some bull**** thing about whether or not lawbreakers get treated like lawbreakers.

In the interest of having access to the necessary information to make an intelligent choice, I've done a little research into immigration laws in the countries I flippantly listed above. Here's the link to a website called Mexperience, and the page that discusses immigration to Mexico. https://www.mexperience.com/mexico-immigration-guide-published/ On the page is a link to the 2019 immigration guide, provided to them by the government of Mexico. It doesn't discuss any penalties for illegal immigration, and I've had difficulty finding this information. Plus, here's a link to a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia article on immigration to Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico Answers.yahoo came up with a penalty of two to five years in prison for illegally entering the country, but I haven't been able to verify the sources.

No luck finding information on penalties for illegally crossing borders into Guatemala. Here's a link to an article on immigration to Guatemala: https://legalbeagle.com/5465314-guatemala-immigration-requirements.html I don't know what the political leaning of legalbeagle is, or if they have one.

Here's a piece from the South China Morning Post on illegal immigration into China: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1272959/under-chinas-new-immigration-law-harsher-fines-illegal-foreigners Apparently, there are harsh penalties. The article dates from 2013.

The most I can found about illegal immigration into Luxembourg are news articles complaining about how many there are, and how it should be stopped. I'll leave it up to you to find them. Trust me, it's not difficult. And, I've seen nothing about whether or not your children are taken away in any of these countries if you bring them in illegally. I would guess that whatever would happen would happen no matter what crime you committed there.

Btw, here's an interesting piece from factcheck.org: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ I don't know what their political leaning is. They are funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also does a lot with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so I suspect if there is a leaning, it is liberal/progressive.

- Concentration camps? Do you even know what one of those is? From the reports I've seen, even the ones put out by MSNBC, NPR, NYT, etc, they don't even really count as prisons, much less concentration camps. Comparing them with Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc is ridiculous.

- Are they all applying for asylum?  All of them? How do you know? What's your source? And, what happens to them while they're waiting? Maybe you didn't know this, but there's a legal process to applying for asylum. They've committed a crime. (See above)

- International law? Which international law? Would you please quote it? We are not subject to international law. We are, in this instance, subject to the laws of the United States. International law does not apply to someone who burglarized a house, or steals a car, or murders someone, or speeds on the interstate. And the United States has borders. Did you know it's illegal to cross a nation's borders without proper authorization? Any nation? (See above)

Do you support him because he likes to grab women by the pussy?

- Now, let me think about that a minute. Do I support Donald Trump . . . BECAUSE he likes to grab women by the pussy? Uh . . . no. Although, I must say, it's not why I DIDN'T support Bill Clinton. I don't consider Bill Clinton a good president because I think his policies proved to be severely flawed. (That is, when he bothered to have policies. The worst thing about Clinton was, he didn't really do much. The best thing about him was, he didn't really do much. Which, after Reagan/Bush41, was a good thing. Still, it would have been nice to see some good and necessary things done.) Same with Teddy Kennedy, and many other misogynist politicians, Democrat and Republican. I think what you're asking is, would I hire Donald Trump as a babysitter for my daughters? No.

Do you support him because he makes fun of the disabled?

- Oh, there's another good one. Y'know, I was going to vote for Hillary, but then Trump made fun of a disabled guy, and that convinced me to vote for him instead. C'mon, now!! I suppose there are people who voted for Hillary specifically because she DIDN'T make fun of a disabled person. At least, not in public. Of course, it would be all right for her to make fun of a disabled person IF they disagreed with her. Then, it would be all right. But since it was Trump, it doesn't matter what his policies are, or if they improved the country and made people's lives better. He said something you find distasteful. And you know what? I did, too. But I also know why he said it; because the guy was cutting him down. He didn't send the FBI to take him in, he just gave back in kind. Didn't take away his job, didn't put him in jail, didn't have a couple of Arkansas state troopers shoot him, he said words.

Do you support him because he has increased our national debt by 4 trillion dollars making us financially insolvent?

-Ooo! Check your figures. How much did Barack Obama's administration increase the national debt? I'll leave it up to you to find out the answer to that one. If the country is insolvent, it's because the previous administration brought us to the brink of insolvency. Or does that not count, because your preferred news sources said that the money was spent on good stuff? Y'see, that's what happens when you only get your news from one side. You find yourself repeating lies.

And when you double-check the figures, please send me the links.  You will note at the bottom of the picture on the right, its sources are listed.

Do you support him because he is a racist?

- Another good one. Let me make one thing clear; I don't care if he's a racist. Let me repeat that; I do not care what his personal feelings about people's race is. Are. Whatever. What I care about is, what are his policies going to do? I don't actually know if he's a racist. And, news flash, you don't either! If you go by his policies, black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment in this country are at historic lows. 

Do you know what that means? It means, those people, those demographic groups, have more jobs. Maybe I'm wildly off the beam here, but I think the biggest problem facing these demographic groups is, they're poor. Doesn't having a job kinda help that?

I think it's funny, any time I watch a sporting event, I see the same ads. Did you know the state of New York – one of the bluest, most liberal states in the country - publicly promises a tax break for businesses that are willing to move there? They've been running those ads for years. Why do you think they do that?

No matter what liberal/democratic/socialist politicians say, they all know that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Reagan proved it. And before you think about how altruistic they are, remember that the stock market stayed strong during the Obama administration, in spite of the economy slowly turning to part-time jobs and the “gig economy.” Manufacturing was draining away, but Wall Street was booming. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. >wink<

In a nutshell, if Trump is a racist, he's a stupid one. His policies seem to be helping the very people he's accused of hating. And these accusations didn't start until he was elected President. So, I don't care if he's a racist, any more than I care about his hair or the color of his socks. What I care about is what he does in the office of the Presidency. I hope he's not a racist, but I've seen no conclusive evidence that he is. And Don Lemon's opinion doesn't count as conclusive evidence.

By the way, not sure where this appropriate to include, but the Center for Responsive Politics puts out a publication called the Blue Pages. It's a directory of companies, rated by their politics and practices (quoting the cover). Basically, it tells you who the listed companies donate to, so far as politics and political causes. Interesting to just thumb through it.

Do you support him because he has taken all the ecological restrictions away destroying the earth for future generations?

- Careful. All the ecological restrictions? All of them? Or are you talking about the Paris Climate Accords? Have you read them? Here's the link, so that you can:

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

And that's the actual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change website, not some conservative blog. If you're going to talk about something, you should know what you're talking about. And, this link (found in the opening paragraphs) compares the Paris agreement with the Kyoto Protocol:

https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/#content-the-paris-agreemen

The two main arguments I've heard against both of these agreements are:

1) they are agreements. They have no teeth. It's just the governments of the signatory countries saying that they want these things to happen, but there are no consequences if they fail. I would be curious to know how many of the 192 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol actually met the stated goals.

2) they seem to have more to do with giving governments control over businesses, than restoring the environment. The “essential elements” section of the first page talk about “appropriate financial flows,” among other things. There's also a link to the complete text of the agreement, on the right side of the opening page of the link above. And if you can't find it, let me know. I downloaded the PDF file, and can send it to you.

Also, here's an article about the mixed success of the Kyoto protocols: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ New Scientist is a British magazine, published since 1956. I have been unable to find any discussion on their political leanings, which means they may not have any.

I have argued for years that the whole climate change debate isn't about climate change. It's about division. Riddle me this, Batman; what is the alleged cause of climate change? I can answer that in one word: Pollution. Too much foreign matter and chemical compounds in our air, water, etc. When you break it down to that basic fact – if, in fact, climate change is even real – then it's easy to sell.

Try this experiment sometime, if you have the courage; go to some person's house that has a swimming pool. Now, urinate in it. The pretty blue water is very likely to turn a pretty green, slowly spreading to the whole pool. Then, somebody kicks your ass or runs you off, but that's a side effect.

This simple experiment PROVES that one person can negatively affect an ecosystem.

There are other examples. I remember seeing two pictures in a magazine – I think it was Newsweek, or maybe Time, in the late '80's – that showed two images of Los Angeles from about five miles off shore. One was taken in 1962, and all you could see was the tops of a few buildings. The rest of the city was blanketed in a gray haze, although it was a sunny day with a blue sky framing the top of the photo. The second one was, I believe, from 1988. There was still a gray haze, but you could clearly see the city, and it was a similarly bright, sunny day. That tells me that we've actually made progress, even if no one on the left is willing to admit it.

The other pictures were of the shore in Antarctica. One showed a shoreline of snow and ice. The other, a wide patch of green grass. These pictures as well were supposedly taken some 30 or more years apart. Now, the publisher of these pictures didn't happen to mention what seasons they were each taken in, but the message is clear.

But the cure is simple, and almost universally agreed upon: Pollution is bad. If you find anyone that disagrees with that simple statement, “pollution is bad,” let me know and we can go together to pee in their pool. Whether it's changing the climate or not is irrelevant, isn't it? The swimming pool experiment proves that pollution is bad, whether or not the temperature of the pool goes up.

So why isn't pollution the issue, instead of climate change?

Because climate change is something that we DON'T agree on. And look how much money changes hands, and how much power, keeping both sides spun up! If you believe in climate change and I don't, but we both agree that pollution is bad, then we can both agree on a solution. Argument over. Then, what would Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity scream about?

But when you ask about “all ecological restrictions,” you're suggesting that we're back to using freon, leaded gasoline, asbestos, and many other things that we've stopped using decades ago. I haven't seen anything about Trump demanding a return to freon, etc.

Do you support the lack of respect he has for officials that do not agree with him?

- Yes, actually, I do. I don't respect them, so it comforts me that he doesn't either. Most of them are left over from previous administrations anyway, dating back to probably Nixon in some cases.

Here's a pop quiz for you; do you know where most bills presented to Congress are written? If your answer is, the offices of Congressmen and Senators, I'm sorry, thanks for playing, and don't forget your copy of the home game. The correct answer is, K Street in Washington. Where a lot of lobbyists offices are located. So, which officials are we really referring to, here? The official officials, or the unofficial officials they work for?

Did you support all those federal employees he used as pawns to try and get approval from Congress for his wall?

- I think his biggest campaign promise was the wall. It got him elected, so those who voted for him expect him to come through. And to do that, he's going to have to twist appendages. When Ronald Reagan left office, he warned that there was already a crisis because of illegal immigration. At the time, 1988, the estimate most popular was that there was possibly 3 million illegal immigrants in this country. The figure being thrown around for the last decade is 11 million, so it's hopelessly out of date. A Yale study (linked above; the FactCheck article) says it's probably twice that many.

Democrats AND Republicans have been lying ever since about fixing that problem. And they continue to get away with their lies. It's a problem, they all know it, and they lie when they say they're going to fix it.

Which makes me wonder; why? Why don't they just fix it? Why aren't they jumping at the chance to finally secure our borders for really real? To me, the wall makes sense. They actually do work. If you don't believe it, ask the residents of East Berlin. Or the Palestinian territories, where incursions by terrorists into Israel have been cut almost to nothing. The much-touted “high-tech virtual wall” disappears the second its funding is cut. It would be great to have that to supplement a real, physical wall, but the real, physical wall would be just as expensive to take down as it will be to build. And even its physical existence would be a major deterrent to illegal immigration. Not all immigration, btw, just illegal. Trump did, after all, also promise a big, beautiful door.

So . . . why, if most of the country wants a real, actual border, and all the politicians know it, and keep promising to do it . . . why don't they?

I'm just guessing here, but it might be because their patrons don't want it. Maybe, just maybe, they like having an army of available workers who have no legal standing and can't do things like demand minimum wage or decent conditions. Have you ever done any research on how illegal immigrants live? I read a piece a few years ago about Latino illegals living in Chicago and working for Ty, the company that produces Beanie Babies among other things. Squalid living conditions, ridiculous hours, poor pay and working conditions. And their only choice is to not work, and therefore not make any money, because they have no legal recourse. I did save the link to the article, but the last time I clicked it, the article didn't exist any more. How convenient. It was from the Yahoo news feed; I forget the original source.

So, just how compassionate is it to let these “asylum seekers” in to roam free? Again, it comes down to law. If anybody can come in, and have legal status, then do we actually have a border? If that's cool, then say so. Completely open borders. Advocate that, and I'll believe that you actually mean what you say, and that you've thought that far about it. No passports, no background checks required, you get here, you're a citizen, period. Even if I disagree, at least I could respect someone who advocates for that and honestly believes it's right for everyone. And if there's actually anything between borders and no borders, would you please explain it to me?

Do you support his lies.....daily lies? Is that the character you like to see in a president. You wouldn't tolerate it in a friend....why would you tolerate it in a president?

- I don't respect anybody's lies. I don't respect Mitch McConnell's, or Barack Obama's, or John McCain's, or Jean Shaheen's, or anybody's. But I think it's funny for somebody who probably liked President Bill Clinton to be so huffy about character.

And, I do tolerate it in friends. If I know they're lying, I shine it on in order to maintain my friendship. I try not to lie myself, especially to my friends. I've even told truths that harmed friendships. So, I have repeatedly, continually, put up with lies from politicians, because I honestly care more about how they do their jobs. And I do my best to keep track of when they lie, and about what, so I can parse who to vote for next time around.

I don't honestly think that Donald Trump lies a tenth as much as he gets credit for. I've looked through the ever-growing lists published on line about how many lies he's told, and most of them are horse pucky. Some have turned out to be true. Some of them are strictly up for interpretation, like regarding whether or not you believe in climate change.

And a lot of what he says is just to keep the pot stirred. The more people over-react and go ballistic, the more they show themselves for the tools they are. In my experience, most people have an active bull**** meter, and when somebody is spouting mindless hyperbole, it puts them in a bad light. 

Unless, of course, you've emotionally invested yourself in their point of view. So, when somebody keeps coming back with; “I know you are, but what am I” and getting rabid foam-at-the-mouth responses, I know which one looks like an idiot.

Give me a reason to support any decision or statement he has made and I will give you 10 reasons why that is not sound judgement.

- First of all, I would be skeptical of anyone who didn't have the “judgment” to even consider trusting their spell-check. (Btw, I copied the questions directly from your FB post, and you obviously didn't catch the mistake.)

10 reasons? Is that you, or just the K-Street cubical mouse that put out the original list? Okay, I would like to hear your 10 reasons why I shouldn't support each of the following:

- Tax and regulation cuts that stimulate the economy,

- Secure borders,

- Challenging deep-seated corruption in our government,

- Naming judges who respect the Constitution,

- Demanding real solutions to real problems, instead of offering promises they don't intend to keep.

I've said this in another blog post, but maybe you missed it. I believe that there are certain things that everybody wants: Peace, prosperity, equality, security, and freedom. In as equal measures as possible. I've watched the deterioration of this country for more than six decades now, while people I put my trust in lied through their teeth about fixing it. If I see somebody who understands what those five things actually are, and has a track record of getting things done, they've got my vote.

Film review - Chappaquiddick

Just watched this movie, and found it quite interesting.  Pretty good, obviously a good sized budget, good acting and writing.  The lead was played by Jason Clarke, who I'm not readily familiar with.  But he gave a good performance and, in the right setting and lighting, even looks a fair bit like Senator Ted Kennedy.

The picture above is the real Senator Kennedy, probably taken at Mary Jo Kopechne's funeral.  The movie explains its significance.  For those of you who don't know, Joseph Kennedy was the patriarch of a very rich and powerful family and was deeply involved in politics.  The height of his own career was serving as the US Ambassador to Great Britain.

He and his wife had many children, four of whom were sons.  He had very high aspirations for all of them, hoping that one or all of them might eventually become President of the United States.  The eldest, Joe Jr., was a bomber pilot who was killed in action in WW2.  The next son, John, also served in WW2 as a PT Boat Captain.  He survived the war and was a bone fide hero.  From there, he went into politics.  He became President, but was assassinated late in his first term.

The third brother, Robert, also went into politics.  He served as his brother's Attorney General and then won a seat in the US Senate from New York.  While running for President himself in 1968, he, too, was assassinated.

This left the fourth, Edward, also known as Ted.  While serving as a US Senator from Massachusetts, he went to a party one night on Martha's Vineyard.  One of the other people there was Mary Jo Kopechne, a former staffer with his brother, Bobby's Presidential campaign.  They left together in his car.  There was an accident; the car went off a bridge and turned over, sinking into the water below.  He survived, but she didn't.

About the only thing the movie glosses over is their relationship.  It's been presumed for decades that they were having an affair.  It's also been assumed, and admitted to, that they'd been drinking and that he was quite drunk.

Any movie has to have a central theme; a focal point from which everything else is connected.  The central theme of this movie is that Teddy Kennedy was an idiot and an ass.  The first part presents him as the dimmest of the four brothers.  He became head of the clan by default, not by merit.  The rest of it walks us through mistake after screw-up after blunder, most of it driven, not by remorse or concern for Ms. Kophecne or her family, but his own political future.

It also delves into the mechanizations and manipulations behind the scene.  By implication, it can be assumed that the same happens around anyone who is that rich and powerful.  The film makes it clear that there was a firm plan to run Teddy for President in 1972.  This event made that impossible.  He finally did run in 1980, trying to wrest the Democratic nomination away from sitting President Jimmy Carter, but found Chappaquiddick hung around his neck like a '67 Oldsmobile.

I find it amazing that Edward Kennedy, the fourth longest serving Senator in US history, is so revered, even in this age of Donald Trump.  Trump is rude, crude, and has been unfaithful to three wives.  The biggest difference between his personal life and Kennedy's is that Ted was only unfaithful to one wife.  And, he drank to excess, while Donald doesn't drink at all, according to legend.

The movie has made me think about the Clintons.  Bill is clearly smarter and more careful.  And Hillary has his back.  When the ballots are cast, do we really care about someone's personality?  Or is what they actually do on the job more important?  If you hate Donald Trump because of his tweets and Stormy Daniels, don't you also have to hate Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton?

If you still believe that Ted Kennedy was a good man, it's because you agree with his politics. Not, because you would trust him to drive your daughter home after a party.

You want to talk about personalities?  Look at Richard Nixon.  Very likely, the most awkward and uncomfortable man to ever hold the office of President, certainly in the modern era.  He used to practice things to say at parties.  Whatever you might want to say about his competence or his honesty, nobody's ever accused him of having an affair.  Who would he have one with?

I think I'm well within the mark when I say that the most decent two men to hold the office of President in the last century, regardless of their policies or success/failure ratio, would have to be Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.  This begs the question; is there a difference between good people and great people?

Problems?

Two poster children.  Okay, quick disclaimer.  I know only a few people ever read this blog, but those few people tell me they like it.  And, I'm predisposed to take requests.  So, when Jim Alger told me earlier today (just before A Band Called Spike took the stage at the First Annual Mountain Music & Arts Festival in Warren, NH) that he liked it, AND he liked the political stuff . . . well, I couldn't resist.  So, to the three of you who HATE my political stuff, blame Jim Alger.  And, buy an Evert or A Band Called Spike CD.

I've been waiting to see if anybody else would make the connection between the two people pictured above.  One is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who recently won a Democratic primary against a long-time Democrat congressman who is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi.  The other is, at this writing, our current President, Donald Trump.

For Ms. Cortez, I think there are two likely possibilities.  One is that her opponent, Joe Crowley, pissed somebody off that's higher up on the political food chain and they pulled his plug in favor of the young upstart.  The other, I think is more likely.  And I confess, I say this from the outside of Democrat politics.  But I think a lot of people on both sides, Conservative and Liberal, are sick to the teeth of business as usual.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is vocal about her ideas and proposes what she thinks are solutions to actual problems.  I disagree with her, but that's not the point.

The point is, problem solvers - or, more accurately, prospective problem solvers - have been getting a lot of traction lately.  For decades, more decades than I've enjoyed (I'll be 63 next week), the two parties have been derided as being so similar.  And it's true!  Yes, one will do more to tax you, the other, less, but on the whole they both pay a lot more attention to their donors than to the people of this country.  And they shamelessly lie about it!  Oh, of course we care about you and your little problems.  What was your name again?

Back in the Olden Days, probably going back to when the biggest guy with the biggest stick ruled the group of cavemen that shared a cave, it was relatively simple:  I can whup everybody, shut up and do what I say.  You want some food?  Tough bananas!  I want to bang your daughter, I win.  And, we won't go into how the daughter used her access to power.

So, as the species evolved - IF there's any truth to the theory of evolution - it has become increasingly important for the leaders to have popular support.  I think a lot of this is about the sheer size of the groups being led.  Before long, there were more people than one tough guy with a weapon could subdue.  He/she/they had to convince you to shut up and give up your daughter.

One very effective way of gaining that support is to solve problems.  You need food?  You need roads?  You need people to start hassling you because of your background, or your life choices?

The Continental Congress was assembled because of perceived oppression by the rulers/owners of the colonies in North America; namely, the British Crown.  The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution were all intended to solve problems.

And again, as time rolled on, prudence demanded compromises.  If you actually want to solve this problem for your constituents, then you need to solve a problem for me.  Who am I?  I'm a big, tough guy with a big stick.  I am someone with power and control, and I can move obstacles.  Or, put them in your way.  And by the way, that daughter of yours is really looking fine.

So, for much of the 20th century and thus far in the 21st, we have played the game of shuffling the deck chairs while the ship continues to take on water.  But, our elected officials, to whom we give power and control and tons of our money, have figured out something along the way.  You can make a difference solving problems . . . but you can make a living managing them.

Here's where the line is drawn.  Let's say, your basement is flooding.  Solving the problem would be to drain all the water, dry it out, paint the inside with Kilz (a paint designed to hold back moisture - no endorsement intended) and whatever else you need to do to keep your basement from flooding again.  Maybe you could dig a deep trench around your foundation and fill it with loose rocks, and put a drainage line on the low end of your property.  Managing, on the other hand, would be putting a pump down there that would pump out water at roughly the same amount as it's flooding.

Why would anyone do that?  Maybe, because they sell pumps.  The flooding actually works to their advantage.  And if the water level is kept low enough to keep lasting permanent damage to your house, then that's okay, right?  Actually, it would cause damage, but not for a long time.  Hopefully, after you've passed the house along, and somebody else owns your pump business.

To advance the analogy, what if someone comes along who says; "That's terrible, that your basement is flooding.  I want to help!"  To that person, you give a paper cup and a pat on the back, and publicly applaud them for being so good-hearted.  Just so long as they don't actually solve the problem.

You could play this game with just about any problem in the world that involves any government.  Let's say, you have a country that has 1) a dominant religious culture, and 2) an economy based on one product.  A small group of people benefit financially from the selling of the product, while behaving in a way that flies in the face of the religious precepts.  The majority of the people in the country work constantly to produce the product, but reap barely more than the means of survival in return.

Whenever the working class gets grumpy, leaders of the nation and of the religious hierarchy scream that the problems of the people are really being caused by some outside group that are infidels.  This, coupled with a rigorous ongoing effort to keep this working class ignorant and cut off from the outside world, is how this problem is managed.

Pop quiz:  Why does a beloved ally of the United States, known as Saudi Arabia, continually show up on the short list of most oppressive/repressive regimes in the world?

And let's be honest; the government of our own free democratic republic is also guilty of managing problems instead of solving them.  Has been for decades.  We keep being offered a selection of problem managers, backed by the same shadowy powers who care much more about their own agendas than ours.  Nobody else ever seems to make it to the November ballot, and if they do, they become a target.  And if they win, they spin their wheels until they either sell out or get sick of it.  AND THEN some of them write books about it, which you never hear of.  Nothing to see here.  C'mon, baby, tell me all about your Daddy's problem.

So let's say somebody steps up and offers solutions.  Real solutions, that they believe in.  They are able to delineate how the progress, real progress, will happen.  They take on the establishment, and by some miracle, against everybody's predictions, they win!

I speak, of course, of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  And I find it notable that she has become an instant celebrity, and yet with certain caveats.  On the left, some applaud her stands and success.  But nobody on the left expends much energy defending and pushing back against the outrage from the right.  Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the conservative pundits have large fun pointing out her missteps and misstatements.  They leave blisters at every opportunity.  And the liberal media . . . doesn't seem to have noticed.  I listen to NPR almost every day, and occasionally catch CNN and MSNBC, and I haven't heard any outcry about the unfairness of these characterizations.

Which makes me wonder; is the power base on that side just letting her twist in the wind?  Hell, they're doing everything but endorsing the Republican nominee.  Who is that?  Who cares?  They'll count the seat as lost, and then hamstring the winner.  That, frankly, would less of a problem for the problem managers than Ocasio-Cortez' victory.  She would get in there and actually try to DO something!

That seems to me to be the hidden similarity between her and Trump.  He takes so much flack from the Democrats - and most of the Republicans, if we're honest - the media, and just about everybody.  Except, the millions of people who voted for him.  Which, disclaimer, includes me.

Now, know this, I didn't vote for him because he's a Republican.  I'd have likely voted for him if he were a Democrat.  And if you look at the piece I wrote about him during the primaries of 2016, I argued that he maybe should have run as one.  I have put up with all the "scandals" about his sex life and his "collusion" with Russia.

 - sidebar - What, exactly, did Russia do?  They're supposed to have "interfered" with our election.  What did they do?  So far, the only actual fact I've heard on this regard is that they bought about $30,000 worth of ads on Facebook.

I would agree that marital fidelity is important.  It was important when Bill Clinton was President, and when Jack Kennedy was President, and it's important now.  I wish Donald Trump were a more moral person, and I feel for all three of his wives for having to put up with his sexual adventures.  Unfortunately, the alternative is more business as usual.

Can any of you look me in the eye and honestly tell me that Jeb Bush would have solved any problems?  Or Hillary Clinton?  Bernie Sanders might have actually tried.  Then again, when he finally lost his "valiant quest" for the Democratic nomination, he quickly rolled over and put his paws in the air.  The news that the DNC conspired to deny him the nomination seems to make no difference.  Which reminds me; I wonder how his wife's legal battles are going?

I voted for Donald Trump for one reason; He enumerated problems, and promised to solve them.  And I firmly believe that this is why liberals in the 14th Congressional district of New York voted for Ocasio-Cortez.  Personally, I wouldn't vote for her, not because she's a woman, or Hispanic, or any reason other than I think she's wrong.  Then again, a conservative Republican who mouths platitudes and stands in the way of solutions wouldn't be any better.

Everybody Knows

Everybody knows, right?

I am writing this on the premise that, in spite of all our political differences, the average person understands that the government doesn't give a royal shit about us.  By "government," I mean the Presidents, Kings, Premiers, Ministers of Defense, Members of Congress and Parliment and the Diet and the Kremlin and so forth and so on.  These people are in this as if it were a high-stakes game.  They are working for their own advantage, and the advantage of their party, which inevitably is for their own advantage.  We elect them, and participate in their ascension, hoping they will work on our behalf, but they never do.  At best, we get the scraps.

The dealings that governments have with each other is, again, for their own advantage.  You ally yourself with somebody that has something you want, whatever that might be.  France and England were bitter enemies, until Germany became a threat to them both.  Now, Germany is a friend of both, because the USSR was a threat.  Russia can be a friend if it becomes to everybody's advantage.  And to "everybody," I mean to the governments.

If you've ever seen the 1960 epic "Quo Vadis," you might remember the performance that Peter Ustinoff gave as Nero.  Talk about chewing on the scenery!  Anyway, there was a scene where they were discussing what to do about the problem of a dusty, dirty, filthy city of Rome.  Nero's vision was to build a beautiful, new city.  Problem was, the old one was still occupied.  I don't remember the exact line, but an adviser said something about the necessity of populace; that a ruler needed someone to rule.

We are nothing but a problem to these people.  We don't actually exist, unless their car needs gas, or their lawn need mowing, or somebody has to babysit their kids.  We are game pieces, best understood as demographic groups instead of human beings.  Human beings could be their equals, and that's ridiculous.

Yes, we all understand this.  It explains why we are so cynical.  It explains why we repeat talking points we hear in the media, as if they were deep truths.  Liberals honestly care about people; No, wait, they hate their own country.  It's the Conservatives that care about the working man; That is, when they're not helping their fat, rich, white buddies line their pockets.

Yeah, we know, they're actually using us.  They have to convince a sizeable number of us to vote their way, because we know that if we do the nation will lean in a general direction that we can tolerate.  We're all suckers, but we know it, and we go along because somebody has to be President and populate Congress and print our drivers licenses and Social Security checks.  And the choices, sadly, are limited.

Some of us get so damned sick of it that we run for office ourselves.  Selectman, or City Council, or Alderman, depending on the size of the community we live in.  Maybe we go in, do some good things, and attract the attention of the Democrats or Republicans.  They suggest you run for something bigger.  Or maybe you just decide to do so yourself.

The point is, the further up the ladder you get, the more compromise you are subject to.  Scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.  And if you don't, you can't do anything you want.  If you play along, they own you.  And if you don't, you're stuck.  Anyone with actual compassion finds themselves selling off little bits of what they care about until the machine just grinds it all up.  The end.

But what if someone with actual compassion got into a very, very high position?  Someone who looks out their limousine window and honestly cares about the people he's driving past?  And I don't mean a Bill Clinton cynical 'I feel your pain' kind of faux compassion, but who actually cares.  Who sees the world as clearly as any of us, and is sick of the assholes always winning?

What would such a person think of the current situation in the Middle East?  It's such a mess, and everybody with power over it has been hopping in and out of bed with everybody else for centuries.  The people that really care about something seem to care more about their religious ideology than any people, including themselves.  Everybody else seems to be more concerned with who controls the oil.

Just imagine, if you can, that somewhere there was somebody that watched all this never ending war, chemical attacks, continual oppression, and was sick of it. Somebody that felt the people living there should have a better chance of a decent life.

If I were a person like this, I think I would see three basic paths to follow.

One would be, get out, get lost, hands off.  Let everybody else worry about it.  We have oil, and tech, and we don't really need anything that they have there.  Let the Shi'ites and Sunnis kill each other.  Let Russia control the area.  Let Turkey stomp the Kurds into the dust, and Europe make deals with whoever they want, at whatever price, and to hell with everyone there.

Two problems with that.  For one, the people of the Middle East are suffering.  Ah, but they've always suffered.  And our love for oil has helped fund the oppression.  Saudi Arabia is always high on the list of oppressive regimes, right up there with North Korea.  It seems like everyone in power there hates everyone they're in power over, even the ones on their side.

For another, we have already seen what happens when those areas of the world are left devoid of our influence.  So, what do we do if (if?) they eventually come after us?  Oh, but they'd never do that.

We will now take a ten-second break while nobody remembers 9-11.

Second path:  Total involvement.  People keep telling me that "those people" wouldn't like democracy, wouldn't appreciate it, couldn't even understand it.  That's like saying that if I had a billion dollars, I wouldn't be happy.  Thank you for your concern, but I'd like a chance to find that out for myself, if you don't mind.

History tells us that democracy has worked every time it's been tried.  Does anyone remember the happy faces of Iraqis holding up their blue fingers?  And yes, corruption is almost inevitable, but even corrupt democracies - like ours! - are pretty damned decent places to live.

So we could go in, dare Russia to cross the line in the sand, kick out the criminals and despots and build some nations!  In spite of what Pres. Trump says, by 2008 Iraq was headed in a pretty good direction.  Compared to their recent past, and anything their neighbors had experienced.  I STILL say that THIS more than anything was the cause of the Arab Spring.  Small people all over the Middle East looking through the fence and thinking, "I'd like some of that."

There is also the invisible elephant in the room; Israel.  Maybe you hadn't heard . . . but they are God's chosen people.  Scoff if you will, but I didn't pick them.  No, they're not perfect.  They're not even nice.  News flash; they never were.  Read about it in the Bible, which they wrote, and even then it didn't ger covered up.  Again, I didn't choose them.  And if you want to stand up to the dude that did, then let me get out of your way.

One thing I would point out; Will Durant wrote an epic set of books called the History of Civilization, aided later in his life by his wife, Ariel.  It discusses every significant civilization that left any historical or archaeological record.  I've never read it, but I do know a couple people who have gone through all 11 volumes, and they say it covers every empire, every nation of every significance . . .

. . . except Israel.  The reason for this is, Israel's history doesn't fit into any model that any other nation has ever experienced.  Like, it was different, for some reason.  So, they simply left it out.

There is a difference between problem solving and management.  Let's say, you own a restaurant.  You walk in, and there's a dining room full of hungry and thirsty people, a fully equipped and stocked kitchen, and an empty cash register.  You get to work, and soon you have satisfied people, a dirty, empty kitchen, and a full cash register.  Have you solved a problem?

Well . . . yes, and no.  You've solved the immediate problem, but you still have to pay the mortgage on the building, restock the fridges, clean up, and hope your dining room fills up again tomorrow.  So, you solve each of those new problems, rinse, and repeat.

That's called, management.  Which brings us to the third option; managing the situation.  As that situation now stands, the Europeans have relative security as to their oil supply, the Russians have increasing control over their biggest competition in this same area, and the despots on the ground have plenty of support in their intermural pissing contests.  Saudi Arabia and Iran are each held in relative check by their chief backers, us and Russia, and the others line up behind them on sectarian lines.  The pieces in play are struggled over.  And everybody hates God's chosen people, except us, maybe, depending.

The whole situation can be seen as a big problem, solved by either quitting altogether, or taking control altogether.  Or, it can be seen as a management situation, in which one would exert power and spend capital for and against all the players mentioned above.

But what about the people that live there?  The people that run the oil wells, and load the ships, and so on and so forth?  Who's on their side?  Careful examination would indicate that they have problems, too.  And don't bother Daddy, he's got more important things to do.

In my fevered imagination, I wonder what would happen if the President went to Putin and announced his intention to see things change significantly in the Middle East; Syria, in particular, at this time.  Putin would probably look back, wondering what move in the game this was.  Why would you want that, he might ask?

Because it's the right thing to do.

This answer would cause confusion.  Putin, of course, would completely reject that as a possibility.  What other game is being played here?  What position on the board is this a move toward?  Right for whom?

A commentator on NPR mentioned the other day that the current Middle East resembles Europe in 1914.  I can see his point.  Some little person could easily do some stupid thing that could cause the whole thing to explode, and World War 3 would begin.  All the world's major players, save China, have a lot invested in that region.  And, I know, you reading this probably are aware of China's involvement more than I am.  It's a dangerous place to play with fire.  The whole place could light up, and take us all with it.

So let me ask you this; if there was actually a world leader who decided to act on behalf of the little guy, what would it look like?  What would they do about things like gas attacks on innocents?  And in the mighty words of Woody Guthrie, which side would you be on?

Somewhere in North Korea ...

Somewhere in North Korea …

“… I’m just asking, that’s all,” the General said to his counterparts. “I mean, if we truly care about our people …”

“What you’re suggesting borders on treason,” the eldest of the group snarled.

“I’m not suggesting any such thing,” the original speaker said. He looked around at the rest of the group of nine Generals. “I’m just saying that things are escalating out of control. Possibly, that is, out of control. And, that maybe it’s time that we step in and … try to …” He locked eyes with several of the group. “… maybe, do something about it.”

“We’ve tried talking to him,” one of the others reminded his colleague. “He is very stubborn.”

“A quality he shares with his father and grandfather,” the eldest said. “And I believe that ‘determined’ would be a more appropriate word. It a mark of the greatness of his line.”

The others shuffled in their seats nervously, each wondering why he in particular had been invited to this little unofficial conference.

“You have his ear,” one of the others said, normally one of the quieter among them, answering the unasked question from his seat. “He trusts you. If any among us, if anyone anywhere, can reason with him –“

“He trusts me because my devotion is total,” the elder man barked. “I was a lowly Private and was plucked out of obscurity by his grandfather. He trusts me, because I trust him.”

“Then prove to him that his trust was not misplaced,” the quiet man said, rising to his feet. “Do you believe that the Kims were divinely appointed to lead our people to greatness?”

The old man rose, stretched himself to his full height and stuck out his chin. “I do, with all of my soul.”

“And do you think our greatness will be fulfilled by embarking on a nuclear war with the United States?”

There was stone silence for a moment.

“I will hear nothing of treason,” the old man said.

“It is not treason to try and save one’s country,” the quiet General said softly. “Jong-un is the Chairman of the party’s Central Military Commission, but he does not act alone. He comes to us for advice and counsel.”

“And then he does what he knows is right! It is his divine privilege.”

The other seven watched at the two men debated, not daring to speak up.

“And what do you think will be the end result of challenging the American President, Trump?” the younger man asked softly. “Do you think he will back down?”

The old man glanced around the group. “No. He will not.”

“Do you think he will strike first?”

Again, a moment of silence. The old man pondered the question, a very serious one. “I do not think he will. He is not the crazy man his news media proclaims him to be. His desire is to force Kim’s hand, to make him, as the Westerners say, shit or get off the pot. He will insist on Kim backing down, capitulating completely. He will only strike if we strike first.”

“And will Kim back down?”

For the third time, silence.

“No.”

“No, he will not,” the younger man said. “The moment of truth will come, and Kim will order the weapon launched. We will be called to the bunkers. And when we emerge, we will find our beloved country reduced to a radioactive parking lot.”

“I expect that you have an alternative to propose,” the eldest of the Generals said.

“Indeed, I do,” the soft-spoken man said. He began to pace around the table. “The next time he calls us all together, I will wear my sidearm … and shoot him.”

There was a collective gasp around the table.

“Then, the logical thing would be for one or more of you to shoot me,” he continued. “After which, you can announce to the world that the beloved Kim was assassinated, but that his assassin was killed as well. At that time, you can declare a state of emergency and a one-month period of mourning for the great leader. Quietly, behind the scenes, you can reach out to China, America, and the other nations. Begin dismantling our nuclear program, open diplomatic relations, and negotiate for assistance so that the country can get back on its feet.”

“And leave ourselves defenseless?” the old man asked.

“You know as well as I do that America is not our enemy,” the soft-spoken man said. “Her people are very sympathetic to our plight, as are our brothers to the South.”

The elderly General nodded. “And you would willingly give your life to do this?”

“Gladly.”

Again, the old man nodded. Then he drew his sidearm and aimed it point-blank at the other man. “Why wait?” he asked.

“Or,” one of the others began, slowly getting to his feet. “We could try this.” With that, he also drew his sidearm and shot the elderly man in the head. With a look of surprise, the old man dropped to the floor.

With looks of shock all around, the group of eight generals rose, looked at their colleague on the floor, and then around at each other. The freshly minted murderer replaced his weapon calmly.

“I think we've all entertained the same idea,” he said. “Until now, it's been a fantasy. With the world situation as it now is, the time has come to choose. Either we save our nation … or burn with it.”

The Outrage Factory

First, an open apology to those of you who tell me 1) I should write more for my blog, and 2) I should write more about music, and nothing about politics.  This post is about politics, so if you are a member of the above, you can stop reading now.

Have you made it this far?  Kudos for your durability.  Okay, those of you who know me well know that I am a mouth-breathing Conservative wacko who automatically likes anyone with an (R) next to their name and believes anything they say.  Right?

If you're laughing right now, that means you actually do know me fairly well, and may have even thought about some of the political things I've written here.  If, however, you believe the above, then you might as well stop reading right now, because you've already decided what I'm about to say and you disagree with it.

I am writing this out of frustration with President Trump.  Well, not so much him as all the kerfuffle (that's a technical term) swirling around him.  And right now, this kerfuffle seems to be centering on his campaign's relations with the Russian government.

I've been trying to figure out how the mechanics of this collusion works.  The big crime appears to be the hacking of John Podesta's emails, relating to activities the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign undertook to undermine Bernie Sanders' campaign for the nomination.  According to the outrage factory, Russian hackers, probably working at the behest of their government, did this to help Trump win the Presidency.  As part of this, Senator Jeff Sessions, a noted Conservative and current US Attorney General, plotted with a Russian ambassador.  And so, probably, did other members of the Trump team; possibly even The Donald himself.

So, what did they discuss?  Were the Russians asking Trump's permission to do the hack?  Or to release the information?  Were they asking him for assistance, like his people knew more about hacking than they do?  Or maybe the ambassador was just saying, "Hey, look what we got!  Think we should drop this on Julian Assange?  What do you think he'd do with?"  Oh, I know!  They'd never heard of Julian Assange, and were asking Sessions what they should do with all this groovy stuff!

What do you think they talked about?  The presumption, I suppose, was that Sessions et al were asking Russia for help.  Logically, it would have been the campaign that reached out to the Russians.  As if the Russians 1) should give a shit who won, and 2) if they did, had to be prodded by the side they preferred to take this action.  I'm sorry, but if this scenario doesn't sound absolutely ridiculous, then I'm afraid I have nothing more to say.  Thank you for reading this far.

Still here?  Wow.  Okay.  The premise that the Russians care who won is a sound one, and it's been reported - very quietly, in the current atmosphere - that the old Soviet Union used to try and undermine any candidate they didn't like.  Surprised?  Really?!?  You honestly didn't know that?  Hell, we do it, right out in the open.  For instance, the last Israeli election, the Obama Administration and people from his campaign openly helped Netenyahu's opponents.

What I question is the idea that they actually worked with the Trump campaign, and did it this publicly.  Trump sent Jeff Sessions?  Not some nameless lackey?  No, he sent his biggest supporter in the US Senate.  If Russia had this information, and wanted to undermine Hillary, why bother talking to the Trump campaign at all?  Some people have suggested that one of their motives for cutting Hillary's throat was to have something they could wave under Trump's nose later on.  So why do it so openly that everybody would find out they had colluded?  You mean, I've thought of this, and these professional espionage guys didn't?

And the next question would be, who gives a flying leap off a rolling donut?  What was the hack, anyway? 

First of fall, if it was a hack, it was walked straight into.  Oh, Joe Frazier's hand is coming straight at my face.  He must want to shake hands, so I'll step into it.  What happened, according to reports from news sources that actually seem to prefer Hillary to The Donald, is that Podesta, or somebody from his staff, answered a spam email.  They did what is widely known as a stupid thing, and clicked on an attachment.  Oh, I feel so sorry for that Nigerian prince, or I really would like to see another naked picture of Britany Spears.  Click.  Children, that's what dumb-ass looks like.

Second, Julian Assange himself has, on several occasions, stated unequivocally that he didn't get the emails from the Russians.  Not that anyone should take the word of someone who's claim to fame is digging out the truth and presenting it to the world.  Actually, I'm still undecided what I think of this gentleman.  I believe that national security is an important issue, but for all the fussing about the German premier's phone conversations and all, nobody seems to have died from it.  The Bible tells us that the truth will set us free.  There also seems to be a suspicious flexibility of opinion on he and WikiLeaks, in that when it's happening to your side, it's bad.

So what was done, was emails about how the DNC and the Clinton campaign colluded against Bernie (kind of like the Trump-ets and the Russians are accused of doing).  In other words, what came out was THE TRUTH.  I find it also a little suspicious that the Democratic Party, the Clinton Campaign, and the Obama Administration didn't see anything wrong with Russia annexing Crimea, attacking Ukraine, or putting boots on Syrian ground.  But hack the Democratic Party's emails?  I'm sorry, make it possible for an idiot to get hacked?  Now, you've crossed the line.

So, this is the big story?  This is supposed to be the basis for the impeachment of a brand-new President?  This is why we shouldn't trust him; because he might have had a part in the truth getting out about his opponents and how they think and work?  Maybe that's the thing; because he caught us doing it, he's gotta be doing it, too.  Doesn't everybody?  Actually catching them at it seems to be the crime.

At this point, the question arises; who suffers from a Trump presidency?  And who would have, therefore, gained from a Hillary presidency?  Who benefits from the status quo?

And don't try and feed me that bull about the downtrodden.  I've listened to that crap since Johnson.  If Carter, Clinton, Obama and Clinton are so good for blacks, hispanics, LBGT, the poor, etc., then how come fifty years later it doesn't seem to be any better for them?

(As a sidebar, the other day on BookFace I saw a link to a new group, dedicated to LBGT; Liquor, Bacon, Guns, and Tits.  I haven't joined ... yet ...)

Big sigh here.  I'm no expert.  But I'm 61 years old, and for most of that time I've been paying attention to what goes on around me.  I also try and think about it.  I've got seat time in every wing of the political spectrum, and along my journey I've made some observations. 

One is that, the biggest difference between liberal and conservative politicians is in how they manage society.  And that is what they do, they manage it.  Neither side really seems to be interested in fixing anything or helping anybody or freeing anybody.  With Democrats, more public money gets spent on programs.  With Republicans, more people work more hours.  With one side, the economy flourishes; with the other, some roads get paved.  But make no mistake, both sides like things just as they are.

But the status quo works!  It really does.  Especially in America.  Just about everybody's got a place to sleep and food on a table, and a way to get around.  In very real terms, our corrupt government is taking pretty good care of us.  If Trump hadn't run, I'd have held my nose and voted for one of the other Republicans.  Jeb Bush, or John  Kasich, or even Jim Gilmore would be pretty good at managing the mess.  Although, now that I think of it, I would have probably voted for Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybkiiAKMOY

The above link is to a song by one of my favorite songwriters, Bruce Cockburn.  The song is "The Trouble With Normal."  And the trouble with normal is, it always gets worse.  We're not supposed to care about the people who really control the world are doing with it.  We are fortunate to live in a country where they've learned the value of keeping the general populace happy.  Henry Ford figured out that, if he paid his factory workers more, they could buy the cars they built.

For the most part, the average American citizen doesn't have to worry about midnight raids, or our neighbors ratting us out for speaking our minds, or any of the other general symptoms of oppression.  If more dictators could figure this out, there'd be more dictators.

The problem with that is, intelligent, compassionate people insist on pushing back.  They insist on speaking truth against power, and pointing out where they and their neighbors are being ripped off.  They say disruptive things like, if you're going to take a trillion dollars of our money for shovel-ready projects, how come my roads are still so friggin' rough?

So politicians develop tricks for managing this.  They know how to keep a dynamic tension going on.  One side talks about one set of things, and the other, the other.  It's why Republicans don't talk about race relations or pollution.  It's why Democrats don't talk about economic growth or a foreign policy that promotes democracy.  They both talk like the issues that the other side focuses on don't exist.  They dance around each other, and their news outlets spin and spin and get people who actually care (but don't waste a lot of time thinking) to stay wound up.

To be fair, there are politicians and journalists who really believe they're doing the right thing.  These people are easy for the rest to manipulate.  They should wise up. 

Really, they're less the problem than the people pulling the strings, whoever they may be.  The Rothchilds, Big Pharm, Big Oil, Archer-Daniels-Midlands, Monsanto, the list goes on and on.  If those groups could ever get together, we're all in the stinky end of the pool.  Fortunately, they're people, too.  And each, in its grasping for domination, aren't interested in cooperating with the other Illuminati members.  They each use the politicians and journalists their individual benefits, against us, only going after each other when necessary.

They don't even try very hard to keep their influence secret.  I suspect they take a certain amount of pride in it.  Just Google a phrase like, "How does big oil (or fill in the blank) rule the world?" and see what comes up.  And it's probably only 10% of the real dirt.  Clearly, George Soros and the Koch brothers can't do it all themselves.

Y'see, politicians and their patrons, in America particularly, have figured out an important truth.  The average person in the streets comes in three basic flavors, regarding politics:

1) I don't care
2) They're all crooks, but I vote so that my side wins
3) Your side are all crooks, and my side are only a little bit crooks, but I really, really care and want the world to be a better place and so I speak out and vote on behalf of my side so that it wins.

The goal of most media - on both sides - is to feed the third group, and make the second group feel good about their choice of side.  And maybe, a little, to entertain the first group.  But that group would rather watch Game Of Thrones and The Walking Dead, which seems a lot more realistic.

This is why I try and take my news from as many sources as possible.  It's also why I don't write for this blog very much; because most things, I've either already written about, or I'm still thinking.  And even after I've written, I keep thinking.  Bad habit.  But if you're into that thinking thing, and you really, really care, then you should collect as much data as you can in order to make a truly informed decision.  I don't have a side.  Scratch that; I'm on our side.  All of ours side.  And, yes, even the crooked bastards deserve to have someone on their side.  Jesus loves them, why can't I?

 

Why do these blog posts always get so damned long?  Why do I even bother?  I suppose I do love to pontificate, and I can do it here without really bothering anybody.  I've already given you permission, twice, to stop reading.  Or maybe three times.  But for the most part, I'm looked for feedback.  I'm just smart enough to know what I don't know.  I want somebody to wise me up.  If you would please reply and tell me where you think I might be wrong, or bring up a point I apparently haven't thought of, I would honestly appreciate it.  If I don't answer, it's because I'm thinking about it.

Which brings me to the gentleman pictured above.  In my pre-Christian days I considered him one of my gurus, and still think he presents a good example.  He ate wisely, loved passionately, and his favorite phrase was "I yam wut I yam, and dat's all wut I am."  

When I think about politics, and how the game of it gets played, it always brings up another of his favorite catch phrases; "I jus can't stans it anymore!"  This is his "Smarten up, you buncha chumps" pose.  It's not even a pose; he's obviously on the move, prepared for action.

I think this is what the managers and owners of the status quo see when they look at Donald Trump.  Someone who has made his, but instead of retiring to his estate in Florida has decided to give back.  He sees what we see, and he's a good ways closer to the action than we are.  He stands around the locker room at the club and, yes, he's made some crude remarks, but he also sees his comrades laughing up their sleeves as the unwashed rabble they manage.  And he just couldn't stand it any more.

This is what I think they think.  If he's the same person that is in Art of The Deal and spoke to Don Imus all the time, it sounds like him.  The Donald Trump described above is what I see, not the stupid frat-boy bomb thrower and wannabe despot we're being handed by MSNBC.  He's not Hitler, and he's not some college kid on spring break.  I even think it's a good possibility that his biggest critics would love to be what they accuse him of being.  It's how they see that; it's in their mirror.  It's called psychological projection, in which they defend themselves against their own impulses and qualities by projecting it onto somebody else.

We've forgotten that we have a seat at the table.  Election time comes, and they fight for our attention and pretend they're on our side and beg us to trust them.  Then, they sit in our seat and do what their patrons tell them to do.  And when we get upset about it, they have pundits go on television and the radio and tell us what they believe we want to hear.  They produce slick little pics-with-captions that we can share on BaseFook, so that we can prove we're "well informed."  And if you've ever shared anything by MoveOn.org or The Comical Conservative, you've been managed.

So when somebody like Donald Trump comes along, that looks like a loose cannon and might upset the apple cart, they pull out the big guns.  They are going to do everything they can to slow him down and make him ineffective.  They're trying to convince people that he's bad, because he might have helped some Russian operative reveal the truth about Hillary Clinton's staff.

And don't be mistaken, this is one of those moments when they reveal their contempt for the average person; the one who builds things and occupies homes and drives cars on the highways.  Their contempt is front and center now, because with Trump, and Brexit, and a hundred little populist brushfires that have sprung up all over the world show that we are guilty of the unforgivable sin; that we wish to govern ourselves.

Oh, we can't have that.  If the people of the world start governing themselves, where does that leave us?  Quick, wind up the outrage factory!