I have said for years to my "conservative" friends that I am not political, that I thought most politicians of whatever leaning were crooks and liars, and as such, for years, I didn't vote for either party's candidates in national elections. I refused to give in to the lesser of two evil arguments in 1984, '88, '92, '96, '00 or '04. Yes, I thought Reagan was an ideological buffoon, Bush senior was an elitist criminal, Clinton was a pathological, ego-driven liar, and Bush, Jr. was an out-and-out intellectual infant, but I also thought Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were two-faced wimps, and Bob Dole in 1996? I would have voted for my own grandfather before I voted for that cranky nut-job!
However, in 2008, for the first time in my adult life, I saw an actual adult running for president and so, I voted for Barack Obama. I've written about the reasons why, including what constitutes an emotional adult.
Of course, my right wing friends immediately jumped on my vote as proof that I was a "liberal democrat" all along. Well, to that I say... whatever.
I also say this regarding certain things the president has done recently: Obama is wrong.
He is wrong for protecting the people involved in authorizing and implementing a policy of torture and illegal spying on U.S. citizens in the United States, and he is wrong for continuing the illegal confinement of prisoners at Gitmo who can't be tried in court, now, because of that torture.
Can I understand his possible rational, adult reasons for these positions? Yes. Perhaps he doesn't want to inflame radical, fundamentalists groups further against the U.S. than his predecessors did, and perhaps he believes some of the detainees at Gitmo are extremists who want to harm America, and certainly, he is weighing the political fall-out from a public Bush-Cheney administration legal laundry cleaning which some people will find very distasteful, not to mention that it will surely expose many wimpy Democrats who knew about the Bush-Cheney crimes and looked the other way.
But it doesn't matter.
President Obama is still wrong - because you cannot have a rule of law, especially when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and selectively break those laws because of a political agenda or because it is inconvenient or even potentially dangerous. A nation, just like an individual, cannot grow and prosper and be healthy while selectively acting out psychopathically. Can't happen. It must and will come back to haunt you when you try to have it both ways. Playing it that way may help Obama politically, in the short-run, as Bill Clinton's two-faced, please-everybody policies helped him get elected twice, but the karma to come will be swift, as the Clinton's discovered. But more importantly, that karma will fall on all of us as citizens of this country.
As I say to many people I work with in therapy - there are no end runs or short-cuts around the healing process or the truth. Same thing applies to healing ourselves en masse as a nation.
That's it.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wimps. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wimps. Sort by date Show all posts
DADLOFF SOUNDS OFF ON MY INSULTING THE RIGHT/PL RESPONDS
Here's DL:
"It seems awfully strange that you do nothing but call conservative republicans all kinds of nasty and terrible things and that all they are concerned about is the rich people in this country. Think about this and see what you can find wrong with the American voting public. Since the end of world war 2, starting with Eisenhower, the American people voted into office Republicans for a total of 36 years, while the American people voted into office democrats for a total of 24 years, and I am not counting Ford or Obama. It seems to me that you think all the people that voted for republicans, including democratic and independent voters are a bunch of nitwits. I don't listen to Limbaugh's radio talk show because I basically think it is a comedy show. But I would put Bill Maher in the same category as Limbaugh, because all he does is blast republicans, just as Limbaugh blasts democrats."
PL:
Okay, DL, here's my response: I make a point of talking about what has happened to Republicans post-Eisenhower. I like Ike! He was a Republican who warned about the dangers of embracing the "military-industrial complex," remember? And I'm currently blasting the GOP because they are screaming to be blasted. Again, do a search on my blog. You won't find one piece from me in over 2 years praising democrats. Democrats have been two-faced wimps, who've rolled over and played dead for over thirty years. BUT, I know that the crappy crop of candidates during these years in both parties has been a reflection of our mass consciousness, and the election of Barack Obama shows that enough people have now actually grown up enough to change.
It is Barack Obama and his call for maturity and clarity and adult behavior that I am in support of, and sadly, the Republicans are acting like toddlers who've had their cookies taken away from them.
You get what I'm saying?
"It seems awfully strange that you do nothing but call conservative republicans all kinds of nasty and terrible things and that all they are concerned about is the rich people in this country. Think about this and see what you can find wrong with the American voting public. Since the end of world war 2, starting with Eisenhower, the American people voted into office Republicans for a total of 36 years, while the American people voted into office democrats for a total of 24 years, and I am not counting Ford or Obama. It seems to me that you think all the people that voted for republicans, including democratic and independent voters are a bunch of nitwits. I don't listen to Limbaugh's radio talk show because I basically think it is a comedy show. But I would put Bill Maher in the same category as Limbaugh, because all he does is blast republicans, just as Limbaugh blasts democrats."
PL:
Okay, DL, here's my response: I make a point of talking about what has happened to Republicans post-Eisenhower. I like Ike! He was a Republican who warned about the dangers of embracing the "military-industrial complex," remember? And I'm currently blasting the GOP because they are screaming to be blasted. Again, do a search on my blog. You won't find one piece from me in over 2 years praising democrats. Democrats have been two-faced wimps, who've rolled over and played dead for over thirty years. BUT, I know that the crappy crop of candidates during these years in both parties has been a reflection of our mass consciousness, and the election of Barack Obama shows that enough people have now actually grown up enough to change.
It is Barack Obama and his call for maturity and clarity and adult behavior that I am in support of, and sadly, the Republicans are acting like toddlers who've had their cookies taken away from them.
You get what I'm saying?
Hillary gets it about Baby Souls!
Here's the brilliant Barbara Ehrenreich, in a great piece called, "Hillary's Gift to Women" talking about how Hillary Clinton has set a new ethical low for women in politics.
Ehrenreich :
"Far from being the stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination, the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to 'obliterate' the toddlers of Tehran."
"Toddlers!" Baby Souls. Exactly. See, Hillary gets it (as does Barbara E), and she's taking full advantage of it, as I said in my previous post.
Here's more from Barbara:
"Did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice.
"Whatever violent and evil things men can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for cruelty is a criterion for leadership, then Lynndie England should consider following up her stint in the brig with a run for the Senate."
"Biology conditions us in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of yet. But virtue is always a choice. Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them."
Ehrenreich :
"Far from being the stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination, the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to 'obliterate' the toddlers of Tehran."
"Toddlers!" Baby Souls. Exactly. See, Hillary gets it (as does Barbara E), and she's taking full advantage of it, as I said in my previous post.
Here's more from Barbara:
"Did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice.
"Whatever violent and evil things men can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for cruelty is a criterion for leadership, then Lynndie England should consider following up her stint in the brig with a run for the Senate."
"Biology conditions us in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of yet. But virtue is always a choice. Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them."
OVERPARENTING KILLS!!
Somebody turned me onto this article and book, "A NATION OF WIMPS," yesterday on a subject that I write and yell about a lot - how we're gutting our children's self-confidence and creating a class of whiny and seriously damaged narcissists by over-parenting. The author is Hara Estroff Marano, editor of Psychology Today.
Here are some excerpts from Marano:
"The 1990s witnessed a landmark reversal in the traditional patterns of psychopathology. While rates of depression rise with advancing age among people over 40, they're now increasing fastest among children, striking more children at younger and younger ages."
"The perpetual access to parents infantilizes the young, keeping them in a permanent state of dependency. Whenever the slightest difficulty arises, they're constantly referring to their parents for guidance. They're not learning how to manage for themselves."
"In his now-famous studies of how children's temperaments play out, Harvard psychologist Jerome Kagan has shown unequivocally that what creates anxious children is parents hovering and protecting them from stressful experiences. Overparenting can program the nervous system to create lifelong vulnerability to anxiety and depression."
The article and book goes on, of course, but the bottom line is this - overparenting isn't about love; it's about ego. EGO! If there's even one parent reading this who can hear me, listen up: every time you hover or cover for your child, every time you pamper or prop them up, every time you "sacrifice" adult activities to feed your child's demands, you are not coming from a place of love. You are looking to BE loved from your own place of low self-worth and damaged self-esteem. In other words, you are being selfish, not generous, needy, not giving, and you are stunting and robbing your children, not raising them. Get into therapy! Get a life! Leave your kids alone!!
Here are some excerpts from Marano:
"The 1990s witnessed a landmark reversal in the traditional patterns of psychopathology. While rates of depression rise with advancing age among people over 40, they're now increasing fastest among children, striking more children at younger and younger ages."
"The perpetual access to parents infantilizes the young, keeping them in a permanent state of dependency. Whenever the slightest difficulty arises, they're constantly referring to their parents for guidance. They're not learning how to manage for themselves."
"In his now-famous studies of how children's temperaments play out, Harvard psychologist Jerome Kagan has shown unequivocally that what creates anxious children is parents hovering and protecting them from stressful experiences. Overparenting can program the nervous system to create lifelong vulnerability to anxiety and depression."
The article and book goes on, of course, but the bottom line is this - overparenting isn't about love; it's about ego. EGO! If there's even one parent reading this who can hear me, listen up: every time you hover or cover for your child, every time you pamper or prop them up, every time you "sacrifice" adult activities to feed your child's demands, you are not coming from a place of love. You are looking to BE loved from your own place of low self-worth and damaged self-esteem. In other words, you are being selfish, not generous, needy, not giving, and you are stunting and robbing your children, not raising them. Get into therapy! Get a life! Leave your kids alone!!
WARNING! STRICTLY 3D COMMENT!
If yesterday's MID-TERM CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS showed anything, it demonstrated how truly fed up people are with politics as usual, and especially with the two main political parties. For decades, Republicans have been decimating the middle and working classes of America with the shell game of trickle down economics, while the Democrats have been two-faced, feckless wimps sucking up to the schoolyard bullies at the public's expense. How great it would have been for a true third party to evolve, supporting a real movement towards fairness, integrity, openness, ingenuity, innovation and responsibility in government, at home and abroad, not to mention a conscious approach to enlightened governing (which I know is an oxymoron).
But instead of an evolved, enlightened 3rd "Party," what did we get? The Tea Party - a loose affiliation of boneheads, bimbos, racists and thugs, so intellectually and emotionally stunted, so lacking in creativity and thoughtfulness, and so utterly and easily manipulated by the psychopathic corporate megaliths and what's left of the soulless Republican Party establishment that the only aspect of our country that benefitted from the election cycle was the media, who got to cover the whole Tea Party circus act.
It's a damn shame.
But... it's really not. It just further reminds us of the reality that 3-dimensional density is an expression of our beliefs in limitation and duality, right now, and so these kind of debacles can inspire us to strive to raise our own individual vibration and level of consciousness.
Onward...
But instead of an evolved, enlightened 3rd "Party," what did we get? The Tea Party - a loose affiliation of boneheads, bimbos, racists and thugs, so intellectually and emotionally stunted, so lacking in creativity and thoughtfulness, and so utterly and easily manipulated by the psychopathic corporate megaliths and what's left of the soulless Republican Party establishment that the only aspect of our country that benefitted from the election cycle was the media, who got to cover the whole Tea Party circus act.
It's a damn shame.
But... it's really not. It just further reminds us of the reality that 3-dimensional density is an expression of our beliefs in limitation and duality, right now, and so these kind of debacles can inspire us to strive to raise our own individual vibration and level of consciousness.
Onward...
LANDSLIDE? MAYBE WE'RE NOT THAT STUPID!
This is beautiful! A young evangelical, conservative Republican explains in the Atlantic Magazine on-line why he won't be voting in this presidential election. He's 24 years old. I was 26 when I stopped voting, and like this person, it was not out of apathy or laziness. Like this young man, I could not bring myself to vote for either party, not for any of the mealy-mouthed wimps and prevaricators the Democrats put up starting in 1984, nor for any of the prehistoric, mentally challenged Republicans. So, my vote was: "abstain." In 2008, not coincidentally, I am now voting again, while many conservatives are probably abstaining. This is excellent. It bodes well for a victory for Barack Obama.
This bodes equally well, too: yesterday, in line at my bank (yes, it's still open), I overheard two white, working-class types, a man and a women, talking about the election. You know, these are the folks the pundits have been relentlessly saying Obama is having trouble with. The guy was wearing a plumber's uniform and had a classic Brooklyn accent to go along with his thick neck. The woman, sporting excessive make-up and big hair, spoke with the same accent, though she had a reasonable neck. The point is, in simple terms, they were commiserating about why they were voting for Obama. My thought at that moment? "Landslide. It's going to be a landslide! I may have to apologize to my readers, after all, for my 'How Stupid Are We?' series."
Anyway, here's more of an excerpt from the young conservative in The Atlantic:
"I am 24 years-old. I majored in Finance, was in the College Republican group, campaigned for George Bush, my dad owns a successful small business, I am evangelical, and I live in Colorado, a swing state. All of this would seem to bode well for the Republican Party easily capturing my vote this year, especially in a year where it may be more necessary than others.
"However, last night while I watched the debate I decided to not vote in the presidential election this year. I know this may sound like a ridiculous forfeit of a hard-earned American right, but I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either candidate. There has been such a pattern of disappointment coming out of the Republican Party in the last several years that has all recently come to a head for me, and become consuming enough that I can no longer ignore it and simply check the correct box.
"Balking on the environment, denying basic human rights to our prisoners in the war on terror, becoming more concerned with government telling you what you can or cannot do in your bedroom than, you know, keeping government small, all contributed to this new apathy in me. But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.
"My only hope, I suppose, is that as the Republican Party is cast into the political wilderness in a few weeks they do some serious soul-searching and find people like me who are already there."
Wow! I salute you! When I didn't vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, I thought the same thing - the Democrats, and the country, need some time in the "wilderness." Many of my friends thought this was reckless of me, what with the wars, corruption, financial debacles, and horror show the Bush-Cheney years have wrought, but I say - it could have been even worse if we had eight years of wimpy Democrats deadlocked with greedy, psychopathic right wingers, only to arrive at 2008 without a clear mandate to throw them all out. Maybe now, we're ready to take a quantum leap towards a more enlightened future. Just maybe.
This bodes equally well, too: yesterday, in line at my bank (yes, it's still open), I overheard two white, working-class types, a man and a women, talking about the election. You know, these are the folks the pundits have been relentlessly saying Obama is having trouble with. The guy was wearing a plumber's uniform and had a classic Brooklyn accent to go along with his thick neck. The woman, sporting excessive make-up and big hair, spoke with the same accent, though she had a reasonable neck. The point is, in simple terms, they were commiserating about why they were voting for Obama. My thought at that moment? "Landslide. It's going to be a landslide! I may have to apologize to my readers, after all, for my 'How Stupid Are We?' series."
Anyway, here's more of an excerpt from the young conservative in The Atlantic:
"I am 24 years-old. I majored in Finance, was in the College Republican group, campaigned for George Bush, my dad owns a successful small business, I am evangelical, and I live in Colorado, a swing state. All of this would seem to bode well for the Republican Party easily capturing my vote this year, especially in a year where it may be more necessary than others.
"However, last night while I watched the debate I decided to not vote in the presidential election this year. I know this may sound like a ridiculous forfeit of a hard-earned American right, but I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either candidate. There has been such a pattern of disappointment coming out of the Republican Party in the last several years that has all recently come to a head for me, and become consuming enough that I can no longer ignore it and simply check the correct box.
"Balking on the environment, denying basic human rights to our prisoners in the war on terror, becoming more concerned with government telling you what you can or cannot do in your bedroom than, you know, keeping government small, all contributed to this new apathy in me. But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.
"My only hope, I suppose, is that as the Republican Party is cast into the political wilderness in a few weeks they do some serious soul-searching and find people like me who are already there."
Wow! I salute you! When I didn't vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, I thought the same thing - the Democrats, and the country, need some time in the "wilderness." Many of my friends thought this was reckless of me, what with the wars, corruption, financial debacles, and horror show the Bush-Cheney years have wrought, but I say - it could have been even worse if we had eight years of wimpy Democrats deadlocked with greedy, psychopathic right wingers, only to arrive at 2008 without a clear mandate to throw them all out. Maybe now, we're ready to take a quantum leap towards a more enlightened future. Just maybe.
Nader for President? Ain't that America?
Okay, I'm going to do my best now to invite the ire of the left and right of this country down upon me.
First of all, I voted for Barack Obama in the NY primary, and I will vote for him, or Hillary Clinton, in the general election. I am actually excited about a presidential election for the first time in almost three decades. (I basically gave up on national politics with the two elections of Ronald Reagan and the parade of dry-mouthed wimps put up year after year by the Democrats against ever-increasingly evil or moronic Republicans.) Like Michelle Obama, I, too, am proud of our country in a special way this year for the first time in my adult life.
Nonetheless, I welcome the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race. Why wouldn't I? As Bob Herbert points out in his otherwise pathetic plea today against Nader running, Raplh Nader is "one of just a handful of people over the past century with a legitimate claim to the designation 'great American.”
(See Herbert's piece in the NY Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)
Mr. Herbert then goes on to list SOME of Nader's contributions to the well being of our citizenry.
According to Herbert, Mr. Nader is: "owed thanks for seat belts and air bags and cars that hold the road better, that don’t flip or crumple up or catch fire as easily as earlier models. As the nation’s premier consumer advocate, he has waged war with remarkable success against tainted meat, air and water pollution and dangerous food additives. He was a major driving force behind the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Freedom of Information Act? Thanks for your help, Ralph. Food-labeling that’s clear and informative? Thanks again. And, oh yes, it was Ralph Nader who fought for and won compensation for airline passengers bumped from overbooked flights.
Mr. Nader, who will turn 74 on Wednesday, either founded or inspired an astonishing array of public-spirited organizations and citizens’ groups, including the public interest research groups know as PIRGs. He’s waged titanic battles against corruption in government and the unchecked power of giant corporations. I could go on for a few more days, but you get the idea."
Yet, somehow, in the same breath, Herbert says Nader shouldn't run for president because it might hurt the Democratic nominee. Well, I'm sorry, but if Nader running for president creates a challenge for the Democratic nominee, how is that Nader's fault? How is it that a true American hero who wants to (again according to Herbert) express "outrage over the ballot-access difficulties of independent candidates, and the iniquities of the Bush administration, which, in Mr. Nader’s view, is 'the most impeachable presidency in modern history,' wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, 'full Medicare for all,' and a national mission to abolish poverty, and the waste, fraud and corruption that has turned the military budget into a world-class destroyer of taxpayer dollars, and corporate crime" should be told not to run for president?
It a very real way, the reason we finally have two strong candidates running historic races this year on the Democratic side is partially because of Ralph Nader. Al Gore ran an insincere, two-faced campaign in 2000, and John Kerry was so undercharged and disconnected, I don't even know how he got out of bed in the morning. That any Democrat could have lost to George W. Bush, the most sophomoric, uninspiring, intellectually limited and emotionally challenged candidate in modern times is somehow Ralph Nader's fault?! No, maybe Nader's "threat" has helped the Democrats wake up, and put up for a change.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are great candidates, with a great purpose, running for president. Ralph Nader is a uniquely great American, also running for president. Hooray!
Ain't that America?
PL
First of all, I voted for Barack Obama in the NY primary, and I will vote for him, or Hillary Clinton, in the general election. I am actually excited about a presidential election for the first time in almost three decades. (I basically gave up on national politics with the two elections of Ronald Reagan and the parade of dry-mouthed wimps put up year after year by the Democrats against ever-increasingly evil or moronic Republicans.) Like Michelle Obama, I, too, am proud of our country in a special way this year for the first time in my adult life.
Nonetheless, I welcome the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race. Why wouldn't I? As Bob Herbert points out in his otherwise pathetic plea today against Nader running, Raplh Nader is "one of just a handful of people over the past century with a legitimate claim to the designation 'great American.”
(See Herbert's piece in the NY Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)
Mr. Herbert then goes on to list SOME of Nader's contributions to the well being of our citizenry.
According to Herbert, Mr. Nader is: "owed thanks for seat belts and air bags and cars that hold the road better, that don’t flip or crumple up or catch fire as easily as earlier models. As the nation’s premier consumer advocate, he has waged war with remarkable success against tainted meat, air and water pollution and dangerous food additives. He was a major driving force behind the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Freedom of Information Act? Thanks for your help, Ralph. Food-labeling that’s clear and informative? Thanks again. And, oh yes, it was Ralph Nader who fought for and won compensation for airline passengers bumped from overbooked flights.
Mr. Nader, who will turn 74 on Wednesday, either founded or inspired an astonishing array of public-spirited organizations and citizens’ groups, including the public interest research groups know as PIRGs. He’s waged titanic battles against corruption in government and the unchecked power of giant corporations. I could go on for a few more days, but you get the idea."
Yet, somehow, in the same breath, Herbert says Nader shouldn't run for president because it might hurt the Democratic nominee. Well, I'm sorry, but if Nader running for president creates a challenge for the Democratic nominee, how is that Nader's fault? How is it that a true American hero who wants to (again according to Herbert) express "outrage over the ballot-access difficulties of independent candidates, and the iniquities of the Bush administration, which, in Mr. Nader’s view, is 'the most impeachable presidency in modern history,' wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, 'full Medicare for all,' and a national mission to abolish poverty, and the waste, fraud and corruption that has turned the military budget into a world-class destroyer of taxpayer dollars, and corporate crime" should be told not to run for president?
It a very real way, the reason we finally have two strong candidates running historic races this year on the Democratic side is partially because of Ralph Nader. Al Gore ran an insincere, two-faced campaign in 2000, and John Kerry was so undercharged and disconnected, I don't even know how he got out of bed in the morning. That any Democrat could have lost to George W. Bush, the most sophomoric, uninspiring, intellectually limited and emotionally challenged candidate in modern times is somehow Ralph Nader's fault?! No, maybe Nader's "threat" has helped the Democrats wake up, and put up for a change.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are great candidates, with a great purpose, running for president. Ralph Nader is a uniquely great American, also running for president. Hooray!
Ain't that America?
PL
WHAT IS OBAMA MISSING?
President Barack Obama, as I've written on this blog often, has many qualities that our previous president did not: intelligence, emotional maturity and the presence of mind and selfhood to not be ruled by dogma and ideology. After eight years of the moronic, debased, retrogressive debauchery of W and Darth Cheney, Obama's election was a breath of fresh air and, yes, hope.
The end of the new president's first year in office is still 5 weeks away, and throughout the last eleven months, he has maintained a poised, rational demeanor, even in the face of the most despicable obstruction by the trash heap that has become the Republican Party, and in spite of the vile, racist hatred that has erupted like a fetid volcano from the right wing lunatic fringe that infects the United States like an incurable venereal disease.
Yet, something seems amiss, or perhaps, is missing in Obama's leadership so far.
Last April, I wrote about the president's "Rigid Character Structure," and how his desire to get things done, as with all who have this personality make-up, may supersede his higher wisdom. Obama was elected with a strong mandate to lead the country into an era in which the debacles of unregulated trickle-down economics, xenophobic and militaristic foreign policies, and the suppression of civil liberties would be reversed and our course set straight. It was not only clear when Obama was elected that the Republicans would be a negative force against any progressive movement in these areas, but likewise, it was clear that the Democrats would continue to be the useless, mealy-mouthed, two-faced wimps and shills that they have been for the last thirty years.
So, as he seemed to understand early on, Obama, in league with the majority of citizens that elected him, would have to take the fight to the career politicians and incorrigible psychopaths and fat cats who have become a modern plague upon our world. The hope was that the new president would lead by leading, not by compromising with the crooks and liars, not by patiently tolerating the constant stonewalling for obstruction's sake alone of any and all positive change, and not by listening with an open mind to those who would advise the president to surge into his own Bay of Pigs gambit in a country whose resistance we cannot defeat with brute force or technologically advanced weaponry.
At the end of John Kennedy's first year in office, he, too, seemed to be off the mark he had set during his exhilarating, hope-inspiring campaign. It didn't look good for the young president at the end of 1961. Yet, by the time he was killed, almost two years later, JFK seemed to be hitting his stride and arriving to the leadership potential so many had expected.
Barack Obama may yet arrive and become himself fully as he grows into his office over the next few years. 2009 comes to an end as a dire year in American history, yet perhaps, we are at a moment of rebirth. All such moments include labor pains and fear and resistance before the glory of the delivery.
I still hold hope.
The end of the new president's first year in office is still 5 weeks away, and throughout the last eleven months, he has maintained a poised, rational demeanor, even in the face of the most despicable obstruction by the trash heap that has become the Republican Party, and in spite of the vile, racist hatred that has erupted like a fetid volcano from the right wing lunatic fringe that infects the United States like an incurable venereal disease.
Yet, something seems amiss, or perhaps, is missing in Obama's leadership so far.
Last April, I wrote about the president's "Rigid Character Structure," and how his desire to get things done, as with all who have this personality make-up, may supersede his higher wisdom. Obama was elected with a strong mandate to lead the country into an era in which the debacles of unregulated trickle-down economics, xenophobic and militaristic foreign policies, and the suppression of civil liberties would be reversed and our course set straight. It was not only clear when Obama was elected that the Republicans would be a negative force against any progressive movement in these areas, but likewise, it was clear that the Democrats would continue to be the useless, mealy-mouthed, two-faced wimps and shills that they have been for the last thirty years.
So, as he seemed to understand early on, Obama, in league with the majority of citizens that elected him, would have to take the fight to the career politicians and incorrigible psychopaths and fat cats who have become a modern plague upon our world. The hope was that the new president would lead by leading, not by compromising with the crooks and liars, not by patiently tolerating the constant stonewalling for obstruction's sake alone of any and all positive change, and not by listening with an open mind to those who would advise the president to surge into his own Bay of Pigs gambit in a country whose resistance we cannot defeat with brute force or technologically advanced weaponry.
At the end of John Kennedy's first year in office, he, too, seemed to be off the mark he had set during his exhilarating, hope-inspiring campaign. It didn't look good for the young president at the end of 1961. Yet, by the time he was killed, almost two years later, JFK seemed to be hitting his stride and arriving to the leadership potential so many had expected.
Barack Obama may yet arrive and become himself fully as he grows into his office over the next few years. 2009 comes to an end as a dire year in American history, yet perhaps, we are at a moment of rebirth. All such moments include labor pains and fear and resistance before the glory of the delivery.
I still hold hope.
RICK TELLS PL TO GET HIS HEAD IN THE GAME/PL RESPONDS: LOL!!!
Here's Rick:
Easy now O great one. Are you proclaiming to know "what's really going on in the halls of power in our country"? Or are you saying only those opposing the democrats don't know? Or are you suggesting only those supporting the democrats "really know".
You stated to being on the political sidelines for over 30 years until a candidate, who resembled (Class is in session -I'm using a default phrase commonly used on this blog to baselessly reject an otherwise sound argument. Class dismissed.) idealized adults from your childhood, emerged. Or are you just pissed off that you realized other idealized adults let you down so that gives you motivation to demonize, ridicule and hate anyone who may resemble those people?
Your commentary on certain issues clearly demonstrates the need to be in the game a bit more openly to fully comprehend how similar the Dems + the Repubs really are.
Surprising as this is, dadloff stating he would not vote for any incumbent, and coupling Rush Limbaugh with "similar" hard lined opinionated democratic talking heads, gives us insight into this.
3 of the 5 current reps who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the House, plus Speaker Pelosi's right hand man, Van Hollen, all supported the war in Iraq.
4 of the 5 current senators who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the Senate did the same.
29 Dems for and 21 against in the Senate including power brokers Hilary Clinton + John Kerry
81 Dems for and 126 against in the House.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
"...these mortified and mortifying hypocrites now claim they were betrayed by the Fake Cowboy and Darth Vadar ...."
I'm seeking clarity. Are you intellectually honest enough to accuse the dems who supported the war as hypocrites too?
If so, these "hypocrites" actually patrol those very halls of power of which you claim to have insight. Why would people, democrats or republicans believe those in power? "I voted for it before I voted against it". Remember that? You can't have it both ways.
Yeah. That's the ticket!
Based on the information we all had, yes weapons of mass destructions were in Iraq (See 13 UN resolutions that call for Iraq to give these up starting in the early 90's) why not?. The people who supported the war wisely believed this to be true. Why wouldn't they? The proof was there. However, Obama, who promised to have the troops phased out was against it all the time. Whichl proved to be a major factor in getting the nomination. I would have voted against it too. Not because I am against all of the solid reasons to go into war or not because I am in favor of all of the solid reasons to avert war, or to gain political speed, but because of history.
If you look at the regions of the middle east and Iraq particularly, the thousands of years of old struggles between different tribes, clans, peoples, religions + states prove that even total + complete victory by the US would not make for lasting peace. Unless, of course, only one group was left standing to govern themselves. Like the Mafia of old, eliminate the children of those you killed lest they avenge those deaths + the cycle continues.
Also, look at Vietnam. You don't stick your big toe in the water and call it swimming. If the US is not prepared to use every bit of its power + military to quickly and absolutely destroy the enemy, why bother? It was clear the US wouldn't do that in Iraq. Vietnam was about a 20 year war beginning with Eisenhower, amped up by Kennedy, recklessly fought by LBJ, Nixon and Congress at the time. Politically correct? Pacify certain groups? No torture? Play political paddy-cake with other countries? That is ridiculous. You either go in or you don't. Look at it this way, if you have to get into a fight and there's no way of getting out of it, regardless of who is right or wrong, wouldn't you rather end it with one punch and minimize the damage to both parties?
Knowing the US wouldn't enter the war absolutely, it was guaranteed of unnecessarily high casualties, huge expenses + eventually resentment.
Stay tuned for the health care "war" all in or just a big toe?
All we are saying......is give reason a chance!
PL:
Well, Rick, if I've said it once, I've said it twenty times, if you're going to comment on my postings, you should actually read them!
Do a search for the word Democrats on this blog and you will not only not find one post of mine praising them, you will find some seriously criticizing them, even calling them "two-faced wimps" HERE, and here's one of several praising a real Republican.
Some are desperate to make this an "us or them/me versus you/my opinion or party versus yours" schoolyard throw-down, but that's not what I'm about on this blog. This blog is about seeking out the truth, however inconvenient it might be at times for whatever group is making the most inane noise, and as I've said before to the chagrin of some, there aren't two sides to the truth of a situation.
Oh, wait, what? I have to be "in the game" to realize how politicians are all the same? LOL! I've been saying that since before you were old enough to vote, Rick! I didn't vote for a president for 28 years consciously, because I was paying attention. Close attention.
People who think that because I supported and voted for Barack Obama that I must be liberal or a Democrat don't understand that leadership isn't a game, and I'm not so easily pigeon-holed into being a "team member" as if it were. This isn't a sport; this is a fight for the evolution of the consciousness of our society, and there is a very retrogressive, resistant force that right now has found a home in the right wing of the Republican Party, which seems to be all that's left of the GOP. So, I hit them hard because they're being the more blatant assholes right now, not because I support the Democratic Party. I'll reiterate again, I voted for Obama because he is an adult, albeit a politician, but nonetheless, he is an emotionally mature, rational, practical leader, and we haven't had one of those either since you've been old enough to vote!
And Dadloff's sudden "libertarian" conversion is as laughable as the people receiving Medicare, Medicaid, disability, veteran's benefits or social security saying they want the government to be hands off when it comes to health insurance! HELLO?! They're just humiliated now, and singing a new, false tune because their good 'ole boys turned out to be hall of fame crooks and liars.
I'll finish with an anecdote, a true story. I was on the subway one day, during the height of the Bush-Cheney years, and I heard two guys talking about President Bush. This is a beauty! Really. Stay with me. One guy says to the other of President Bush: "He lies. He's a liar. That's all. He's just a liar. But... ninety-five percent of the time, he's a good president!"
Enough said about people in the game?
Easy now O great one. Are you proclaiming to know "what's really going on in the halls of power in our country"? Or are you saying only those opposing the democrats don't know? Or are you suggesting only those supporting the democrats "really know".
You stated to being on the political sidelines for over 30 years until a candidate, who resembled (Class is in session -I'm using a default phrase commonly used on this blog to baselessly reject an otherwise sound argument. Class dismissed.) idealized adults from your childhood, emerged. Or are you just pissed off that you realized other idealized adults let you down so that gives you motivation to demonize, ridicule and hate anyone who may resemble those people?
Your commentary on certain issues clearly demonstrates the need to be in the game a bit more openly to fully comprehend how similar the Dems + the Repubs really are.
Surprising as this is, dadloff stating he would not vote for any incumbent, and coupling Rush Limbaugh with "similar" hard lined opinionated democratic talking heads, gives us insight into this.
3 of the 5 current reps who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the House, plus Speaker Pelosi's right hand man, Van Hollen, all supported the war in Iraq.
4 of the 5 current senators who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the Senate did the same.
29 Dems for and 21 against in the Senate including power brokers Hilary Clinton + John Kerry
81 Dems for and 126 against in the House.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
"...these mortified and mortifying hypocrites now claim they were betrayed by the Fake Cowboy and Darth Vadar ...."
I'm seeking clarity. Are you intellectually honest enough to accuse the dems who supported the war as hypocrites too?
If so, these "hypocrites" actually patrol those very halls of power of which you claim to have insight. Why would people, democrats or republicans believe those in power? "I voted for it before I voted against it". Remember that? You can't have it both ways.
Yeah. That's the ticket!
Based on the information we all had, yes weapons of mass destructions were in Iraq (See 13 UN resolutions that call for Iraq to give these up starting in the early 90's) why not?. The people who supported the war wisely believed this to be true. Why wouldn't they? The proof was there. However, Obama, who promised to have the troops phased out was against it all the time. Whichl proved to be a major factor in getting the nomination. I would have voted against it too. Not because I am against all of the solid reasons to go into war or not because I am in favor of all of the solid reasons to avert war, or to gain political speed, but because of history.
If you look at the regions of the middle east and Iraq particularly, the thousands of years of old struggles between different tribes, clans, peoples, religions + states prove that even total + complete victory by the US would not make for lasting peace. Unless, of course, only one group was left standing to govern themselves. Like the Mafia of old, eliminate the children of those you killed lest they avenge those deaths + the cycle continues.
Also, look at Vietnam. You don't stick your big toe in the water and call it swimming. If the US is not prepared to use every bit of its power + military to quickly and absolutely destroy the enemy, why bother? It was clear the US wouldn't do that in Iraq. Vietnam was about a 20 year war beginning with Eisenhower, amped up by Kennedy, recklessly fought by LBJ, Nixon and Congress at the time. Politically correct? Pacify certain groups? No torture? Play political paddy-cake with other countries? That is ridiculous. You either go in or you don't. Look at it this way, if you have to get into a fight and there's no way of getting out of it, regardless of who is right or wrong, wouldn't you rather end it with one punch and minimize the damage to both parties?
Knowing the US wouldn't enter the war absolutely, it was guaranteed of unnecessarily high casualties, huge expenses + eventually resentment.
Stay tuned for the health care "war" all in or just a big toe?
All we are saying......is give reason a chance!
PL:
Well, Rick, if I've said it once, I've said it twenty times, if you're going to comment on my postings, you should actually read them!
Do a search for the word Democrats on this blog and you will not only not find one post of mine praising them, you will find some seriously criticizing them, even calling them "two-faced wimps" HERE, and here's one of several praising a real Republican.
Some are desperate to make this an "us or them/me versus you/my opinion or party versus yours" schoolyard throw-down, but that's not what I'm about on this blog. This blog is about seeking out the truth, however inconvenient it might be at times for whatever group is making the most inane noise, and as I've said before to the chagrin of some, there aren't two sides to the truth of a situation.
Oh, wait, what? I have to be "in the game" to realize how politicians are all the same? LOL! I've been saying that since before you were old enough to vote, Rick! I didn't vote for a president for 28 years consciously, because I was paying attention. Close attention.
People who think that because I supported and voted for Barack Obama that I must be liberal or a Democrat don't understand that leadership isn't a game, and I'm not so easily pigeon-holed into being a "team member" as if it were. This isn't a sport; this is a fight for the evolution of the consciousness of our society, and there is a very retrogressive, resistant force that right now has found a home in the right wing of the Republican Party, which seems to be all that's left of the GOP. So, I hit them hard because they're being the more blatant assholes right now, not because I support the Democratic Party. I'll reiterate again, I voted for Obama because he is an adult, albeit a politician, but nonetheless, he is an emotionally mature, rational, practical leader, and we haven't had one of those either since you've been old enough to vote!
And Dadloff's sudden "libertarian" conversion is as laughable as the people receiving Medicare, Medicaid, disability, veteran's benefits or social security saying they want the government to be hands off when it comes to health insurance! HELLO?! They're just humiliated now, and singing a new, false tune because their good 'ole boys turned out to be hall of fame crooks and liars.
I'll finish with an anecdote, a true story. I was on the subway one day, during the height of the Bush-Cheney years, and I heard two guys talking about President Bush. This is a beauty! Really. Stay with me. One guy says to the other of President Bush: "He lies. He's a liar. That's all. He's just a liar. But... ninety-five percent of the time, he's a good president!"
Enough said about people in the game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
