Brain Sparks

Bright little sparks are dancing in my brain. They are topics, or more accurately, thoughts about topics. Thoughts take a bit of work; they do not arrive in the conscious world fully formed. At present, mine have stimulated short comments rather than full stories. Since I am too lazy to create separate posts for each of my short comments, I am presenting them all in this post:

1. Balls: The word du jour is “balls.” Pundits are saying it in the vernacular, and they are mighty pleased with their own insight. They are telling us that, “The Republicans want a President with balls!” The pundits are almost right, but it is much worse than what they are saying. What the Republicans really want is a President who thinks with his balls. They love the smell of raging testosterone in the morning!

It is a pity the Republican Party does not have the intellect or the moral fortitude to handle hate and sanctimony in the same manner that Joni Ernst handles pig testicles!

2. An intellectual discussion about an absurd event: No fooling. I know it sounds like an oxymoron but I was fortunate enough to have an intellectual discussion about an absurd event. Yesterday I posted on Daily Kos a story about the standoff in Oregon. The title of the story is “A Lost Past That Never Existed.” In less than an hour people were sending me such well thought out and informative comments that the comments soon became a discussion worthy of a forum. There are some very good minds out there, and that gives me hope.

All right, I narrowed it down to two topics. I'll let the other sparks go until they are more developed. 

It's In The Words

Professions, brands, ideologies, and political parties all have their own language to some extent. They all have their phraseology and/or, to use a description attorneys are fond of, their own “words of art.” A god example of this is found in a post I entitled Go Left My Lady:

"Up until Ronald Reagan it was Democrats who talked about the undo influence “special interests” had on the Republican Party. What the Democrats meant by special interests were large corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the large financial institutions (you know, the people who crashed the economy in 2008). Reagan turned that issue on its head by re-defining “special interests” to mean labor unions, environmental groups, etc. (you know, the people who fought for living wages, safe work places, and the preservation of a beautiful place to live, work and play)."

What brings this to mind is Rachel Maddow's discussion of attack ads that are not what they appear to be. The first example she cited was an advertisement Clair McCaskill ran for/against Todd Aiken. Senator McCaskill designed the advertisement to look like she was attacking Mr. Aiken when her intent was actually to promote the nomination of someone she considered to be a weak opponent. I was very amused by the fact Ms. McCaskill's ploy worked. The Republican's nominated Todd Aiken to run against her, and she handily defeated him. Anyone who has paid any attention to what politicians say and how they said it would not have been deceived by Senator McCaskill's ad. No where in that ad. was Mr. Aiken described as an extremist, a wing nut, or the tool of the plutocracy. Instead, he was portrayed as “a true conservative.” Today “True Conservative” has been perverted to indicate a reactionary twit, but base Republican are not sophisticated enough to know what that means or how undesirable it is. So someone who is portrayed as an avowed defender of “true conservative” values tingles the Republican G-spot. It is not terribly surprising that McCaskill's false attack worked!

Another good example cited by Ms. Maddow is an ad financed by a super pac founded by former TD Ameritrade Executive, Joe Ricketts. This ad tries to give the appearance of attacking Bernie Sanders while actually promoting him. Once again the language reveals the real intent of Mr. Ricketts and his super pac. The Republicans constantly villainize big government, and their most feared bogey man is socialism. Bernie Sanders actually describes him self as a democratic socialist, yet no where in this ad is he described as a socialist. Believe me, no Republican would ever leave their favorite bogey man out of an ad attacking a Democrat; this is particularly true when that Democrat actually adopts the bogey man's name. So why did they fail to mention the bogey man? The answer is because they are far too impressed with their own fears. They actually think Bernie is a weak candidate because of the socialist label, and that even Democrats share their unreasonable fear.

While I am on the subject of buzz words, did anyone else notice how many times the questions posed to Bernie Sanders by Chris Cuomo during the Democratic Iowa Town Hall contained the words “Big Government,” and that “big government” was used in a pejorative manner. It is no wonder that Bernie stood up and got feisty! He did well. In fact, I think Mr. Ricketts and the Republicans should be careful about what they wish for. Just ask Hillary; I'm sure she knows Bernie is a competent candidate! If Mr. Sanders is nominated the Republicans are more likely than not to get burned by the Bern! This is particularly true if the Republican candidate is a fascist bigot like the Trumpster or the Canadian Texas Turd.

A Slogan To Believe In

Political slogans are probably as old as politics. Every mass movement or campaign needs a slogan the masses can remember and chant. Thus we had Franklin Roosevelt promising America a “New Deal” and Harry Truman promising a “Fair Deal.” President Obama promised “Change We Can Believe In,” and the Trumpster wants to “Make America Great Again” (apparently by removing the regulations that prevent the Greedy Old Plutocrats, who are already exploiting the hell out of us, from sucking our last dollars out of our pockets)!

Last night I saw an interview of some supporters of Bernie Sanders. In the background was a sign saying, “A Future We Can Believe In!” All right, I have to confess my ignorance. The slogan on the sign was so close to “Change We Can Believe In” that I had to ask myself how a Hillary sign showed up at a Bernie rally. After all it is Hillary Clinton who has thrown a lip lock on President Obama's coat tails even though he is leaving the White House rather than arriving there. Yeah, I know the coat tails comment was a cheap shot. I will also admit there is nothing wrong with pointing out the many positive things President Obama has accomplished or promising to complete or improve what he started. But, thankfully, Bernie Sanders wants to go much further than that, and “A Future We Can Believe In” is not exactly a strong call for revolutionary action. Perhaps that is by design.

The Republicans are already trying to portray Bernie as a wild eyed socialist bogeyman who will deprive us all of the fruits of the free market money tree, and a slogan such as “A Future To Fight For” would give the Republicans something else to misrepresent. Now that I think about it, “A Future To Work For” sounds too much like a new years resolution. In that regard, “A Future We Can Believe In” is positive and offers a comforting continuity. Change, however, is never easy, and the changes we need to make will require some very heavy lifting. That is why I prefer something like “Build A Better Future With Bernie!”

We have to make people understand that regardless of the outcome of the impending Presidential election, we are in for a long and difficult struggle that will require an unrelenting effort from millions of Americans. Money never fights fair! The moneyed interests will oppose every reform and regulation with all of the considerable weapons at their disposal. They, the moneyed interests, will do what they always accuse reformers of doing; they will turn this into the type of class warfare we have not seen since the rise of labor unions!  That is why we must start with a dauntless reformer like Bernie. 

Other Side Of The Coin

Every coin has two sides, but one side might be too corroded to have any value! The same can hold true of Issues. Obviously the people who present arguments that require you to suspend reason, defy logic, and ignore relevant facts can still disagree with you, but they cannot present any evidence to support their contention that there is even a legitimate issue! The fact that Republicans have not significantly changed any of their policies since the destabilization caused by the Iraq war and the collapse of the economy under George W. Bush really corrodes the Republican side of the argument. Thus we have all of the Republican candidates making emphatic but untrue and unproven assertions. Saying that President Obama is the worst President/commander in chief ever and Hillary Clinton is the worst Secretary of State ever does not make those allegations true!

Contrary to the contentions of the Republicans our military has not deteriorated or become weak under Obama. And what the hell would the Canadian Texas Ted (I'm trying to be polite), Marco Rubio, Chris Christi, et al have done to prevent our sailors from being captured by Iran or to prevent any of those sailors from apologizing for drifting into Iranian territory? The truculent Republican blowhards apparently thought we would not notice that the Iranians released our sailors without us bombing Iran or sending in the marines? So what else do those demagogues want us to demand from Iran, a kiss on each of the elephant's butt cheeks?

The Republicans want us to think that the solution to all of the world's problems is for the U.S. to become tougher. The Donald would do this by assaulting our adversaries with verbal farts and bombast to bring about better deals with them. And all of the Republicans indicate that they would increase military spending, even though our military spending already amounts to 54% of all of the federal government's discretionary spending, and that the amount we spend on our military is as great as the amount the next eight nations combined spend on their militaries. By the way, did anyone notice that the President who warned us about the military-industrial complex was the former Commander of the Allied forces that defeated NAZI Germany?

The only part of the debate that amused me was the argument about whether Ted Cruz is qualified to be President. The legal scholars seem to agree that if we go by the original intent of the founding fathers Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. This puts Ted Cruz, the strict constructionist, in a bit of pickle because he now has to argue against original intent. The nonsense about President Obama's birth certificate would also make the natural born citizen question a difficult issue for the Republicans if they nominate Cruz, and if they are bright enough to be concerned about inconsistencies and/or hypocrisy!

I would like to give you more specific examples of the lies and foolishness on display during the Republican debate, but I was so outraged by the petulant demagoguery of the participants that I spent too much time yelling at my television. It is painfully obvious that all the Republicans have to offer us is fear and loathing! That is why they spend so much of their time talking about terrorists rather than the economy. When they do talk about the economy they ignore the fact that President Obama inherited from George W. Bush the worst economy since the great depression, and that the economy has improved under Obama's leadership in spite of the Republicans doing everything they can to obstruct the recovery!

Trump says he wants to stir up anger, well he and the most destructive political party since the Civil War have certainly made me angry!

Just The Facts Ma'am

The best advice I can give to Hillary Clinton is to quote what Sergeant Friday was famous for saying on the old Dragnet show: “Just the facts, ma'am.” She must have forgotten that she is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I say this because we Democrats care about facts, and she is grossly misrepresenting Bernie Sanders' stand on health care reform. This falsehood combined with an absolutely absurd debate schedule that seems designed to give her, the establishment candidate, an unfair advantage over Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley is the kind of skulduggery we liberals or progressives are fighting to change!  We expect better from anyone seeking the highest office in the land!

More Bundying

The right wing militia types are Bundying in Oregon.

“Hey, what's in your pants?   A Colt 1911, you say?  Well I'm glad you have something to hold onto.”

They each use their free hand to pat a copy of the document all of them carry in a shirt pocket.  They are completely oblivious to the fact that the document they are patting established the very government they fear and loath. Yes it established that government; the one they say they will die to defy. They challenge us to martyr them if we can; this American Taliban! They think they are range warrior cowboys and they double dogie dare us!

As I said in a post entitled Some Hero, vicious and stupid is a very dangerous combination. There must be something about taking over a government building that has given even the Republicans pause for thought. I say this because the Republican demagogues who supported Cliven Bundy are now backing away from the actions of his son. I doubt that those demagogues actually pulled their heads out of their dark and smelly worlds, but could they... I mean, is it possible that those demagogues finally realize that the Timothy McVeighs of this world do not confine themselves to killing only Democrats?  If so do I dare to indulge in a more enormous leap of faith by asking whether those demagogues will ever realize that guns in the wrong hands can kill their loved ones as well as ours!

Hopefully law enforcement will be able to end this stand off in Oregon without bloodshed and a court will mete out appropriate sentences or provide for the mental health care those delusional range warriors need.

The Lincoln Prophesy

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

—U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 

(letter to Col. William F. Elkins) 

A Clear and Present Danger: The 2016 Candidates Who Take Money From The Koch Brothers.

What a disgrace.  Make them feel the Bern!