Add a pinch of free market to Citizens United and you get: TRUMP

Financial windfall, O'Brien style

Dear readership, these musings have been written quickly whilst a development news assignment waits, the laundry tumbles, the beef roasts and the Goat golfs, so just stick with me on this.

Given: Americans really hate corruption.

Corruption has been going on in politics for a long time. In January of 2010, however, the Supreme Court of the United States removed any fig leaf hiding it by essentially codifying corruption with the Citizens United decision.

Enter: Donald Trump.

Pundits have much to say about the popularity welling around him. They call him an outsider. They claim he's tapped into a certain spittle-flecked-red-faced rightie anger.

yeah, yeah

The primary reason people are rallying around Trump is his money. They believe it makes him immune to the siren songs of the lobbyists and deep-pocketed special interests. They believe it frees him from fundraising.

His supporters don't care what he says. And to be fair, why should they? Nothing politicians say matters. It's all tribal.

So Trump has money and he's a tribe member (well, sort of). Add a healthy dose of bigotry and misogyny and voila! You're in rightie heaven.

Conversely, the lefties love Sanders because he's a socialist. Sanders cares more about people than money-- a LOT more. Therefore his supporters believe he cannot be bought by the big money hurting all the little people. Add income equality, reproductive rights and a living wage and libs inflate with pure joy.

All of this is causing a real problem for establishment candidates because they are (of course) bought and paid for by lobbyists and special interests.

Aside: Could 2016 be Kasich/Biden? hm ... dunno

As for me, I'll take the socialist over the narcissist (I'm pretty sure you could buy Trump for one thin dime if he was broke while Sanders has sung the same tune for 30 years), but make no mistake: When the courts stand above the American people and announce that corruption is the law of the land, John Q. Public will gravitate to those they believe will eschew it. Trump and Sanders are the perfect candidates: one doesn't need money, the other doesn't want it.

There is something delicious in this.

For once, beads of sweat are forming on big money's upper lip, although I'm certain it will find a way to snuff out Those Who Will Not Be Bough. Until then, the lobbyists can pull at their collars and clear their throats while the rest of us enjoy some free market politics.

*  *  *

Debatable

Earlier this week, my fave news show moderator Warren Olney interviewed long-time political consultant Samuel Popkin for the "Reporter's Notebook" segment of his Oct. 2 edition of To the Point.

Why Popkin?

In 1980, as President Jimmy Carter prepared for his debates with GOP challenger Ronald Reagan, Popkin "played" the part of Reagan during the practice sessions. In his To The Point segment, Popkin offers up commentary on Carter and the obscure and mysterious phenomenon of presidential practice debates. It's a great interview that I cannot recommend highly enough. It's only about 10 minutes long and starts at the 40:40 point in the podcast.

I had listened to the Popkin interview before the Wednesday night debate and his insights were spot on. Obama's unease was precisely the sort that Popkin described incumbent presidents falling into for a variety of reasons. The segment was also loaded with great details. This one was my favorite: former Michigan Governor and Dem sweetheart Jennifer Granholm "played" Sarah Palin for Joe Biden while he prepared for the 2008 vice-presidential debate.

You cannot fully appreciate that delicious little tidbit until you dig a sample of Granholm for yourself:



Who is your mama?

*  *  *

Liberalism is not a mental disorder

Although Michael Savage's book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder came out in 2005, I've had the term lobbed at me twice in the last week. I haven't read the book, but Savage's flames were fanned by the likes of Lyle Rossiter:

When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

News alert: The impetus behind most of my liberal tendencies has nothing to do with my imagination, a sense of entitlement or infantile tendencies. It stems from a sense of obligation.

I don't want to live in a country that turns its back on the most vulnerable populations. I'm doing fine, thank you very much. I don't need any assistance, but PLEASE DO use some of my tax dollars to help out sick impoverished kids and seniors and to ensure all women have safe and easy access to reproductive healthcare and to give top quality care to our members of the armed services and and and ... I don't need to give you my whole list. You get the picture.

I understand there is fraud and perversion in public services and it makes me MAD AS HELL. You can bet I'd like to see that curtailed. I want to see tight smart management in those sectors. I want the very best value for my tax dollar. But if you're going to turn a hungry kid away from food in order to avoid those unfortunate side effects, don't ask me to jump on that band wagon.

The ideological crux of my "liberalism" is this: I support giving part of what I have in order to raise the collective human experience for all.

I am thoroughly sick of being called names for political beliefs that aren't all that radical, but if you call a reasonable sense of obligation to society crazy, then let me be crazy.

* * *

To hell with Weiner, give me Joe Namath in pantyhose

Prior to the Twitter kerfuffle, I knew nothing of Anthony Weiner and I'm not interested in him now. All kinds of people have been having all kinds of sex for a long time. So what?

That said, it's funny how the blood red rightie blogs out there are clamoring on and on about Weiner, but had little to say about that Nevada dandy, John Ensign.

When it comes to sex scandals, I stick to one of my cardinal rules: The Only Sex You Need To Worry About Is The Sex You're Having.

I am not completely mum on sex scandals. I wrote about Senator Larry Craig when that scandal broke. In fact, I wrote about him twice.

John Edwards also got my attention.

Yeah, yeah. This stuff has been going on forever. The righties can have their fun over some silly underwear pic. I'd rather dig Joe Namath in pantyhose in 1973. HELL YEAH!

Cannabalism in America

I posted a silly picture yesterday, but despite the comical nature of it, the comment section soon turned to politics. The Wisconsin union fight was the most noted topic. Then I got an email from an old friend asking about my opinion on the organized labor controversy. You want the short answer to the organized labor controversy?

The Super Rich are eating America.

No matter what you think of Mother Jones, the statistics in "Eleven Charts that Explain Everything that's wrong with America" all come from bullet-proof sources.

The top one-hundredth of one percent (of Americans) ... make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244--Mother Jones

For all you righties smugly nodding to yourselves as Gov. Scott Walker kneels on the necks of teachers and publicly fellates the Koch brothers, you are simple pawns.

The Super Rich love it when one working class man is pitted against another working class man. They love abortion rights and gun control, to be sure. Those keep us infighting a-plenty. But this new union controversy is the grand daddy of middle class civil war.

This is not a fight about left and right. It is a fight whereby the Super Rich are further enslaving and cannibalizing the rest of America. Whether you're a blood red rightie veteran or a midnight blue leftie tenured teacher, they will eat you.

Anybody remember the phrase United We Stand?

Now then, will you be fighting the terrible beast as he sinks his teeth into your entrails or will you be waving an American flag?

* * *

A few conservative chicks and a bunch of liberal chicks

Dear Reader, 

Your humble hostess apologizes in advance for the partisan nature of this post. Also, please be cautioned: the embedded links contain nudity that may offend our more sensitive visitors.

*  *  *

Here is a classic example of a liberal chick.


This chick is a liberal chick.

This chick? Liberal.


A liberal chick.


Could be a conservative chick.


Yet another liberal chick.


Hard to tell, but probably a liberal chick.

Liberal chicks in plastic tubes.


A liberal chick in the round.


Here's a liberal chick.


These chicks are liberal chicks.


And one last liberal chick for good measure.

* * *

I am a liberal

Being liberal means having patience with the ignorance of others.

As a liberal, I consider anointing the flesh at the crease of my elbow with patchouli oil to be one of life's simple pleasures.

I attend documentary films that feature the heart-wrenching stories of those less fortunate than me in order to feel closer to their experience.

The films I attend are shown in vintage art theaters that have been lovingly restored by members of the surrounding community.

The word community is special to me. I support communities.

Others are charmed by my self-deprecating good humor, which is the hallmark of any good liberal.

I disdain irrational religious practices such as the handling of snakes unless said practices are being practiced by peoples indigenous to remote corners of South America.

When I drive on a road constructed with recycled debris, my heavy angst abates, however fleetingly.

Of course I support local, sustainable, free-range, organic foods; but in an effort to embrace the intolerant Right, I entertain a modicum of disdain for the previous string of adjectives by occasionally admitting that I find the distinction "local, sustainable, free-range, organic" somewhat cloying and redundant.

I find tie-dyed clothing whimsical.

I find the word "whimsical" whimsical.

I own a handbag crafted from recycled rice sacks that was purchased by a liberal friend of mine while she vacationed in Southeast Asia. My liberal friend, however, did not enjoy said vacation so much so that it would have infringed on her respect for the people of Southeast Asia.

I am good-naturedly disappointed in my inability to achieve the Lotus position.

I am concerned about my carbon footprint, but more concerned about others who are not concerned about their carbon footprints, so I am concerned about their carbon footprints for them. I refer to this practice as carrying the carbon footprint of others, which subtlety suggests burden without actually using the word burden.

I am, as a liberal, ashamed of my use of the word burden in the previous entry and realize that, in saying that I did not use the word burden while intentionally using the word burden, I have just practiced passive aggressive behavior. 

The materialistic love I have for my Apple Computer products is disappointing mostly because it is not disappointing enough.

I believe in the Children.

* * *