Show Me Don't Tell Me

The sturm-and-drang-and-storm-and-drain of the post-Election Wheel of Blame In-fortune continues to spin like a swirling whirlpool, with various heads popping up in the descending water column to take desperate breaths.   Among the heads identified over the week have been:

----> Huma Abedin, the Clinton aide whose ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, allegedly housed tens of thousands of Clinton emails on his laptop;

----> James Comey, the Attorney General whose letter indicating a re-opening of the email case against Clinton, at the time he released it (less than two weeks before election day) certainly didn't help HRC's cause;

----> Vladimir Putin, who is now seen as T-Rump's puppet master - Edgar Bergen to T-Rump's Mortimer Snerd;

----> American voters in general, for not voting for the establishment's preferred candidate.

The roles these heads played in the 2016 Debacle vary in their importance, and in whether or not they belong in the swirling drain in the first place.   I don't put much blame in the hands of Abedin - it was her ex-husband's laptop, so why isn't he-with the-so-appropriate-surname being brought into the conversation?  The timing of Comey's letter was certainly suspect, but I go back to the initial case made by many:  why did Clinton have the server in the first place, and why was classified material stored there?  I'll get to Vladimir in a moment.   Finally, if you want to hear the voters take the pilloried blame for Clinton's defeat, look no further than the leftie press: Markos Moulitsas was in rare form in a recent Daily Kos rant where he, with obvious sarcasm, says that we should be happy that coal miners voted, almost in a block, for Donald Trump.   Hey, this is a democracy, and you get the government you deserve when you vote a certain way, says Kos.   Zero Hedge has a nice rebuttal to Kos' verbal convulsion.  But what you rarely hear, except for a few enlightened leftie sites (and as you would expect, the right side of the ledger) is blame being assigned to Hillary herself, who in my opinion, is where the lion's share of said blame belongs.   She was the captain of the ship - and the ship sank.

As promised, let's talk about Vladimir.  Honestly, I don't know who to believe, insofar as the Russian Federation's alleged involvement in hacking of the DNC's (and as we later learned, the RNC's) email servers.   It is also alleged that these hacks provided Julian Assange with the material he needed for Wikileaks' dissemination of the same.   It is also alleged that Russia had nothing to do with the Wikileaks' disclosures, that the source was a CIA insider.  Fingers and rhetoric are flying around on both sides of this one, to the point where some members of the Electoral College (due to meet on December 19) requested the viewing of classified documents related to Russia's alleged role.   From down here, the fog of doubt is too thick - but don't tell that to Keith Olbermann.   

I'm sure there are many more heads to pop in this whirl-cess-pool in the coming weeks and months.   It's a consequence of having witness what is perhaps the biggest political upset in American history.

Stay tuned.   This ride is far from over - in fact, it might just be getting started.

Truth or Consequences, Reasons or Excuses...

The previous month has seen more finger pointing and assignment of blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton than I can recall from any previous Presidential campaign.   She had all of the advantages a candidate could ever hope for or dare to dream of: deep-pocketed donors, the Wall Street financial juggernaut and the mainstream media outlets it owns, sycophantic television and radio pundits, the entertainment industry and big-name entertainers, even prominent Republicans and neoconservative leaders were "with Her".

And she lost. 

Sure, she won the popular vote by over two million at this writing.   However, this popular vote advantage didn't truly manifest itself until after California was called, and the votes came in at a 2:1 margin for her.   She didn't win the swing states in the Rust Belt and in Florida - the so-called "Blue Wall" that was to keep Democrats in the White House for a generation - hence, her downfall.

Here is what I think happened, and why:

As The Dust Settles...

I had to step away from blogging for a while.  The 2016 "Election" provided too much information to process given the stories, slants and accusations flying through the psychic room like steel-pointed arrows, in combination with the recent activities in my personal life.   Now that I'm back, I've plenty to say about what has transpired over the last several months, came to a head on November 8th, and what is still boiling over as a result.    Here are a couple of snippets:

--> I can't say I'm surprised that T-Rump won.   That so few media people were not caught off-guard about T-Rump winning stands as a testament as to just how out-of-touch they are with "flyover state" America - especially in regards to the prevalence of white voters who turned out for T-Rump in droves.   Explaining their mind-set will take at least it's own, extended post (or two, or three, or more).    Expect one from me in the coming weeks - but in the meantime, this article in thehill.com can offer a good start to the discussion.

--> Hillary beat T-Rump in the popular vote by almost 2 million votes at this writing, but the popular vote doesn't seem to matter too much in the World's Greatest Democracy/Republic/whatever this is becoming.   Even if Hillary won this in the same way T-Rump did - purely through the Electoral College - I would still call for the elimination of the Electoral College.  It's an anachronism put in place by the wealthy in order to dilute the influence of the masses, and to give an inordinate amount of influence to smaller states.   The Presidency is a national office, thus, the votes of the states, counted in amalgamation, should be rendered as irrelevant.   One person - one vote.   Period. 

Much more to come - stay tuned.  

Quibbles and Bits, Food Fight edition

...and the quibbles and bits fly through the room!  

--> I'm watching the Second Democratic Kerfuffle - oh, excuse me, "debate".    One of the miracles of the internet, though, is the ability to take the kerfuffle with a bit of a sanity back - in my case, listening to Jill Stein's responses to the questions and "answers".   From what I'm observing, it seems like the moderators are handling this in a more balanced way than Mr. Holt in the first debate.   Trump looks like a buffoon and corrupt, Hillary looks and sounds like the political slickster she is.    And of course, they are hurling personal insults at each other.   Like the first "debate", this is turning into an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people. 

--> Can we please stop the press blackout of the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson campaigns?  At least Gary Johnson seems to be willing to play ball with the bankers - but he's also a first-class idiot.   Jill won't play ball by the "accepted" rule book, and that's why you won't see her on the MSM alphabet soup media outlets.

--> Keith Olbermann, in a recent offering for GQ, called Jill Stein a "simpleton".   Uh, Keithie - do you know the first thing about Jill Stein or her campaign?   You're proving to be as big of a shill for the one-party-two-brand system as the rest of your former colleagues at MSN-BS, not to mention Slate, Daily Kos, and the rest of them.    Mr. Olbermann also stated "we have had enough" of people like me, who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.   Uh, Keithie - who's "we"?

 More later...

For The Love of...

Among the many, many subtexts that I've studied in my observation of political life in America is that of the role of money, especially in how it works, how it flows, how it determines what gets passed into law and what gets filibustered.    Throughout these observations, a common theme emerges: that of the mindsets that possessing varying amounts of cash tend to lend themselves to.  These attitudes are part of the foundation of the class strata that has become ever more glaringly apparent in this country, and exists in even more glaring obviousness in other "developed" countries.

Let's start with the "rich", which I define by the classic "1%" meme perpetuated since the height of the Occupy movement.   The rich have their own culture and their own, separate "universe" outside of the rest of the world - it's called "Richistan" by some observers.   As an example, how many times have you seen a celebrity or other well-known individual take a commercial airline flight?  In all of my days flying, I saw one:  Erik Estrada, flying first-class on his way to Chicago.   They own, either outright or through shared ownership, their own airplanes, or at the very least,  pay one of the new flight subscription services x-thousand dollars per month to fly anywhere, anytime.   Add to this the country clubs and private golf courses, the high-profile nightclubs (and the underground ones so "sacred" to them that the commoners have no idea they even exist), the super-expensive hotels, and all of the other plums associated with wealth, and the result is a protective "bubble" surrounding those of the means to live within it.   It's the 21st century equivalent of the feudal lord's castle, with the subjects of that castle being the rest of us, the "99%".  

The driving force behind this separation is perception of value.   The Rich recognize that economic power and political power are one and the same.   Money IS power, and power can be monetized.   It may be said that this is a simple supply-and-demand argument - the rich have what "everybody else" wants.   It sounds like a simplistic argument, and it is - but think about it.   This entire mindset informs our current political situation, especially as it relates to lobbyists and their de facto ownership of the politicians with whom they expect favor.   Their money is the lifeblood of most campaigns - and it's a weapon to use against those who fall into their disfavor by sending it to an opponent.   This is why some politicians describe money as the "mother's milk" of politics, and do so with no irony intended.    It also demonstrates why there seems to be absolutely no interest whatsoever in reviving our nearly dead middle class.  Why support the existence of an entire economic class who won't support you?  The entire concept of a large middle class is foreign to advocates of pure, unregulated free markets, and is viewed with disdain among the elites, because as stated above, economic power and political power are viewed as one and the same by those same elites.   A large, economically empowered middle class is a large, politically powered middle class - and their interests are not at all in line with the elites.   One can read Russell Kirk or any of the other classic conservative authors to see this dynamic at play.   

By contrast, the middle class and lower look at money as a means to obtain for purposes of survival, with maybe a little left over for leisure or entertainment if you're fortunate.  The consumer base of most developed economies consists of people in this strata.   Without people of the necessary means to purchase the product you are selling, how can you expect, then, to sell anything at all?  The elites' answer: globalism.   Perhaps there will be fewer of means in my home country, but hey, look at all of those expanding economies and middle classes in China and India, and elsewhere!  They'll do the consuming and manufacturing, while we in America and the "developed" world do...what?

The middle class is what stands between the rich and the pitch forks.   Conservatives counter, with considerable trepidation, the 1960s - when we had a strong middle class and protests and demonstrations seemed to be breaking out all over.    Those conflicts, however serious they were, are a walk in the park when compared to a growing population with no food or shelter - and thus, nothing to lose.
 

Quibbles and Bits, Putting a Cheesy Steak in Philly Because It's Done Edition

As the dust settles on the 2016 Presidential Primary season, let's take a look at some of the things that are peeking through the dissipating clouds:

--> The 2016 Presidential Primary was RIGGED, and the result was the INSTALLATION of Hillary Clinton as the Nominee.   She didn't WIN the nomination - it was predetermined.  She was always going to be the Dem nominee, come hell or waters high, regardless of Bernie Sanders or any other high-minded insurgent candidate with big ideas.   The evidence of the rigging is overwhelming (thanks to Wikileaks and evidence gathered by Debbie Lusignan and others), and often available only through non-mainstream outlets.    Lee Camp, of RT's Redacted Tonight, dedicated air time for several weeks to the election fraud issue.  

--> Good on the people outside the convention hall (and some inside) who provided the coverage of the protests and other events that the mainstream media would rather you not see.   I send a special shout-out to Josh Fox, for his 2-minute video of the half-empty arena immediately after Hillary's formal coronation.  It went viral, and it shows just how little inter-party support from the rank and file Hillary truly has.   Another shout-out to Debbie Lusignan, aka The Sane Progressive, who filmed hours of coverage and commentary in and around the Crime Scene.   (By the way, check out her absolute take-down of Tamron Hall regarding John Lewis' hypocrisy in regards to his HRC endorsement.  The sound of the video is highly distorted, but the distortion perfectly suits the anger and righteous indignation Debbie serves to Ms. Hall and her cohorts at MSN-BS.)   There were many others who contributed to telling what really happened in Philly last week - thank you to all of you. 

--> I was disappointed about the results, and felt the proverbial knife in the back when Bernie called for nomination by acclamation.   But, after letting emotions process, I think I have a better idea as to why he did what he did and what he's doing now.   He has always said that he would support the Dem nominee - it was a condition of the DNC for allowing him to run as a Democrat, and he has always been clear as to that fact.  He now has an international following, which when combined with his new national profile, will make him a VERY powerful senator when he goes back to Washington.  He's also continuing to support causes and politicians ("Berniecrats") who push his overall message and platform through new organizations like Our Revolution.   As much pain as I felt about what he did, I don't hold it against him.   He and his family have gone through a tremendous amount of hard work and emotion, and the only way for it to be in vain is for us to not follow through on what he started.   

--> Let's take a look at what the Bernie Revolution accomplished, even though the man himself will not be the Dem standard bearer (he should be, and would be without the Election Fraud which he and his campaign did very little to fight - more on that another time.)  He made economic inequality the centerpiece of his campaign, and brought it and other progressive issues to the front and center of the political mainstream.   He proved that a major campaign can be fought, and won, with minimal donations and no Super PAC help.   He pushed a rightward-lurching Democratic Party back toward the left, showing that it's in progressive ideas that the votes really lie - even in some typically Republican strongholds.   His campaign, and offshoots like #BernieOrBust and #NeverHillary, showed that progressive votes and voters should never be taken for granted - they are not guaranteed and need to be earned by the candidate, something Bernie has said flat-out on several occasions.  He showed the world outside of the US that yes, there are people in America who want much of what Europe and other countries have and are willing to fight for it.   He ran one of the cleanest campaigns in modern political history and was able to win 22 states and 13 million voters - all while declaring himself a Democratic Socialist.  Most of all - he showed that America wants their leaders to possess INTEGRITY and HONESTY, qualities sorely lacking in today's retail politics. 

What this means is - by 2018 and 2020, America will be ready.   Bernie opened the door to what is possible.   We now must walk through it, and with organization and continued commitment from we the people, we can. 

I'll have more to say about the primaries and the election in the coming weeks leading up to November.   The role of non-traditional parties and organizations, fighting election fraud, and other topics will likely surface.   Stay tuned.   


   

Heart Bern

UPDATE: This might not be over just yet.   I've received information that Bernie is still instructing his delegates to show up at the convention in Philly, and will ask for a full roll-call vote.   At this time, Hillary is less than 400 delegates ahead of Bernie, who has approximately 1900.  Neither of them have the magic 2383 needed to secure the nomination and will need to rely on super-delegates to go over the top.   Also, Bernie's endorsement might be a technical maneuver, in order to secure a prime speaking slot at the convention per DNC rules.    He endorsed Hillary, yes, but he did not expressly concede defeat.  So while what I say below still applies, I'd would break out a bag of Orville Redenbacher's and your favorite beverage, and sit back and watch how this transpires.   FDR won one of his elections in this manner, so it's not unheard of.   


Like many of you, I heard about Bernie Sanders’ inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton this morning.   Inevitable for two reasons: one, because he has been making noises to this effect over the last several weeks, and two, because let’s face it: the establishment of the Democratic Party (and their owners) were never going to allow Bernie to get anywhere near the White House, despite the double-digit lead he holds over the T-Rump.   The Dems and their handmaidens made sure of it with repeated and documented examples of election fraud, a media blackout of Bernie despite holding rallies of tens of thousands of people, a rigged election process in which the super delegates were counted along with the pledged (and added to the overall delegate totals by CNN, MSNBC, et. al), and a debate schedule which intentionally kept much of the country in the dark about just what Bernie and Hillary are all about.    

Yes, I feel betrayed, because the donations and online lobbying I did on his behalf seem to be for nothing.  This emotion can be multiplied exponentially for those who conducted and participated in phone banks, built and maintained Bernie’s formidable online presence, and other volunteer work.     I feel defeated, not so much by HRC herself (as much as I despise her) but by the DNC and the political establishment who made DAMNED sure that THEIR candidate was the Dem standard-bearer, and Bernie’s supporters like myself never had a say in it all along.   I feel insulted by a Democratic Party whose leaders (especially the Clintons) actively look down on the voters, and have treated Bernie and his supporters with classic condescension.   Finally, there was the evidence that the assumption was made even before the primary season began that Hillary was going to be the nominee.    Bernie, in the minds of the DNC, was never even supposed to enter the race - this was expected to be a HRC coronation.  

Bernie’s spoken rationale for his endorsement was keeping Donald Trump out of office.  Yes, this is a good reason, but there are many other factors at work.   For one, take a look at news over the last couple of weeks.  Police shootings and the corresponding outrage and protests, and law enforcement’s excessively heavy-handed management of these protests, took center stage.   The Democratic Convention in Philadelphia is set for less than two weeks from this writing, and there are tens of thousands of people expected to converge around the fortress passing as the Wells Fargo Center, many of them “Bernie or Busters” who have absolutely no interest in a President Hillary Clinton.  With an already angry population and a divisive primary fight, the stage was being set for a potentially explosive situation in Philadelphia.   It may get to that point anyway, but with Bernie officially ending his campaign and supporting Hillary, at least he won’t get fingered for the blame for any violence that occurs.    Another factor is his awareness of the power of the DNC political establishment.   He knew how much they were working against him, and despite his formidable fundraising prowess, he did not have the resources to continue at this time (not to mention, what would have happened if he DID win, and had to contend with the bought-and-paid-for Congress).   Then, there are also the relationships in Congress that he has to maintain if he is to remain an effective senator.   As I’ve stated in previous posts, his remaining in Congress is based in part on the relationships he built with key Democrats, as he caucuses with them.   If he loses or further strains those relationships, then the Democratic Party will likely run a well-funded challenger to him in his home state of Vermont.  

What about his promise to take this to the convention?   Well, he is going to Philadelphia, just not with the same approach as if he were still in fight mode.   If the Republicans picked a more “sensible” candidate than the despot-in-waiting T-Rump, then I could see Bernie engaging in a more fierce battle for the nomination.   This would have further exposed the corrupt underpinnings of the Democratic Party, which his campaign already has to a large extent.  The election fraud would have been called out with much more gusto, as well (it should have been called out more heartily, anyway).   But, there’s the literal and figurative Trump card that must be countered with a winning trick, and the Dem establishment figured that the safe bet was to play dynastic politics.   We’ll see if this approach works - at this point, it’s problematic. 

A word abut the election fraud evidenced in Arizona, Nevada, California, and other places.   Bernie should have realized that if he was going to battle for us, then he needed to put up a much more fierce fight than he did on this issue.   Those weren’t merely Bernie Sanders’ votes - those were OUR votes we were entrusting to him.   His supporters would not have seen him as a sore loser, but rather than as a candidate trying to win.    The MSM, on the other hand, would have played the sore loser card to the hilt - they have too much on the line for Hillary.  

I am shifting my allegiance to Jill Stein and the Green Party.   The Greens’ platform is in line with much of Bernie’s economic philosophy, and goes further by advocating for a peaceful approach to solving international problems rather than the neocon tendencies displayed by Hillary.   Remember, Bernie himself said (to his credit) that he is not a pacifist, during the Q-and-A session after his “Democratic Socialism” speech of several months ago.   The Greens, at the juncture, simply represent my values most clearly, and that is how I am going to vote.   I will no longer play the one-party-two-brand game that the nation has been suckered into one more time.   Trump is evil, yes, but so is Hillary - and the lesser of two evils is still evil. 

Raised on Robbery

I was going to do another post on my travel blog, beyondhighway99.com, until I perused my Facebook news feed.   I discovered that the AP, and other news outlets, aren't even bothering to wait until tomorrow's primaries to call the Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton.   We're seeing more, increasingly brazen evidence that this election is rigged.   So brazen, in fact, that they aren't even trying to hide anything now.   Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee, goddamn it, and we rubes will sit down and shut up, and take it.  

The problem is, these assertions are FALSE - at least as far as the pledged delegates are concerned.   Bernie is less than 300 pledged delegates behind Hillary, with California (which is at risk for Hillary) and other states in play.   This move was all about perception - if the AP and the networks call it, it must be true, and therefore, otherwise motivated voters will stay home.   In other words, VOTER SUPPRESSION.   Call the election now, then (as the DNC is probably figuring), the whole "Bern" thing will burn out, and what will be left will be compliant Hillbots ready for the preordained nominee to lead the Dems to victory.  This will be what the DNC calls "healing the divide", and thus will lead toward what they think will be a "harmonious" convention where everybody gets along in perfect unison, singing "Oh, Hillary, Kumbaya."  Finally, they're counting on us "rubes" to have short attention spans and shorter term memory, so we'll forget all of the election fraud that it took to secure Hillary's "destiny". 

The actions taken by the Associated Press, along with CBS and other networks, have solidified, once and for all, the Bernie-Or-Else pledge taken by many of us.   Hillary's coronation is, at best, a Pyrrhic one - completely illegitimate and unearned.  If this is the conclusion drawn on July 25th, then I'm switching my allegiance to Jill Stein.   I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 

Quibbles and Bits, Politicus Interruptus edition

Let's just get right to the main course...

--> A recent episode of Abby Martin's The Empire Files gave what I felt was perhaps one of the most cogent, most cohesive arguments made against a Hillary Clinton presidency.   Her warmongering and overall neoconservative foreign policy are called out, along with her fiscal corruption (The Clinton Foundation) and her entrenchment in the banking and media elite.   To vote for her, especially in fear of T-Rump getting anywhere near the Oval Office, is to feed the corrupt two-party system which feeds either the .1% (the Republicans), or the top 10% (the Democrats - Thomas Frank's most recent tome illustrates this very well).

   So - .1% and the top 10% - who is left to represent everybody else?  The Democrats count on the idea that since Big Labor has been rendered completely impotent, along with the Education and Media establishments having been completely infiltrated and taken over by the Right Wing, where else can the "rest of the rubes" go?  There, then, is the Billion Dollar Question. 

--> An increasing volume of talk has been occurring over the last several months, especially on the left, about the possibility of forming a third political party should Bernie Sanders not win the Democratic nod.   I'm still fighting for Bernie (and will NOT, under ANY circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton), but the odds are greater than 50% that because of a rigged primary process, an in-the-pocket Main Stream Media, and bottomless access to corporate and billionaire cash, Hillary Clinton will likely be installed as the Democratic standard bearer - and Bernie will, at the appointed time at the Convention after all of the expected convulsions, wind up supporting her.   

I can tell you that I won't - regardless of what Bernie does.   This movement isn't about Bernie - it's about US.   

--> The pundit class in this country, including many of those on the left who I respect a great deal, will wax voluminously about the "fool's errand" that they feel is the formation of an alternative political party.   They will tell you that it's effect will be to "split the vote", and take progressive votes away from the "progressive" Democratic standard-bearer.   They point to Ralph Nader in 2000 as a lesson in why this is not a proper course of action to take, since it supposedly took votes away from Gore.   They say, work within the Democratic Party, with it's great and wonderful infrastructure, and fight like hell for the standard bearers there. 

All of which is pure bullshit. 

First, let's take a look at the "split the vote" argument.   This presumes several things: 1) that the Democratic Party is the home of progressive policies, politics, and politicians; 2) that the party is always less of a threat than the Republicans; and 3)that truly progressive policies and people are welcome in the supposedly "big tent" of the Democratic Party.    Yes, there are a few true progressive in the Senate and Congress:  Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson come to mind.   But look at what happened to Dennis Kucinich - his district was redrawn specifically to get rid of him in Congress.   Look what is happening to Alan Grayson - Obama endorses his primary opponent (corporatist Patrick Murphy), and Harry Reid has been throwing shade at him since he started his Senate campaign.   Also, look at the long roll call of DINOs past and present: Blanche Lincoln, the Clintons, Ben Nelson, Heath Shuler, and on, and on, and on.   This is what a "big tent" gets you - a largely unprincipled group more enticed to look out for #1 than the rest of us - because that's where the money takes them (and us).   It's been said, also, that "it takes a Democrat" to enact the Republican's worst policies.   Boy, ain't that true: many of Clinton's and Obama's legislative accomplishments (NAFTA, for starters), TPP fast-track, parts of Obamacare (such as the missing public option), the constant drone strikes in the Middle East, and an arms-length list of neoconservative and Friedmanist policies, originating largely from the backsides of Republicans and lobbyists, gain the support of the Democrats and therefore, are made "acceptable" by the masses:  bipartisanship, after all.   

Next, there's Ralph Nader, and his continued vilification by the Democratic Party and figures like Jimmy Carter and Randi Rhodes.   I hate to break it to you all - but Gore losing in 2000 was NOT Ralph Nader's fault:

--> There were several other candidates on the Florida ballot for the 2000 Presidential bid, most of them gaining more than enough votes to cover the 537 vote deficit for Gore; 

--> One year later, a recount was done in the disputed Florida counties, and it was discovered that Gore won those counties - and thus, the 2000 Election; 

--> The recounts in 2000 were halted by the Supreme Court, who issued a one-case non-precedent-setting decision stating that a further recount would cause harm to Bush.  Thus, the counts ceased, and Bush II was installed.   

The Election of 2000 was STOLEN BY JUDICIAL FIAT.   It had NOTHING to do with Ralph Nader, who was within his rights as a citizen to run for whatever office he wants, however he wants.   

Finally, there's the "infrastructure" of the Democratic Party.   How do you think that great and wonderful infrastructure got there?   With CORPORATE CASH.   The same CORPORATE CASH that built the Republicans' infrastructure.   A truly progressive message and candidates are, by nature, hostile to corporate and banking interests.  If the progressives were to succeed in going in and "taking that sucker over" (as Thom Hartmann would advocate), then what's going to happen to that infrastructure?   That's right.   Bye bye.   

So we need an alternative party.   What to do?   

That's a discussion for later.    

The Party's Over...

...for me, at least.  

(And I know it's been a while since my last post - sorry 'bout that.  I haven't fallen off of the cliff yet.)

I've been following the Clinton-Sanders primary battle over the last several months with great interest - perhaps more than is good for my health, at least from a blood-pressure standpoint.    To this, I have the following observations:

Quibbles and Bits, Iowa Zoo Feed and Chum Edition

More material for mastication and matriculation, courtesy of your not-so-humble-and-obedient zookeeper.

--> The Iowa Caucuses are not-quite-history, with HRC shouting to the rooftops that she won and Bernie saying much of the same thing.   The truth is, the caucuses ended in a virtual tie.   MSN-BS and the rest are trumpeting to the Milky Way that HRC won the night.    But Bernie, with the near-complete-mass-media-shutout and disparaging by the establishment pundit class, and far more limited campaign cash war chest, still managed to pull even with The Anointed and Chosen One.   This fact not only says a lot about the legitimacy of Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate, but it also highlights The Chosen One's weaknesses.

     Truth be told, if HRC was an actual progressive rather than the paper tiger she and her husband are (and were), and actually pushed for single payor health coverage rather than disparaging it, then she would have won Iowa in a cakewalk.    But, that's a rhetorical bridge-too-far for her, as she would offend the health care industry donors on which she depends on for campaign cash.    Personally, I think that the increasing irritation she is having with the Sanders campaign and supporters, is that Bernie is forcing her into a rhetorical "box".    She is now being forced to write rhetorical checks which she knows will bounce, assuming she wins the White House (no guarantee by any stretch.)  I can bet that if the primary campaigns drag on, then there will be noises from The Chosen One's camp for Bernie to stop "dividing the party" and unite behind Hillary.    I say to Bernie and his supporters: don't.   Take this all the way to the convention if you can.   Force the Democratic machinery to determine the nominee, and thus expose how undemocratic the "Democratic Party" really is.   Then, the farce will be on full display, in full monty, for all to see.   Crown on the head, but birthday suit underneath. 

--> Martin O'Malley suspended his campaign upon the end of the Caucuses.    He only garnered 1/2 of 1 percent of the vote, so no surprise.   It's been reported that his supporters will likely gravitate toward Sanders - wise choice, if you ask me. 

--> As you may have seen on my Facebook page, I'm a Bernie-Or-Buster.    Under NO circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton.    There are many reasons for this, the biggest of which is that the corporate ownership of government has to end.    Now.    As sick as this may sound, and I hope that this doesn't come to pass, but what it may take to shake this grip is four years of a sicko like a Trump or Cruz at the helm of the country.   Things may have to get SO bad, where a significant-enough percentage of the country is experiencing third-world conditions (like Flint, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey), that a critical mass of people will actually rise up and demand change.    It's been a well-told story in history that when the gap between rich and poor gets wide enough that you have revolution.   I hope to God that four years of Repub rule doesn't happen.  I hope I'm wrong.   I don't want to see people suffer.   But, until the country experiences a genuine, deep, painful crisis, I don't see how real, sustained change will be possible.    It took the Great Depression to elect FDR.    It may take something similar (or worse) this time around, as well.  

     And the current, corporate-friendly path is not sustainable and not sufficient.   It won't do.   So no HRC or any Corporate "Democrat" for me.   Now, or ever.   

Outside the Sporting Life and Maintaining Grace Under Pressure

     If one looks beyond the rah-rahs and the surface of the final scores and statistics of sporting events, there can be some important life lessons that can be learned from them.    How teams comport themselves, both individually and as a group, as well as how they perform in the face of adversity, can provide lessons for all of us.

     The latest example of this is the Cincinnati Bengals/Pittsburgh Steelers wild card playoff game, held earlier this evening.    This game will go down as perhaps one of the worst examples of a team, in this case the Bengals, allowing defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.   From all accounts and judging from having watched the final two minutes of the game, the Bengals have no one to blame but themselves.    The Bengals had a one-point lead going into the final two minutes when the collapse occurred in a bizarre series of events: a fumble by the Bengals running back deep in Steelers territory, and the Steelers being gifted thirty yards in penalties in the final minute due to two unnecessary roughness calls on the Bengals defense.   A long-shot field goal attempt became, while not a chip-shot, certainly easier.   Those penalties were purely mental errors on the part of the Bengals - free yardage due to a lack of composure and focus in that crucial final minute.   The Steelers stayed focused, even in the face of a late deficit that could have ended their season.   Instead, largely because of their lack of focus and poise in the final minute, the Bengals are staying home.

     The life lesson here, is in the importance of maintaining ones focus, ones balance - even in the face of life's emotional highs and lows.   It's one of life's greatest challenges, and our emotional maturity (or emotional intelligence, as this term seems to apply to) is directly related to our ability to achieve this kind of control, the art of maintaining grace under pressure.    Entire areas of philosophy state mastery of our emotions as a central tenant - Buddhism is one of them.  Techniques such as meditation are employed in this pursuit.   I will be the first to admit that I claim no mastery of any of these aspects.   But, I see challenges as providing part of the value of life, and as seen above and in countless other areas of our lives, this challenge is an especially worthwhile one.