I write articles that are published in OpEdNews and, when I do, I sometimes reference articles I’ve written which have been published in OpEdNews. When I do that, I often wonder if readers look at those references and think, “Narcissist, narcissist! I’ll never read an article written by a person who promotes his own articles. Narcissist, I tell you!”
Besides the fact that I am somewhat innately paranoid, I’m wondering at this particular moment if readers think that way. You see, I didn’t receive any comments the last time an article of mine was published.
I know, I know. Again, “Narcissist, narcissist! Not only does he want us to read the article which is in the latest OEN publication, not only does he try to get us to go back and read some of his older articles by referencing them in the most recent article, but now he wants comments! Narcissist, narcissist, I say!”
I bet almost everyone would like to know what readers think about his or her articles. It’s only natural. It’s also inevitable that some articles won’t draw comments and many, maybe most, of mine have not drawn comments. I may be a narcissist in some ways, but it’s OK with me if my articles don’t inspire readers to comment.
However, here’s the catch.
Tom Ridge, the first and former Secretary of Homeland Security, has outed The Regime by confirming what many of us suspected. Many of us believe that, if any member or members of The Regime does or says something that’s controversial, is not in the best interest of the nation or is just plain illegal, the color coded “terrorist in the house” warning system changes it hue, distracting the masses. In fact, Keith Olberman exposed this practice on his “Countdown” television program. He actually equated changes in the warning system to specific events that The Regime obviously thought could have made it look bad.
It wasn’t so much a startling exposé as it was an affirmation that The Regime is not in touch with reality. The truth is, if The Regime wants to use color coding to distract people from noticing that it looks bad, the color coding would be flashing somewhat like a disco ball.
The point is “distraction”, though, isn’t it?
During the so called political campaigns in 2000, 2002, 2004 and even 2006, The Regime dusted off and shined up its wedge issues. Yes, during campaign season, George Bush, Dick Cheney and their Velcro troops become defenders of good, wholesome family values. They promise amendments to The Constitution outlawing same sex marriage, abortion, flag burning and flagless lapels. Well, they haven’t suggested an amendment for the last beacon of patriotism - - yet.
While it incites its base to passionately shun those of us who disagree with them in the areas of love, self determination and how cloth ought to be handled, The Regime continues its attack on the nation whose governance is in its paws. It continues to push “free trade agreements” with every third world country and every nation ruled by tyrants – the kind that don’t hide that fact that they’re tyrants - and the consequential damage those agreements do to Americans who are consistently worth less than a million dollars, it continues strengthening the belief that war is so inevitable as to be considered a way of life, it continues to make up rules as it goes along which steadily makes the unitary presidency appear more natural to more people as time passes and it always surprises those of us who actually pay attention with new and even more despicable acts and behaviors.
The point is “distraction”, though, isn’t it?
The Regime has its shills to help with its distraction. An entire national, no, international television network, which dresses up as a 24 hour cable news network, is constantly rototilling the soil so that The Regime can grow and spread its deception.
The Regime arose from The Republican Party and now John McCain is running for president so that The Regime can stay in power. It’s very fortunate for The Regime that McCain promised to do his best imitation of George W. Bush for four years starting in 2009. It would have been a lot more difficult if The Regime had to resort to what many of us suspected it may resort to and that’s finding an excuse to “push the elections back”. It would have had to plan how and where Al Qaeda would cause death and destruction within The FUSA and that would probably entail parting with large sums of money to convince Osama Bin Laden to influence more of his deaf, dumb and blind followers to carry out its plan. Whew! Thank god for John McCain.
Good thing Democrats aren’t trained in the practice of deception, isn’t it?
I did try to make a case that this “exciting”, fingernail biting primary “season” is theatrics in my previous article, “Stop The Theatrics” (no link in avoidance of narcissism). As I mentioned, though, no one commented. It was silly of me to try to point out how this presidential campaign has thus far been nothing but theater and the actors are following scripts as rehearsal for following a script once one of them is “elected” as our next president. I should have known no one could have been distracted from what could possibly the most important presidential election in the history of this nation.
Now that I think of it, I tried to make the same points in 2004, but I overlooked the fact that people would not be sundered from their involvement in what could have been the most important presidential election in the history of this nation. I wonder why I continue to overlook that fact. We were told by some extremely intelligent people that John Kerry may not have been perfect, but any Democrat would have been better than four more years of George W. Bush. Who knew what our country would have looked like if George W. Bush was re-elected?
I’m guessing we all sighed a sigh of relief when we came to the conclusion that Bush was not reelected, that he merely stole another presidential election.
Four years have passed and George W. Bush is still the president in spite of the effort of many of our finest citizens to have him and his entire administration impeached. The nation has lost more of its military personnel, we’ve murdered more Iraqi civilians, the economy is still in decline in the real world even though there are statistics that can be and are erroneously used to debate that conclusion and war as a way of life has taken us to the brink of a winner leave all confrontation with Iran.
Again, I write an article that attempts to gain your attention and distract you from the most important issue of the day which is, “What’s the score?”
How many delegates does Barrack really have? How many does Hillary really have? Should we count Florida and Michigan?
And what about those sneaky “super delegates”? My god, we’ve even stolen the lingo of the sporting world!
Super delegates? Super Bowl. Super heavyweight. Super duper delegates.
Ladies and gentlemen – wake up! No one is running to be the next commander-in-chief of the American armed forces, the next “leader of the free world”.
Oh, I’m a Truther all right and I’ve even read some interesting articles about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, although I’d never gotten into that for some reason or another. But this one is a doozy, isn’t it? The conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories. See, I told you I was a bit paranoid.
Note that I didn’t write that no one is running to be the next president of the United States. You see, I’m not sure I’m talking about a true conspiracy. I’m not sure that Hillary, Barrack and McCain got together and decided they’d put on a show for the American people. I actually believe that they’re vying for a position as they perceive that position.
They’ve even told us how they perceive that position.
They’ve raised otherworldly sums of money to finance these theatrics. They have received a fair amount of that money from corporations and groups to whom one of them will be beholden once the “election” has been played out. We can easily find out how much money any one of them has received from corporations or “special interest groups” – god I hate politalk.
When they’ve given a moment to speaking about what intelligent Americans want to hear, the “real issues”, we’ve found that none of the candidates is in any hurry to end our occupation of Iraq.
All of them, in one manner or another, want to keep some kind of “emergency force in the area” or want to make sure that, when and if we bring our troops home, we do it in a “responsible manner”.
All of them, even Barrack, is willing to engage Iran militarily. It’s just that he’s said he’d talk to them before “obliterating” them. Oh, yeah, that was Hillary, wasn’t it? Not the talking part, the obliteration part.
Any Democrat is better than John McCain? If I’m an Iranian and my skin is slithering from my bones, I bet I’m not saying, “What a relief. It’s so much better to be obliterated by a Democratic president than a Republican president.”
Yet, intelligent people, like my favorite radio host Thom Hartmann, say that Hillary’s “obliterate” remark truly troubles them. Thom, in fact, said that he’s waiting to hear Hillary define “obliteration”. She’s a Democrat, so I’m sure it’s not the kind of obliteration that John McCain would initiate.
We have to actually wait for Hillary to make a speech defining “obliteration”? Does no one know how to use a dictionary?
The candidates really can’t talk about unemployment, can they? You may say it’s because unemployment in our country isn’t anywhere near the worse it’s ever been.
I’m sure that Obama and Clinton have spoken about under-employment. This is where an American, indeed, has a job, but the job doesn’t pay enough to raise a family of two.
So they won’t speak about unemployment but sometimes will talk about underemployment. But this nation isn’t really suffering from either. It’s suffering from overemployment. Yep, unemployment numbers look promising if one doesn’t take into account the fact that, many times, the very same person may hold jobs for two different employers and still fail to make ends meet. What are they going to do about “overemployment”, the condition under which people spend their entire life being employed?
None of the candidates have made the campaign promise to re-level the playing field so that it’s once again fair for American workers. This, of course, can only be done by turning back the clock to the time when tariffs ensured that Americans wouldn’t lose their jobs because they’re unwilling to work for a few dollars a day.
It’s gotten so we “Progressives” have become satisfied with what Obama and Clinton have proposed to solve the problem of accessible health care, although neither propose what’s right and just.
This country has a name, The United States of America (although, in truth, it’s The Former United States of America) and it’s represented by a very lovely flag.
However, this country isn’t its name nor is it a smartly designed piece of cloth. This country is the land and the people who inhabit that land. Fighting for one’s country does not have to entail uniforms and weapons. In fact, I know that this is an unpopular position to take, but the military personnel in Iraq are not fighting for the land and the people who inhabit the land which is called The United States of America and is represented by a tri-colored flag. Those who killed and died in Vietnam were not fighting “for their country” either.
What’s right and just is for the citizens of this nation to become “real world” patriots and fight for their country by defending the land and the people that inhabit it. If we stopped paying for our military and its wars, we could all fight for our country by paying to help those who’ve been tossed aside like worn wash rags by greed-filled, wealth driven corporate humanoids. That’s not only right and just, but it’s patriotic as well. It not only supports our troops, it supports all of us.
I admit I’ve presented the problems. Some may think that this is a War And Peace length bitch session. I’ve not proposed a solution.
Many of my articles do point to the cracks in the walls, but I’ve been known to recommend steps towards solutions.
I really hate to pick on old Thom Hartmann again. As an aside, I think the reason I express disappointment in some of the things that Thom says is because of the great admiration I have for him and for what I believe he really stands for. He lets it slip out on occasion and it’s nothing like what Kerry, Clinton (either of them) or Obama propose. I think when someone to whom one looks up says or does something that we know is somewhat disingenuous it hurts a whole lot worse than when someone that we expect to be a dick is a dick.
Nonetheless, Hartmann suggests contacting members of Congress. If any of you have made a habit of doing that as I have you’ve probably got the reams of form letters and letters “agreeing with” you while disagreeing with you. If you save emails, you’ve probably got folder upon folder of the same kind of communications. You’ve probably spoken to enough interns to be able to make a decision concerning which ones to hire and which ones not to hire (thought I was gonna say something nasty about Bill Clinton, didn’t ya?).
Contacting members of Congress about the welfare of our nation is akin to contacting the fox concerning the welfare of the hens. The addiction to money and other favors that can be and are provided by wealthy lobbyists representing wealthy “special interest” groups trump your phone call, email or letter any day. Asking members of Congress to fix a process which, as is, benefits members of Congress has been, at least for me, a joke in the genre known as black humor.
Another solution is to go to Democratic Party meetings and become active in the party. To a certain extent, one may be successful doing that. However, just as software providers always include a “free trial” of the next best thing within the packaging of the “thing” we purchase hoping that we’ll pay for the “next best thing”, attending local Democratic Party meetings makes it clear that in order to proceed to the “next best thing”, one has to begin to pay.
Electing Democrats, it’s been suggested, no matter how much what they say sounds like what a Republican would say, would at least get a Democrat in place. Makes sense to me.
From there, continues the myth, the next step is to remind the elected official that he or she is a Democrat and really didn’t mean what she or he said during the campaign. To take it a step further, it will then be a cinch to convince the elected official, say, for instance, Kerry, Clinton or Obama, that he or she really didn’t want to support NAFTA or other “free trade” agreements, that she or he really didn’t want to continue to vote to give The Regime money to help solidify its colonization of Iraq, that he or she really believes what’s said by our National Intelligence Estimate and shouldn’t look at Iran as an enemy, that she or he has no reason to consider Venezuela and its leader, Hugo Chávez an enemy of the United States. A cinch, no doubt.
A Democrat was elected in 1964 and the next step was his virtual resignation in 1968.
A Democrat was elected in 1976 and he boycotted an Olympics, failed to rescue Americans held hostage by Iran and promised that all administrations from his own until the year 2000 would carry through his vision that every American home would be using solar energy by 2000.
A Democrat was elected in 1992 and he became a Republican.
What’s the solution?
I continue to narcissistically promote my article “Priority Number One”, (I guess I just can’t help it).
However, before we begin directly voting for those for whom we vote, maybe we should insist upon a discussion clarifying the real purpose of the fourteenth amendment to The Constitution and remove corporate influence from our electoral process.
OK, so we’re up against the wall. Contacting Congress is useless and doing an intervention for a Democrat once one is elected is to change the nature of our relationship with wealth and probably won’t happen.
I don’t know.
I guess I’ll leave you with a few narcissistic suggestions.
If we think contacting our members of Congress will do any good, well, it ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe it’s time to work outside the system.
Maybe it’s just time to ask if there’s still time.
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.” - Carl Sagan
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Yet Another Attempt at a Wake-Up Call
(originally published at OpEdNews)