"...Oxymoron # 324-A....The Glory Of Battle...."

When it comes to the kind of patriotic perspective that Nashville's creative community offers, the first name that inevitably comes to mind is Lee Greenwood.

After all, what person alive on the planet today has not heard, at least once, if not the more likely dozens of times, Lee's arousing anthem of Americanism, "God Bless The U.S.A."?

I mean, come on, you know that right this second you would gladly stand up / next to me / and defend her still today.

Catchy, huh?

Tell you somebody else who had a bead on the blue and its colorful companions, the red and the white.

Ray Stevens.

He probably just didn't know it at the time.

I'll be 'splainin' that to you shortly, there, Lucy.

First, a few words about Gene La Rocoque.

Here's the Wiki word.



Gene La Rocque was born in Kankakee, Illinois and began his naval service in 1940. When the attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out, he was serving on the USS Macdonough. He participated in 13 major battles in World War II and worked for seven years in the Strategic Plans Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the Battle of Kwajalein, he was the first man to go ashore in the landings at Roi-Namur.

He retired in 1972, disillusioned over the Vietnam War. La Rocque and his colleagues testified before Congress, appeared frequently in the media, and consulted many national and international political leaders.

In the 1980s, La Rocque founded a weekly public affairs television program, America's Defense Monitor. In 1974, he stated that in his experience, any ship that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, carries nuclear weapons and do not off-load them when they are in foreign ports. The statement directly conflicted with the Department of Defense's "neither confirm nor deny" (NC/ND) policy regarding such weapons and sparked controversy in Japan, which has had a non-nuclear policy since World War II.

As a Lieutenant Commander, La Rocque was commanding officer of USS Solar, destroyed on 30 April 1946 in an explosion at Naval Ammunition Depot, Earle (now Naval Weapons Station, Earle) in New Jersey. Five enlisted men and one officer were killed with 125 other wounded.



All of that is by way of providing credibility to go along with his commentary that found its way to Facebook this morning.



I had been in thirteen battle engagements, had sunk a submarine, and was the first man ashore in the landing at Roi. In that four years, I thought, What a hell of a waste of a man's life. I lost a lot of friends. I had the task of telling my roommate's parents about our last days together. You lose limbs, sight, part of your life—for what? Old men send young men to war. Flags, banners, and patriotic sayings.

We are unique in the world, a nation of thirty million war veterans. We're the only country in the world that's been fighting a war since 1940. Count the wars—Korea, Vietnam—count the years. We have built up in our body politic a group of old men who look upon military service as a noble adventure.

We've always gone somewhere else to fight our wars, so we've not really learned about its horror. Seventy percent of our military budget is to fight somewhere else.

We've institutionalized militarism. This came out of World War Two. In 1947, we passed the National Security Act. You can't find that term—national security—in any literature before that year. It created the Department of Defense. Up till that time, when you appropriated money for the War Department, you knew it was for war and you could see it clearly. Now it's for the Department of Defense. Everybody's for defense. Otherwise you're considered unpatriotic. So there's absolutely no limit to the money you must give to it. So they've captured all the Christians: the right of self-defense. Even the "just war" thing can be wrapped into it.

We never had a Joint Chiefs of Staff before. In World War Two, there was a loose coalition, but there was no institution. It gave us the National Security Council. It gave us the CIA, that is able to spy on you and me this very moment. For the first time in the history of man, a country has divided up the world into military districts. No nation in the world has done that before or has done it since. They have a military solution for everything that happens in their area.

Our military runs our foreign policy. The State Department simply goes around and tidies up the messes the military makes. The State Department has become the lackey of the Pentagon. Before World War Two, this never happened. You had a War Department, you had a Navy Department. Only if there was a war did they step up front. The ultimate control was civilian. World War Two changed all this.

I don't think I've changed. I was a good ship captain. I was tough. I worked like the devil to see that my ship and my men were the best. I loved the sea and still do. I think the United States has changed. It got away from the idea of trying to settle differences by peaceful means. Since World War Two, we began to use military force to get what we wanted in the world. That's what military is all about. Not long ago, the Pentagon proudly announced that the U.S. had used military force 215 times to achieve its international goals since World War Two. The Pentagon likes that: military force to carry out national will.

I was in Vietnam. I saw the senseless waste of human beings. I saw this bunch of marines come off this air-conditioned ship. Nothing was too good for our sailors, soldiers, and marines. We send 'em ashore as gung ho young nineteen-year-old husky nice-looking kids and bring 'em back in black rubber body bags. There are a few little pieces left: over, some entrails and limbs that don't fit in the bags. Then you take a fire hose and you hose down the deck and push that stuff over the side.

I myself volunteered to go to Vietnam and fight. I didn't question whether it was in the nation's interest. I was a professional naval officer and there was a war. I hope as we get older, we get smarter. You could argue World War Two had to be fought. Hitler had to be stopped.

World War Two has warped our view of how we look at things today. We see things in terms of that war, which in a sense was a good war. But the twisted memory of it encourages the men of my generation to be willing, almost eager, to use military force anywhere in the world.

For about twenty years after the war, I couldn't look at any film on World War Two. It brought back memories that I didn't want to keep around. I hated to see how they glorified war. In all those films, people get blown up with their clothes and fall gracefully to the ground. You don't see anybody being blown apart. You don't see arms and legs and mutilated bodies. You see only an antiseptic, clean, neat way to die gloriously.

I hate it when they say, "He gave his life for his country." Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don't die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them.



Lee Greenwood gets a lot of deserved credit, and not just a few royalty dollars (not that there's anything wrong with that) for his 1984 ode to the land of the free, home of the brave heart that beats inside all of us who have been blessed to be born and/or live in America.

But Ray Stevens offered a little perspective of his own, however unknowingly, some fourteen years earlier when he released a similarly anthemic work, "Everything Is Beautiful".

And underscored, in the first line of the first verse of that song, again, surely, unknowingly, the point that Admiral La Rocoque so clearly makes.

"There is none so blind / as he who will not see"

No reasonable person could possibly think of Lee Greenwood, Ray Stevens or, most certainly, Rear Admiral Gene La Rocoque as anything other than proud and patriotic Americans.

And I would gladly stand up / next to them / and defend them still today.

While at the same time, mindful and appreciative of the Admiral's words, unarguably aware that Ray Stevens nailed it.

Because the inability to see the whole picture, in some cases, even a complete blindness to it, is sometimes an unfortunate side effect of passionately waving a flag too close to people's faces.

Everything is beautiful / in its own way

With the exception, of course, of body bags.


 

"...99% Of Those Surveyed Say They Believe In Dreams...1% Says Dream On..."

Cinderella, it turns out, has a better grasp on the American way of governing than just about anyone else.

Stand by as to why.

In the course of some daily perusing, I came across a blog written by Michael Filozof, an associate professor of political science at the State University of New York.

The prof was proffering his slant on the "Socialism" of Bernie Sanders and why, romantic notions of one big happy US of A family aside, he believes what Sanders is selling is potentially poisonous.


I've never in my life heard such unapologetic, full-throated socialism in American politics.  Sanders is the real deal.  He's so left-wing he practically makes Obama look like the chairman of the Republican National Committee.  At least Obama felt compelled to lie about the true extent of his leftism.  Sanders doesn't – and he isn't kidding around.  This is damn near Clement Attlee and Fabian socialist-type stuff.  True, he's not advocating nationalizing industries (yet), but he's cocksure that he can take as much of anyone else's money as he wants and spend it on just about anything.  Free single-payer health care, free college, green energy, no more fossil fuels, $15 minimum wage, end "institutional racism" – Sanders sees no limits on what government can, should, and will do.  And "Wall Street" will pay for it all.

Yes, Sanders is right that "The System" is rigged in favor of "special interests."  But he's not talking about "reform"; he's talking about transforming the federal government into Robin Hood.  If Sanders ever read the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that "property" shall not be taken without due process and just compensation, it sure wasn't evident in his victory speech.

Sanders is absolutely killing Hillary, especially among millennials.  She deserves the thumping she's getting, but Sanders supporters seem blithely ignorant of the fact he has never actually managed anything, and he has absolutely no track record to indicate that he could fulfill his promises – especially given the fact that the country will be $20 trillion in debt by inauguration day.

If Bernie's European-style socialism does come to America, it will be an utter disaster.  

Euro-socialism works because Europe still has a socially stratified society.  A British girl who is born a princess or a baroness knows from the time she is a toddler that she is a princess or baroness – and the daughter of a working-class soccer yob knows from the time she is a toddler that she will never, ever be a princess or baroness.  The purpose of European socialism is to buy off the lower classes to maintain the existing social order, and the European elites do a reasonably good job of managing socialist programs because maintaining their superior status depends upon it.

But in the United States, everyone is born equal under the law.  The American attitude was always that any individual could enrich himself beyond his wildest dreams – but his ambition was tempered by the fact that he could just as well fall into complete destitution.  Socialism in America would eliminate the latter – but not the former.  American socialism would turn into the same kind of corruption, plunder, and special-interest favoritism that Sanders decries in the private sector.


Political differences notwithstanding, I appreciate the professor's perspective if only because, in what is really very rare these days, he offers up some reasonable rationale for his contentions as opposed to the current standard operating procedure of slam, dunk and divide.

I think I would enjoy having a sit down chat with Mr. Filozof.  And one of the first things I think I would ask would be for clarification as to the whole "upper class buying off the lower class to maintain the existing social order" system of operation that Europe employs and the professor describes.

Because, maybe I'm over simplifying, but my quick read impression is that there's not that drastic a difference between the basic European and American structures, save for one, fairly key distinction.

We both have elite classes. (And while ours isn't "officially" royalty, in the blood sense, it certainly wields as much power and influence)

And we both have lower classes. (In America, of course, that's currently irreverently referred to as "the other 99%).

That key distinction I'm talking about is that the American elite manage to get along just fine and dandy in their elite-ness without having to add that pesky and profit denting dealio of "buying off the lower classes."

Marie Antoinette was as European as European can be bein', but it's our own American Express black card carrying country clubbers who are perfectly happy letting the middle and lower class menu consist of just four words.

"Let em' eat cake."

 Filozof correctly points out that "in the United States, everyone is born equal under the law."

Wow, there may never, ever be a more spot on example of the term "good news/bad news."

And he goes on to explain ..."The American attitude was always that any individual could enrich himself beyond his wildest dreams – but his ambition was tempered by the fact that he could just as well fall into complete destitution".

At this point in our conversation, I'm pretty sure I'd say something like "whoa, now hold on there, just a New York, home of Wall Street, minute, there, Mike...can I call you Mike?....what you call "the American attitude" is really much better known from sea to shining sea by its more charismatic and romantic name....

"the American dream..."

And I'm not credentialed to be an associate professor of anything, but I'm a reasonably smart guy, pretty well read and equally pretty well caught up on what's goin' on all around and I don't see any real evidence of anybody tempering anything when it comes to seeing that dream come true, let alone any fear of complete destitution.

More to the contrary, actually, I sense the vast majority of red, white and blue-sters fall into the category eloquently described by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, in a scene from "The West Wing" in which President Bartlet and his staff were discussing a proposed tax cut.





The problem with the American Dream, indeed.

And, as to Filozof's assertion that, should "...Bernie's European-style socialism.....come to America, it will be an utter disaster. ", I'm inclined to, first, suggest that the professor might be exhibiting just a millimeter of melodrama and. second, be a little cynical about his predicted outcome if only for the fact that I'm pretty confident that the last thing that America's elite will ever allow to happen is a "change-over" to the Euro paradigm of "keep the little people happy."

Because, frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn.

And they are all, bet the farm, or portfolio, as your own unique social status indicates, united in their near religious belief that what ain't broke, don't need fixin'.

It seems logical to assume that someone worth, say, a kabillion dollars isn't going to have any qualms about, or ambition to repair, the very operating system that got them the kabillion dollars in the first place.

Again, I'm no economist, but I think the correct terminology here would be..."duhhh".

And as to the prevailing American attitude about adopting and adhering to any, let alone all, things European, let me just offer two words.

Metric.

System.

On more than one occasion on one radio broadcast or another, I've suggested that those who are concerned about, for example, the Federal Government actually showing up on doorsteps and demanding that all weapons be turned in need not be concerned, if only for one, again, bet the farm, irrefutable fact.

Even if the Feds decided to take a shot at it (pun unintended, but, we love a good ironic twist) it wouldn't happen, because it can't.

And why, you say, can't it?

Well, you tell me. When was the last time you saw the Federal Government do anything that wasn't badly organized, weakly structured and oh so poorly executed.

There you go.

And, in a worst case scenario, how successful do you think the government would be at taking away the weapons, street by street, house by house from the millions of people who own millions of guns and would, very likely, open fire long before they gave opening the door a single thought?

And there you go.

This whole "capitalist sky is falling" thing is a lot like that.

Even if the "Bern" that Sanders has unleashed became a fire sufficient to clear a path for him all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, how long do you think it would be before the kabillionaires whipped out that old American Express black card and spent whatever was necessary, good, bad, legal, illegal and/or immoral in order to hang on to the lion's share of those kabillions.

Stephen Hawking ain't even got the ability to measure time down to that small a fraction.

And let's not forget that one other little speedbump Bernie would encounter on his triumphant march out of Sherwood Forest, an obstacle that would pretty much put the kaibosh on any caper that the kabillionaires found contemptible.

The Congress of the United States of America.

Currently in the running for the largest CEO managed corporation in this here land of opportunity.

A lot of people, mostly young and still idealistic, or young and ready, eager and giddy at the idea of the good life being handed to them on a Paul Revere signature silver platter, don't really understand the real reason that it's called the American Dream.

The operative word there, of course, is "dream".

The more romantic, sentimental, glass half full types amongst us live their lives with a head full of hope and a heart full of happy ever after, believing that dreams really do come true.

And they really, really do.

As to ratios of do to don't, though, it's probably not unreasonable to guesstimate that one's chances of pulling the sword from the stone are no better than slightly the same as the chances of Cam Newton ever uttering the words "I'd like to thank all those who made it possible."

For all the experts on the matter who trumpet their expertise on the matter, it turns out, as I said earlier, that Cinderella has a better grasp on it than anyone else.

A dream is a wish your heart makes / when you're fast asleep.

The key word, there, of course, being "asleep".

Waking up every day in the real world of 2016 America is decidedly different.

The "lower classes" have embraced Bernie as a knight in shining armor and you don't have to be an associate professor in political science to understand why.

The upper class, meanwhile, remains confident that, in the end, absolute power, in the form of kabillions, will not only continue to corrupt, it will continue to prevail.

And the chances of Bernie knocking down the tower of Trump, let alone Babel?

Just refer back to that Cam Newton thing.

Which isn't to say, by the way, that those of us who are hip to Bernie's happening shouldn't give it and him our continued full throated, if only shallow pocketed, support.

After all....

...we can dream, can't we?

"...And With Passionate Patriotic Fervor, The Voters Picked Up A Snake To Kill That Stick...."

The pundits, predictors, philosophers and assorted other "politicos" will, for at least the next, oh, few days or so be coming at you with a detailed (read: endlessly repetitive) analysis of the Trump and Sanders victories in New Hampshire and offer up a myriad of reasons for those victories. (Again read: endlessly repetitive).

I'm a simple guy who likes and appreciates politics in plain English.

Some day I might even start a blog site and give it that simple name.

Oh. Wait.

Here's my "offered once and then let's move on" perspective on why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are, at this writing, considered the front runners for their respective party's nomination.

Arguably.

But, we won't waste time, energy or resources arguing. (read: being endlessly repetitive).

Here's what it comes down to.

Jane Lynch.




CBS has cancelled Angel From Hell  , the Jane Lynch-Maggie Lawson comedy — and will yank it from its Thursday-night comedy bloc beginning this week, TVLine has confirmed.

A repeat of The Big Bang Theory will fill the 9:30/8:30c time slot, before 2 Broke Girls moves in beginning Feb. 18 — the day after Survivor’s new season reclaims Wednesday’s 8 o’clock hour.

After premiering last month to 8.1 million total viewers and a 1.6 demo rating, Angel From Hell took a tumble in Week 2, but then stabilized in the neighborhood of a 1.4 rating — two tenths below predecessor 2 Broke Girls’ average in the time slot. With DVR playback, the comedy grew 36 percent on average.



Jane Lynch is a world class comic talent with a long and, deservedly acclaimed, resume of accomplishment in the entertainment biz.

Do the Google and check her out if you're not a fan and/or hip to her.

The TV game of "ratings means revenue", though, has obviously not been played satisfactorily by the sitcom featuring Lynch as a zany, wacky, drunky guardian angel.

Personally, I would have thought given where the baseline IQ level of the viewing masses seems to hover these days, the show would have shot to number one in a heartbeat.

Previous indications, of course, being the phenomenal success of such Peabody Award deserving flatscreen personalities as Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Mama June, Sugar Bear, Willie, Phil and/or all the other quack shots in the family.

My own premium channel prejudices notwithstanding, Angel From Hell just didn't give the key 18-49 year old advertising dollar devil its due.

So, as with our old friend Keyser Soze, like that...it's gone.

To be "replaced" by "2 Broke Girls."

Another sitcom that, rest assured and/or bet the farm, has never required any exertion to watch save for an enjoyment of, and appreciation for, 23 minutes of millennial humor which, for those unaware, consists primarily (oh, what the hell, completely) of setups and punchlines pretty much exclusively drawn from the manual labeled "sexual and/or scatological".

T&A and/or f***ing and/or fart jokes, for those whose libraries lack a thesaurus.

Which brings us back to Trump and Sanders.

And their new found place at the top of their respective piles.

In a campaign year where the term "pile" has new, and multiple, meanings.

And the once only analysis I promised you at the outset.

When people (read: the American voters in the year 2016) are sufficiently unhappy with what they see week in/week out, they turn away from it in droves.

The key term there, of course, being sufficiently unhappy and not just unhappy. Each and every election cycle creates the illusion of voter unhappiness but "throw the bums out" is, as a rule, only hot air from voters spewed in response to the hot air spewed by the applicable bums.

With a documented "incumbent re-election" rate of 90% in this country, "throw the bums out" has about as much real meaning as, say, "new and improved."

This time around, though, this particular election year, 2016, has, at least for now, all the appearances of the appearance of an honest to God, we ain't kiddin' around "sufficiently unhappy" electorate.

And when people really decide that they really don't like what they don't like they really want it gone.

Viewers don't like Angel From Hell.

So it's got to go.

Voters don't like the status quo.

So it's got to go.  (By the way, for clarity sake, the term "status quo" here refers to any and all candidates who have even a whiff of the "same old, same old" about them)

At first, the long term quality and/or amount of improvement expected from whatever is available as replacement isn't so much a priority concern as is just getting rid of that which doesn't work.

Clearly viewers don't like Angel From Hell.

Jane Lynch? Outta there.

In her place...

Really? "2 Broke Girls"?

Clearly voters don't like the status quo.

Hillary, Jeb, Ted, Marco, Chris?

So far, outta there.

In their place?

Really?

Donald?

Bernie?

Sometimes people assume, without thinking about it too much, that different and better are the same thing.

Sometimes they are.

And sometimes they're not.

Replacing "Angel from Hell" with "2 Broke Girls" puts a check in the "not" column.

As to Trump and Sanders?

That remains to be seen.

Stay tuned.

"...Two Ways It Will Happen....No Way....And No F***ing Way..."

Seven words are going to prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming President of the United States.

Just seven words.

And no, thank you, very much, students of classic comedy, not to mention "helpers" who always (think they) know the punchline before it's delivered, not the seven words immortalized by George Carlin in his seminal monologue, "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television."

These particular seven words are perfectly acceptable for family consumption and conform to all broadcast standards.

Oh, by the way, "helpers", those last three words there, "all broadcast standards" are an oxymoronic punchline all by themselves these days.

Meanwhile, back to Bernie...

The post-Iowa skirmishes between the Bern and the Hill (she really needs a cool nickname, don't you think?) didn't result in any revelations from the Vermont senator, nothing headline making, earth shaking or even particularly new to those who have been paying any attention for the last few months.

What we/you saw/see when it comes to Bernie Sanders, or Hillary, for that matter, is pretty much what you/we get.

He is, obviously, a man with an agenda, several, many, in fact, but there's nothing to indicate that he has any agenda(s) hidden away, to be sprung on us in some kind of after inauguration "ah-HA!" moment of revealed treachery and/or deception.

Somehow, I get the feeling that "executive order" isn't a button a guy like Bern is likely to even have in the office, let alone right there on the desk, next to the phone and pencil cup and pictures of the family.

Whatever else he is, or isn't, Bernie Sanders has not been, because he really can't be, accused of being anything other than a straight shooter.

Whether or not you like his rootin tootin style, his brand of bullets or the targets at which he is aiming.

Speaking of...


The head of Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday that Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."

Lloyd Blankfein, who is chairman and CEO of the bank, was speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

In January, Sanders was asked by Bloomberg Politics to list an example of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein.

“I don’t take it personally since we never met," Blankfein responded.

But he added that Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.

“It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line,” Blankfein said. “It’s a liability to say I’m going to compromise I’m going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you’ll never compromise. It’s just incredible. It’s a moment in history.”


Old definition.

Mixed feelings is seeing your ex-wife drive off a cliff...in your brand new Ferrari.

New definition.

Mixed feelings is hearing that bankers and billionaires are feeling threatened.

Actually, no, you know what?

Scratch that.

There's no mixed feelings there at all.

I feel pretty confident that nobody actually reading this piece is feeling at all upset by the idea.

Because I feel equally confident that the readership demographic of my work is very, very lean on bankers and billionaires.

As for the rest of us?

Dollars to day old doughnuts (staying within our budgets, don't you see) that we're all, at least, a little jazzed by the idea of the fat cats feeling a little less imperial these days.

Yeah.

That's right.

Let them eat cake.

And it's more than a little fun that Mr. Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein seems to be unaware that he is validating our paltry peasant perspective that the uber rich folk really, really are out of touch with life down here on planet middle class by actually allowing into print his fears that Mr. Sanders' candidacy represents a threat to them.

Them, of course, being the uber rich folk.

Because Bernie wants to take a lot of their money and just give it away to the riff raff living down here on planet middle class.

Uh, excuse me...Mr. Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein?....uh....calm down a little, dude. It's gonna be okay.

Bernie Sanders ain't Robin Hood.

And you guys ain't the evil Prince John and his partner in crime, the sinister Guy of Gisbourne.

Oh, you're evil and sinister and shit, but the leotard look?

You could never pull it off, man.

And Bernie isn't talking about stealing from you to give to the poor.

Or as they're more commonly known, everybody who doesn't belong to your country club.

He's simply, and folksy-ishly, talking about working to change a country that is currently owned, and operated, by a few very, very, very....very wealthy people into a country that is owned and run by that most magical of heretofore mythical groups.....

"we, the people."

Yeah, okay. So the ice cube has a better chance in hell.

Because you guys can be pretty mean when riff raff dares to knock on the door of your country club and ask for a tee time.

Or an application.

Or, God forbid, a crust of bread.

And purchasing power means the ability to purchase lots of power.

And lots of power enables people to do lots of things mere mortals could never do.

Two words.

Jimmy Hoffa.

But I digress.

While you and your ebony black American Express card qualified Decepticons may be feeling a little quivery at the idea that Bernie will show up at your monogrammed vaults and load up sacks of your greenbacks to dole out to the rabble,  there are some of us who have neither a fear of the rumored looting (because even if it went down, we ain't got nothin' he'd want to loot, anyway) nor any excited anticipation that our lives are about to do a 180, thanks to the arrival of truck loads of the aforementioned captured currency in our tidy, but admittedly tiny, middle class, suburban driveways.

Some of us understand that it's not going to happen.

First, because we simply don't think that what Bernie Sanders is saying translates into a warning of the impending arrival of any neo-Robin Hood.

Second, because we do think that all he is saying is that it's time to try and put a stop to half a dozen people owning America and their thinking of the other 318, 899, 994 (at this writing) citizens of the United States as tenants who should be grateful for the space they've been granted in a really, really big ass rental property.

Third, though, it's totally understandable why you would want to never want to see Bernie anywhere near a headset calling the plays.

Government by oligarchy is never, ever...ever to be found on a level playing field.

Again, though, all you Richie Riches of the U.S. of A., not to worry.

Your monopoly is safer than money in a mattress.

Bernie will never get anywhere near Boardwalk or Park Place.

And there's no need to worry about all those other terrifyingly "radical" ideas/plans of his.

Like an educational system that welcomes new graduates into the world, and work force, unburdened by an obscene debt that will take them more than the rest of their working life to settle.

Like a heath care system that actually offers health care at a fair and reasonable cost.

Like the literal elimination of wasteful government spending (a delightfully redundant phrase) and the implementation of sensible spending on programs and opportunities and infrastructure, et al.

And that's just the top three on the Bernie Sanders hit list.

Fair play?

Reasonable and sensible spending?

Debt free education and care of our nation's health?

Seriously, what is up with this guy?

Is he Cuh-raaaaazy?

This is America.

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

The nation where, as folk hero Gordon Gekko so eloquently offered some years ago, "greed...for lack of a better word...is good..."

But even if greed and avarice and sloth (oh, my) were to evaporate over night, there would still be, insuring that somebody well intended but, obviously, deluded like Bernie, a fail safe that would prevent any common sense, good judgement, fair play or reasonable methodology to find its way into the American mainstream of operation.

Seven words.

The seven words that have resulting in management in almost every professional field since the beginning of time digging in heels to prevent any change or variation from the "manual" regardless of how much sense any change or adjustment might obviously make.

The seven words that are to experimentation and/or innovation like Kryptonite is to the Man of Steel.

The seven words that will be hauled out, doled out, spewed out and/or fast drawn from the head honcho holster to bring down any upstart, impertinent attempt to make things better than they are.

All Bernie Sanders is really talking about is getting rid of waste and implementing balance.

Shutting down old and inefficient ways of doing things and implementing new and efficient ways of doing things.

Eliminating failed methods and instituting potentially successful methods.

But it ain't gonna happen.

And I don't know about naming that tune in seven notes, but I can sure sum up why Bernie's quest is valiant but in vain in seven words,

"We've never done it that way before."

Which, automatically and inevitably, activates the go switch on another written in stone American axiom.

The more things change....





 

"...If You're Winter Gift Shopping For HIllary, Skip The Muffler....She's Good..."

The problem Hillary is having getting people to buy her message about money isn't that it's meandering.

Or that it's messy.

Or even that it's mealy mouthed.

More in a moment.

In her second presidential campaign, Clinton clearly doesn't want to win through a war of attrition. She's sick of Sanders casting himself as the protector of the progressive realm against the corrupting influence of the Clintons, and she is ready to extinguish the Bern now.

After yet another Sanders swipe at Clinton as part of a political establishment bankrolled by Wall Street and drug companies, she unloaded.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

Then she challenged him: "If you've got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received."

And finally, Clinton made it just a little bit more personal, saying: "I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks."

But, at the same time....

Wall Street continues to be full of potholes for the former secretary of state. 

Her pragmatism and her accusations of an "artful smear" on Sanders' part don't erase the political problem caused by her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs -- which she had joked about in a CNN town hall the night before, saying with a laugh that the $675,000 in speaking fees she received was what they'd offered. 

On Thursday, Clinton admitted her mistake. 

"I may not have done the job I should in explaining my record," she said, arguing that she was tough on bankers behind closed doors and has been in the 2016 campaign, as well.

Uh, yo, there, Hill....to paraphrase our down under buddy, Crocodile Dundee....

"...that's not a mistake......now....that's a mistake...."

And, in this case, the mistake that is the mistake is either the inability to read and understand (unlikely given Hillary's long experience at playing the game) or inability to lock on to a way to once and for all deal with (much more likely given Hillary's long experience at playing the game) with the unavoidable, and inevitable, phrase that pays in the artful smearing less sophisticated folks know better as "politics".

Perception is reality.

In this instance, we're talking the theory proven, to borrow a Hillary phrase, "time and time again" that people, average, everyday, go to work, come home and wonder how to run out of month before  they run out of money people aren't likely to change their minds about something, or someone, once they have formed an opinion about that something or someone.

Oh. It's possible.

But, it's also possible that Miley and Liam will live happily every after because she'll give up acting like a budget brand circa 80's Madonna on stage, complete with porn style balloon animals.

It's just not likely.

Just like the likelihood that people who don't like Hillary, who don't believe Hillary and who don't trust Hillary will just up and decide, "what the hell, let's like, believe and trust Hillary" because she says she's not beholden to all them fat cat, Silver Cloud ridin', country club memberin' uber-rich corporate CEO's.

Oh. Well, if she says she's not beholden, then, surely, she must not be beholden.

Matter of fact, if you need any further convincing, just listen to any of the hundreds of speeches she's going to give between now and November 8.

And, bless her heart, she's giving all of those speeches at no charge.

As opposed to the 675 grand she scored from the Goldman Sachs chats.

But, only, you know, because that's what they offered.

And right there, kids, is the problem that Hillary is having getting people to buy her message about money.

It's not that its meandering.

Or messy.

Or even mealy mouthed.

It's that the message is muffled.

Which is what happens to the sound of someone speaking....

...when they try to speak from so far down inside someone's pocket.

"...Better...Better...Worse...Better...Worse...The Same...Better...Worse..."

The prognosticators, pundits and post -game analysts are, within the predictable margin of prediction error all pretty much agreed on, at the very rock bottom least, one thing.

No absolutely clear winner in Iowa last night.

The prognosticators, pundits and post-game analysts are, actually, absolutely wrong.

Notwithstanding all the spin, swivel, slant, twist, turn and/or tweak the applicable assessors might put on the performance of their particular pony in this first race toward the Triple Crown of American Politics, the numbers, those pesky little digits that both metaphorically and in actuality never lie, sum up last night's contest in the cornfields as follows:

A three way race on the Republican side.

A dead Democratic heat between the two remaining after O'Malley decided that there was no real difference between being almost completely ignored and being completely ignored..

Leaving those still standing, and us, for that matter, with those three words that any and all with a stake in the game will avoid like the third rail in the subway.

No clear winner.

Once again, au contrare', mon patriotic frere'.

In the first actual ladling out of proof flavored pudding in what promises to be one of those campaign years people will be talking about for years to come, one conclusion requires no jumping in order to arrive.

America, at least the America that was represented last night by the fine folks of the Hawkeye State, has, thus far, no crystal clear vision of where it is, where it wants to go and who it wants to lead on the journey to that destination.

In fact, it might be argued that, given the lack of a clear favorite on either side, the country might not be at all happy with what they're seeing around them, but can't, for whatever reason, see where it is they need to go.

All of which makes last night's outcome a big, big win for at least one group of Americans.

Opticians.

Talk about retail politics.

"...The Best Things In Life Are Free...Which Explains The Quality Of Government..."

Take a look at how Dylan Rattigan gets cookin' here.

And then I'll boil it down just a smidge.

NEWS ANCHOR COMPLETELY LOSES IT FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE REASON
Posted by Giggle Palooza on Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Nice to see a little purposeful passion, for a change.

As opposed, of course, to your everyday, garden variety, run of the mill pandering passion.

And Rattigan is obviously locked on to the root cause of the primary problem in our contemporary political system.

He's on the money, as it were.

Because it's about the money.

For what they're worth, though, here's my two cents.

This conversation (really more of a monologue, actually, but, hey, you go, guy) also comes with a special bonus.

Intended, or otherwise, it's a perfect illustration of the impotency of one of those phrases that gets thrown around like it was some kind politic panacea.

"Take our country back."

I hear that a lot when doing a radio show and I'm programmed to immediately react by responding with two very wacky words.

"From who?"

Well, actually, on those days when the fearful, but lovingly intended conditioning I got from my 7th grand English teacher, Mrs. Baker, kicks in, it's more like....

"From whom?..."

The answer from the listener/caller side of the shows unfailingly comes in some variation of the same old, tried and true.

"Those (fill in the blank with any particular, derisive, profane adjective preferred) politicians who (fill in the blank with any particular, incompetent, treasonous activity or performance preferred)..."

Here's the part of that whole knee jerk back and forth that simply doesn't jive.

The taking back of the country thing is all very well and good....and God bless America and all that.

It's that "from whom" thing that gets all tangled up in red, white and blue.

And Rattigan spells it out nicely.

If a little wordily.

That's not meant as a shot, by the way, because I am fully aware and admittin' that I could rightly be accused of libeling Mr. Rattigan as a black kettle.

But, this little literary loony bin where I chit and chat is entitled "Politics In Plain English" for a reason.

So let me offer up a little plain English here.

The problem is not the politicians.

The problem is those who own them.

When that changes, things will change.

Until that changes, nothing will change,

If the neighbor's dog shits in your yard, you're, obviously and instinctively, going to be annoyed with the damn dog.

But after just a few seconds of rage morphs into a more lengthy period of reason, you know exactly where to place the blame.

On the damn dog's owner.

The dog is (big DUHH here) merely doing what the owner allows and.or encourages the dog to do.

Especially when the dog knows it will get, and has come to expect, treats from that owner.

So, all you zany "take our country back" patriots out there in freedom land, listen up.

The biggest threat to our republic in this year of our Lord, 2016 A.D. is not.....

Terrorism.

Taxes.

Even terms that we say we'd like to see limited.

The threat....

...is treats.

Chew on that.