“I believe that opening one’s self to another in trust requires greater courage than any act of purely physical valor, because we are risking what we judge to be most precious - our own ego. To make one’s self vulnerable is the highest form of compliment, for it is a statement of our greatest gift to another person - our trust in him.”
------ George Leonard
November 1985
Posted by: Cowboy Bob
January 22, 2011
sbphilosopher@gmail.com
Sunday, January 23, 2011
"The Evolving Relationship"
Like many people, I am a person who, over the course of my adult life, has tucked away bits of wisdom for periodic refreshers in the future. Unfortunately, those intentions are quickly forgotten as are those bits of wisdom. As I re-discover some of those treasures, I will share them with you.
Cowboy Bob
January 22, 2011
THE EVOLVING RELATIONSHIP
by
Jordan Paul, Ph.D and Margaret Paul, Ph.D
We are not born afraid to show our emotions. Babies freely express their feels of pain, joy, sexuality. Unafraid of rejection, we are born open to life, curious, eager to learn. We cry when unhappy, hurt or afraid. Later, when happy, we add laughter to our natural repertoire of behavior and still later, sexual feelings and curiosity are naturally expressed. We flowed from our instinctual, inner self and were one with that natural self -- our outer behavior and inner feelings were harmonious. We are not born afraid of being who we really are.
The more approval children get for their natural self the greater their self-esteem. It’s that kind of love which teaches faith and self-respect. We all need love if the potential in all areas of our personality is to flower. Only by meeting challenges can we grow, but when we are afraid of failure, disapproval, and rejection, we pull in, afraid to venture further and test ourselves out.
The messages we start receiving soon after birth, however, are that there is something wrong with us. Our cries often bring disapproval -- “Don’t cry” (accompanied with irritation, anger, hitting). “You’re too sensitive” (said with disgust). “You mean that hurt your feelings?” (said with derision). “You shouldn’t let things like that upset you.” (said with caring but an obvious message that there’s something wrong with you for feeling sad). “I’ll give you something to cry about.” (no comment necessary for that one). Expressions of intense, spontaneous, free-flowing joy and curiosity bring more disapproval - “Calm down,” “Control yourself,” “Don’t ask so many questions.” (all carrying the message that you’re wrong, bad, not right). Expressions of sexuality bring even more disapproval A great deal of our natural curiosity, openness, and sensitivity -- fear, sadness, frustration, joy, sexuality, sensuality -- is made wrong by those who are most important to us; our family.
How could we, as young children, have believed we were okay when the constant overt and covert beat of our parents’ message was, “You are not okay. You need to change who you really are and become what we think you should be and then you will be lovable.” Since children are very sensitive to parental rejection, disapproval hurts and is frightening. Needing our parents love and approval but not getting support for who we really are, we become protected with the hope of becoming lovable. We learn to hide our natural responses by either suppressing our feelings or getting angry.
As we grow up, our protections become so well engrained and automatic that, as adults, we are often unaware that we’re protected most of the time. We become so identified with our protected side we may believe that’s who we really are. When protections are lowered (for instance, when we fall in love, ingest certain chemicals, or go on vacation) the person we experience may not feel like our real self. Our natural self may have diminished to the point where it feels like a stranger.
We become approval seekers, afraid to be ourselves, believing that we’re not okay, forgetting our real identity, looking to others to tell us how to be. We absorb our parents’ beliefs that the universe is a dangerous, unfriendly place and therefore we must always be on guard, protected. We lose faith in ourselves, in the God within and without. Putting most of our energy into trying to be what we hope will be an okay, acceptable, lovable, worthwhile person; we lose touch with who we really are.
The poster in our office, which is almost everyone’s favorite, shows a very sad dog looking out a window saying, “I’ve tried so hard to be what I’m supposed to be that I forgot who I am.” Not a very pretty situation, is it? And we keep doing this generation after generation. Is there any wonder that we have such little faith in the inherent goodness of either ourselves or our children?
Jordan Paul and Margaret Paul, authors of the book Do I Have To Give Up Me To Be Loved By You? are psychologists and are licensed Marriage
Cowboy Bob
January 22, 2011
THE EVOLVING RELATIONSHIP
by
Jordan Paul, Ph.D and Margaret Paul, Ph.D
We are not born afraid to show our emotions. Babies freely express their feels of pain, joy, sexuality. Unafraid of rejection, we are born open to life, curious, eager to learn. We cry when unhappy, hurt or afraid. Later, when happy, we add laughter to our natural repertoire of behavior and still later, sexual feelings and curiosity are naturally expressed. We flowed from our instinctual, inner self and were one with that natural self -- our outer behavior and inner feelings were harmonious. We are not born afraid of being who we really are.
The more approval children get for their natural self the greater their self-esteem. It’s that kind of love which teaches faith and self-respect. We all need love if the potential in all areas of our personality is to flower. Only by meeting challenges can we grow, but when we are afraid of failure, disapproval, and rejection, we pull in, afraid to venture further and test ourselves out.
The messages we start receiving soon after birth, however, are that there is something wrong with us. Our cries often bring disapproval -- “Don’t cry” (accompanied with irritation, anger, hitting). “You’re too sensitive” (said with disgust). “You mean that hurt your feelings?” (said with derision). “You shouldn’t let things like that upset you.” (said with caring but an obvious message that there’s something wrong with you for feeling sad). “I’ll give you something to cry about.” (no comment necessary for that one). Expressions of intense, spontaneous, free-flowing joy and curiosity bring more disapproval - “Calm down,” “Control yourself,” “Don’t ask so many questions.” (all carrying the message that you’re wrong, bad, not right). Expressions of sexuality bring even more disapproval A great deal of our natural curiosity, openness, and sensitivity -- fear, sadness, frustration, joy, sexuality, sensuality -- is made wrong by those who are most important to us; our family.
How could we, as young children, have believed we were okay when the constant overt and covert beat of our parents’ message was, “You are not okay. You need to change who you really are and become what we think you should be and then you will be lovable.” Since children are very sensitive to parental rejection, disapproval hurts and is frightening. Needing our parents love and approval but not getting support for who we really are, we become protected with the hope of becoming lovable. We learn to hide our natural responses by either suppressing our feelings or getting angry.
As we grow up, our protections become so well engrained and automatic that, as adults, we are often unaware that we’re protected most of the time. We become so identified with our protected side we may believe that’s who we really are. When protections are lowered (for instance, when we fall in love, ingest certain chemicals, or go on vacation) the person we experience may not feel like our real self. Our natural self may have diminished to the point where it feels like a stranger.
We become approval seekers, afraid to be ourselves, believing that we’re not okay, forgetting our real identity, looking to others to tell us how to be. We absorb our parents’ beliefs that the universe is a dangerous, unfriendly place and therefore we must always be on guard, protected. We lose faith in ourselves, in the God within and without. Putting most of our energy into trying to be what we hope will be an okay, acceptable, lovable, worthwhile person; we lose touch with who we really are.
The poster in our office, which is almost everyone’s favorite, shows a very sad dog looking out a window saying, “I’ve tried so hard to be what I’m supposed to be that I forgot who I am.” Not a very pretty situation, is it? And we keep doing this generation after generation. Is there any wonder that we have such little faith in the inherent goodness of either ourselves or our children?
Jordan Paul and Margaret Paul, authors of the book Do I Have To Give Up Me To Be Loved By You? are psychologists and are licensed Marriage
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Great Source of Exceptional Insights
For sometime I have been subscribed to an outstanding source of information regarding the politics and government of this country. The guy's intellect and ability to write makes mine pale in comparison.
I highly recommend that you check out The Regressive Antidote (dmg@REGRESSIVEANTIDOTE.NET), written by David Michael Green, who is a Professor of Political Science at Hofstra University on Long Island, New York. He will help to keep you focused on what is happening. You will find him extremely interesting, provocative, funny and sardonic.
Good reading!
Cowboy Bob
The Sagebrush Philosopher
January 20, 2011
I highly recommend that you check out The Regressive Antidote (dmg@REGRESSIVEANTIDOTE.NET), written by David Michael Green, who is a Professor of Political Science at Hofstra University on Long Island, New York. He will help to keep you focused on what is happening. You will find him extremely interesting, provocative, funny and sardonic.
Good reading!
Cowboy Bob
The Sagebrush Philosopher
January 20, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"Big Brother Is Watching; I Must Be Doing Something Right!"
To say that I am more than mildly irritated would be an understatement, the reasons for which will become apparent within the context of this epistle.
As most bloggers do, I have a monitoring service that tracks various interesting and relevant aspects of activity on my blog site. The information provided is innocuous but does provide valuable data relative to the distribution and interest in what I have written.
For sometime it has been common knowledge that Google has been providing surveillance services to the U.S. Government without informing or gaining the approval of their subscribers. My monitoring service has routinely shown that my blog is reviewed on a daily basis, without fail, by googlebot in Mountain View, California. Three days ago, I decided it would be the decent and kind thing to do to (a) make them aware of the fact that I was cognizant of their monitoring my blog for reasons unknown to me, but (b) I am sure the U.S. Government must be very pleased with their diligence in carrying out their surveillance activities. The next two days indicated a sudden absence of any such activity by googlebot. I must have hit a nerve somewhere within that vast organization.
Today, I opened the monitoring report from the service to which I subscribe. Rather than the customary few, I was greeted with 19 hits, from unknown sources, in the past two days with 134 pages of what I have, so far, published on my blog and which have been “viewed” by those same sources. I immediately concluded that I must have struck a nerve somewhere in the vast labyrinths of the murky world of intelligence. Why? Was it for the purpose of intimidation or something far more sinister? How am I to know?
Permit me to set the record straight. I have two serious concerns about where this country is headed. One is the broad base of complacency and sheer ignorance among the electorate of this country that enables those in positions of prominence who choose to exploit their trust for less than noble purposes. The other is the cadre of “politicos” and vested interests that have profited handsomely from that broad base of apathy and ignorance. It has not been just an opportunity for those who exploit it for ulterior motives; it has been a veritable gold mine that just keeps on giving to those who wish to profit.
On the outside chance the terrible tragedy in Tucson, Arizona may figure into this equation, let me make it abundantly clear that there is no place in this country for violence or the wholesale prostitution that enables violence to be done in our name. I would ask you, are tragedies such as mass murder and assassinations that are so much a part of the fabric of this nation the fault of the people? I think not. Once again, I have no doubts but that our ignorance and complacency help to make those acts of violence possible. But, that same ignorance and complacency has enabled the legions of politicians and the complicity of vested interests to profit handsomely from the massive amounts of money that have flowed into their coffers. The most prominent is the National Rifle Association, and other organizations and individuals of like mind, all for the avowed purpose of aborting any attempts at meaningful gun control, that would effectively reduce the threat posed by the indiscriminate proliferation of guns and other weapons of violence that are a constant threat to all peace-loving people. Why have they not been held to account for their blatant disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country they are sworn to uphold? Why in the world would any citizen of this country need a gun for any purpose other than game hunting and law enforcement? The smoke screen of guns for personal protection is more illusory than an established fact. Truth be known, most of those guns probably pose more of a threat to the owner than they do to the imagined criminal that is going to break into their homes with the intent of doing them bodily harm.
Why, I ask you, do we permit those on the lunatic fringe and those right, smack dab in the middle, to cow and intimidate us into believing that owning guns is a fundamental right and an absolute necessity? To the extent that perception exists in regard to the Second Amendment, as far as I am concerned, it could and should be changed. We are a long way away from the frontier that spawned that mind set. The world of today is far too dangerous, and modern weaponry is far too sophisticated, for us to hang onto the mistaken notion that by curtailing the ownership and latent power of those lethal instruments is somehow a violation of our civil rights. To that I would say, “Hogwash.” Thank God Dick Cheney only had a hunting rifle. I shudder to think what might have been the outcome if his weapon had a magazine which held 32 rounds of ammunition. The entire hunting party might have been leveled.
If we are ever to curtail the power of conspiracy theorists or other fringe elements, then there has to be absolute transparency in government. For far too long we have acquiesced to those who convince us it is, somehow, essential to our national security. I doubt the veracity of that statement. Rather, the excesses of the power of that privilege have done more to enable those who seek to exploit the people of this country than to protect them. The gun-control issue is but one. How about those who enable legislatures to make secret deals that are clearly contrary to the best interests of and the will of the people? How about those who vote for and support illegal wars that have virtually no relevance to any real threat to our standing as a world power?
I believe every healthy relationship ever known to mankind must, by definition, be a reciprocal relationship. People who profit from our society must give back to it in equal measure. That means opportunity and economic justice for all. To the extent that does not happen, then someone suffers. Right now, those suffering the most are those who have been most exploited by the very ones who should be concerned about them.
You cannot have a civilized society without paying your fair share of the taxes. You cannot have a modern, healthy democracy by reducing working people to the level of serfs. Eventually, it will come back to bite the “haves” on the ass to their individual and collective peril. My worst fear is that, because there is such a preponderance of weaponry in the hands of those at the bottom of the food chain, they will be pushed to the point of desperation. That, in turn, will lead them to take up their guns, go to the streets and take that which they have been denied the right to earn by honest means. That, folks is a fact of life and not the machinations of an insane mind. That is reality and simple, elementary logic.
We can never hope to have a healthy, viable society unless there is equal opportunity for all. That, by definition, supports the notion that we have an obligation, as a society, to protect ourselves from the frailties of our own human nature. We must ensure that there are regulations and oversight in place to accomplish that, with full accountability and transparency for those dependent upon and affected by those safeguards. Otherwise, we will all be held hostage to raw power in all its forms from which we, as a people and a nation, will continue to suffer.
Our society must rest on a solid base of all those virtues that have somehow fallen out of vogue by the narcissistic, hedonistic and materialistic pursuits that have dominated our national psyche for much too long. Call them what you will, but they are a measure of what we refer to as matters of “morality” or “character.” They are all around us and, if we will but look for them, they exist within most of us. Our very human decency depends on recognition of the fact that, ultimately, they must be the guiding principles by which we live.
For those of you in the United States and Canada who feel the need to monitor the works of people, such as me, who genuinely give a damn about our country and its people in their entirety, I would suggest you reign in your paranoia. You don’t have to sit in some darkened room in front of a computer monitoring my every word. I have nothing to hide and nothing about which I should feel a modicum of shame. Just send me your e-mail address and I will be more than happy to refer you to every blog I post from this point forward. That will eliminate the rather clandestine and sordid manner in which you feel you have to work in order to peruse my meager attempts at writing. Hopefully, you may find a few pearls of wisdom within those words that will provide you with a few insights into another perspective which you might find helpful. If that is the case, then all this will not have been in vain.
As of this writing, I have a deep and abiding concern about the manner in which those we elect to office have chosen to do the people’s business. Am I going to stop criticizing the mainstream political parties? No. Am I going to stop criticizing the institutions of government? No. Am I going to stop criticizing our government for the manner in which it chooses to operate? No. Am I going to stop criticizing those who profit from the compromises made on their behalf by our government officials? No. Am I going to stop criticizing a corporate news media that fails to serve as the real watchdog on government? No. To do otherwise would be an abdication of my principles of personal integrity and fair play. It would be an abdication of my responsibility as a citizen, and it would be an abdication of my duty as an American.
I have little confidence that the changes we need to make in order to repair the damage done to this democracy are going to be realized any time soon. For that reason, I still hold firmly to the belief that we need a new political party, the main thrust of which is to restore integrity to our government, the way it does business and the manner in which it relates to the people who support it. Only through a duly elected government that is spawned by that new political perspective and dedicated to the finest ideals for governing, can we hope to restore this country to the greatness it once was, and bring it back from the brink on which it currently stands.
Cowboy Bob
January 13, 2011
As most bloggers do, I have a monitoring service that tracks various interesting and relevant aspects of activity on my blog site. The information provided is innocuous but does provide valuable data relative to the distribution and interest in what I have written.
For sometime it has been common knowledge that Google has been providing surveillance services to the U.S. Government without informing or gaining the approval of their subscribers. My monitoring service has routinely shown that my blog is reviewed on a daily basis, without fail, by googlebot in Mountain View, California. Three days ago, I decided it would be the decent and kind thing to do to (a) make them aware of the fact that I was cognizant of their monitoring my blog for reasons unknown to me, but (b) I am sure the U.S. Government must be very pleased with their diligence in carrying out their surveillance activities. The next two days indicated a sudden absence of any such activity by googlebot. I must have hit a nerve somewhere within that vast organization.
Today, I opened the monitoring report from the service to which I subscribe. Rather than the customary few, I was greeted with 19 hits, from unknown sources, in the past two days with 134 pages of what I have, so far, published on my blog and which have been “viewed” by those same sources. I immediately concluded that I must have struck a nerve somewhere in the vast labyrinths of the murky world of intelligence. Why? Was it for the purpose of intimidation or something far more sinister? How am I to know?
Permit me to set the record straight. I have two serious concerns about where this country is headed. One is the broad base of complacency and sheer ignorance among the electorate of this country that enables those in positions of prominence who choose to exploit their trust for less than noble purposes. The other is the cadre of “politicos” and vested interests that have profited handsomely from that broad base of apathy and ignorance. It has not been just an opportunity for those who exploit it for ulterior motives; it has been a veritable gold mine that just keeps on giving to those who wish to profit.
On the outside chance the terrible tragedy in Tucson, Arizona may figure into this equation, let me make it abundantly clear that there is no place in this country for violence or the wholesale prostitution that enables violence to be done in our name. I would ask you, are tragedies such as mass murder and assassinations that are so much a part of the fabric of this nation the fault of the people? I think not. Once again, I have no doubts but that our ignorance and complacency help to make those acts of violence possible. But, that same ignorance and complacency has enabled the legions of politicians and the complicity of vested interests to profit handsomely from the massive amounts of money that have flowed into their coffers. The most prominent is the National Rifle Association, and other organizations and individuals of like mind, all for the avowed purpose of aborting any attempts at meaningful gun control, that would effectively reduce the threat posed by the indiscriminate proliferation of guns and other weapons of violence that are a constant threat to all peace-loving people. Why have they not been held to account for their blatant disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country they are sworn to uphold? Why in the world would any citizen of this country need a gun for any purpose other than game hunting and law enforcement? The smoke screen of guns for personal protection is more illusory than an established fact. Truth be known, most of those guns probably pose more of a threat to the owner than they do to the imagined criminal that is going to break into their homes with the intent of doing them bodily harm.
Why, I ask you, do we permit those on the lunatic fringe and those right, smack dab in the middle, to cow and intimidate us into believing that owning guns is a fundamental right and an absolute necessity? To the extent that perception exists in regard to the Second Amendment, as far as I am concerned, it could and should be changed. We are a long way away from the frontier that spawned that mind set. The world of today is far too dangerous, and modern weaponry is far too sophisticated, for us to hang onto the mistaken notion that by curtailing the ownership and latent power of those lethal instruments is somehow a violation of our civil rights. To that I would say, “Hogwash.” Thank God Dick Cheney only had a hunting rifle. I shudder to think what might have been the outcome if his weapon had a magazine which held 32 rounds of ammunition. The entire hunting party might have been leveled.
If we are ever to curtail the power of conspiracy theorists or other fringe elements, then there has to be absolute transparency in government. For far too long we have acquiesced to those who convince us it is, somehow, essential to our national security. I doubt the veracity of that statement. Rather, the excesses of the power of that privilege have done more to enable those who seek to exploit the people of this country than to protect them. The gun-control issue is but one. How about those who enable legislatures to make secret deals that are clearly contrary to the best interests of and the will of the people? How about those who vote for and support illegal wars that have virtually no relevance to any real threat to our standing as a world power?
I believe every healthy relationship ever known to mankind must, by definition, be a reciprocal relationship. People who profit from our society must give back to it in equal measure. That means opportunity and economic justice for all. To the extent that does not happen, then someone suffers. Right now, those suffering the most are those who have been most exploited by the very ones who should be concerned about them.
You cannot have a civilized society without paying your fair share of the taxes. You cannot have a modern, healthy democracy by reducing working people to the level of serfs. Eventually, it will come back to bite the “haves” on the ass to their individual and collective peril. My worst fear is that, because there is such a preponderance of weaponry in the hands of those at the bottom of the food chain, they will be pushed to the point of desperation. That, in turn, will lead them to take up their guns, go to the streets and take that which they have been denied the right to earn by honest means. That, folks is a fact of life and not the machinations of an insane mind. That is reality and simple, elementary logic.
We can never hope to have a healthy, viable society unless there is equal opportunity for all. That, by definition, supports the notion that we have an obligation, as a society, to protect ourselves from the frailties of our own human nature. We must ensure that there are regulations and oversight in place to accomplish that, with full accountability and transparency for those dependent upon and affected by those safeguards. Otherwise, we will all be held hostage to raw power in all its forms from which we, as a people and a nation, will continue to suffer.
Our society must rest on a solid base of all those virtues that have somehow fallen out of vogue by the narcissistic, hedonistic and materialistic pursuits that have dominated our national psyche for much too long. Call them what you will, but they are a measure of what we refer to as matters of “morality” or “character.” They are all around us and, if we will but look for them, they exist within most of us. Our very human decency depends on recognition of the fact that, ultimately, they must be the guiding principles by which we live.
For those of you in the United States and Canada who feel the need to monitor the works of people, such as me, who genuinely give a damn about our country and its people in their entirety, I would suggest you reign in your paranoia. You don’t have to sit in some darkened room in front of a computer monitoring my every word. I have nothing to hide and nothing about which I should feel a modicum of shame. Just send me your e-mail address and I will be more than happy to refer you to every blog I post from this point forward. That will eliminate the rather clandestine and sordid manner in which you feel you have to work in order to peruse my meager attempts at writing. Hopefully, you may find a few pearls of wisdom within those words that will provide you with a few insights into another perspective which you might find helpful. If that is the case, then all this will not have been in vain.
As of this writing, I have a deep and abiding concern about the manner in which those we elect to office have chosen to do the people’s business. Am I going to stop criticizing the mainstream political parties? No. Am I going to stop criticizing the institutions of government? No. Am I going to stop criticizing our government for the manner in which it chooses to operate? No. Am I going to stop criticizing those who profit from the compromises made on their behalf by our government officials? No. Am I going to stop criticizing a corporate news media that fails to serve as the real watchdog on government? No. To do otherwise would be an abdication of my principles of personal integrity and fair play. It would be an abdication of my responsibility as a citizen, and it would be an abdication of my duty as an American.
I have little confidence that the changes we need to make in order to repair the damage done to this democracy are going to be realized any time soon. For that reason, I still hold firmly to the belief that we need a new political party, the main thrust of which is to restore integrity to our government, the way it does business and the manner in which it relates to the people who support it. Only through a duly elected government that is spawned by that new political perspective and dedicated to the finest ideals for governing, can we hope to restore this country to the greatness it once was, and bring it back from the brink on which it currently stands.
Cowboy Bob
January 13, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
"It's More Than Just The Appearance Of Impropriety"
I have to confess that I, among millions of others, was totally mesmerized by Barack Obama during his quest for and election to the Presidency in 2008. I have to; also, confess that it did not take long for the disparity between his words and his actions to become an issue of growing concern to me. At this juncture, like so many others, I am totally disillusioned with the man euphemistically referred to as “Mr. President.” As I reflect on his record during the past two years, the only consistency I can find in his behavior is the glaring dichotomy between his posturing in public and his real persona behind closed doors with the power brokers in our economic and social systems. He is repeating that which he has so often gotten away with in all the current round of appointments to his White House Staff.
Despite the persistent need for many Progressives to view this man through rose-colored glasses, in reality he is no friend of Democrats or the American people. He is the classic caricature of an “Insider,” in every respect. He is far too cozy with some of the most sullied and evil people in the history of the Republic. They are the ones who have co-opted the entire Federal Government by doing the bidding for the oligarchs, the plutocrats, big business and the military/industrial complex.
It has become difficult, but I have come to the conclusion that his rise to power was brilliantly planned and orchestrated by some of the darkest and most powerful forces in our society. He is as ruthless and calculating as anyone who has ever sat in the White House. One only has to look at the cadre of carry-overs from the Clinton Administration and his steadfast and unwavering support of them. Every significant piece of legislation that was, ostensibly, created to serve the Middle Class and the working people of this country, in the end, has only served to further the interests of the super-rich, Wall Street and the elitists in our society. His penchant for “bi-partisanship” is nothing more than a ruse for carrying on the mission of the oligarchs, plutocrats and multi-national corporations.
The complacency among the citizens of this country is so complete that he doesn’t even bother to acknowledge that there may be some valid questions regarding his judgment and the integrity of those he is gathering around him. That, folks, is an indictment of us, not of him.
Permit me to pass on to you a few insights into the major players with whom he has surrounded himself:
GENE SPERLING:
a. Currently serving as a Counselor to TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of
The Treasury.
b. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Director of the National
Economic Council while the Council was directed by ROBERT RUBIN,
later to become Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton
Administration.
c. Became National Economic Advisor to President Clinton in 1996.
d. Principal negotiator with then Secretary of the Treasury, LAWRENCE
SUMMERS of the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, also known as
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that repealed large portions of the
Depression era Glass-Stegall Act which allowed banks, security
firms and insurance companies to merge.
WILLIAM MICHAEL DALEY:
a. Associated with the Amalgamated Bank of Chicago, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank One Corporation in Chicago.
b. In 1993 served as special counsel to the President on issues
relating to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
c. In 1997, Secretary of Commerce in the administration of President
Bill Clinton.
d. Served on the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.
e. Enthusiastically supported by JP Morgan Chairman Jamie Dimon, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Third Way and Karl Rove.
f. Was an outspoken critic of Health Care Reform, Financial Regulation
and The Consumer Protection Agency.
LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS:
a. Director of the White House National Economic Council for President
Barack Obama.
b. Staff of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan.
c. Served as economic advisor to Michael Dukakis in 1988.
d. Chief Economist for the World Bank 1991-1993.
e. Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton
Administration.
f. Served in the United States Treasury during the Clinton
Administration, and was appointed Secretary of the Treasury in 1999,
succeeding ROBERT RUBIN.
g. Leading voice in the Clinton Administration against greenhouse gas
reductions and against U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol.
h. Acting on the advice of Kenneth Lay, Summers urged Governor Davis to
relax California’s environmental standards in order to reassure the markets.
i. In 1999, hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which lifted more than
six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial
banking, insurance and investment services (by repealing key
provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act).
j. As a member of President Clinton’s Working Group on Financial
Markets, Summers, along with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, Fed Chairman Greenspan and
Secretary Rubin, torpedoed an effort to regulate the derivatives
that many blame for bringing the financial market down in the Fall
of 2008.
TIMOTHY FRANZ GEITHNER:
a. Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998
-2001) under Treasury Secretaries ROBERT RUBIN and LAWRENCE
SUMMERS in the Clinton Administration.
b. In 1993 named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
c. Instrumental in the rescue and sale of Bear-Stearns in 2008, and the
subsequent bailouts that followed at the end of the Bush
Administration and the beginning of the Obama Administration.
d. Currently serving as the Secretary of the Treasury under President
Obama.
Early in my career as an executive, I was advised by a young and highly principled attorney that if one is to maintain his character, he must not just avoid anything that would lead to self-serving compromise, but one must judiciously avoid anything that might have the “appearance” of compromise. That is a piece of advice I never forgot, and which I believe to be as poignant today as it was then. Sadly, to use a popular cliché, “we have moved on,” and no longer seem to place much stock in that bit of wisdom. We think nothing of committing infractions against the principles that define our character. We are the poorer for it.
If the characters I have profiled above don’t meet the test of “appearance,’ then I would ask, “What does?“ Moreover, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that their histories rise to the level of outright collusion, compromise and conflicts of interest.
I still hold out faint hope that we can somehow rescue ourselves from the dismal future staring us in the face. However, only by revisiting those principles and standards of character that once guided us in the conduct of our personal, business and public lives can we begin to turn the tide on our looming national demise. But, I don’t think we can find the rubrics upon which to build a better government among the remnants of our major political parties or within the halls of government as they currently exist. That can only come about through a new political party, dedicated to honesty and integrity in our system of government and those who serve us, and that doesn‘t shy away from perseverance and hard work.
We need a real leader that will embody the courage, decency, honesty, and integrity this nation is crying out for, with a cadre of dedicated people to make it happen, from the grass roots all the way to the top. Once those few are identified, then comes the question as to whether they want to take on such a Herculean task and the many personal sacrifices it will require. That is the stuff of heroes.
We have a few gutsy people in public service, some of whom might fit the bill. There are others out in the hinterland who might, also, be viable. That quest is probably better left to younger and better minds. The entrenched old dogs cannot be trusted with such an arduous and noble endeavor. They blew the opportunity a long, long time ago.
Whoever dares to flirt with such a venture must, of necessity, reflect on what it means to be a person of integrity sufficient to transcend being just a politician and a member in good standing with the “Old Boys Club.” His/her aspirations must ascend to a higher level that is characteristic of statesmanship and, yes, that of a real leader.
Before we go anywhere, we need to accept that we, as members of the human race, are inherently flawed. If we are to be guided by our better angels, then we must be mindful of our proclivity to fall from time to time, and not tolerate or rationalize those human frailties that mitigate against our aspirations to be good and decent people in every aspect of our lives. Self-discipline is the first canon of that endeavor. Character is lost when we deny our own foibles. It is regained when we acknowledge our imperfections and set ourselves to the task of righting the wrongs of the past.
Barry’s mantra of “Change We Can Believe In,” rings rather hollow against the backdrop of the social and economic wasteland started by Reagan and continuing unabated up to and including the incumbent resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Somehow, the credo that “Vice Is Nice, But Incest Is Best,” seems more befitting of that unholy alliance.
At the end of the day, as was once so aptly stated by some prominent mind, the name of which escapes me, says it all. “The evil that men do shall proffer so long as good men do nothing.” It is up to the collective “us” to change the direction of this country for the benefit of everyone and not just the select few who have ordained themselves the elite and privileged over the masses among us. A two-class society just isn’t in keeping with our American traditions.
If we remain complacent, quivering like a bunch of dogs passing peach seeds, the bad guys will win and we will lose. Do we really want to go down that road? I don’t think so.
Cowboy Bob
January 8, 2011
Despite the persistent need for many Progressives to view this man through rose-colored glasses, in reality he is no friend of Democrats or the American people. He is the classic caricature of an “Insider,” in every respect. He is far too cozy with some of the most sullied and evil people in the history of the Republic. They are the ones who have co-opted the entire Federal Government by doing the bidding for the oligarchs, the plutocrats, big business and the military/industrial complex.
It has become difficult, but I have come to the conclusion that his rise to power was brilliantly planned and orchestrated by some of the darkest and most powerful forces in our society. He is as ruthless and calculating as anyone who has ever sat in the White House. One only has to look at the cadre of carry-overs from the Clinton Administration and his steadfast and unwavering support of them. Every significant piece of legislation that was, ostensibly, created to serve the Middle Class and the working people of this country, in the end, has only served to further the interests of the super-rich, Wall Street and the elitists in our society. His penchant for “bi-partisanship” is nothing more than a ruse for carrying on the mission of the oligarchs, plutocrats and multi-national corporations.
The complacency among the citizens of this country is so complete that he doesn’t even bother to acknowledge that there may be some valid questions regarding his judgment and the integrity of those he is gathering around him. That, folks, is an indictment of us, not of him.
Permit me to pass on to you a few insights into the major players with whom he has surrounded himself:
GENE SPERLING:
a. Currently serving as a Counselor to TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of
The Treasury.
b. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Director of the National
Economic Council while the Council was directed by ROBERT RUBIN,
later to become Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton
Administration.
c. Became National Economic Advisor to President Clinton in 1996.
d. Principal negotiator with then Secretary of the Treasury, LAWRENCE
SUMMERS of the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, also known as
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that repealed large portions of the
Depression era Glass-Stegall Act which allowed banks, security
firms and insurance companies to merge.
WILLIAM MICHAEL DALEY:
a. Associated with the Amalgamated Bank of Chicago, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank One Corporation in Chicago.
b. In 1993 served as special counsel to the President on issues
relating to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
c. In 1997, Secretary of Commerce in the administration of President
Bill Clinton.
d. Served on the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.
e. Enthusiastically supported by JP Morgan Chairman Jamie Dimon, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Third Way and Karl Rove.
f. Was an outspoken critic of Health Care Reform, Financial Regulation
and The Consumer Protection Agency.
LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS:
a. Director of the White House National Economic Council for President
Barack Obama.
b. Staff of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan.
c. Served as economic advisor to Michael Dukakis in 1988.
d. Chief Economist for the World Bank 1991-1993.
e. Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton
Administration.
f. Served in the United States Treasury during the Clinton
Administration, and was appointed Secretary of the Treasury in 1999,
succeeding ROBERT RUBIN.
g. Leading voice in the Clinton Administration against greenhouse gas
reductions and against U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol.
h. Acting on the advice of Kenneth Lay, Summers urged Governor Davis to
relax California’s environmental standards in order to reassure the markets.
i. In 1999, hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which lifted more than
six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial
banking, insurance and investment services (by repealing key
provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act).
j. As a member of President Clinton’s Working Group on Financial
Markets, Summers, along with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, Fed Chairman Greenspan and
Secretary Rubin, torpedoed an effort to regulate the derivatives
that many blame for bringing the financial market down in the Fall
of 2008.
TIMOTHY FRANZ GEITHNER:
a. Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998
-2001) under Treasury Secretaries ROBERT RUBIN and LAWRENCE
SUMMERS in the Clinton Administration.
b. In 1993 named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
c. Instrumental in the rescue and sale of Bear-Stearns in 2008, and the
subsequent bailouts that followed at the end of the Bush
Administration and the beginning of the Obama Administration.
d. Currently serving as the Secretary of the Treasury under President
Obama.
Early in my career as an executive, I was advised by a young and highly principled attorney that if one is to maintain his character, he must not just avoid anything that would lead to self-serving compromise, but one must judiciously avoid anything that might have the “appearance” of compromise. That is a piece of advice I never forgot, and which I believe to be as poignant today as it was then. Sadly, to use a popular cliché, “we have moved on,” and no longer seem to place much stock in that bit of wisdom. We think nothing of committing infractions against the principles that define our character. We are the poorer for it.
If the characters I have profiled above don’t meet the test of “appearance,’ then I would ask, “What does?“ Moreover, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that their histories rise to the level of outright collusion, compromise and conflicts of interest.
I still hold out faint hope that we can somehow rescue ourselves from the dismal future staring us in the face. However, only by revisiting those principles and standards of character that once guided us in the conduct of our personal, business and public lives can we begin to turn the tide on our looming national demise. But, I don’t think we can find the rubrics upon which to build a better government among the remnants of our major political parties or within the halls of government as they currently exist. That can only come about through a new political party, dedicated to honesty and integrity in our system of government and those who serve us, and that doesn‘t shy away from perseverance and hard work.
We need a real leader that will embody the courage, decency, honesty, and integrity this nation is crying out for, with a cadre of dedicated people to make it happen, from the grass roots all the way to the top. Once those few are identified, then comes the question as to whether they want to take on such a Herculean task and the many personal sacrifices it will require. That is the stuff of heroes.
We have a few gutsy people in public service, some of whom might fit the bill. There are others out in the hinterland who might, also, be viable. That quest is probably better left to younger and better minds. The entrenched old dogs cannot be trusted with such an arduous and noble endeavor. They blew the opportunity a long, long time ago.
Whoever dares to flirt with such a venture must, of necessity, reflect on what it means to be a person of integrity sufficient to transcend being just a politician and a member in good standing with the “Old Boys Club.” His/her aspirations must ascend to a higher level that is characteristic of statesmanship and, yes, that of a real leader.
Before we go anywhere, we need to accept that we, as members of the human race, are inherently flawed. If we are to be guided by our better angels, then we must be mindful of our proclivity to fall from time to time, and not tolerate or rationalize those human frailties that mitigate against our aspirations to be good and decent people in every aspect of our lives. Self-discipline is the first canon of that endeavor. Character is lost when we deny our own foibles. It is regained when we acknowledge our imperfections and set ourselves to the task of righting the wrongs of the past.
Barry’s mantra of “Change We Can Believe In,” rings rather hollow against the backdrop of the social and economic wasteland started by Reagan and continuing unabated up to and including the incumbent resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Somehow, the credo that “Vice Is Nice, But Incest Is Best,” seems more befitting of that unholy alliance.
At the end of the day, as was once so aptly stated by some prominent mind, the name of which escapes me, says it all. “The evil that men do shall proffer so long as good men do nothing.” It is up to the collective “us” to change the direction of this country for the benefit of everyone and not just the select few who have ordained themselves the elite and privileged over the masses among us. A two-class society just isn’t in keeping with our American traditions.
If we remain complacent, quivering like a bunch of dogs passing peach seeds, the bad guys will win and we will lose. Do we really want to go down that road? I don’t think so.
Cowboy Bob
January 8, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
Does Anyone Believe The "Blitz" Is Good?
Don't you just love it?
The maggots for the oligarchs, in the personages of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama are coming out in droves to devour what remains of the national corpse, all the while trying to convince us that they are there to restore life to the dead!
Is any rational person actually going to fall for this? They have long ago established themselves as consummate frauds, all belonging to the same club that is destroying this country. How much more are we, the people, going to take from this bunch of marauding thieves?
When was Bill Clinton elevated to sainthood and Obama beatified, and by whose authority?
Time for a new, independent, credible political party.
Cowboy Bob
December 10, 2010
The maggots for the oligarchs, in the personages of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama are coming out in droves to devour what remains of the national corpse, all the while trying to convince us that they are there to restore life to the dead!
Is any rational person actually going to fall for this? They have long ago established themselves as consummate frauds, all belonging to the same club that is destroying this country. How much more are we, the people, going to take from this bunch of marauding thieves?
When was Bill Clinton elevated to sainthood and Obama beatified, and by whose authority?
Time for a new, independent, credible political party.
Cowboy Bob
December 10, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
“Old Glory Is Flying Upside Down On The Ship Of State”
I cannot think of an image that more typifies the state of the leadership of this country than that of Nero playing his violin while Rome burns. It really is that absurd. We are going from bad to worse at meteoric speed, and nothing serious is being done to avert the impending disaster.
Let’s face it. We have no leadership. We have not seen leadership in this country for a very long time, but we have been skillfully manipulated for decades. Sadly, it still continues. The President has done absolutely nothing to neither restore confidence in leadership from the White House nor inspire integrity in government. He has exploited our trust and confidence by pandering to the worst among us. What, I ask you, has he done to make this country better for all of us? He has been adamant about bringing in some of the most compromised and highly suspect losers from previous administrations (most notably that of Bill Clinton) and the most sinister corporate interests among us. For example, we still have Ben Bernanke at the helm of the Federal Reserve, freely manipulating our financial system much like the Wizard of Oz behind his curtain in the Emerald City. He is no longer credible. Timothy Geithner still remains as Secretary of the Treasury, despite his rather clouded past and suspect motives, with no solid base of confidence in his abilities or intentions, yet still held out by the Administration as a paragon of expertise and virtue in the world of finance.
I am now firmly convinced that absolutely nothing has or will be done in Washington for the people of this country. It just isn’t going to happen if we remain on course. The constituency of our elected officials is, without exaggeration, the world of vested interests that, by definition, are the adversaries of those who simply want to live and work in an honest and healthy society, governed by honest and able servants of the people.
Why do we insist on according deference to those who tenaciously continue to undermine the best interests of the people? I thought respect was to be earned, not conferred. What have they done to earn our respect? Not much from my perspective.
We have no dearth of knowledge, talent and intelligence to serve this country. It is all around us and, once in a while, we get a glimpse of that treasure when we are privy to a few minutes of their knowledge and talents on what passes for news programs. But, where are they in the halls of government to guide us toward a better future. They are not asked to contribute. Why? Because government doesn’t want them there. They don’t want them to complicate the pursuit or mirror the massive corruption that is all around them. Without them, the people end up the beneficiaries of a puppet show, masterfully orchestrated by the oligarchs, plutocrats and corporate barons who own every aspect of a government founded for the welfare of the people.
What did we get for a Financial Reform Bill? Who wrote it? Where were those great minds in the world of economics and finance to guide those deliberations toward a more solid, honest and enduring financial system for us all? They weren’t asked to be there. The few who tried were marginalized and told, “Thanks but no thanks.” It was business as usual, with the fox guarding the hen house.
What did we get for a national health system? Who wrote it? No one was asked to sit at the table behind closed doors to look out for our interests. “Barry” just did what he always does -- he took care of his real constituency and it sure as hell wasn’t the common folk among us, was it?
How can anyone remotely entertain the notion that there is one modicum of integrity, character and commitment to anything having to do with government and its relationship to those who put them in office? All they seek from us is our vote, and there is no limit to the methods of deception and the amount of money they will spend to get it. When the polls close, they pack up their tent and steal away to continue their plundering of the country, unbridled, for another two, four or six years. And, we the people are left with nothing.
Those who serve in the halls of government do not operate from a base of what is right, but what is expeditious and of most benefit to those who own them. It has been said that our government works on compromise. Compromise, by definition, works toward a standard, not of excellence, but of mediocrity. Bi-partisanship is compromise taken to the lowest level of acceptability to the greatest number. It accomplishes little of real substance and inspires no one. Compromise in government is analogous to what a whore does for money. They do only what they have to do for the money, and that money comes from the bottomless reservoir of power and greed that feeds our national system of governance. To think otherwise is self-delusional to the extreme.
To invite politicians, present and former, to serve on commissions and advisory groups to the government is cronyism at its worst. To ask those who are likely to be affected by the outcome to participate in framing regulations is not only a blatant conflict of interest; it is stacking the deck in their favor. No one in my lifetime has been more determined and tenacious in that regard than Barack Obama. He should know better and he should be held to a higher standard, both for what he has done and what he has not done in the public interest.
As for the watchdog function of the Fourth Estate, that evaporated a long time ago. They feed us only what the hand that feeds them wants us to know, and they skillfully shape our perceptions and appetites for the bounty of that table. And, of course, we demand nothing more. We simply accept what they have to offer. Thank God for those few brave investigative journalists who won’t give up and the medium of the Internet to facilitate their endeavors.
We have some real leaders among us, but I rather suspect that those of real character simply don’t want to venture into a world where the compromises they might be asked to make would induce an immediate need to vomit. Or, perhaps, it would place the safety of their families in jeopardy, or they simply see no real hope of changing things for the better. I respect those feelings. But it is only real leadership, based on sound character and a sense of what is right and just that is going to pull us out of this mess.
So, where does all this leave us?
I have an abiding respect for the great minds among us who may feel they cannot compromise their intellectual integrity by being actively engaged in the world of politics. However, when there is no respect for knowledge and expertise within government, where are we, the people, to look? We are in a national crisis of major proportions. I do not think the great seats of learning and the academicians who reside there can properly withhold the precious knowledge and wisdom that only they possess, that may well weigh heavily on vital issues confronting this country.
The one shining light in government is, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren. She is the personification of Joan of Arc when it comes to her courage and determination to right the egregious wrongs of the financial industries. But, how long can she hold out as the sole warrior fighting that battle? I have no confidence that she has any solid guarantee against having been marked for a limited life in the Executive Branch. After all, Timothy Geithner has made no bones about not wanting her there, and he is her boss, duly anointed by the incumbent resident in the White House. Given his track record for standing firm on his commitments, does anyone care to make book on her prospects for a long and successful future?
Every branch of government is broken. The two-party system exists in name only. Washington is awash in money and bribery on a scale never before imagined in our history. It is so powerful and so pervasive that we see faint hope of reining it in in the service of the people. We have come to accept it by default. As a consequence, we have abdicated our solemn responsibility to ensure “a government of the people, for the people and by the people.” Instead we have demagogues of every ilk taking over government. Those same demagogues offer us no insights or knowledge as to how we might constructively address the challenges we face. Rather, we get trite and simplistic solutions to very complex and complicated issues, something they are neither inclined nor capable of providing. Motive and conduct have trumped knowledge and enlightenment. Politics are pre-eminent over purpose.
There is a better way, but if government doesn’t value the great minds among us, then how can we call on them to help guide us through this sinister and perilous maze of confusion? Where can Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Morici, James Galbraith, William Black, Nouriel Roubini, Brooksley Born and all those of like mind and stature find a safe refuge in a haven where they can engage in the discourse and analysis of the great issues facing us? There have to be ways of providing for a solid foundation upon which we can build a renewed optimism that things can, indeed, get better?
Our Nation’s Capitol is replete with think tanks created for every conceivable purpose under the sun. Most of them serve various special interests or constituents that have agendas of their own.
Has not the time come for us to tap into the greatest pool of knowledge and talent among us in order to solve the myriad critical problems facing us, and to change the course of this country? I can think of no better place to seek that help than from those who occupy positions of academic stature and prominence in our nation’s universities and colleges.
Permit me to offer a suggestion.
Might it not be helpful for us consider the creation of a national organization (think tank) for the expressed purpose of calling on the best intellectual and academic minds among us to proffer solutions to the most pressing issues of our day. The final product of any such endeavor would be for the sole purpose of providing an assessment and solutions for the benefit of the people of this country, and beholden to no authority except that of this organization and the disciplines they serve. It would have no relationship to or act on behalf of any other organization, the United States Government or any agency thereof.
1. The institute would be a nonprofit organization devoted exclusively
to the study and resolution of major issues impinging on the ability
of this country to resolve matters in the best interests of its citizens.
2. The organization would be established to ensure freedom of its deliberations
from any outside interests that might seek to influence the outcome of those
deliberations.
3. A paid staff would provide the management and logistical support to
those engaged in the business of the organization.
4. Financial support would be provided by grants from private foundations and
trusts. No government, corporate or private funds would be accepted. The goals
would be to ensure absolute objectivity in all work done by and for the institute.
5. The institute would bring together the expertise culled from the various
universities and colleges specific to issues that are in keeping with their
academic pursuits. Only those having academic appointments, as their primary
vocation, would be eligible to serve on study committees. Those having ties to
other interests would, naturally, have to declare those affiliations at the outset
as a means of determining and ensuring that no bias or conflicts of interest
exists. Every effort would have to be made to ensure complete objectivity and
integrity applied to the outcome of any issue or issues under study.
6. The end result of their deliberations would be the publication of position
papers available for public consumption, and not the property of any specific
entity outside that of the institute.
a. Economists would focus on economic policies and issues, such
as the structure and regulation of the various financial
interests that impinge on the interests and health of society.
b. Trade specialists would focus on trade policies and issues.
c. Tax experts would focus on tax policies and issues.
d. Legal experts would focus on legal issues affecting the
broader society. For example, the recent ruling by the
Supreme Court on Citizens United.
e. Other interests that may have a profound and lasting affect
on society, (not necessarily in rank order of priority) such
as:
1) Deficit reduction and a healthy economy.
2) Immigration
3) Government regulation
4) Environmental issues
5) Health care policies and programs.
6) Defense policies.
7) Government procurement policies and procedures.
8) Economic stimulus goals and programs.
9) Etc.
I believe such an approach would enable society to have the benefit of the best minds, knowledge and expertise available to serve the public interest, free of influence from government, special interests and private money.
It would be a legitimate and open avenue for overcoming the shroud of mystery commonplace in government bodies. It would remove the means that enable them to serve their own interests and those who fund their ambitions, at the expense of those they are elected to serve.
Such an organization would be able to restore the “watchdog” function over government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but which has been supplanted by the interests of corporate news media.
Above all, it would establish a standard of objectivity based on knowledge that is sorely lacking in our political milieu today. Now, more than ever, the body politic and our country need the means to cut through all the deceptive practices that only seek to confuse us and cloud the issues. In the final analysis, it would introduce a level of transparency to Washington that is, at best, murky. It would bring a level of expertise to the deliberations within the halls of government that is sorely lacking. And, most of all, it would bring a new level of objectivity to the business of this country. The time has surely come.
The very survival of this country depends on the active participation of the finest minds among us. They are our best and brightest hope for addressing and solving the ominous problems we face today.
Old Glory is flying upside down on the Ship of State.
Cowboy Bob
December 5, 2010
Let’s face it. We have no leadership. We have not seen leadership in this country for a very long time, but we have been skillfully manipulated for decades. Sadly, it still continues. The President has done absolutely nothing to neither restore confidence in leadership from the White House nor inspire integrity in government. He has exploited our trust and confidence by pandering to the worst among us. What, I ask you, has he done to make this country better for all of us? He has been adamant about bringing in some of the most compromised and highly suspect losers from previous administrations (most notably that of Bill Clinton) and the most sinister corporate interests among us. For example, we still have Ben Bernanke at the helm of the Federal Reserve, freely manipulating our financial system much like the Wizard of Oz behind his curtain in the Emerald City. He is no longer credible. Timothy Geithner still remains as Secretary of the Treasury, despite his rather clouded past and suspect motives, with no solid base of confidence in his abilities or intentions, yet still held out by the Administration as a paragon of expertise and virtue in the world of finance.
I am now firmly convinced that absolutely nothing has or will be done in Washington for the people of this country. It just isn’t going to happen if we remain on course. The constituency of our elected officials is, without exaggeration, the world of vested interests that, by definition, are the adversaries of those who simply want to live and work in an honest and healthy society, governed by honest and able servants of the people.
Why do we insist on according deference to those who tenaciously continue to undermine the best interests of the people? I thought respect was to be earned, not conferred. What have they done to earn our respect? Not much from my perspective.
We have no dearth of knowledge, talent and intelligence to serve this country. It is all around us and, once in a while, we get a glimpse of that treasure when we are privy to a few minutes of their knowledge and talents on what passes for news programs. But, where are they in the halls of government to guide us toward a better future. They are not asked to contribute. Why? Because government doesn’t want them there. They don’t want them to complicate the pursuit or mirror the massive corruption that is all around them. Without them, the people end up the beneficiaries of a puppet show, masterfully orchestrated by the oligarchs, plutocrats and corporate barons who own every aspect of a government founded for the welfare of the people.
What did we get for a Financial Reform Bill? Who wrote it? Where were those great minds in the world of economics and finance to guide those deliberations toward a more solid, honest and enduring financial system for us all? They weren’t asked to be there. The few who tried were marginalized and told, “Thanks but no thanks.” It was business as usual, with the fox guarding the hen house.
What did we get for a national health system? Who wrote it? No one was asked to sit at the table behind closed doors to look out for our interests. “Barry” just did what he always does -- he took care of his real constituency and it sure as hell wasn’t the common folk among us, was it?
How can anyone remotely entertain the notion that there is one modicum of integrity, character and commitment to anything having to do with government and its relationship to those who put them in office? All they seek from us is our vote, and there is no limit to the methods of deception and the amount of money they will spend to get it. When the polls close, they pack up their tent and steal away to continue their plundering of the country, unbridled, for another two, four or six years. And, we the people are left with nothing.
Those who serve in the halls of government do not operate from a base of what is right, but what is expeditious and of most benefit to those who own them. It has been said that our government works on compromise. Compromise, by definition, works toward a standard, not of excellence, but of mediocrity. Bi-partisanship is compromise taken to the lowest level of acceptability to the greatest number. It accomplishes little of real substance and inspires no one. Compromise in government is analogous to what a whore does for money. They do only what they have to do for the money, and that money comes from the bottomless reservoir of power and greed that feeds our national system of governance. To think otherwise is self-delusional to the extreme.
To invite politicians, present and former, to serve on commissions and advisory groups to the government is cronyism at its worst. To ask those who are likely to be affected by the outcome to participate in framing regulations is not only a blatant conflict of interest; it is stacking the deck in their favor. No one in my lifetime has been more determined and tenacious in that regard than Barack Obama. He should know better and he should be held to a higher standard, both for what he has done and what he has not done in the public interest.
As for the watchdog function of the Fourth Estate, that evaporated a long time ago. They feed us only what the hand that feeds them wants us to know, and they skillfully shape our perceptions and appetites for the bounty of that table. And, of course, we demand nothing more. We simply accept what they have to offer. Thank God for those few brave investigative journalists who won’t give up and the medium of the Internet to facilitate their endeavors.
We have some real leaders among us, but I rather suspect that those of real character simply don’t want to venture into a world where the compromises they might be asked to make would induce an immediate need to vomit. Or, perhaps, it would place the safety of their families in jeopardy, or they simply see no real hope of changing things for the better. I respect those feelings. But it is only real leadership, based on sound character and a sense of what is right and just that is going to pull us out of this mess.
So, where does all this leave us?
I have an abiding respect for the great minds among us who may feel they cannot compromise their intellectual integrity by being actively engaged in the world of politics. However, when there is no respect for knowledge and expertise within government, where are we, the people, to look? We are in a national crisis of major proportions. I do not think the great seats of learning and the academicians who reside there can properly withhold the precious knowledge and wisdom that only they possess, that may well weigh heavily on vital issues confronting this country.
The one shining light in government is, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren. She is the personification of Joan of Arc when it comes to her courage and determination to right the egregious wrongs of the financial industries. But, how long can she hold out as the sole warrior fighting that battle? I have no confidence that she has any solid guarantee against having been marked for a limited life in the Executive Branch. After all, Timothy Geithner has made no bones about not wanting her there, and he is her boss, duly anointed by the incumbent resident in the White House. Given his track record for standing firm on his commitments, does anyone care to make book on her prospects for a long and successful future?
Every branch of government is broken. The two-party system exists in name only. Washington is awash in money and bribery on a scale never before imagined in our history. It is so powerful and so pervasive that we see faint hope of reining it in in the service of the people. We have come to accept it by default. As a consequence, we have abdicated our solemn responsibility to ensure “a government of the people, for the people and by the people.” Instead we have demagogues of every ilk taking over government. Those same demagogues offer us no insights or knowledge as to how we might constructively address the challenges we face. Rather, we get trite and simplistic solutions to very complex and complicated issues, something they are neither inclined nor capable of providing. Motive and conduct have trumped knowledge and enlightenment. Politics are pre-eminent over purpose.
There is a better way, but if government doesn’t value the great minds among us, then how can we call on them to help guide us through this sinister and perilous maze of confusion? Where can Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Morici, James Galbraith, William Black, Nouriel Roubini, Brooksley Born and all those of like mind and stature find a safe refuge in a haven where they can engage in the discourse and analysis of the great issues facing us? There have to be ways of providing for a solid foundation upon which we can build a renewed optimism that things can, indeed, get better?
Our Nation’s Capitol is replete with think tanks created for every conceivable purpose under the sun. Most of them serve various special interests or constituents that have agendas of their own.
Has not the time come for us to tap into the greatest pool of knowledge and talent among us in order to solve the myriad critical problems facing us, and to change the course of this country? I can think of no better place to seek that help than from those who occupy positions of academic stature and prominence in our nation’s universities and colleges.
Permit me to offer a suggestion.
Might it not be helpful for us consider the creation of a national organization (think tank) for the expressed purpose of calling on the best intellectual and academic minds among us to proffer solutions to the most pressing issues of our day. The final product of any such endeavor would be for the sole purpose of providing an assessment and solutions for the benefit of the people of this country, and beholden to no authority except that of this organization and the disciplines they serve. It would have no relationship to or act on behalf of any other organization, the United States Government or any agency thereof.
1. The institute would be a nonprofit organization devoted exclusively
to the study and resolution of major issues impinging on the ability
of this country to resolve matters in the best interests of its citizens.
2. The organization would be established to ensure freedom of its deliberations
from any outside interests that might seek to influence the outcome of those
deliberations.
3. A paid staff would provide the management and logistical support to
those engaged in the business of the organization.
4. Financial support would be provided by grants from private foundations and
trusts. No government, corporate or private funds would be accepted. The goals
would be to ensure absolute objectivity in all work done by and for the institute.
5. The institute would bring together the expertise culled from the various
universities and colleges specific to issues that are in keeping with their
academic pursuits. Only those having academic appointments, as their primary
vocation, would be eligible to serve on study committees. Those having ties to
other interests would, naturally, have to declare those affiliations at the outset
as a means of determining and ensuring that no bias or conflicts of interest
exists. Every effort would have to be made to ensure complete objectivity and
integrity applied to the outcome of any issue or issues under study.
6. The end result of their deliberations would be the publication of position
papers available for public consumption, and not the property of any specific
entity outside that of the institute.
a. Economists would focus on economic policies and issues, such
as the structure and regulation of the various financial
interests that impinge on the interests and health of society.
b. Trade specialists would focus on trade policies and issues.
c. Tax experts would focus on tax policies and issues.
d. Legal experts would focus on legal issues affecting the
broader society. For example, the recent ruling by the
Supreme Court on Citizens United.
e. Other interests that may have a profound and lasting affect
on society, (not necessarily in rank order of priority) such
as:
1) Deficit reduction and a healthy economy.
2) Immigration
3) Government regulation
4) Environmental issues
5) Health care policies and programs.
6) Defense policies.
7) Government procurement policies and procedures.
8) Economic stimulus goals and programs.
9) Etc.
I believe such an approach would enable society to have the benefit of the best minds, knowledge and expertise available to serve the public interest, free of influence from government, special interests and private money.
It would be a legitimate and open avenue for overcoming the shroud of mystery commonplace in government bodies. It would remove the means that enable them to serve their own interests and those who fund their ambitions, at the expense of those they are elected to serve.
Such an organization would be able to restore the “watchdog” function over government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but which has been supplanted by the interests of corporate news media.
Above all, it would establish a standard of objectivity based on knowledge that is sorely lacking in our political milieu today. Now, more than ever, the body politic and our country need the means to cut through all the deceptive practices that only seek to confuse us and cloud the issues. In the final analysis, it would introduce a level of transparency to Washington that is, at best, murky. It would bring a level of expertise to the deliberations within the halls of government that is sorely lacking. And, most of all, it would bring a new level of objectivity to the business of this country. The time has surely come.
The very survival of this country depends on the active participation of the finest minds among us. They are our best and brightest hope for addressing and solving the ominous problems we face today.
Old Glory is flying upside down on the Ship of State.
Cowboy Bob
December 5, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
"Only We Can Keep Hope Alive"
Now that the dust has settled on the mid-term elections, I have had time to reflect on the dynamics of that exercise in futility. In the light of day and with a little reflection, it really is more of an indictment of our democracy in action than it is an affirmation of all that it should be. We have just entrusted hundreds of people with the treasures of our country with, essentially, no knowledge about them. We have taken at face value all they have told us, all that others have told us, and the images of them created by the professionals in the propaganda and image-making business. That isn’t just astonishing, it is downright frightening.
Should we not, at the very least, require an outline of their basic qualifications, such as their educational background, their work and career experience and their service record?
Shouldn’t we know what we are getting when we open the doors of our nation’s capitol to these strangers who are going to determine our national destiny for God only knows how many years to come?
Shouldn’t that information be an essential part of every voter’s pamphlet we receive preparatory to casting our vote?
Shouldn’t we have some idea as to how well equipped they are to make decisions about the complex issues of our day?
The stuff political parties peddle about those they are championing for public office engender less confidence in me than my friendly used car salesman or store-front lawyer. Yet, we readily yield to them as if they really are honorable and well-intentioned people. Is that crazy or what?
We have entrusted our future and our lives to people who are going to make decisions, on our behalf, about every aspect of the most complex society and economy in the world. Who determined that they are qualified to address any or all of those issues in the 21st Century? For all we know, we may have a cadre of people whose abilities might offer little more than what might might would qualify them to do business in a barter economy. How do we know?
Generally, conflicts of interest are regarded as rather serious issues. However, those we put in government service on our behalf routinely engage in such practices with impunity. They determine their own compensation and benefits packages. They accord themselves perquisites without any oversight by outside third-party watchdogs or by those who vote them into office. Is it surprising that they fall prey to all the temptations to which they are subjected? Is it any wonder they steal us blind? How many could resist the temptations of sums of money unheard of and favors that are exclusively within the purview of the most privileged among us? They quickly evolve into subscribing to a sense of entitlement and believing their own press that comes from living within a bubble that insulates them from the real world. Is that dangerous or what?
We talk about lobbyists and special interests as if they were a given. Who made that determination? Shouldn’t lobbyists simply be outlawed? They do not represent the people of this country. They represent those who, by definition, are adversaries of the people. Why do we belabor, but never do anything about campaign finance reform that would clean up this cesspool that marginalizes those they are supposed to serve, in favor of those who ply them with every conceivable largess from cash to favors they could never have even dreamed of in the life they left behind?
Who said they have the knowledge and experience to effectively deal with the extremely complex issues facing us today? We have a reservoir of some of the greatest minds in the world who have devoted their entire lives to mastering academic disciplines and acquiring experience that are a national treasure. Yet, we never call on them to help solve the very complex and difficult problems we face? Is that even sane?
Politicians have, as their primary objective, re-election. They covet the power, the money and the perquisites that come from doling out their office to the highest bidder. Those who finance their campaigns and ply them with personal favors is their real constituency. Decision-making is by compromise and those they serve are the beneficiaries of the spoils emanating from the political gamesmanship that is at the center of everything they do. Mediocrity is the standard of excellence and we, the voters, pay the price.
Real leadership should have, as its primary objective, doing what is right, with the greatest good for the greatest number. Leaders surround themselves with people they regard as being smarter than they are. They defer to the wisdom and expertise of those people, giving them the freedom to do what they do best. They make decisions based on sound evidence and reasoned deliberations. Their reward is in knowing they have given it their best in the service of their constituents, with their integrity and character in tact.
The last example of real leadership and true statesmanship by a national leader was when John F. Kennedy and those closest to him stared down the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have not seen courage and conviction of that caliber since an assassin’s bullet took his life on that fateful day in Dallas in 1963.
What might have been the outcome of a financial reform effort had a real leader been at the helm? Would the fox guarding the chicken coop have written the very regulations that would control his unbridled greed and blatant thievery? I don’t think so. Rather, the dialogue would have probably conveyed, in so many words, “You took advantage of the American people and the party is over. We have taken back control. And you, Mr. Clinton, can take all of your cronies and corrupt practices back to the darkness from which you came.“
What would have happened if a real leader had insisted on transparency and stared down the slugs of the health care business that have fleeced the American people for decades? Instead, he further enhanced their ability to continue, all accomplished behind closed doors. What if the agent of “Change We Can Believe In” had simply honored his campaign promises?
What would have happened if real leadership had been at the head of the table and had told big pharmaceutical companies, unequivocally, that negotiating with the government was an absolute requirement for their continued business? Nothing discretionary about that. It might have cast a completely different light on the mid-terms.
What would have happened if President Obama had kept his campaign promise to re-open NAFTA and other free-trade agreements? Our industrial base might well be recovering by now instead of spiraling downward into even greater depths of hopelessness.
What would have happened if he had kept all of the other campaign promises he made? Would George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be facing the consequences of their criminal behavior? Would we still be mired down in an even larger debacle in Afghanistan with the sacrifice of precious human life from the least among us, and at a cost of billions, if not trillions of dollars? Would organized labor have received the fair treatment that would have helped to equalize the power between big business and the working people who labor in their service?
And, most important of all, what would have happened if Obama had been a real leader rather than a milquetoast consensus builder, who mouths bipartisanship as a cover for his uncompromising loyalty to the elite, the moneyed and the powerful of this country? What would have happened if all those corrupt and compromised re-treads from the Clinton Administration had been sent packing and he had appointed his own Cabinet to advise him?
I would hazard a guess, all things considered, that our national landscape would have looked much different and would have held far more promise for better than ninety percent of us.
The operating philosophy of conservatives and their penchant for a free-market at any cost is, by definition, aggressive and an assault on the finer aspects of our human nature. Its appeal is to the baser aspects of whom and what we are. Unless I missed something, this country was not built on a sense of entitlement, but on a sense of “liberty and justice for all.” On the other hand, those who tout themselves as being liberals often appear to suffer from delusions of having a superior intellect and a higher calling that entitles them to flaunt laws with which they disagree. After all, we are a nation of laws and it is not within their exclusive purview to determine what is to be regarded as right and just. For example, diversity is a concept in which everyone has a stake and a say. We are one nation, not a collection of individual interests that entitles each of them to remain separate but equal. Nor should the conservatives marginalize them in order to keep them there. It is arrogance and, frankly, an ignorance that is an affront to a basic sense of fairness. The bottom line on the balance sheet is that human beings who do honest labor are not just a consumable resource with no right to ascend the ladder of opportunity in order to better themselves. Regardless of who harbors those attitudes, I find them offensive. The notion that all of us are created equal is a myth. It belies the validity of differences in genetic make-up, intelligence, and all one inherits as his/her birthright. To the extent that places people at an extreme disadvantage within the context of society, there has to be some means for leveling the playing field. That is simply the fair and decent thing to do.
I am not so sure our system of government is capable of cleansing itself of the toxic forces that permeate every aspect of the power they hold. I am not so sure we can go back to a time when the honor and decency we expect from those we elect to public office can be rekindled. Have we evolved so far into the swill of what so much of modern-day society holds out to us that we cannot even conceptualize, much less legitimize, the finer aspects of who and what we should be as a people?
Personally, given the complexity of our society and the demands of being a responsible member of the world community, I have serious doubts that our form of democracy can remain viable. I have arrived at the point where I am persuaded that a parliamentary system of government, firmly resting on a foundation of a Scandinavian-style of progressive socialism, may well be the most effective model for addressing the complexity of the domestic and global issues facing us today.
On the other hand, perhaps the only place we can, realistically, start is through the avenue of a new political party, where we can restore the ideals of honesty, integrity and courage in government and that are so essential to our national leadership. It is highly unlikely we will ever get it from the two major political parties. I do not regard the Tea Party as a viable option.
Our institutions, despite the overwhelming influence of dishonesty and cowardice within our political system, still retain an abundance of the kind of enlightened and dedicated talent we need in order to bring about that change. Sadly, some of the best fell victim to the emotional hysteria created by some of those who currently dominate the political scene. However, one need not look long and hard to identify them. They are there, many of whom still hold out hope that there will be an opportunity for them to demonstrate their mettle to a nation crying for help.
A ship without a rudder goes nowhere. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental problem we face. I see people like Chuck Hagel, Bill Bradley, James Webb and, yes, Eliot Spitzer as embodying many of the qualities of leadership we need in order to point us in the right direction.
The future looks bleak and is just cause for despair. It is going to take a long time to get out of the disaster that has descended upon us. However, let us never give up hope. Let us never relax our vigilance. Let us never stop trying. When determination fades and hope is gone, we have nothing.
Cowboy Bob
November 22, 2010
Should we not, at the very least, require an outline of their basic qualifications, such as their educational background, their work and career experience and their service record?
Shouldn’t we know what we are getting when we open the doors of our nation’s capitol to these strangers who are going to determine our national destiny for God only knows how many years to come?
Shouldn’t that information be an essential part of every voter’s pamphlet we receive preparatory to casting our vote?
Shouldn’t we have some idea as to how well equipped they are to make decisions about the complex issues of our day?
The stuff political parties peddle about those they are championing for public office engender less confidence in me than my friendly used car salesman or store-front lawyer. Yet, we readily yield to them as if they really are honorable and well-intentioned people. Is that crazy or what?
We have entrusted our future and our lives to people who are going to make decisions, on our behalf, about every aspect of the most complex society and economy in the world. Who determined that they are qualified to address any or all of those issues in the 21st Century? For all we know, we may have a cadre of people whose abilities might offer little more than what might might would qualify them to do business in a barter economy. How do we know?
Generally, conflicts of interest are regarded as rather serious issues. However, those we put in government service on our behalf routinely engage in such practices with impunity. They determine their own compensation and benefits packages. They accord themselves perquisites without any oversight by outside third-party watchdogs or by those who vote them into office. Is it surprising that they fall prey to all the temptations to which they are subjected? Is it any wonder they steal us blind? How many could resist the temptations of sums of money unheard of and favors that are exclusively within the purview of the most privileged among us? They quickly evolve into subscribing to a sense of entitlement and believing their own press that comes from living within a bubble that insulates them from the real world. Is that dangerous or what?
We talk about lobbyists and special interests as if they were a given. Who made that determination? Shouldn’t lobbyists simply be outlawed? They do not represent the people of this country. They represent those who, by definition, are adversaries of the people. Why do we belabor, but never do anything about campaign finance reform that would clean up this cesspool that marginalizes those they are supposed to serve, in favor of those who ply them with every conceivable largess from cash to favors they could never have even dreamed of in the life they left behind?
Who said they have the knowledge and experience to effectively deal with the extremely complex issues facing us today? We have a reservoir of some of the greatest minds in the world who have devoted their entire lives to mastering academic disciplines and acquiring experience that are a national treasure. Yet, we never call on them to help solve the very complex and difficult problems we face? Is that even sane?
Politicians have, as their primary objective, re-election. They covet the power, the money and the perquisites that come from doling out their office to the highest bidder. Those who finance their campaigns and ply them with personal favors is their real constituency. Decision-making is by compromise and those they serve are the beneficiaries of the spoils emanating from the political gamesmanship that is at the center of everything they do. Mediocrity is the standard of excellence and we, the voters, pay the price.
Real leadership should have, as its primary objective, doing what is right, with the greatest good for the greatest number. Leaders surround themselves with people they regard as being smarter than they are. They defer to the wisdom and expertise of those people, giving them the freedom to do what they do best. They make decisions based on sound evidence and reasoned deliberations. Their reward is in knowing they have given it their best in the service of their constituents, with their integrity and character in tact.
The last example of real leadership and true statesmanship by a national leader was when John F. Kennedy and those closest to him stared down the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have not seen courage and conviction of that caliber since an assassin’s bullet took his life on that fateful day in Dallas in 1963.
What might have been the outcome of a financial reform effort had a real leader been at the helm? Would the fox guarding the chicken coop have written the very regulations that would control his unbridled greed and blatant thievery? I don’t think so. Rather, the dialogue would have probably conveyed, in so many words, “You took advantage of the American people and the party is over. We have taken back control. And you, Mr. Clinton, can take all of your cronies and corrupt practices back to the darkness from which you came.“
What would have happened if a real leader had insisted on transparency and stared down the slugs of the health care business that have fleeced the American people for decades? Instead, he further enhanced their ability to continue, all accomplished behind closed doors. What if the agent of “Change We Can Believe In” had simply honored his campaign promises?
What would have happened if real leadership had been at the head of the table and had told big pharmaceutical companies, unequivocally, that negotiating with the government was an absolute requirement for their continued business? Nothing discretionary about that. It might have cast a completely different light on the mid-terms.
What would have happened if President Obama had kept his campaign promise to re-open NAFTA and other free-trade agreements? Our industrial base might well be recovering by now instead of spiraling downward into even greater depths of hopelessness.
What would have happened if he had kept all of the other campaign promises he made? Would George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be facing the consequences of their criminal behavior? Would we still be mired down in an even larger debacle in Afghanistan with the sacrifice of precious human life from the least among us, and at a cost of billions, if not trillions of dollars? Would organized labor have received the fair treatment that would have helped to equalize the power between big business and the working people who labor in their service?
And, most important of all, what would have happened if Obama had been a real leader rather than a milquetoast consensus builder, who mouths bipartisanship as a cover for his uncompromising loyalty to the elite, the moneyed and the powerful of this country? What would have happened if all those corrupt and compromised re-treads from the Clinton Administration had been sent packing and he had appointed his own Cabinet to advise him?
I would hazard a guess, all things considered, that our national landscape would have looked much different and would have held far more promise for better than ninety percent of us.
The operating philosophy of conservatives and their penchant for a free-market at any cost is, by definition, aggressive and an assault on the finer aspects of our human nature. Its appeal is to the baser aspects of whom and what we are. Unless I missed something, this country was not built on a sense of entitlement, but on a sense of “liberty and justice for all.” On the other hand, those who tout themselves as being liberals often appear to suffer from delusions of having a superior intellect and a higher calling that entitles them to flaunt laws with which they disagree. After all, we are a nation of laws and it is not within their exclusive purview to determine what is to be regarded as right and just. For example, diversity is a concept in which everyone has a stake and a say. We are one nation, not a collection of individual interests that entitles each of them to remain separate but equal. Nor should the conservatives marginalize them in order to keep them there. It is arrogance and, frankly, an ignorance that is an affront to a basic sense of fairness. The bottom line on the balance sheet is that human beings who do honest labor are not just a consumable resource with no right to ascend the ladder of opportunity in order to better themselves. Regardless of who harbors those attitudes, I find them offensive. The notion that all of us are created equal is a myth. It belies the validity of differences in genetic make-up, intelligence, and all one inherits as his/her birthright. To the extent that places people at an extreme disadvantage within the context of society, there has to be some means for leveling the playing field. That is simply the fair and decent thing to do.
I am not so sure our system of government is capable of cleansing itself of the toxic forces that permeate every aspect of the power they hold. I am not so sure we can go back to a time when the honor and decency we expect from those we elect to public office can be rekindled. Have we evolved so far into the swill of what so much of modern-day society holds out to us that we cannot even conceptualize, much less legitimize, the finer aspects of who and what we should be as a people?
Personally, given the complexity of our society and the demands of being a responsible member of the world community, I have serious doubts that our form of democracy can remain viable. I have arrived at the point where I am persuaded that a parliamentary system of government, firmly resting on a foundation of a Scandinavian-style of progressive socialism, may well be the most effective model for addressing the complexity of the domestic and global issues facing us today.
On the other hand, perhaps the only place we can, realistically, start is through the avenue of a new political party, where we can restore the ideals of honesty, integrity and courage in government and that are so essential to our national leadership. It is highly unlikely we will ever get it from the two major political parties. I do not regard the Tea Party as a viable option.
Our institutions, despite the overwhelming influence of dishonesty and cowardice within our political system, still retain an abundance of the kind of enlightened and dedicated talent we need in order to bring about that change. Sadly, some of the best fell victim to the emotional hysteria created by some of those who currently dominate the political scene. However, one need not look long and hard to identify them. They are there, many of whom still hold out hope that there will be an opportunity for them to demonstrate their mettle to a nation crying for help.
A ship without a rudder goes nowhere. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental problem we face. I see people like Chuck Hagel, Bill Bradley, James Webb and, yes, Eliot Spitzer as embodying many of the qualities of leadership we need in order to point us in the right direction.
The future looks bleak and is just cause for despair. It is going to take a long time to get out of the disaster that has descended upon us. However, let us never give up hope. Let us never relax our vigilance. Let us never stop trying. When determination fades and hope is gone, we have nothing.
Cowboy Bob
November 22, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
“Did I Miss Something?”
We Americans are a strange lot in many respects. We are a collection of contrasts that often don’t jibe.
The facet of our makeup that most fascinates me is the extent to which we go to tout our love of equality among men. That is, ideally, a big deal insofar as our national character is concerned. However, in reality, we readily create and support differences in status within our society, quite willingly and readily. We have a different set of standards we apply to celebrities and powerful figures. We defer to them and accord them status that does not apply to the common person. We permit them to engage in excesses and indulgences that are not available to the rest of us. There are very real double standards that are indigenous to who and what we are.
I am, by nature, an egalitarian. Perhaps it harkens back to the sod from which I came. The motto for Wyoming is “The Equality State,” and I not only believe there is much to be said about the meaning of those few words, but I believe in them with all my heart and soul. The only real heroes we have, for the most part, are those who have long ago been consigned to the earth below the manicured lawns of cemeteries after having “paid the ultimate price,” in the service of their country, or those who still wear the uniform. As for the others, we have ascribed to them a superior status, probably more out of a sense of envy for what they appear to be, or out of the power we ascribe to them for what they have. In either case, those are false premises from which flow all sorts of excesses we tolerate that would not be the case if applied to the average person.
I happen to believe that all great fortunes have, at their source, thievery on a grand scale. I, also, happen to believe that most of our other heroes exist because of a vicarious need on our part to emulate them. I question whether or not we really get our money’s worth.
Have you ever noticed that those who enjoy all that super status ascribed to them by a willing society only make “mistakes” whereas, their common counterparts commit crimes? The former makes public apologies and acts of contrition. The other goes to jail. The image of the former is quickly “sanitized,” whereas the latter carries the stigma for a lifetime. Where is the “equality” in this? I just don’t quite see it.
None in my lifetime has been quite as glaring as the persona of William Jefferson Clinton.
If you recall, on his inauguration day, when he and Hillary presented themselves to the incumbent President, George H.W. Bush and his charming bride, Barbara, the chill was so palpable an Arctic wind would have seemed like a tropical breeze. Yet, within a very short time, Bill and George had become the best of friends, playing golf together and traveling all over the globe touting their various humanitarian endeavors.
Did I miss something?
Bill and Hillary were no sooner comfortably ensconced in the White House than it came to light that he and a poor little rich girl from Beverley Hills had been engaged in a bit of exotic hanky panky around and under the desk in the Oval Office. Bill was, ostensibly, talking on the telephone while Monica was engaged in playing “telephone” under the desk. Now, by all generally accepted standards, such behavior would have been regarded as “moral turpitude.” Bill would have been bounced out on his ass and Monica would have been relegated to oblivion. But that was not to be the case. After all, people in high places are judged by a different standard. They don’t commit crimes or grievous indiscretions. They just make “mistakes.” Bill plunged himself into a public display of contrition, seeking counseling for his sexual addiction from that great paragon of virtue, Jesse Jackson who, parenthetically, just happened to have his own progeny from a sexual “mistake” squirreled away in some secluded part of Los Angeles. But, rich and powerful boys play by a different set of rules. The fact that Bill disgraced the Office of the President of the United States was, after all, just a “mistake.” Although it is doubtful that the Diety to whom Jesse professes his loyalty, Jesse’s “mistake,” was quickly forgotten and both now stand before the world completely sanitized for having made those insignificant little “mistakes.”
Did I miss something?
The champions of the free market and small government wasted no time in seeking Bill’s impeachment. But, Bill, being the cool cat he was, remained reasonably composed and, again, committed another small “mistake,” when he was found guilty of what, when applied to the common person, is known as “perjury.” Perjury is classified as a felony but, then again, the rich and powerful don’t commit crimes, they just make “mistakes.” Bill was cleansed and quickly morphed into the outstanding leading example of statesmanship and leadership we have all come to love.
Did I miss something?
Bill had a nose, not only for power, but money as well. He courted the favor of Phil Gramm, Republican Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, all complicit in their common goal of inflating the housing and derivatives markets, and totally deregulating the financial industries. Goodbye Glass-Steagall and hello riches beyond their wildest dreams, all bought with the money of unsuspecting investors. Ah! Such are the newfound joys of gambling with other people’s futures and no one to look over your shoulder. Yet another cardinal lesson on how the benefits of the “free market system” accrue to the common good. Yeah; right!
Did I miss something?
Phil Gramm faded off the scene, but his wife was rewarded with a cushy, albeit rather minor position in George W. Bush’s Cabinet. After all, they have the divine right to take care of their friends without consequence, right?
Bill and his minions still brag about how they handed over the largest budget surplus in history to George W. Bush and his happy band of thieves, only to have all that money squandered in a twinkling, all based on a pack of lies and corruption on a scale never witnessed by this country in its history. I still cannot quite accept that Bill didn’t suspect that might happen. Rather like handing an ice cream cone to a school boy and telling him to not eat it. The fruits of their collective plunder and blatant dishonesty are wreaking havoc on our economy to this day, with no end in sight.
Did I miss something?
With both Bill and George H.W. distinguished progeny of the highest office in the land, they set themselves to altruistic pursuits that were worthy of the white stallions and glistening armor of gallant knights from days of yester year. When President Aristide of Haiti embarked on a mission to gradually democratize that impoverished island, it took very little time for George “The Lone Ranger” and his faithful companion “Tonto” Bill to save the poor peasants of Haiti from the possibility of raising their own rice at a fraction of the cost of what it took to buy that same food staple from the corporate producers of rice in the United States. After all, we had to protect interference with the free market that clearly established its superiority when applied to the human condition. The Aristide Administration was quickly and surreptitiously undermined by the dynamic duo, Aristide was consigned to exile in South Africa and the island nation of Haiti sank back into its life of desperation and life at the subsistence level. I don’t recall seeing a lot of copy devoted to that slight of hand by our former leaders.
Did I miss something?
Then there is the shroud of mystery surrounding that charismatic young man who wowed the delegates at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with his Keynote Speech. Who was he and where did he come from? Who cared? His image was just what the power brokers were looking for, and he was clearly a force with which to be reckoned in 2008.
I find the whole hard-fought contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential Nomination rather incredulous. I am more inclined to believe the whole epic was less a quest for the nomination and more an act of theater staged for popular consumption. I will grant you that the final push to the nomination was a real cliff-hanger, but Obama was clearly on the trajectory to the nomination. He soared to victory and wasted no time in making a series of imperial speeches that only he can stage and deliver. He had us mesmerized by his persona and the endless promises of reforms that would be reminiscent of the golden days of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But, what doesn’t quite jibe in all this theater is why did Barack Obama import former stooges from the Clinton Administration, all of whom occupied key positions in his Cabinet and administration? Why are they the very ones who were instrumental in setting the stage that led to the greatest deregulation of the financial industries since the prelude to the Great Depression? Why was he so tenacious in keeping them in all the key financial and administrative positions, despite learned advice and encouragement to the contrary? Was this wonder-boy really his own man or was he the one anointed to further the dark ambitions of a pervasive greed and avarice on a scale never before witnessed in the history of the Republic? What happened to all those reforms that were to be the foundation for “change we can believe in?” Why did he do a complete about face and cave in to virtually every vested interest he had vowed to challenge, and that had a stranglehold on every aspect of an economic behemoth that was impoverishing the lives of the middle and working classes of this country? Why does he still persist in that relentless pursuit, all under the banner of political bi-partisanship? Who is sitting in the Captain’s Chair on this voyage of the Titanic? Bill or Barack?
Did I miss something ?
Why do I see the tentacles of the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Administrations in all this? Because I no longer see a democracy with honest differences between the major political parties. Because I only see a country governed with one, unified plutocracy. Any real difference between the political parties was blurred a long time ago. I will acknowledge that we have different labels, but when it comes to ruling, both major political parties are one and the same, beholden to the same centers of power, greed and evil. They pick those who will be the front men for their pursuits. They finance them and keep them in power. Their power extends not only to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, but to the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon and other unrelenting leeches on our national character and our national treasure. Their “lobbyists” are like maggots crawling all over the rotting corpse of what was once a great nation, populated with a good and decent people, and holding hope and promise for every one of its citizens. Through their control of the industries that fund, shape and control our perceptions of the world around us, they create in our heads what they want us to believe. Every effort to reform and change our system of government, and return it to the people, requires that one only scratch the surface to see the hand of the oligarchy that not only owns but controls our very lives. Those who serve as their lieutenants do their bidding and formulate the false outrage and resistance to their unabated encroachment into our lives. Dick Army, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their like? Just actors dutifully playing their parts for the purpose of further anesthetizing our senses and dulling what little intellect and inquisitiveness we may still have to call on.
I have no doubts that Barack Obama is the product of an insidious agenda catering to the basest aspects of our human nature. He can be counted on to relentlessly pursue bi-partisanship and he will cave in to the opposition in every instance where it benefit’s the super-rich, the powerful, the influential, the corrupt and those seeking to drain every ounce of life-blood from those who “work” for a living. Tax cuts for the top one percent of the population will be extended and continue indefinitely. The monetary gluttony of the military establishment will continue. Elizabeth Warren will be consigned to the back bench when all the dust created by her dedication to honesty and her dogged determination settles. Will he seek a second term? Only if there is still work left to be done on behalf of those who have him on a short leash.
All of this will be summarily dismissed as just the machinations of another far-out conspiracy theorist. It always is and, so far, it usually works.
Given the incestuous relationship between the Republican and Democratic political establishments, I honestly believe this country is crying for a new political party that subscribes to honesty in government, transparency in all it does and champions the needs of the majority of the citizenry it is intended to serve. I don’t see how we can continue as we are without the entire charade disintegrating before our very eyes.
Such an endeavor will be a monumental undertaking. It will require strong leadership with the charisma to appeal to our better angels and inspire us to new heights. It will require a solid base of dedicated people who know the difference between right and wrong; the difference between real freedom and tyranny in all its forms, and the need to be ever-vigilant and on-guard against the frailties of our human nature, not the least of which is the legitimate pursuit of unbridled greed. There are those among us who can pull it off. They are former members of government, academicians, and people seeking real change and a better life. They are those who are willing to stand up for decency and all the human attributes that distinguish us from those who only seek the gratification of their insatiable appetites for hedonistic and materialistic pleasures in life, the rest of humanity be damned.
The notion of a new political party is, in my opinion, a first step. Its first order of business must be a commission comprised of the finest minds in our midst, with the avowed purpose of developing a blueprint for restoring integrity and original intent to our system of government. It cannot be trusted in the hands of politicians. They are too willing to “compromise” for the sake of their own interests. We have a vast reserve of academic minds in all the relevant disciplines, including the energy and vigor of the graduate students pursuing degrees in those disciplines.
Were it not for the fact that I am now permanently consigned to the taxonomy of “Senior Citizen,“ I would be the first to sign on.
Cowboy Bob
November 15, 2010
The facet of our makeup that most fascinates me is the extent to which we go to tout our love of equality among men. That is, ideally, a big deal insofar as our national character is concerned. However, in reality, we readily create and support differences in status within our society, quite willingly and readily. We have a different set of standards we apply to celebrities and powerful figures. We defer to them and accord them status that does not apply to the common person. We permit them to engage in excesses and indulgences that are not available to the rest of us. There are very real double standards that are indigenous to who and what we are.
I am, by nature, an egalitarian. Perhaps it harkens back to the sod from which I came. The motto for Wyoming is “The Equality State,” and I not only believe there is much to be said about the meaning of those few words, but I believe in them with all my heart and soul. The only real heroes we have, for the most part, are those who have long ago been consigned to the earth below the manicured lawns of cemeteries after having “paid the ultimate price,” in the service of their country, or those who still wear the uniform. As for the others, we have ascribed to them a superior status, probably more out of a sense of envy for what they appear to be, or out of the power we ascribe to them for what they have. In either case, those are false premises from which flow all sorts of excesses we tolerate that would not be the case if applied to the average person.
I happen to believe that all great fortunes have, at their source, thievery on a grand scale. I, also, happen to believe that most of our other heroes exist because of a vicarious need on our part to emulate them. I question whether or not we really get our money’s worth.
Have you ever noticed that those who enjoy all that super status ascribed to them by a willing society only make “mistakes” whereas, their common counterparts commit crimes? The former makes public apologies and acts of contrition. The other goes to jail. The image of the former is quickly “sanitized,” whereas the latter carries the stigma for a lifetime. Where is the “equality” in this? I just don’t quite see it.
None in my lifetime has been quite as glaring as the persona of William Jefferson Clinton.
If you recall, on his inauguration day, when he and Hillary presented themselves to the incumbent President, George H.W. Bush and his charming bride, Barbara, the chill was so palpable an Arctic wind would have seemed like a tropical breeze. Yet, within a very short time, Bill and George had become the best of friends, playing golf together and traveling all over the globe touting their various humanitarian endeavors.
Did I miss something?
Bill and Hillary were no sooner comfortably ensconced in the White House than it came to light that he and a poor little rich girl from Beverley Hills had been engaged in a bit of exotic hanky panky around and under the desk in the Oval Office. Bill was, ostensibly, talking on the telephone while Monica was engaged in playing “telephone” under the desk. Now, by all generally accepted standards, such behavior would have been regarded as “moral turpitude.” Bill would have been bounced out on his ass and Monica would have been relegated to oblivion. But that was not to be the case. After all, people in high places are judged by a different standard. They don’t commit crimes or grievous indiscretions. They just make “mistakes.” Bill plunged himself into a public display of contrition, seeking counseling for his sexual addiction from that great paragon of virtue, Jesse Jackson who, parenthetically, just happened to have his own progeny from a sexual “mistake” squirreled away in some secluded part of Los Angeles. But, rich and powerful boys play by a different set of rules. The fact that Bill disgraced the Office of the President of the United States was, after all, just a “mistake.” Although it is doubtful that the Diety to whom Jesse professes his loyalty, Jesse’s “mistake,” was quickly forgotten and both now stand before the world completely sanitized for having made those insignificant little “mistakes.”
Did I miss something?
The champions of the free market and small government wasted no time in seeking Bill’s impeachment. But, Bill, being the cool cat he was, remained reasonably composed and, again, committed another small “mistake,” when he was found guilty of what, when applied to the common person, is known as “perjury.” Perjury is classified as a felony but, then again, the rich and powerful don’t commit crimes, they just make “mistakes.” Bill was cleansed and quickly morphed into the outstanding leading example of statesmanship and leadership we have all come to love.
Did I miss something?
Bill had a nose, not only for power, but money as well. He courted the favor of Phil Gramm, Republican Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, all complicit in their common goal of inflating the housing and derivatives markets, and totally deregulating the financial industries. Goodbye Glass-Steagall and hello riches beyond their wildest dreams, all bought with the money of unsuspecting investors. Ah! Such are the newfound joys of gambling with other people’s futures and no one to look over your shoulder. Yet another cardinal lesson on how the benefits of the “free market system” accrue to the common good. Yeah; right!
Did I miss something?
Phil Gramm faded off the scene, but his wife was rewarded with a cushy, albeit rather minor position in George W. Bush’s Cabinet. After all, they have the divine right to take care of their friends without consequence, right?
Bill and his minions still brag about how they handed over the largest budget surplus in history to George W. Bush and his happy band of thieves, only to have all that money squandered in a twinkling, all based on a pack of lies and corruption on a scale never witnessed by this country in its history. I still cannot quite accept that Bill didn’t suspect that might happen. Rather like handing an ice cream cone to a school boy and telling him to not eat it. The fruits of their collective plunder and blatant dishonesty are wreaking havoc on our economy to this day, with no end in sight.
Did I miss something?
With both Bill and George H.W. distinguished progeny of the highest office in the land, they set themselves to altruistic pursuits that were worthy of the white stallions and glistening armor of gallant knights from days of yester year. When President Aristide of Haiti embarked on a mission to gradually democratize that impoverished island, it took very little time for George “The Lone Ranger” and his faithful companion “Tonto” Bill to save the poor peasants of Haiti from the possibility of raising their own rice at a fraction of the cost of what it took to buy that same food staple from the corporate producers of rice in the United States. After all, we had to protect interference with the free market that clearly established its superiority when applied to the human condition. The Aristide Administration was quickly and surreptitiously undermined by the dynamic duo, Aristide was consigned to exile in South Africa and the island nation of Haiti sank back into its life of desperation and life at the subsistence level. I don’t recall seeing a lot of copy devoted to that slight of hand by our former leaders.
Did I miss something?
Then there is the shroud of mystery surrounding that charismatic young man who wowed the delegates at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with his Keynote Speech. Who was he and where did he come from? Who cared? His image was just what the power brokers were looking for, and he was clearly a force with which to be reckoned in 2008.
I find the whole hard-fought contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential Nomination rather incredulous. I am more inclined to believe the whole epic was less a quest for the nomination and more an act of theater staged for popular consumption. I will grant you that the final push to the nomination was a real cliff-hanger, but Obama was clearly on the trajectory to the nomination. He soared to victory and wasted no time in making a series of imperial speeches that only he can stage and deliver. He had us mesmerized by his persona and the endless promises of reforms that would be reminiscent of the golden days of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But, what doesn’t quite jibe in all this theater is why did Barack Obama import former stooges from the Clinton Administration, all of whom occupied key positions in his Cabinet and administration? Why are they the very ones who were instrumental in setting the stage that led to the greatest deregulation of the financial industries since the prelude to the Great Depression? Why was he so tenacious in keeping them in all the key financial and administrative positions, despite learned advice and encouragement to the contrary? Was this wonder-boy really his own man or was he the one anointed to further the dark ambitions of a pervasive greed and avarice on a scale never before witnessed in the history of the Republic? What happened to all those reforms that were to be the foundation for “change we can believe in?” Why did he do a complete about face and cave in to virtually every vested interest he had vowed to challenge, and that had a stranglehold on every aspect of an economic behemoth that was impoverishing the lives of the middle and working classes of this country? Why does he still persist in that relentless pursuit, all under the banner of political bi-partisanship? Who is sitting in the Captain’s Chair on this voyage of the Titanic? Bill or Barack?
Did I miss something ?
Why do I see the tentacles of the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Administrations in all this? Because I no longer see a democracy with honest differences between the major political parties. Because I only see a country governed with one, unified plutocracy. Any real difference between the political parties was blurred a long time ago. I will acknowledge that we have different labels, but when it comes to ruling, both major political parties are one and the same, beholden to the same centers of power, greed and evil. They pick those who will be the front men for their pursuits. They finance them and keep them in power. Their power extends not only to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, but to the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon and other unrelenting leeches on our national character and our national treasure. Their “lobbyists” are like maggots crawling all over the rotting corpse of what was once a great nation, populated with a good and decent people, and holding hope and promise for every one of its citizens. Through their control of the industries that fund, shape and control our perceptions of the world around us, they create in our heads what they want us to believe. Every effort to reform and change our system of government, and return it to the people, requires that one only scratch the surface to see the hand of the oligarchy that not only owns but controls our very lives. Those who serve as their lieutenants do their bidding and formulate the false outrage and resistance to their unabated encroachment into our lives. Dick Army, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their like? Just actors dutifully playing their parts for the purpose of further anesthetizing our senses and dulling what little intellect and inquisitiveness we may still have to call on.
I have no doubts that Barack Obama is the product of an insidious agenda catering to the basest aspects of our human nature. He can be counted on to relentlessly pursue bi-partisanship and he will cave in to the opposition in every instance where it benefit’s the super-rich, the powerful, the influential, the corrupt and those seeking to drain every ounce of life-blood from those who “work” for a living. Tax cuts for the top one percent of the population will be extended and continue indefinitely. The monetary gluttony of the military establishment will continue. Elizabeth Warren will be consigned to the back bench when all the dust created by her dedication to honesty and her dogged determination settles. Will he seek a second term? Only if there is still work left to be done on behalf of those who have him on a short leash.
All of this will be summarily dismissed as just the machinations of another far-out conspiracy theorist. It always is and, so far, it usually works.
Given the incestuous relationship between the Republican and Democratic political establishments, I honestly believe this country is crying for a new political party that subscribes to honesty in government, transparency in all it does and champions the needs of the majority of the citizenry it is intended to serve. I don’t see how we can continue as we are without the entire charade disintegrating before our very eyes.
Such an endeavor will be a monumental undertaking. It will require strong leadership with the charisma to appeal to our better angels and inspire us to new heights. It will require a solid base of dedicated people who know the difference between right and wrong; the difference between real freedom and tyranny in all its forms, and the need to be ever-vigilant and on-guard against the frailties of our human nature, not the least of which is the legitimate pursuit of unbridled greed. There are those among us who can pull it off. They are former members of government, academicians, and people seeking real change and a better life. They are those who are willing to stand up for decency and all the human attributes that distinguish us from those who only seek the gratification of their insatiable appetites for hedonistic and materialistic pleasures in life, the rest of humanity be damned.
The notion of a new political party is, in my opinion, a first step. Its first order of business must be a commission comprised of the finest minds in our midst, with the avowed purpose of developing a blueprint for restoring integrity and original intent to our system of government. It cannot be trusted in the hands of politicians. They are too willing to “compromise” for the sake of their own interests. We have a vast reserve of academic minds in all the relevant disciplines, including the energy and vigor of the graduate students pursuing degrees in those disciplines.
Were it not for the fact that I am now permanently consigned to the taxonomy of “Senior Citizen,“ I would be the first to sign on.
Cowboy Bob
November 15, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
"Obama Is Really Good At ....."
Obfuscation
Betrayal
Appeasement
Manipulation
Acquiescence
But he sure as hell is no leader.
Kinda reminds me of an assessment made years ago of the Foreman, by one of the ranch hands, on a ranch south of Cody, Wyoming, when he said “He is like a bull with one nut and one horn. He can’t fuck nor fight. All he can do is ‘beller’ and shit!”
Sez it all as far as I'm concerned.
Cowboy Bob
November 11, 2010
Betrayal
Appeasement
Manipulation
Acquiescence
But he sure as hell is no leader.
Kinda reminds me of an assessment made years ago of the Foreman, by one of the ranch hands, on a ranch south of Cody, Wyoming, when he said “He is like a bull with one nut and one horn. He can’t fuck nor fight. All he can do is ‘beller’ and shit!”
Sez it all as far as I'm concerned.
Cowboy Bob
November 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)