Monday, October 24, 2016

'Merica





Welp, you know what they say: nothing divides people like politics, which of course runs a close second place to religion.

I'll weigh in briefly on what I see taking place here in America, take it, or leave it:

Okay, in one corner we have Donald Trump; in the other corner we have Hillary Clinton. From what I gather, most people at least agree that this race is a case of the lesser of two evils, or put another way... which dog has the least fleas.

For sake of discussion, I'm willing to concede that this is precisely the case. There is no doubt in my mind that there's shadiness on both sides. I would never deny that. Shadiness comes with the turf when it comes to politics.

Since I'm in the music business, I like to use the band manager analogy: If your manager isn't crafty enough and smart enough to rip you off, then you don't want them as a manager. This is the person, after all, who is going to bat for you. It's the person who, while they might be nickel and diming you here and there, they are the one dealing with other shady people in the business, people who would love nothing more than to rake a bunch of unsuspecting musicians over the coals. A fight fire with fire sort of thing. But I digress.

Shadiness in politics is a given. That being said, I would never, even on my stupidest day, equate the level of crazy going on here. Allow me to be blunt: if you put both candidates on equal ground when it comes to having a sound mind, or in this case, an unsound mind, then you leave me not much choice but to think you are one deluded individual, or at the very best, you compartmentalize. In other words, you use subjective validation and confirmation bias to assess the political situation we see going on today.

But before I get into that, here's a few utterances of what I mean by "crazy":

"Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

Note, not "why can't we" as in what would prevent us from using them, but more like.. what's the problem with using them? What's the big deal, in other words.

Okay, whoever asks such a question, rhetorically, or not, SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Should someone call out a candidate for asking such a ballsy, ignorant question, especially in earshot of other world leaders, imagine that candidate responding......

"Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?"

To answer that question, we make them as last resort, for starters. What comes to mind would be in the case that some OTHER BAT-SHIT CRAZY world leader might start running around saying things like... "Why have them[nukes] if I can't use them?"

Seriously, folks. These things should raise an eyebrow. But mysteriously, for many people it's just normal banter from a candidate for the presidency. Call it into question, and some folks would prefer to focus on the "criminal" activity of *deleting emails.

(*as if no one has ever died on a Republican's watch)

But now imagine if the same above-described candidate was a male and that he went around saying things like, "Grab them by the pussy!", of the women that he encounters, stipulating that the target must be a "10", of course.

'Sort of lewd, don't cha think? 'Sort of disrespectful isn't it?  Note, I'm not going to sit here and act holier than thou and say that I've never used the slang word for a woman's nether parts. But then again, I'm not running for POTUS, am I? No. And on top of that, I'm a rock musician whose heyday was in the 80s. In other words, any "gabbing" that happened on the road was consensual. If I did any grabbing at all, it was more often than not because it was being thrown in my face. I'll stop here and save the juicy details for my autobiography. It makes Penthouse forum sound like a PTA meeting. Until then, I don't believe that I've ever once used the "P" word on this blog. And yet, one candidate has seemingly made using it en vogue. Hmmm.

Bottom line, the level of crazy is NOT equivalent. Not by a long shot. In fact, if you boil it all down, the names,  labels, mascots, and colors all disappear and you're left with the principles being espoused.

Whether Trump, or whether Clinton - again, the names don't really matter- you're either pro equality for women, or you're not. You either want women and their doctors in charge of women's health and reproductive decisions, or you want some grimy old men in charge of it. You either want a church/state separation, or you don't. You either want some sort of control when it comes to guns, or you don't.

 Boiled down, it's the principles that remain. Yes, the character of those espousing the principles matters, too. But I must reiterate: not all shady people are insane. E.g., Martha Stewart is surely a convicted criminal. She surely exhibited some shady behavior. But, oh, look, Charles Manson is a convicted criminal, too! Ordering that a pregnant women be carved up by a kitchen knife surely falls under "shady" behavior, doesn't it? 'Think so. Now, if one of them had to watch your kid for you while you were in the voting both, wouldn't the choice be a no-brainer? I rest my case.

8 comments:

Robert said...

It's "funny" how it works that people are overcome by the hysteria of their chosen side of the political divide - both sides are guilty - but I agree, one side has firmer footing thant the other in terms of grasping reality. You're absolutely correct that you need someone with the ability to work the crooked system (within the confines of reality) to fix that system and to battle those that want to maintain the crooked system - the "risk" is that you end up with the status quo - no change to the system ... and that can be OK when the alternative can be up to but not limited by global f-ing destruction and handing out nukes like candy at Halloween to every tin pot dictator who happens to compliment you on the size of your hands.

It's a real shame that many folks can't set aside the hyperbole to have a rational discussion - you and I both know more than a few people that knee jerk react right off the charts - to like level 14 (out of a scale to 10) at the hint of a mention of the candidate you and I see as the grounded, rational candidate

I recently had a discussion with the wife of one such friend regarding health care/Obamacare … it was a bit of a surprise, given how our mutual friend (the hubby) would "go nuclear" at the mere mention of anything on the topic, when the wife responded thoughtfully and rationally - it was a nice discussion - it was a hard discussion because of the vast difficulties and complexities of the topic … but what was of particular surprise was that we agreed in principle that everyone should have the same access to the same level of care and people shouldn't go broke just to survive an illness/injury

In light of such a fruitful discussion - the futility and frustration immediately becomes clear - it's not until we can identify and separate the rational folks on the other side that we can start productive conversations without their peer group pressuring them into parroting the party line … and how can we make a dent in this mob thinking?

I guess "one at a time" will have to suffice … I know this wife will publically still support the other candidate - but I'm heartened that it's possible in the privacy of the voting booth this person might actually choose the rational, yet flawed candidate … one can only hope

boomSLANG said...

"one side has firmer footing than the other in terms of grasping reality."

Yes, reality. Not a dirty word, but you'd think that it was. If the Rep. candidate gets elected we're one bullet away or one heart attack away from a theocracy, because the "on deck" batter is Mike Pence, a deeply religious, science-denying, Far Right Christian who takes his bible literally.

IOW, to believe that the universe and everything in it was created ex nihilo in a work-week; to believe that the diversity of life we see today is because a few thousand yrs ago two of every animal was preserved upon an ark in a worldwide flood, is to deny reality. Um, the authors of Pence' book of information thought the moon gave off its own light. They didn't know where the god damned sun went at night, for cryin' out loud. And look.....this is the year 2016. Land 'O goshen! lol

Robert said...

If the Rep. candidate gets elected we're one bullet away or one heart attack away from a theocracy, because the "on deck" batter is Mike Pence, a deeply religious, science-denying, Far Right Christian who takes his bible literally.

But if this were to happen are we really"one step away"? From my vantage point, Pence will get to pretty much dictate any/all policy that Trump has no interest in ... which is a LOT of the country's policy issues. Trump is only going to be concerned about policies that will make his companies and himself money (or save it through tax breaks) ... after that, I haven't heard Trump present (or even show interest in) a cogent policy position ... unless it's distributing Nukes like tic tacs to our allies so we can withdraw our military commitments around the world

I know a lot of people don't know much about Pence - he's basically a polished, intelligent and thoughtful version of Sarah Palin ... meaning he's VERY dangerous because he doesn't have the outward appearance of being very dangerous. But then that was the point of picking him as VP - most people don't look at that guy

boomSLANG said...

"he's basically a polished, intelligent and thoughtful version of Sarah Palin"

Yes, but is that really saying anything, though? lol

But yes, I get your drift. Pence would be pulling the strings behind the scenes... or wait, there's no shame in his game; Pence will be front center pushing his anti-science, religious agenda via Trump. Imagine, a grown, supposedly educated man, running around in the year 2016 saying that evolution is "just a theory." Oh, boy. smh.

Robert said...

there's no shame in his game

Yeah, there'll be no need for behind the scenes chicanery ala Dick Cheney ... anything that doesn't hold Trump's attention/interest - like the Deportation Squad will be openly fair game for Pence to take and run with so setting up theological infrastructures won't be an issue.

Regarding "Theories" ... you know, we have this fundamental problem in that a large portion of the electorate ... and actually ALL people ... think that a "theory" is something Columbo comes up with to try to solve a crime ... to the public at large, a "theory" is a bumbling GUESS and it carries no real weight.

Of course, as soon as you try to educate/correct them on this misunderstanding, all of a sudden you're a bought and paid for shill and elitist and no longer a regular 'Murican Joe. And of course it gets worse than that because the moment you mention ANYTHING that contradicts their chosen political "belief", they instantly turn off any/all thoughtfulness and critical thinking faculties and go from zero to 11 on the scale of political outrage ... it's been going on since they right/conservatives lost the white house in 2008 and only got worse in the teabagger wave election of 2010 which gave them legitimacy to reject ANYTHING that didn't align with THEIR way of thinking 100%.

I don't know how you ever get through to such people who have SO voluntarily chosen to shut off any reason and rationality from taking place in their decision making process.

It's almost as if they're creating a new religion/cult ... so it should sound eerily familiar

boomSLANG said...

"people who have SO voluntarily chosen to shut off any reason and rationality from taking place in their decision making process."

Yes, it's frustrating, isn't it? 'Don't wanna bum you out too much, but how does it make you feel to know that they'd say the same thing about you and/or me?

Yup, you and I are just a couple of fact-denying "libtards", forever denying the fact that Kilary and her deleted emails are the epitome of "evil". We have our heads in the sand when it comes to the social issues that plague us. 911 is an inside job, Obummer is a Mooslim, and then the FEMA camps. All these people turning up dead who work near Kilary? This can only mean one thing!!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!

Robert said...

... how does it make you feel to know that they'd say the same thing about you and/or me?

I'm keenly aware that they say these things about you and I. I've had it said to my face. I can't speak for you, although I suspect you're of similar - if not SAME - mind on this. The difference between us claiming they reject rationality, reason and evidence and them claiming you and I reject these things ... is the evidence itself!

For my part - and from what I know of you, your part as well - is that any evidence presented to you and I will ACTUALLY be considered and studied and you and I will actually try to make it fit in our understanding of the world and reality ... whereas with them, they flatly reject ANY evidence that doesn't completely align with their chosen beliefs/ideologies.

You need only look as far as the recent "Grab them by the Pussy" victims - they claim ... OUT OF HAND ... that they're all liars! No consideration, no investigation, no cross examination - nothing. The Trumpets can't possibly consume the allegations because it will mean they approve of their divine leader's fallibility and criminality ... if only it was one of their sisters or daughters making the accusations then it "might" give them pause ... but given what we know about cults, they'd probably forsake their kinfolk for "the greater good"(TM)

I know that I (and likely you as well) have given considerable consideration to the evidence regarding HRC's emails and come to the general conclusion that it's largely an irrelevant issue especially when you consider that the FBI and several other investigations couldn't come up with anything more than "It wasn't a great idea to have a private server"

Funnier still is all these conspiracy claims against HRC ... and when you consider ALL the time, money an effort into TRYING - reallyreally trying - to bring her and Bill down ... and she STILL got away with ALL of it!?? ... Dude! ... That's EXACTLY the person we need running this country :D

boomSLANG said...

"Funnier still is all these conspiracy claims against HRC"

All of which can be chalked up to confirmation bias and subjective validation. The same dynamics are at play when it comes to any of today's conspiracies. E.g..ask a 911 Truther where the occupants of flight 77 are, if, as they say, it wasn't a plane at all that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. See, a real truth seeker will connect the dots. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not a jetliner full of people, then where are all the passengers?

Conspiracies theorists don't care about connecting the dots. Any unconnected dots are conveniently written-off as part of the conspiracy!