Not doing much so far today...
Apprehend then these thoughts as if
They are thoughts that a third-Wrld person
is thinking. He is thinking
About the first world persons
(I do that; I think as if I am other persons a lot)....
they're all in the high life
They're all in the good life --
if you were from a third-World country, you would have an active choice.
This would be of whether to identify with your poor neighbors, or on the other hand
you could join face-book and identify with a "style," that being the style, as you see it,
of Western life. The Western persons appear as a choice. Western style capitalistic society
would appear to a third-World persons in the context of choice. He thinks of it as the choice
to stay where he is or to join an exciting new world.
If you want to think more about it you could compare that to the life situation of a first world person ...
Friday, November 11, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
My Economics Views, for Nov. 09, 2011
Life---existence and viability---the functional viability of the society itself: this depends on social factors. Society depends, of course, on factors that are social. That being the case, it depends on factors that are informal rather than formal. The informal factors we are discussing are not things enshrined in law. They are informal, and social. These factors can also be called cultural factors; the fact is, you can also call it ethnic. In any human society that we know about, life depends, for its viability and comfort if not its very existence, on social factors; they are therefore crucial parts of our analysis. This is what our world depends on. What is crucial for us is economics, because, in our particular society, we have this. Economics, then, is something that seems quite mysterious but there is nevertheless something that we call "economics" and therefore there are "economic aspects" of how our lives are. And that is important. So "it's the economy stupid."
The economy, then, is a crucial factor in our lives. This foundation or basis of economics is not found on Wall St., however. It is not found in "models," as used by academics, and it doesn't depend on these academics' mathematics. Nor are these crucial factors in any way touched on, "explained" by, some crisscrossing lines they devised that "explain," or "mean" something, or "stand for" something they might call supply and demand. It's all bullshit. It's all concepts and representation. You cannot just substitute one concept for another and get something.
Yet for our way of life, or our social form, "economics" is important. That is one thing that is clear. Therefore what I say is that economics is social, not mathematical. The economists are therefore mistaken, because their "default mode" automatically reverts to math. (Which they believe "stands for" something.) Certainly it is true, and I think worth observing, that people make money based on mathematics. That kind of thing happens, stock trading formulas and that kind of thing --- just what is not crucial to economics. (or is it? kind of a delicate matter to juggle in the mind after all. very post-modern and all)
Our society depends upon economics, as we have noted. Economics does not depend upon Wall St., however. Then Wall St. is not the crucial factor, not for the health of the economy, but maybe for the death of the economy, or for making a disease of it... It is not the crucial factor in what makes the capitalistic economy or way of life exist. Capitalism depends upon social factors. The math, or the Wall St. ideology, or those kinds of concerns --- they do not explain it.
The concerns of economics departments are definitely ideological, although the ideology is hidden (this is the nature of what is called "ideology"). The concerns of Wall St., as with the concerns of other components of economic ideology, do not explain the health, or the life, of capitalism. And capitalism is in fact the basic principle of the world. And, of course, it follows (a possible word substitution here could be "it is not surprising") that none of these institutions provide an explanation of capitalism.
So, in capitalism, a phenomenon which has never been explained... (If you want to get close, go to the "capitalism" entry in the 1919 Brittanica, which is on-line --- sorry, I mean 1911 --- http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ ... look at the "capitalism" entry. Here, what is said about "capitalism," which had "already become controversial," ((exact quote: "so highly controversial a question as to require here more detailed examination."))
ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE)
That content has not yet been altered by the ideologists.
The economy, then, is a crucial factor in our lives. This foundation or basis of economics is not found on Wall St., however. It is not found in "models," as used by academics, and it doesn't depend on these academics' mathematics. Nor are these crucial factors in any way touched on, "explained" by, some crisscrossing lines they devised that "explain," or "mean" something, or "stand for" something they might call supply and demand. It's all bullshit. It's all concepts and representation. You cannot just substitute one concept for another and get something.
Yet for our way of life, or our social form, "economics" is important. That is one thing that is clear. Therefore what I say is that economics is social, not mathematical. The economists are therefore mistaken, because their "default mode" automatically reverts to math. (Which they believe "stands for" something.) Certainly it is true, and I think worth observing, that people make money based on mathematics. That kind of thing happens, stock trading formulas and that kind of thing --- just what is not crucial to economics. (or is it? kind of a delicate matter to juggle in the mind after all. very post-modern and all)
Our society depends upon economics, as we have noted. Economics does not depend upon Wall St., however. Then Wall St. is not the crucial factor, not for the health of the economy, but maybe for the death of the economy, or for making a disease of it... It is not the crucial factor in what makes the capitalistic economy or way of life exist. Capitalism depends upon social factors. The math, or the Wall St. ideology, or those kinds of concerns --- they do not explain it.
The concerns of economics departments are definitely ideological, although the ideology is hidden (this is the nature of what is called "ideology"). The concerns of Wall St., as with the concerns of other components of economic ideology, do not explain the health, or the life, of capitalism. And capitalism is in fact the basic principle of the world. And, of course, it follows (a possible word substitution here could be "it is not surprising") that none of these institutions provide an explanation of capitalism.
So, in capitalism, a phenomenon which has never been explained... (If you want to get close, go to the "capitalism" entry in the 1919 Brittanica, which is on-line --- sorry, I mean 1911 --- http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ ... look at the "capitalism" entry. Here, what is said about "capitalism," which had "already become controversial," ((exact quote: "so highly controversial a question as to require here more detailed examination."))
ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE)
That content has not yet been altered by the ideologists.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Protester Strategy in Chi
____
the protesters now are beginning to say things like "move your money" away from some bank or other. I wonder which one you should move it to.
also, there is a man these days who cuts a kind of a cute figure standing in front of the Bank of America storefront that is just down the block from Jackson and LaSalle -- those illustriously named streets -- with a sign: bankrupt bank of america. Completely innocuous act. Nice hand-lettering.
But there is something very interesting that I did not really catch at first: something interesting about this act. He is pointing his sign into the bank, through the big windows (where dangerous men with no sense of humor stare back at him). His sign points the opposite way.
OK, so --- what if everyone "moves their money"? That would set off the same problem we had in 2008; the chain of banking would be defeated. Banking would break down, because no one would trust each other. It is I think very difficult to divide good banks from bad, in practice. B of A was one of the "too big to fail banks," wasn't it? The reason these few banks were t.b.t.f. was this breakdown of the interbanking "community" or economic/financial network.
That's why the government (under Paulson, I think it was), skittish, licked the banks' behinds until the economy stood up again (all the while sternly iterating "you must take the funds").
Anyways, the problem is that the economy would collapse, which is what the protesters would get if they boycotted particular banks, should they actually succeed. The end result would be the collapse of the entire economic/financial structure itself. Certainly that would be their end result.
I just want to tell you guys about this. That is what you would be playing with. Do you want that? It isn't a bad strategy: allow/help the whole thing to collapse. But, you would need a reform program alongside the project to destroy, or destroy program. Wouldn't you need both?
And you would create just a wee bit of animosity. Now the other side would have their excuse, to be mean and cruel. The question is: after collapsing the economy would you have the program and ability to put the thing back together? Remember "all the king's men."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty
the protesters now are beginning to say things like "move your money" away from some bank or other. I wonder which one you should move it to.
also, there is a man these days who cuts a kind of a cute figure standing in front of the Bank of America storefront that is just down the block from Jackson and LaSalle -- those illustriously named streets -- with a sign: bankrupt bank of america. Completely innocuous act. Nice hand-lettering.
But there is something very interesting that I did not really catch at first: something interesting about this act. He is pointing his sign into the bank, through the big windows (where dangerous men with no sense of humor stare back at him). His sign points the opposite way.
OK, so --- what if everyone "moves their money"? That would set off the same problem we had in 2008; the chain of banking would be defeated. Banking would break down, because no one would trust each other. It is I think very difficult to divide good banks from bad, in practice. B of A was one of the "too big to fail banks," wasn't it? The reason these few banks were t.b.t.f. was this breakdown of the interbanking "community" or economic/financial network.
That's why the government (under Paulson, I think it was), skittish, licked the banks' behinds until the economy stood up again (all the while sternly iterating "you must take the funds").
Anyways, the problem is that the economy would collapse, which is what the protesters would get if they boycotted particular banks, should they actually succeed. The end result would be the collapse of the entire economic/financial structure itself. Certainly that would be their end result.
I just want to tell you guys about this. That is what you would be playing with. Do you want that? It isn't a bad strategy: allow/help the whole thing to collapse. But, you would need a reform program alongside the project to destroy, or destroy program. Wouldn't you need both?
And you would create just a wee bit of animosity. Now the other side would have their excuse, to be mean and cruel. The question is: after collapsing the economy would you have the program and ability to put the thing back together? Remember "all the king's men."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty
Monday, November 7, 2011
L a w a n d ...Appearance p t 2
_____
Democracy in America is a funny thing, you know? When you begin to consider the behavior of prosecutors, and that of the "law enforcement officers," you begin to wonder whether the population of our society is rational enough to exercise the vote, even.
It makes you wonder about progress. What is democracy? What is progress?
American democracy seem just the latest in a long series of crooked nails banged into that plank of wood I described in the previous post.
(see the previous post in this series)
Democracy in America is a funny thing, you know? When you begin to consider the behavior of prosecutors, and that of the "law enforcement officers," you begin to wonder whether the population of our society is rational enough to exercise the vote, even.
It makes you wonder about progress. What is democracy? What is progress?
American democracy seem just the latest in a long series of crooked nails banged into that plank of wood I described in the previous post.
(see the previous post in this series)
Friday, November 4, 2011
Law, and Rational Appearances
_____
Prosecutors make verbal arguments before the court, arguments that supposedly are rational. This is part of their attempt to convince their own people --- that being their fellow men and women, and that being their fellow rational beings --- that so-and-so is guilty, of some offense. Foucault has talked about this, which is the subject of law, or the "juridical" or something like that, as I recall. In the book called "Truth and Power" he begins a survey of this stuff from early on in European history, with Germanic tribes who had just arrived to occupy former areas of the Roman Empire. and, in this period, the early medieval, is an account he gives of the quirky of German tribal laws. There isn't always all that much reason involved. For example, for one of these tribes, when twelve persons from your own clan say that you are not culpable you are thereby cleared. You become "innocent" ---- now you are free, and not "guilty" (yeah, I know: "accused") anymore.
What is always necessary and indispensable in any case is the conceit of rationality, the appearance. Think about it: what persons are always concerned about would be the appearances. That's what they are always found to be doing. They are always concerned about their appearance. This is universal. Everyone wants to look good.
The first persons in society who are going to disrespect rationality (while wearing nice clean outfits, you know what I mean?) are the prosecutors (next up are law enforcement officers, for they too always "explain" things to the offender, like why he is a shitty human being, or why he needs to be put to jail).
Well, two black guys have now been freed on DNA evidence (not human reason) after something like maybe 18 or 20 years of imprisonment. Their alleged crime (now traced, by DNA, not human reason, to another guy, him being already in prison for rape or something) --- which strangely enough they "confessed"? to --- showing yet another side of quirky human nature --- was something like rape or murder (I think murder but Ah'm gettin' confused. Dear me).
In this particular case, the prosecutors actually backed off, and requested their presiding judge to "vacate." Whatever that means. Good for you, fellows. "Pretty Vacant." (I wonder what the Sex Pistols have to do with this?)
We try to make rational sense but words are pretty inexact. That is why writing is such an art; and, also, a craft. A craftsman (there is a somewhat relevant Richard Sennett book out there) has all kinds of little decisions to make, in the course of creating a similar object to others.
So many times we see men and women try to "nail" something down, in rational argument. But Foucault's excursions show us something like a long plank of wood that has a series of crooked nails jammed in.
Prosecutors make verbal arguments before the court, arguments that supposedly are rational. This is part of their attempt to convince their own people --- that being their fellow men and women, and that being their fellow rational beings --- that so-and-so is guilty, of some offense. Foucault has talked about this, which is the subject of law, or the "juridical" or something like that, as I recall. In the book called "Truth and Power" he begins a survey of this stuff from early on in European history, with Germanic tribes who had just arrived to occupy former areas of the Roman Empire. and, in this period, the early medieval, is an account he gives of the quirky of German tribal laws. There isn't always all that much reason involved. For example, for one of these tribes, when twelve persons from your own clan say that you are not culpable you are thereby cleared. You become "innocent" ---- now you are free, and not "guilty" (yeah, I know: "accused") anymore.
What is always necessary and indispensable in any case is the conceit of rationality, the appearance. Think about it: what persons are always concerned about would be the appearances. That's what they are always found to be doing. They are always concerned about their appearance. This is universal. Everyone wants to look good.
The first persons in society who are going to disrespect rationality (while wearing nice clean outfits, you know what I mean?) are the prosecutors (next up are law enforcement officers, for they too always "explain" things to the offender, like why he is a shitty human being, or why he needs to be put to jail).
Well, two black guys have now been freed on DNA evidence (not human reason) after something like maybe 18 or 20 years of imprisonment. Their alleged crime (now traced, by DNA, not human reason, to another guy, him being already in prison for rape or something) --- which strangely enough they "confessed"? to --- showing yet another side of quirky human nature --- was something like rape or murder (I think murder but Ah'm gettin' confused. Dear me).
In this particular case, the prosecutors actually backed off, and requested their presiding judge to "vacate." Whatever that means. Good for you, fellows. "Pretty Vacant." (I wonder what the Sex Pistols have to do with this?)
We try to make rational sense but words are pretty inexact. That is why writing is such an art; and, also, a craft. A craftsman (there is a somewhat relevant Richard Sennett book out there) has all kinds of little decisions to make, in the course of creating a similar object to others.
So many times we see men and women try to "nail" something down, in rational argument. But Foucault's excursions show us something like a long plank of wood that has a series of crooked nails jammed in.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Wibberly Book Series
______
There was a man named Wibberly, Leonard Wibberly–and he wrote "The Mouse That Roared." "The Mouse on Wall Street" is the third installment, the third book in the series. They are listed inside the front cover of "The Mouse on Wall Street."
Like the other two installments, "The Mouse on Wall Street" concerns the world's–or Europe's?–smallest nation (On page the fourth the official word is: "one of the smallest sovereign states in the world"; "being only five miles long"), which means we are talking about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick --- that's the Mouse, you see --- it's near France, you see --- one of the smallest states in the world, and here in his third installment in the "Mouse" series --- apparently, if they are all like this one, they are witty little excursions relative to life as Wibberly sees it in 1969 or thereabouts --- and quite a bit better than any book you'll see today I might add --- the little bitty Duchy receives a windfall of riches, from investing, and via the Wall Street investment world or crowd. The origin of the windfall lies in a rather improbable series of events that are quite beyond the scope of this review. But at any rate the citizens of Grand Fenwick (i.e. white people) suddenly find themselves with a lot of addition moolah-boolah. (Mazel Tov.) This is in addition to their normative economy which is wine, a Pinot wine it is, and wool it is. You see, that is the whole economy, two products–but suddenly they have a lot more to contend with in the form of a large inflow of Wall St. money, large amounts of what Daniel Korten thinks of as the abstraction of money. There is some sort investing going on that is covered in a previous book in the series, something which I don't know about --- because, I don't really read all that much, ok? The strange thing here is that all the extra money does not help. That is sort of like the point. The point of the book or what the book's economic theories hinge on; what the humor (and it is considerable, but stops short of "side-splitting," which is "naked," by David Sedaris last week–a book that almost did me physical laugh-damage in my lungs or my sides or something) consists of: the joke that the influx of money is bad, not good. Ha ha ha. Well, let's pick up on page 58, a speech in which the bartender speaks to the Prime Minister (there is a Prime Minister, as well as a Princess who comes compleat with consort). The first P.M. was deposed by the labor or union man, Bentner, who is the new P.M. Anyways, he has created an alliance with the old P.M.–but, despite this successful alliance with the two political parties– the new PM Bentner has become depressed by the recent events in the Duchy, and he wanders off in a sort of daze, ending up in the taproom. He tries to have a glass of wine: it's the local wine, Pinot Grand Fenwick.
And because of the country's disastrous money mistake or money troubles, the wine now costs more! And darts aren't free anymore, either. Here's what the bartender has to say:
"I'm getting sick of the mention of money," he said. That's all that people talk about here these days. You know what all that money did, to my way of thinking? It killed interest in life. There's been many an evening here when I've listened with pleasure, while serving my customers, to three hours of good talk of shearing, wood carving, archery, gardening and--yes, treating colic in babies. It's been a treat to be among my fellow human beings. I'm not a very religious man, Mr. Bentner, but listening to talk like that, kindly and good humored, I couldn't doubt for a moment but that God Himself was right here listening with me and enjoying it just as much as me.
And now look what's happened! The talk is money, money, money. How much is there going to be? What's going to be done with it? Who will get what? Who owes what to who? How much will go in taxes? It makes you sick. It's killed living, in my view--killed it stone dead. It's replaced it with something that isn't worth having at all.
-a lovely book,
I dare say
There was a man named Wibberly, Leonard Wibberly–and he wrote "The Mouse That Roared." "The Mouse on Wall Street" is the third installment, the third book in the series. They are listed inside the front cover of "The Mouse on Wall Street."
Like the other two installments, "The Mouse on Wall Street" concerns the world's–or Europe's?–smallest nation (On page the fourth the official word is: "one of the smallest sovereign states in the world"; "being only five miles long"), which means we are talking about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick --- that's the Mouse, you see --- it's near France, you see --- one of the smallest states in the world, and here in his third installment in the "Mouse" series --- apparently, if they are all like this one, they are witty little excursions relative to life as Wibberly sees it in 1969 or thereabouts --- and quite a bit better than any book you'll see today I might add --- the little bitty Duchy receives a windfall of riches, from investing, and via the Wall Street investment world or crowd. The origin of the windfall lies in a rather improbable series of events that are quite beyond the scope of this review. But at any rate the citizens of Grand Fenwick (i.e. white people) suddenly find themselves with a lot of addition moolah-boolah. (Mazel Tov.) This is in addition to their normative economy which is wine, a Pinot wine it is, and wool it is. You see, that is the whole economy, two products–but suddenly they have a lot more to contend with in the form of a large inflow of Wall St. money, large amounts of what Daniel Korten thinks of as the abstraction of money. There is some sort investing going on that is covered in a previous book in the series, something which I don't know about --- because, I don't really read all that much, ok? The strange thing here is that all the extra money does not help. That is sort of like the point. The point of the book or what the book's economic theories hinge on; what the humor (and it is considerable, but stops short of "side-splitting," which is "naked," by David Sedaris last week–a book that almost did me physical laugh-damage in my lungs or my sides or something) consists of: the joke that the influx of money is bad, not good. Ha ha ha. Well, let's pick up on page 58, a speech in which the bartender speaks to the Prime Minister (there is a Prime Minister, as well as a Princess who comes compleat with consort). The first P.M. was deposed by the labor or union man, Bentner, who is the new P.M. Anyways, he has created an alliance with the old P.M.–but, despite this successful alliance with the two political parties– the new PM Bentner has become depressed by the recent events in the Duchy, and he wanders off in a sort of daze, ending up in the taproom. He tries to have a glass of wine: it's the local wine, Pinot Grand Fenwick.
And because of the country's disastrous money mistake or money troubles, the wine now costs more! And darts aren't free anymore, either. Here's what the bartender has to say:
"I'm getting sick of the mention of money," he said. That's all that people talk about here these days. You know what all that money did, to my way of thinking? It killed interest in life. There's been many an evening here when I've listened with pleasure, while serving my customers, to three hours of good talk of shearing, wood carving, archery, gardening and--yes, treating colic in babies. It's been a treat to be among my fellow human beings. I'm not a very religious man, Mr. Bentner, but listening to talk like that, kindly and good humored, I couldn't doubt for a moment but that God Himself was right here listening with me and enjoying it just as much as me.
And now look what's happened! The talk is money, money, money. How much is there going to be? What's going to be done with it? Who will get what? Who owes what to who? How much will go in taxes? It makes you sick. It's killed living, in my view--killed it stone dead. It's replaced it with something that isn't worth having at all.
-a lovely book,
I dare say
Post-Toasty, Crispy Candidates for President
As to my blog posts: there are good ideas. As to the writing style and all, I am always trying to get that better. I'll keep trying to get the writing to pop better for ya, OK? By nature I'm an artist not a big researcher, nor am I a data-miner. Nor am I a member of the Village People for that matter. Although I have nothing against "Them People." This one, b.t.w., concerns the topic of "politics" on the Republican side and the mystique of Village Obama.
_____
On the Republican side we see some quick fader. Fresh contender comes, fades. We get always the same thing. A Republican may manifest himself as a quick leader but they are like mushrooms that pop up overnight and then fade given enough time. Which means, I guess, that Cain would become white. Of course, Palin was different because she had a fade time of over a year. Yeah, but she popped so early. You know?
OK, so, anyway, we seem to get a new face every few weeks, even including a black face, and we wait--for the nomi closing. (The yshould do it more like the Academy Awards: "and the nominees are...") The denouement approaches. But as it does each quick mushroom fades. Pop-Tarts, you know, have to be eaten very quickly. They get cold.
Now, why the heck is that? Why do Pop-Tarts get cold? No. Why do conservatives come in the flavor of the week. Conservatives tend to like simple truths --- simple truths --- OK, "truthie" stuff. So maybe they are easy truths. maybe they have bad teeth, I don't know, but they fade quickly. But it's true: they like things that are quick and compact. It is as if they don't like to think too hard. The things they like do not require a lot of analysis. Ever notice that about them?
I sure have, and I have noticed on my travels across the country that the guys just tend to like quick, simple things. Somehow, that's the way they are. Hey. They don't do a lot of in depth analysis. I think this is true. They like obvious issues. Did I mention that? Frankly, they accept cliches and they like sound "bites." I don't understand how you can bite sound but for example I tend to analyze a lot. The conservatives of my acquaintance just analyze rather a bit less---I've noticed this and I have had some experience with these people. (Thank you, Lonnie! And Archie! And the rest o' ya! Love ya!)
Ye tanother way to analyse it is that conservatives tend to assume that everything makes sense. The world (of course) makes sense. They need it to make sense also in a pretty simple way, such that the contingency here is that liberals are to blame. So that is all you need to be able to figure out. If you just got rid of the liberals everything would be hunky-dory or something? Think about it. What I write rings true. Whereas the conservative type mentality thinks that everything makes simple sense or simply makes sense or makes sense in a simple way liberals tend to think that nothing makes sense. What would the world be doing making sense? Give me a break, everything absolutely has to be analyzed. Then maybe it makes sense, but you have to run your analysis or use a cookbook or something. Or it is that we haven't planned enough. We didn't use the complicated experts. Something like that. Who knows? But it all has to be analyzed, en perpetoo-um, or however you spell that, in Latin. Also, I tend to be that way, too, esp. when I get behind a freaking keyboard. Everything requires more tweaking. But at least I'm not selling out. No. I'm running out of money, instead.
Anyway, maybe that is the case: conservatives like it simple and liberals like to analyze. I think a plausible theory do I have there. (So they have no depth, one is as superficial as the other, and they fade as soon as they emerge) Analyzing this theorem some more if a liberal gets a corn on her/his toe, she analyzes it. Other people cut it off.
For liberals, nothing makes sense, that (duh) is why it needs to be analyzed. To conservatives, everything makes sense. That's what things do. They make sense. The world has to make sense, otherwise what kind of a world would it be? So, it makes sense by nature. (BUT: with the exception of the irrational, foreign persons, the liberals, the crazy element --- that is the exception to the rule that only goes to show that the real people, in Arizona, do make sense).
It's all simple as pie you see. For them -- Republicans -- the liberals are fucking up the country and that's the end of our story. But, they wouldn't use the "f" word. Unless the liberals, whoever they are, absolutely force them to. Let's get rid of them. Let's "move on," to coin a phrase. And what do the conservo geniuses want to do? Invade somebody's country?
OMG!!! Not that!!! Let's kill people! (Rush L: "the damn liberals won't let us kill people. Damn! Urggggggh! I jus' dunno...")
(All of this is a golden opportunity for someone to simply make an effort to address these persons, the grassroots community that is low-income persons tending to be conservative, at the inevitable moment when they realize they need to find some new ideas, which they will realize, since they aren't that stupid. If is the liberals who are stupid because they don't see the opportunity.)
Without being distracted, let's continue . For conservatives, everything has easy answers. Edward Teller was a man who liked "the Bomb," (but needed the bigger kind) back in the old days, when atomic warfare was a new concept. He was both an idiot and a scientist, which is certainly possible. You just need an H-bomb. Then everything will be fine?
(I had of heard of this great scientific genius before; recently I encountered him again, in the Garry Wills book on atomic bomb matters, or atomic hot dogs, or whatever that book was about. Wills has since gone on to analyse Shakespearean drama and the literary portrayal of ancient Rome, certainly of equal relevance to the times).
Without geting distracted....All you need is something simple. Ha ha ha. There's nothing a couple beers won't fix. Ha ha ha. Everything (is) guffaws. (insert: rich persons laughing.) Whatever it is, it is going to be simple. The owner of "The Men's Wearhouse" guarantees this. And when an overnight guest stayed at George H. W. Bush's house, she was sleepless, and she looked for a book to read, and in the whole downstairs of that Bush residence she only found one called "The Fart Book." (citation "disremembered," as the next Bush would put it --- but I did read it somewhere. I swear I did.)
Now I'm not sayin' - Im not sayin - I am NOT sayin there ain't - or is - sumpthing WRONG with cutting to the point. You know? Or slicin' them there Gordian Knot or whatever. You all get to have whatever you want for breakfast, if that's what ya'all wanna do.
I am not saying what works for Madison Avenue won't work for the country. But then again why should it? Why should a presidential candidate resemble a mushroom or something that just popped up overnight? I don't know. If there is a reason for that maybe it's "the market"? Then regulate it.
The final moment. That's the moment when your country meets its fate. That's the moment when the next president will come. At that time there needs to be a candidate out there that we know. Or that we are getting to know. OK, even getting to know just a tiny bit. And that one will be, you know, the paradoxical Barack O.
_____
On the Republican side we see some quick fader. Fresh contender comes, fades. We get always the same thing. A Republican may manifest himself as a quick leader but they are like mushrooms that pop up overnight and then fade given enough time. Which means, I guess, that Cain would become white. Of course, Palin was different because she had a fade time of over a year. Yeah, but she popped so early. You know?
OK, so, anyway, we seem to get a new face every few weeks, even including a black face, and we wait--for the nomi closing. (The yshould do it more like the Academy Awards: "and the nominees are...") The denouement approaches. But as it does each quick mushroom fades. Pop-Tarts, you know, have to be eaten very quickly. They get cold.
Now, why the heck is that? Why do Pop-Tarts get cold? No. Why do conservatives come in the flavor of the week. Conservatives tend to like simple truths --- simple truths --- OK, "truthie" stuff. So maybe they are easy truths. maybe they have bad teeth, I don't know, but they fade quickly. But it's true: they like things that are quick and compact. It is as if they don't like to think too hard. The things they like do not require a lot of analysis. Ever notice that about them?
I sure have, and I have noticed on my travels across the country that the guys just tend to like quick, simple things. Somehow, that's the way they are. Hey. They don't do a lot of in depth analysis. I think this is true. They like obvious issues. Did I mention that? Frankly, they accept cliches and they like sound "bites." I don't understand how you can bite sound but for example I tend to analyze a lot. The conservatives of my acquaintance just analyze rather a bit less---I've noticed this and I have had some experience with these people. (Thank you, Lonnie! And Archie! And the rest o' ya! Love ya!)
Ye tanother way to analyse it is that conservatives tend to assume that everything makes sense. The world (of course) makes sense. They need it to make sense also in a pretty simple way, such that the contingency here is that liberals are to blame. So that is all you need to be able to figure out. If you just got rid of the liberals everything would be hunky-dory or something? Think about it. What I write rings true. Whereas the conservative type mentality thinks that everything makes simple sense or simply makes sense or makes sense in a simple way liberals tend to think that nothing makes sense. What would the world be doing making sense? Give me a break, everything absolutely has to be analyzed. Then maybe it makes sense, but you have to run your analysis or use a cookbook or something. Or it is that we haven't planned enough. We didn't use the complicated experts. Something like that. Who knows? But it all has to be analyzed, en perpetoo-um, or however you spell that, in Latin. Also, I tend to be that way, too, esp. when I get behind a freaking keyboard. Everything requires more tweaking. But at least I'm not selling out. No. I'm running out of money, instead.
Anyway, maybe that is the case: conservatives like it simple and liberals like to analyze. I think a plausible theory do I have there. (So they have no depth, one is as superficial as the other, and they fade as soon as they emerge) Analyzing this theorem some more if a liberal gets a corn on her/his toe, she analyzes it. Other people cut it off.
For liberals, nothing makes sense, that (duh) is why it needs to be analyzed. To conservatives, everything makes sense. That's what things do. They make sense. The world has to make sense, otherwise what kind of a world would it be? So, it makes sense by nature. (BUT: with the exception of the irrational, foreign persons, the liberals, the crazy element --- that is the exception to the rule that only goes to show that the real people, in Arizona, do make sense).
It's all simple as pie you see. For them -- Republicans -- the liberals are fucking up the country and that's the end of our story. But, they wouldn't use the "f" word. Unless the liberals, whoever they are, absolutely force them to. Let's get rid of them. Let's "move on," to coin a phrase. And what do the conservo geniuses want to do? Invade somebody's country?
OMG!!! Not that!!! Let's kill people! (Rush L: "the damn liberals won't let us kill people. Damn! Urggggggh! I jus' dunno...")
(All of this is a golden opportunity for someone to simply make an effort to address these persons, the grassroots community that is low-income persons tending to be conservative, at the inevitable moment when they realize they need to find some new ideas, which they will realize, since they aren't that stupid. If is the liberals who are stupid because they don't see the opportunity.)
Without being distracted, let's continue . For conservatives, everything has easy answers. Edward Teller was a man who liked "the Bomb," (but needed the bigger kind) back in the old days, when atomic warfare was a new concept. He was both an idiot and a scientist, which is certainly possible. You just need an H-bomb. Then everything will be fine?
(I had of heard of this great scientific genius before; recently I encountered him again, in the Garry Wills book on atomic bomb matters, or atomic hot dogs, or whatever that book was about. Wills has since gone on to analyse Shakespearean drama and the literary portrayal of ancient Rome, certainly of equal relevance to the times).
Without geting distracted....All you need is something simple. Ha ha ha. There's nothing a couple beers won't fix. Ha ha ha. Everything (is) guffaws. (insert: rich persons laughing.) Whatever it is, it is going to be simple. The owner of "The Men's Wearhouse" guarantees this. And when an overnight guest stayed at George H. W. Bush's house, she was sleepless, and she looked for a book to read, and in the whole downstairs of that Bush residence she only found one called "The Fart Book." (citation "disremembered," as the next Bush would put it --- but I did read it somewhere. I swear I did.)
Now I'm not sayin' - Im not sayin - I am NOT sayin there ain't - or is - sumpthing WRONG with cutting to the point. You know? Or slicin' them there Gordian Knot or whatever. You all get to have whatever you want for breakfast, if that's what ya'all wanna do.
I am not saying what works for Madison Avenue won't work for the country. But then again why should it? Why should a presidential candidate resemble a mushroom or something that just popped up overnight? I don't know. If there is a reason for that maybe it's "the market"? Then regulate it.
The final moment. That's the moment when your country meets its fate. That's the moment when the next president will come. At that time there needs to be a candidate out there that we know. Or that we are getting to know. OK, even getting to know just a tiny bit. And that one will be, you know, the paradoxical Barack O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)