Content Advisory

Content Advisory: Whereas: this blog occasionally employs "colorful language,"

may also occasionally contain implicit and explicit references to

tobacco, alcohol, and other substances, as well as sexuality,

and favors logic over dogma, any or all of which may offend some,

and whereas I may occasionally give disclaimers,

but I do NOT give "trigger warnings,"

therefore, be it resolved that: this blog is intended for mature readers.

However, this blog is not age-restricted.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Dagger of the Mind


Dagger of the Mind,
"The Only Thing We Have to Fear
Is Fear Itself,"

by Liviana

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy;  never leave room for alternatives;  never accept blame;  concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;  people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one;  and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

~ A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler:  His Life and Legend,
by Walter C. Langer,
Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C., 1943/1944
(emphasis added)

For some months now, the American people have been subjected to insinuations, implications, speculations, and even blatantly explicit declarations that Russia somehow "interfered" with the just-past election, most often involving claims of alleged "hacking" on the part of the Russian government or its assets or agents, sometimes accusing other Americans, especially those who run or work for independent media outlets, of having acted willfully or unwittingly as agents of this scheme.  Despite no evidence being provided in support of this narrative, certain venues of the main stream media have repeated these speculations, insinuations, and explicit allegations ad nauseam.  Worth remembering in considering these tales and whispers is the history of how a mere six corporations came to dominate most of American media.  Also extremely worthy of note is the history as well as the current connections of The Washington Post, which has been one of the main media outlets pushing this narrative.

The narrative in question began following publication, by WikiLeaks, of various emails of the Democratic National Committee (nobody seems to be even trying to pretend anymore that these emails are not authentic, so let's admit that they are in fact the genuine article), which exposed widespread corruption in the form of the DNC colluding with the Hillary Clinton for President campaign to promote said campaign and attempt to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders for the same office, a fact which many of Senator Sanders' supporters already suspected.  Whether the narrative originated with the Hillary campaign or the DNC, it was a transparent attempt at diversion and misdirection.  As the revelations continued, the main stream media was also implicated.  One of the main media outlets promoting Mrs Clinton's candidacy was, again, The Washington Post, but it was by no means acting alone in this.  The narrative was spread in an effort to shift attention from the content of the emails to the alleged theft of the emails by agents or assets of the Russian government's intelligence services, and possibly with the intention of frightening or enraging the American people so that the plans of certain geopolitical interests could be actualized, since such actualization would require activities with a great probability of provoking Russia's government and could lead to war with Russian forces.

To say that Russia alone was being scapegoated for the abysmal candidacy and pathetic strategies of the Hillary Clinton for President 2016 campaign, the corruption of the DNC, and the cooperation of much of the corporate media, however, would be to present only a part of the picture.  Indeed, Senator Sanders himself, his supporters, Doctor Jill Stein, third party voters, Director James Comey of the FBI, the spectres of racism and sexism, and assorted other persons, groups, and ideas, were all subjects of the attempt to shift blame away from Hillary herself, her campaign, the DNC, the corporate media, and the Democratic Party establishment.  Once the general election was over, though, the focus was quickly narrowed to "the Russian government."  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence got involved in promoting the narrative.  The FBI stated there was no evidence in support of this narrative.  The Geheim Staats ... um ... the Department of Homeland Security got involved in promoting the narrative.  CIA intel veterans scoffed.  The CIA itself got involved in promoting the narrative.  President Obama pushed the narrative.  Even with the alphabet soup and the President joining in, however, only roughly half of Hillary's supporters were willing to buy into the narrative, far fewer of President-elect Trump's supporters thought it possible, and (although no data is available for the views of third party voters on the narrative) most Green Party US members and supporters of my acquaintance seem to me to be unimpressed with the narrative.  Tied up in this mess is also a lot of hysteria over "Russian propaganda" and "fake news," which has prompted the critters in Congress, always eager to engage in kneejerk overreactions to hysteria, to pass a couple of laws which are, like the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act before them, attacks upon the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.  This is where we are on the final day of the year 2016.

I have been keeping up with this as it unfolded, and have collected a number of sources which cast significant doubt on the narrative that "the Russians" engaged in any "hacking" or other "interference" in the just-past election cycle.  I present them here for the consideration of the American people, in the interests of our Republic and with the hope that the people will come to the correct conclusion and demand that our government avoid the utter insanity which war between the USA and the Russian Federation would be, regardless of what some billionaires and their stooges might like.  Note that, rather than embed the videos as I generally do, I will be giving video sources as hyperlinks;  I made this choice to keep the presentation looking cleaner and more organized, because I wanted to present these sources in a chronological order (due to other responsibilities, I have not completely accomplished this, but only a few are out of place in the desired order).

DNC Hacker Denies Russian Link, Says Attack Was His ‘Personal Project' | Motherboard

Against Neo-McCarthyism | The Nation

Democrats’ Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S. | The Intercept

A New McCarthyism: Greenwald on Clinton Camp’s Attempts to Link Trump, Stein & WikiLeaks to Russia | Democracy Now! - YouTube

Follow the Money Trail For Source of 'Russian Threat' Paranoia | Russia Insider

Getting Fooled on Iraq, Libya, Now Russia | Common Dreams

Corporate Media & Democrats Play Russia FEAR Card; Hide Hillary Clinton's Russian Record | Sane Progressive - YouTube

Russia responds to U.S. hacking allegations | CBS News

Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy | WikiLeaks

Jordan's NOT HAVING Donna Brazile's Russia Dodge! | TYT Politics - YouTube

Media Ignores Clinton's Wikileaks Emails, Focuses On Russian Hacks | The Young Turks - YouTube

Clinton Confirms That WikiLeaks Podesta Emails Are True, Still Blames Russia | Inquisitr

The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A "Fact" | Zero Hedge

NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia | Zero Hedge

John Podesta Wasn't Hacked by Russians—He Fell For a Phishing Scam | The Humanist Report - YouTube

Despite Clinton Conspiracy Theories, FBI Finds No Clear Link Between Trump And Russia | Liberal Values

Here’s the Problem With the Story Connecting Russia to Donald Trump’s Email Server | The Intercept

If You Question the Establishment You Are Guilty of Espionage, Says Corporate Media -- Because Russia | The Free Thought Project

Mainstream Media Recap: Who Colluded With the Clinton Campaign? | Observer

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group | The Intercept

Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See | Fortune

'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful, Disgusting | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone

The CIA and the Press: When the Washington Post Ran the CIA’s Propaganda Network | CounterPunch

The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda | The New Yorker

CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear | CounterPunch

Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War | The Nation

When the jig is up, the mainstream media blames Russia | The Digital Firehose

Washington Post Appends Editor's Note to Russian Propaganda Story | Washingtonian

A New Wave Of Anti-Russia Hysteria Based Upon Questionable Information | Liberal Values

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence | The Intercept

Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough | The Intercept

CIA Intelligence Vets Dispute Russia Hack Claims, Look at the Wider Picture | Sane Progressive - YouTube

Corporate Democrats Stir Up War Fever Against Russia to Turn Election | Black Agenda Report

Hillary Clinton Using "Fake News" as Excuse to Wage War on 1st Amendment | The Humanist Report - YouTube

Supposedly “Objective Reporters” Not So “Objective” When It Comes To The Scary Russian Menace | mtracey – Medium

WikiLeaks Got Clinton Emails From Disgusted Insiders, Not Russia | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia | BuzzfeedUSA

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Under Amazon’s CIA Cloud: The Washington Post | Common Dreams

Glenn Greenwald Sets The Record Straight On The CIA & Russian Hacking | Secular Talk - YouTube

Obama Signs Ministry of Truth Into Law Two Days Before Christmas | Sane Progressive - YouTube

WikiLeaks ✔@wikileaks Obama's Russia sanctions: Comment & Link | Giovanna X - Google+

What Assange Actually Said:
Julian Assange: "Donald? It's a change anyway" |

What The Russian Hacking Report DOESN'T Say | Washington's Blog

Obama Sanctions Against Russia About War & Geopolitics NOT US Elections | Sane Progressive - YouTube

The American Public Should Be Thankful For Russian “Interference” | mtracey — Medium

Something About This Russia Story Stinks | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone

The Demand For Proof Of Russian Hacking Completely Misses The Point | Caitlin Johnstone - Newslogue Debate

White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election | Ars Technica

Exhibit A:  Narcissist, Megalomaniac, Pathological Liar, or Just Plain Batshit Crazy Warmonger?  Hillary Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
Hillary Clinton Calls Out Vladimir Putin in Most Hypocritical Rant Ever | The Humanist Report - YouTube

Corporate Media Draws Opposite Conclusion from CIA Vets on Leaked Russia Document | Sane Progressive - YouTube

Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost Again: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid | The Intercept

No, Russia Did Not Hack Grid. Republican/Democrats Reveal the GAME with Latest Lie | Sane Progressive - YouTube

2016: How Truth was Destroyed So You'd Buy the Government's Propaganda | The Free Thought Project

US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware | WordFence
From the article just linked:
Overall Conclusion

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

Republicans/Democrats Utilize Public Mistrust of Trump to Legitimize Russia Lies | Sane Progressive - YouTube

Democrats: You Should be Ashamed of Fueling a Cold War | Hans Alexander Razo – Medium

WikiLeaks: Obama kicking out diplomats breaches intl law, Moscow should wait till Trump in office | RT America

'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid | Forbes

The War Against Alternative Information | Consortiumnews


Obama’s Sanctions against Moscow “Intended to Box In Donald Trump”. Evidence that Hacking of DNC Accusations are Fake | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived | The Intercept

‘CNN covering its *ss with Assange 'pedophile' retraction’ - journalism prof - | RT America - YouTube

Bob Bites Back: The Russians are hacking! The Russians are hacking! | Bob Fitrakis -

Glenn Greenwald: Mainstream U.S. Media is Culpable for Disseminating Fake & Deceitful News on Russia | Democracy Now!

Clapper has ‘outright lied to Congress’ – former FBI agent | RT America - YouTube

Intelligence Community Assessment ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017 “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” | ODNI
Note:  This contains no new evidence to corroborate the claims that Russia hacked diddly.

John McAfee On The Russian Hacking Says It's NOT Russia! | Larry King - YouTube

Russian Spies Behind Every Christmas Tree | OffGuardian

There Is Still No Hard Evidence For “Russian Hacking” | mtracey – Medium

Evaluating Russian Actions Based Upon Facts And Not Political Biases | Liberal Values

Allegations Against Russia Less Credible Every Day | Let's Try Democracy

Ex-CIA analyst says Russian hacking claims a 'smear on Donald Trump' | Sunday Express

Chris Hedges: The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government’s Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia | Truthdig

Glenn Greenwald Explains Why "We Don't Just Blindly Accept CLAIMS Of The Intelligence Community!" | CNN mirrored by wwwMOXIENEWScom - YouTube

The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer | The Intercept

Abby Martin Responds to New York Times Allegations | teleSUR English

‘They are the most scared of real reporting’: Abby Martin blasts US intel hacking report | RT - YouTube

'Insane to say critical reporting on Clinton led to Trump's victory' – Abby Martin on ODNI report | RT America - YouTube

William Binney: Cybersecurity and the New Cold War Are ‘Big Swindles’ - Live at Truthdig | Truthdig

Why Obama's Crackdown on "Fake News" is an Attack on the 1st Amendment | The Humanist Report - YouTube

Russia Hacking Absolutely NOT Confirmed By Intelligence Agencies | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

Journo Asks Followers If They Trust Wikileaks Or CIA--Backfires! | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

Democratic Progressives in Crises by Debbie of Sane Progressive January 2017 - YouTube

More Proof CIA Has Always Been Full Of Sh*t-- Church Committee Hearings of 1975 | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

Cory Booker Hypocrisy, C-Span Russia Takeover Lie Goes Viral, Trump Cowed by Deep State | Sane Progressive - YouTube

CIA Officer: Clinton Lost Because She Defrauded Bernie Sanders | YourNewsWire

Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain | The Huffington Post

The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis Point | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone

Intel Vets Say Trump 'Dossier' Is A 'Complete Fraud' | The Daily Caller

Allegations of Russian Hacking Cover Up Larger Issue: Attacks on Independent Journalism | Truthdig

On Contact: Real purpose of intel report on Russian hacking with Abby Martin & Ben Norton | RT America - YouTube

Why Bernie Sanders Shouldn't Buy Into the Democratic Party's Hysteria Over Russia | The Humanist Report - YouTube

Chris Hedges on How the ‘Deep State’ Will Influence the Trump Presidency | Truthdig

Obama Makes Incredible Admission About WikiLeaks in Final Press Conference | Anti-Media

Empire Files: US-Russia Relations in "Most Dangerous Moment" | teleSUR English (Abby Martin) - YouTube

Protestors Hang "BETRAYAL" Banner At DNC Headquarters | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

CNN CAUGHT Reporting Fake News On Russian Hack | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

WTF!? DNC DENIED FBI Access To Its Servers In Russia Investigation!? | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube

Empire Files: Post-Soviet Russia, Made in the U.S.A. | teleSUR English (Abby Martin) - YouTube

Remember, America, the United States Intelligence Community are the same incompetent twits (or lying jackasses) who brought us the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and mobile weapons labs" narrative which was used to justify war in Iraq against the only national leader in the entire Middle East who was NOT a religious fanatic, and the results of that were al-Qaeda in Iraq and the rise of Daesh, not to mention the cost in human misery for both Americans (and allies) and Iraqis.  And also remember:

Fear is the mind-killer.

~ Frank Herbert

Believe what you want, but please investigate with critical thinking skills first, and without allowing incompetent twits and lying jackasses to terrorize you into swallowing claims which are, at best, dubious.  War between the US and Russia would be devastation on a massive scale, and the goal of this would be, yet again, more profits for the already insanely and obscenely wealthy petroleum industry.  Follow the money from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'll know who's behind this current narrative and why (if you aren't already familiar with the players in the CNAS and their paper linked above, and haven't already read the Project for the New American Century's paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ...).

I will continue to update these resources until shortly after Donald Trump has been inaugurated as President, after which time, the efforts of the establishment Democrats and their pals in the USIC to spin this "Russian interference in the election" narrative will become largely irrelevant.  And again, for anyone who still doesn't get it:  I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump (but do not mistake that disclaimer for any indication of support for Hillary Clinton;  I am a member of the Green Party of the United States, and I voted for Doctor Jill Stein, who was the only person in the race worthy of the office after July of 2016), but more than enough TRUE things about him exist to criticize without having to make up unbelievable fairy tales.

The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 9;  episode 9 overall;  production code 11.

Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Copyright notice
All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna L.). 

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The Omega Glory

The Omega Glory,
Down the Centuries,
You Have Slurred the Meaning of the Words,
by Liviana

Oh, the bad, bad, wicked, evil, undemocratic, bad, evil, wicked, anti-democratic, bad Electoral College!

Let's (again) look at why the Electoral College exists in the first damned place, and without the recent bullshit about how it was done for racist or pro-slavery reasons (it wasn't, and those who have said that it was are spinning a line because they want their damned queen to be installed in the White House).  I mean, after all, those who think they want to abolish the thing really ought to be aware of the reasons it exists in the first place.

And too often, those who have been calling for the abolition of the Electoral College are significantly less well-read in the fields of Political Philosophy and History than those who drafted the Constitution.   How many of you have read Locke, Rousseau,  Montesquieu, Cicero, Tacitus, Juvenal, Machiavelli, Genovesi, Voltaire, Hume, Hobbes, Bayle, Diderot, Kant, Seneca, and Plutarch?  Plato?  Aristotle?  Zeno?  How about Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton?  Paine?  Franklin?  How much do you know about the way the government of the Roman Republic was set up, how it worked, how it changed over time to the beginning of the Empire?  What do you know of the government of Classical Athens?  I'll wager that most of you are not familiar with even half of these things.  And you think you are better suited to decide on how our government should be set up than the Founders, who knew all of these authors and all of this history and political philosophy, rather thoroughly?  They were concerned and serious about trying to establish something better than anything which had existed before, but you guys FEEL like it's "bad," because poor little Hillary didn't get to be "the First Woman President" and you FEEL afraid of da big bad Twump.  Isn't thinking that you are better suited to do that than the Founders were (based on your FEELS instead of any actual STUDY of how governments have worked -- and failed -- in the past, how this government was set up and why, the thoughts of the Enlightenment thinkers and the Philosophers and Historians of the Classical World) a bit presumptuous?  Just a little bit, maybe?

Let's see here, then, ...  Ah, here we go, a bit of a summary.  Here's an excerpt:
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
You can read it all here:  The Reason for the Electoral College

What else do we have?  Oh, right.  Federalist Papers, Number 10, by James Madison, to which I have already referred some of you:
The Federalist Papers, No. 10

I think some of you didn't read it.  Perhaps you thought it too tedious, or maybe the language was too dated.  So here's a summary and analysis.

If that's still "too long" for you, then you really shouldn't even be trying to tell anyone else a damned thing about the Electoral College, but here's a Cliffs Notes version.

We also have Federalist Papers, Number 68, in which Alexander Hamilton gives his reasons for wanting the Electoral College:
The Federalist Papers, No. 68

Again, though, maybe you find that too tedious (it's considerably more brief than Number 10, however), or think the language is too dated, so here's another summary and analysis, for Number 68.

Cliffs Notes version?  Got that, too (although, really, wow).

Here's something else:
Federalist No.68 vs. Antifederalist No. 72: The Debate over How to Elect the President

And another tasty morsel:
Why the Electoral College Exists (and Isn't Going Anywhere Soon)

The abolition of the Electoral College would be disastrous; it would allow NYC, Houston, DFW, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco to elect the President of the US, without anyone else's votes counting for shit. Presidential candidates would no longer give a damn about campaigning in any other part of the country, and, once in office, would be free to totally ignore the majority of the nation and cater to those six high population centers. Democratic? Maybe. Good? Not even close.

Some of you have attempted to frame the Electoral College in terms of a "tyranny of the minority" in response to our talk of a "tyranny of the majority" (which comes from de Tocqueville, for those who seem to have never heard the expression before -- and I have to ask, did y'all not take US History or Civics in school, have you forgotten all you learned in those classes, or did you just not pay any fucking attention?).  You guys are falling into Bifurcation Fallacy again. It doesn't have to be a tyranny of anyone, so get your heads out of that box already. That's the point. In a democratic federal republic, the minority is protected from the whims of the majority. It's a rule of law, not a rule of the majority (nor of the minority).

Some of you have asserted that the Electoral College is "backwards."  It's not backwards, and here's why. The ecosystem of each region is different from that of other regions, and that affects the economy of each region.  That's even more true now than it was in 1787 when the final draft of the Constitution was finished, or 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.  What is useful for the economy of the Great Plains of DFW may not be useful for the swamps ("Coastal Plains") of Houston, or the Great Lakes North of Chicago, or the temperate rain-forest of the PNW, ... much less the breadbaskets of the nation, which, Comrades, are obviously rural.  The needs and concerns of the rural "minority" are no less important than the needs and concerns of the urban "majority."  It's not about Democracy. It's about seeing that the minority are not disenfranchised by the majority. That's why we have (or used to have) a democratic federal republic and not a democracy.

It's not about tradition, either.  Y'all have to come to terms with the reality that different regions have different economies due to their different ecosystems. Catering to nothing but the five or six highest population centers will deny any voice at all to the rest of the nation, and their needs and concerns will become irrelevant. You can call this "undemocratic." I don't care. It IS undemocratic. It denies the tyranny of the majority. Hillary knew how the elections work, and she had her chance to make her case to the rural voters, but she didn't give a shit about them, and she never has. She's an elitist. It's not hard to reach out to the people; you just have to show an authentic interest in their needs and concerns, but she has no interest in anything other than her own ambitions, and she's not particularly bright. So now we have her relative (by marriage) howling about the Electoral College, because Hillary didn't campaign in any sort of winning manner.

To win the presidency, a candidate must make his or her appeal to the people of the nation, and not merely to some areas in which they believe their support is strong. The Democratic Party establishment, being so out of touch as has been demonstrated often over the past few years, has even suggested that they could basically "write off" the South entirely, with the exception, perhaps, of two or three states. Here are a couple of several examples of such a call:

The Democrats have been advised against this several times:

In spite of this advice, however, the establishment Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have stubbornly clung to this arrogant elitism (oh, and how they love to believe themselves to be elite, but they're NOT;  they're fucking STUPID, or we would right now be looking forward to President Bernie Sanders), and, as anyone who WAS in touch could have told them, the result was that they got bitten in the ass after shooting themselves in both feet:

Even had they undertaken a massive PR campaign in the South and other rural areas, however, it would not have helped Hillary, who is seen by a majority of such voters as inauthentic, untrustworthy, and corrupt, as well as elitist and condescending; in Arkansas especially, this reputation is predominant. Many Arkansas voters are much more familiar with Mrs Clinton than the rest of the nation.

Abolition of the Electoral College would solve nothing, and only make things worse. What we need is reform, not abolition. And the reform needed is more to do with the way the Electors are awarded, not in the Electoral College itself. Instead of First Past the Post and Winner Takes All, some kind of Proportional Representation and/or Ranked Choice Voting and/or Score Voting would resolve most of the issues, and I'm not presumptuous enough to say at this point in time that I know how to blend those types of elections to resolve most of the issues, but I am erudite enough to realize that it is by some combination of those ways of electing that the resolution will be found. You'll never make it perfect. That's not to say it can't be improved; it certainly can. But it's always going to be imperfect, no matter how much it is improved. The question to consider is whether allowing the majority of people in tiny territories to dominate the minority in vast territories, when all these territories have different needs and concerns, is an improvement, and the answer is no.

This push to abolish the Electoral College is as ridiculous as the bullshit the Federalists pulled with the Continental Convention; the Articles of Confederation did not need to be replaced, when they could as easily have been reformed, and in fact, under the Articles and even under the Constitution itself, the "ratification" of the Constitution did not follow the rules, but was pushed through as if it were a done deal in spite of that (but that's a story for another time).

To suggest that the needs and concerns of the very diverse ecosystems which make up this nation should be ignored in favor of urban interests, whims, and fads, is unsustainable, untenable, and indefensible.  It is also even, dare I say it?  Anti-democratic.

The title of the post (and the subtitle, this time) comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 2, episode 23;  episode 52 overall;  production code 54.

Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Copyright notice
All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2016 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna L.). 

Monday, November 28, 2016

Errand of Mercy

Errand of Mercy,
Tomorrow Is "Giving Tuesday,"
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

Tomorrow is "Giving Tuesday," a global day dedicated to giving back.  For those who can and would like to give to a charity on this Giving Tuesday, many worthy causes exist.  You may of course select one or more of your own ways of being charitable and compassionate on Giving Tuesday, but I would like to recommend the following (to my knowledge, none of these have ever endorsed any political candidate, unlike some in my list last year):

in memory of Leonard Nimoy (if you like, or in memory of someone in your life)

Thanks for giving, you who are willing and able to do so.

If you are not able to give, that's alright, too.  I've been there myself, and I understand.

The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 26;  episode 26 overall;  production code 27.

Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

Thursday, November 17, 2016

This Side of Paradise

Berning Green

This Side of Paradise,
The Way Forward,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

"People who are too optimistic seem annoying. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what an optimist really is.

"An optimist is neither naive, nor blind to the facts, nor in denial of grim reality. An optimist believes in the optimal usage of all options available, no matter how limited. As such, an optimist always sees the big picture. How else to keep track of all that’s out there? An optimist is simply a proactive realist.

"An idealist focuses only on the best aspects of all things (sometimes in detriment to reality); an optimist strives to find an effective solution. A pessimist sees limited or no choices in dark times; an optimist makes choices.

"When bobbing for apples, an idealist endlessly reaches for the best apple, a pessimist settles for the first one within reach, while an optimist drains the barrel, fishes out all the apples and makes pie.

"Annoying? Yes. But, oh-so tasty!"

~ Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration (italics in original)

The Past

We could have had President Bernard Sanders, a Progressive Leftist in the White House.  Had Bernie been the nominee of the Democratic Party, he would have inspired people to get out and vote, and the Republicans would not now be dominant in both Houses of Congress.  Some establishment Democrats have mocked this claim, insisting that if Bernie could not even defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary, he could not possibly have defeated Trump in the general election.  Leaving aside for the moment the reality of the voter suppression and assorted other shenanigans engaged in by the Democratic establishment, the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie, these establishment Democrats are either stupid or attempting to bamboozle the voters, for Bernie Sanders had immense support among "No Party Preference," independent, and "third" party voters, many of whom could not vote in the primaries, due to partisan "closed primaries."  Their numbers are greater than the number of voters registered as Republican or the number of voters registered as Democrat.  Their votes could, nay, would, have easily put Bernie in the White House.

Instead, we were subjected to the worst Democratic nominee for President in my memory.  On top of her abysmal record and stances, to say nothing of the vast number of scandals associated with her, Hillary's campaign and her supporters attempted to guilt trip Berners into voting for her, tried to scare Berners into voting for her, endeavored to insult Berners into voting for her, sought to intimidate Berners into voting for her, exhibited massive condescension in the hope that Berners would vote for her.  They called us sexists, chauvinists, and misogynists.  They called us naïve.  They called us ridiculous.  They said we did not understand politics.  Hillary's campaign hired online trolls to harass Berners during the primary campaign and third party supporters during the lead-up to the general election.  Why they thought that these would be effective tactics remains a mystery.

Many of us stayed home, didn't vote for any presidential candidate, or voted for Doctor Jill Ellen Stein, the nominee of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS).  A few even voted for Donald John Trump, the Republican nominee or Gary Earl Johnson, the "Libertarian" nominee.  I myself voted for Doctor Stein.

Donald Trump won the election.

The blame game started immediately, with establishment Democrats and their partisan followers, and the drones of Hillary, pointing their fingers at Bernie, at Berners, at Jill, at GPUS voters, at Johnson and those who voted for him, at Russia, at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and even at Director James Comey of the FBI.  Some blamed racism, some blamed sexism.  One moronic spoiled brat blamed white women and said that they were guilty of internalized misogyny.  I have not seen or heard a single one of them express any acceptance of responsibility on their own part.  Most have not seemed to believe any of the information revealed by WikiLeaks, including the collusion of the Democratic National Committee with the Hillary for President campaign and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie.  They have continued to believe their own rhetoric to the point that one cultist even had the hubris to compare Hillary to the Goddess Athena.  I have seen videos of many of Hillary's supporters crying and expressing dismay and fear.  That was, of course, when they were not rioting in the streets, although there has been some suggestion that many of the rioters were bused in by George Soros and/or, to which Soros is a major contributor, and are therefore examples of "astroturfing."  Whether such suggestion be true or no, I do not know.  I have seen video of many buses parked on both sides of a street, but no verification of when and where the video was made, nor any evidence of connection to the rioters or any individual or organization.

Some have so bought into the Argumentum ad Hominem which the Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and the Hillary for President campaign used throughout the election cycle that they sincerely believe that Trump is a Fascist.  If he be a Fascist, then so is Hillary, and demonstrably so, but these people have been unwilling to listen to any criticism of Hillary.  Instead, they have simply continued the name-calling which they embraced during the campaign.  They have refused to listen to the historical evidence that Trump is no more of a Fascist than any other Republican President since 1981, and they have refused to consider that their "Saint" Hillary is not a Leftist, not a Progressive, not even a Liberal.  No, they have insisted, Hillary is flawless and has never done anything remotely wrong.  The cult of personality surrounding Hillary has prevented any penetration of their delusion by logic.

Doctor Stein, whom I supported and for whom (as noted above) I voted, who was the only Progressive Leftist candidate for President who was on sufficient state ballots to have a chance to win the general election, received only 1% of the popular vote (as of the time of this writing, according to RealClearPolitics).

The Present

So here we are, a week and two days after the election.  The Liberals and pseudo-Liberals have continued to behave hysterically.  Some partisan Democrats, members of the Democratic establishment, and Hillary supporters have called for the Electoral College to ignore the way their states voted and instead install Hillary as the President.  The level of political immaturity necessary for such a petition is rather stunning.  The hypocrisy is even more stunning, in light of the use of "Super Delegates" by the Democratic Party, whose pledged votes were constantly reported during the primary campaign season (even though those votes would not be cast until the Democratic National Convention), in a bid by the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie.

Hillary supporters, the rank and file supporters, are angry, sad, afraid.  They seem to honestly believe that Trump's presidency will be a disaster.  I have no doubt that it will not be remotely like what I would prefer, but I also recognize rhetoric and propaganda for what they are.  We survived eight years of George Walker Bush and Richard "Dick" Bruce (Darth) Cheney.  We will survive four years of Trump and Pence, and so will the democratic federal republic which is the United States of America.

In a little more than a month, the Electoral College will vote to confirm Trump as President-elect.  To do otherwise would be to invite chaos on a level which would far surpass the recent rioting by Hillary supporters.  Trump's supporters have firearms and assorted other ways to make the pro-Hillary/anti-Trump protests look like nothing more than a high school dance.

Some Berners who went Green for the general election have been considering returning to the Democratic Party, while others have expressed their intention to remain affiliated with the GPUS, and a few have spoken of leaving the country.

The Democrats, for their part, have named Charles "Chuck" Ellis Schumer as their Senate Minority Leader, seem to favor Howard Brush Dean III for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (although both Bernie and Schumer have supported Keith Maurice Ellison, who is widely believed to be Progressive, but supports the "No Fly Zone" over Syria which was favored by Mrs Clinton and opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and which would inevitably lead to provocation of, and likely war with, Russia, which is something no sane person wants), and have floated the idea of Timothy "Tim" Michael Kaine being their preferred candidate for President in 2020.  Schumer is a Neoliberal, Dean would be a continuation of the same failed policies which characterized the position when Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile held it, and Kaine is a man who loves deregulation and describes himself as "conservative."  If that were not bad enough, Schumer also named Joseph "Joe" Manchin III to be "Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee."  Manchin has been described as "moderate to conservative," and his record is anything but Progressive.  Schumer also named Elizabeth Ann Warren as Co Vice Chair of the Conference.  Warren was widely regarded as a Progressive champion before she endorsed Hillary Clinton for President earlier this year, apparently lured by the notion that Hillary would name her as running mate, which did not happen.  Further research into Warren's history reveals that she voted Republican until 1995, at age 46.  The other Vice Chair of the Conference named by Schumer is Mark Robert Warner, who is said to be a "moderate" Democrat, who voted for the extension of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in 2011, was a member of the "Gang of Six," has been hesitant regarding minimum wage increase, and whose campaign contributors include JP Morgan Chase.  None of these things support any idea that the Democrats have learned anything from this election cycle.  Schumer did name Bernie Sanders to be "Chair of Outreach," which is, according to The Washington Post, "a junior role in his [Schumer's] expanded leadership team."  As Chair of Outreach, Bernie will be in charge of public relations for the Democrats.  Schumer's choice of Senator Sanders for this position is itself an attempt at public relations, but a junior leadership role is less than Bernie deserves, and I am concerned with what sort of "outreach" the Democrats will expect him to do.

We are still on this side of Paradise, and perhaps further from that ideal than we have been before, although that is a matter of debate.

The Future

Where do we go from here, then?  What is the way forward?  For Progressive Left-libertarians, several options have been being discussed.  Some believe that we should join with or go back into the Democratic Party and attempt to reform it and steer it toward Progressive Left-libertarian ideals.  Others have argued instead that we should start a wholly new political party.  A few have suggested that we should go into one of the smaller Progressive Leftist political parties, and a few others have spoken of a desire to leave the USA and move to Canada or Europe.  Still others have proposed that we establish a coalition of Progressive Leftist political parties to work together.  And yet others have argued that we should remain with the GPUS.

From my perspective as one who recognized, in early 1994, the trend which has come to dominate the Democratic Party since 1993, and based on the just past election cycle and the post-election behavior of the establishment Democrats, I cannot see any value in going into the Democratic Party, nor any hope of it ever being reformed.  Although even the International Monetary Fund has declared that Neoliberalism is a failure, the Democratic Party establishment seems to be intent on continuing to push policies based on that dystopian economic philosophy.  Indeed, the establishment Democrats are now more like the Republicans of the 1980s than the Democrats of that decade.  Some of them have even embraced Neoconservative foreign policy (interventionism/imperialism) and unconditional support of the nation of Israel, which were prominent among Republicans in the 1980s.  They have learned nothing from the failed Clinton-Kaine campaign, and they therefore see no need to reform.  They remain in control of the party and its apparatus, which would make any effort to reform the party a steep uphill battle.

I do not agree with the idea of starting an entirely new political party, either.  That would take, at minimum, 20 years to grow to a point at which it might be able to put forth candidates for US Senate, US House of Representatives, and US President who might have a chance of winning office.  The amount of time, effort, and money necessary to accomplish such a thing would be enormous, and having to wait that long would be a setback which none of us actually wants.

While there are a number of small Progressive Leftist political parties in the USA, none of them has the membership numbers or sufficient organization to be a contender without time, effort, and money comparable to what would be required to build a totally new political party.  Again, such a setback would be extremely undesirable.

Leaving the country would accomplish nothing;  the USA would likely continue down the path to dystopia, and eventually become a menace to any nation to which we might emigrate.

Working to build a coalition of Progressive Left-libertarian political parties sounds good, but partisan politics is as much a quagmire as religious sectarianism.  Each group believes its way is "the" way, or they would have already merged together.  Still, this has promise, if we could successfully overcome the sectarian separatism of the distinct parties.  In order to accomplish this, however, we would need to have a strong presence in at least one such party.

I believe that our best option is to remain with the Green Party of the United States, and work to build it up, to get the message of the GPUS out, to inform the citizens of the actual numbers of the independent/NPP/"third" party voters, to register the unregistered eligible voters, to educate and promote the GPUS platform.  The GPUS presidential candidate in this past election was on the ballot in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and eligible as a write-in in three more states, for a total of 48, which is more than enough electoral votes to have won, had Jill won in enough states to get those electoral votes.  While she only got 1% of the popular vote this time around, that is a significant improvement on the 0.36% which she received in the 2012 election.  If we start NOW, instead of waiting till 2019, we can increase that percentage even more.  The Greens are found in several nations, and so have international recognition.  The GPUS has organization and apparatus which we would not have to build from scratch.  They are the largest Progressive Leftist party in the United States.  They have name recognition.  Many Berners went into the GPUS after the Democratic National Convention this year.  Progressive Left-libertarians thus have a decent presence in the party already.  We can ensure that the GPUS continues to stand for our ideals and selects candidates whom we prefer.

You may say I'm a dreamer of an impossible dream, but I'm not the only one. Someday we'll find the end of the rainbow, the lovers, the dreamers, and me, all of us under its spell.

Even if the Democratic Party were receptive to being reformed and to Progressive Left-libertarian ideals, that would not resolve the challenges which we face.  The entire electoral system must be reformed.  The Democratic Party must dispense with "Super Delegates."  We need to eradicate the "two" party system itself, which has brought us to the point at which two widely disliked and distrusted candidates were put forward as the two major parties' offerings for the office of President of the United States of America, and that will only be possible if we are in a "third" party.  We must get rid of "First Past the Post" elections and replace them with "Ranked Choice Voting" and Proportional Representation.  We need to take control of the debates away from the bipartisan Committee on Presidential Debates, and put it in the hands of an authentically non-partisan body.  We must reform campaign finance and restore the Fairness Doctrine, making it stronger than it was before.  We need to amend the Constitution to declare once and for all that corporations are not people, and to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission.  We cannot accomplish these things from within the Democratic Party, for the establishment of the party would never allow us to do so, and they have no intention of empowering the members of the party, for doing so would remove their power.  They are elitists who believe that they know what is best for us, when they are not merely Machiavellians intent on getting and keeping power and wealth, or pimps for the corporatist oligarchy.  #DemExit must be permanent for all those Berners who left the Democratic Party, for the establishment of that party has no intention of allowing the party to be reformed;  they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Those Berners who took part in #DemExit must go Green and stay Green, if they hope to ever see the future which all of us who are Progressive Left-libertarians long for.

We are still on this side of Paradise.  If we wish to draw nearer to that destination, the path toward it is clear, and that path is through the Green Party of the United States.  It's in our hands.

The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 24;  episode 24 overall;  production code 25.

Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

Monday, November 14, 2016

The City on the Edge of Forever

The City on the Edge of Forever,
Post-Election Musings,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

"For when the One Great Scorer comes
To mark against your name,
He writes – not that you won or lost –
But HOW you played the Game."
~ Grantland Rice, "Alumnus Football"

The quote above, from a poem by famed sportswriter Grantland Rice, is often paraphrased as "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."  We, who supported Doctor Jill Stein of the Green Party of the United States, did not win the election a few days ago.  Doctor Stein will not take the office of President of the United States of America in January.  This turn of events was not unexpected.  Going into the voting booths, we knew that Jill had very little chance of actually winning the election, but we voted for her anyway.  We could not support the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the bigotry and chauvinism of Donald Trump, or the "Objectivist" nonsense of Gary Johnson.  We voted our consciences.  Some would say that we lost.  I would say that we didn't win the election, but we also didn't lose, because we held fast to our principles, even though the outcome of the election is not what we would have preferred.

There has been a lot of speculation about "What if" since the results came in.  What if Bernie Sanders had accepted Jill Stein's offer to become her running mate?  What if Hillary and her drones had not rigged the primary to favor Hillary and undermine Bernie?  What if this?  What if that?  We cannot know with certainty the answers to those speculative questions.  If Bernie had become Jill's VP running mate, I am certain that the Greens would have gotten far more than 5% of the vote, but as it happened, he did not, and the Greens got less than 5%.  I believe that if Bernie had accepted Jill's offer, the Greens would have had a very good chance of actually winning, but without some means of travel to, or at least viewing of, an alternate timeline in which he did accept her offer, the ultimate outcome of such a situation will never be known, at least to us who have no such means at our disposal.

As usual, and as we expected, Hillary and her drones have attempted to put the blame for Hillary's loss on everyone but themselves.  It is a symptom of psychopathology to be unwilling to admit fault, and Mrs Clinton has evinced this symptom for years.  They have attempted to blame Russia, FBI Director James Comey, disgruntled Berners, and supporters of both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  The number tally demonstrates quite clearly that third party voters did not cost Hillary the election, but this is a mythology which the Democrats have credulously embraced whole-heartedly ever since 2000 when they claimed (falsely) that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election.  Reams of paper have been printed on which this blame of anyone and everyone other than Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, and all their cohorts and trolls has been published.  Fortunately, considerably more reams of paper have been printed on which the blame has been appropriately and correctly aimed at those who are actually responsible:  Hillary and her pals in the corrupt DNC and the corporate-owned, establishment, main stream media, and her condescending, insulting, and obnoxious disciples.

Not content with promoting what they referred to as "pied piper" candidates in the Republican primary, not content with anti-democratic collusion to promote Hillary and marginalize Bernie, these fools heaped insult upon injury by castigating, shaming, and mocking the Progressive Leftist base of the Democratic Party, attempting to bully them into supporting Hillary's bid for the presidency.  A certain narrative was repeated from her previous attempt, namely, that anyone who did not support Hillary was a sexist and a chauvinist and a misogynist.  That didn't work too well when many of us were supporting another woman instead of Hillary, and so they decided to attempt to besmirch Doctor Stein's reputation by making all manner of baseless claims about her supposed "anti-scientific" beliefs.  If this had happened in any sphere other than politics, they would rightly have been sued for slander and libel, and they would have lost that suit.  Doctor Jill Stein is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, who studied Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, who even served as an instructor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.  The claims made about her by the pro-Hillary crowd are nothing short of libel and slander (and Harvard should sue for slander and libel, too), but they have been debunked repeatedly.  Still, some of the gullibles continued parroting those claims up to and after the election.

Even after the election, however, Hillary's cultists continue to claim that Hillary lost because of sexism, but at the same time, they claim it was the fault of Jill Stein supporters.  The self-referential incoherence is astounding.

We did not support Mrs Clinton for many, many reasons, but sexism was not one of those, at least not sexism on our part.

While we mocked her and at times insulted her and her supporters, anything we said about them pales in comparison to the vitriol which they directed at us.  Tu Quoque is still a fallacy, I admit.  I will not attempt to justify our insults of them by pointing to their insults of us.  Our insults of them, however, were based on firmer foundation than anything they said about us, and so evade the charge of Argumentum ad Hominem.  Not every insult is fallacious.  On the field of politics, moreover, the game is one of rhetoric and not Logic, and so insults are all too common, and even expected.  It is of course preferable when they are based on some reality, rather than manufactured out of thin air.  No, our insults were true;  the supporters of Hillary really ARE a gaggle of gullibles.  Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is or ever was a champion of women, the LGBTI community, Liberalism, Progressive ideals, or Leftism is excruciatingly gullible, for she was and is none of those things.

They tried to scare us into voting for Hillary, too, but after having heard this bullshit over and over again from the Democrats every time they put forth a deeply flawed candidate, we didn't buy it:

"If you don't vote for Hillary, you'll get the big bad wolf!"
:: yawn ::
"But, but, but ... TRUMP!"
"He's a fascist!"
So is Hillary.
"How can you say that?  You've been reading Right Wing propaganda!"
No, toots, I've been reading WikiLeaks, but I also lived in Arkansas for all but about a year of the time her husband was Governor of the state, and I do my own research.  I might accidentally know a little more about her than your twenty-something-year-old Yankee ass which only listens to partisan Democrat and condescending pseudo-Liberal propaganda does.

Now after the election, they try to blame us.  Evidently, they are mathematically incompetent, because even if every third party voter had not voted for Jill or Johnson, it doesn't mean we would have voted for Hillary, and she would still have lost.  "You're responsible for this!"  No, you are.  I voted for an ethical candidate.  You voted for a candidate who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the ass, a candidate who apparently engaged in pay for play schemes, a candidate whose lust for war contributed to deaths of millions around the world, a candidate who admitted to her wealthy corporate donors that she had both a public and a private position, a candidate who advocated for toppling the Syrian government because Zionism, a candidate whose ambition and lust for wealth and power and position and prestige dominated her psyche to such an extent that she would not do what was right for the Republic and instead clung to her stolen nomination when she should have stepped down in favor of the candidate who could have won, in the midst of not one but two criminal investigations of her activities, a woman who derided and smeared other women who were victims of, or collaborators in, Bill's philandering, because she wouldn't admit the truth that she is not enough for Bill, and not enough for America.

No, we didn't win.  But we didn't lose, either, because Hillary did not win.  And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we won or lost;  it matters that we were true to our principles.  I daresay few Hillary supporters can honestly make the same claim.  Suck it up, buttercup, you lost the election for your Queen (Wanna)Bee.  I'm not happy that Donald Trump won, but I am utterly delighted that Hillary Clinton lost.  I just hope Trump follows through on his declared intention to have a REAL investigation of Hillary, because the pimpette of Wall Street belongs in prison, for so, so many reasons.  Do you need a "safe space"?  Tough shit.  Go to Canada if you have the spine to do so.  We'll still be here, fighting for Progressive Left-libertarian ideals and goals, while you delicate little neurotics run away from an imaginary boogeyman.

And we'll sleep soundly at night, knowing that we were true to our values.  We may not have won, but we played the Game ethically, with honor and integrity, which is far more than I can say for Hillary and her drones.


The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 28;  episode 28 overall;  production code 28.

Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.