caucus99percent

free-range politics, organic community

This is from a Facebook page that I've "liked" that goes by the name of 'Heywood Jablome'. I'm reposting it here because it's appropo.
It crystallizes where we've been and where some of us are going, and does so with a respect for the fact that everyone is moving at their own pace and in their own directions. I thought it was worth sharing. Enjoy.

So, according to the readers of the tea leaves—who, it must be said, are wrong, more often than they are right—today there shall occur these two Events: (1) The Cranky Brooklyn Deli Man, he will meet The Mad Bomber, upon a stage, in a high school gymnasium, in New Hampshire, and there he shall endorse her, to be the president; (2) The Hairball, in Indiana, he will publicly get jiggy, with that state's governor, Dick "Six" Pence, whom he shall then name as his vice-presidential running mate, thereby trumpeting, to all the world, the immortal ticket, of Baboon & Buffoon.

These sorts of politics people, they are, in the main, stupid and boring. And they, for sure, do not advance the planet.

However, I feel duty-bound to, at least here, Grump Along With Mitch, about them. At least. For a while.

But, then, we can get down, to what is really wrong. And: more importantly: to what is really right. Like, to some humans, who are advancing, the planet.

With, meanwhile, as filigree, some pleasant, or not so, diversions: Queen Elizabeth, transforming into a lizard person, right there on the television; Anton LaVey, fingered as Mitch Miller; farmering while invisible; and how, if you stop yelling, you can see better.

So what if, instead of the TPP, Obama was supporting, say, child pornography, would you still have people saying: "We have to support this, Obama is the leader of the democratic party", or "We have to support him in order not to embarrass him", or any of the other dumbass lines about why people in the democratic party shouldn't oppose the TPP? A bad idea is a bad idea whether the president is a lame duck or not.

A crazed gunman killed five officers in Dallas and wounded others. A crazed bipartisan leadership, coalesced with financial and business elites, and military brass, kill in seconds around the clock the same or greater number. Is it possible that if the latter did not happen, neither would we see more of the former?