HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MrScorpio » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 71,961

Journal Archives

Existing without either institutional memory or a sense of irony

When you watch the morning news pundits, don't you also perceive that that's the world in which they live, as do I?

That in making connections to past policies, that's to be left unsaid, or that they leave absent thoughtful considerations about the implications of doing something had always turned out to create catastrophic failures, not to mention all the false analogies taken as absolute canon, unchallenged propaganda, out of context statements and illogical conclusions; it's clear that the media totally obfuscates perceptions, leaves plenty of room for doubt, creates tension and uncertainty and leaves the viewer less informed than ever?

Such is why we have so many low-information and uncommitted voters in a so-called age of high availability of information. Even if the information is plentiful, yet its overall quality is poor, it all amounts to nothing more than the news equivalent of empty calories.

There's alternative press, of course. But even there one risks isolating oneself in a bubble of misperception. Without an ability to correctly assess the quality of information, most Americans are unable to transcend biases, critically reject propaganda and correctly perceive the information that they're getting.

Things that I've objected to... There's a false narrative going around right now that style in the debates trumps content. This has dictated that lying is perfectly acceptable in order to consider it a way to win. Or that the judgement of style and the dependency on memorization and delivery somehow denotes the qualifications to fill high office. This would be true if we're all voting to elect the best debater in the world, instead of chief executive. I find the trend of demoting content under style extremely disturbing. It's not all that relevant in creating the right expectations for qualification to do the job of running the country, is it not?

Since most of our media is commercially owned by corporations that profit greatly from a woeful lack of public participation, it stands to reason that our general inability to process information, our apathetic reaction to regressive government and outright crony capitalism is a planned response.

After watching the news, we're supposed to be depressed, even about the leaders that we support and the causes that are close to our hearts. Confusion and frustration are altogether natural outcomes of a general inability to properly process information. This allows and promotes a trend in which the people routinely vote against their own best interests. Instead of applying a proper context to their decision making, the depend on false memes and incomplete narratives.

We don't get information that allows us to make the best decisions, we merely absorb a managed and controlled form of programming that's designed to create outcomes that we neither need nor want.

We all need to have information to properly process the information that we're getting. To not retain an adequate base knowledge and a proper capacity to process information is nothing more than negligence in my book.

I'm not satisfied with the news content and delivery at all and I can explain why I'm not happy with it.

When something is wrong, it's so obvious to me why.

Twenty-five things that Mitt Romney needs say in order to get elected in November

In spite of the fact that Mitt Romney is conducting the most inept, tone deaf, ham-handed, mendacious and immature political campaign ever in the vast, long and storied history of American politics, there is one shining light… One gilded, fluffy cloud in his storm filled skies of campaign stump merrymaking, and that is his unabashed penchant for making wildly imaginative claims about what he wouldn't do if he were elected.

You've got to hand it to the guy when he claims that he won't do the things that he implies that President Obama has done, like try to take God off of our money, go on some non-existent "apology tour", or claim that the President is weak in foreign policy after he singlehanded killed Osama Bin Laden, ended the Iraq War and has ground al-Qaeda into a greasy spot in the desert. After Romney has his well appointed ass handed to him in the most spectacular fashion this November, he has quite a future ahead of him as another Tom Clancy-esque fiction writer, if he wants it. You can most definitely call that his "potential!"

Now, since he's willing to say just about anything on the stump, I think that it's about time that he at least make his imaginary claims interesting. He should just take them in hand and go running through the green, green hills with them with flowers in his transitive grayish hair.

I've come up with a list of 25 things that Romney can use. He doesn't have to directly say that the President has done any of these things, all he has to do is claim that he won't do them himself. Let's get started, shall we?

Here are the things that Mitt Romney should promise:

1. That he won't surrender America to the Vandals, Goths, Huns, Visigoths, Mongols or any other barbarian horde.

2. That he won't force American troops to wear fairy wings and sprinkle magical pixie dust on the enemy during US Military combat operations.

3. That he won't invite Israel out to an expensive dinner, excuse himself to go to the bathroom, leave out of the back door and stiff them with the bill.

4. That he won't go on a rodeo riding tour or run away to the circus instead of running the country.

5. That he won't posthumously Mormon baptize Seamus.

6. That he won't sing the Saturday Weekly Presidential Addresses.

7. That he won't put on his Boogie Shoes and dance in the Oval Office.

8. That he won't make vital policy decisions while zonked out on caffeine.

9. That he won't start sexting God on his iPhone 5.

10. That he won't try to get any whiter than he already is.

11. That he won't annex Mexico and call it "Mexiblackistan."

12. That he won't make America clutch its purse when he steps into an elevator.

13. That he won't paint the White House black and rename DC "Chocolate City."

14. That he won't hand out coupons for free abortions.

15. That he won't grow an afro.

16. That he won't stop battling that army of sentient machines that are hellbent on enslaving humanity.

17. That he won't secretly replace your old coffee with Folgers Crystals.

18. That he won't ever abandon Atlantis, Shangri-La, Mordor, Westeros or Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

19. That he won't appoint Ann Romney as national fairy godmother.

20. That he won't go on an international Lambada tour.

21. That he won't build our embassies out of candy and invite toddlers to eat them.

22. That he won't change his name to Welfare Mitt Recipient.

23. That he won't go romping around topless on French beaches.

24. That he won't let Paul Ryan give beer bashes in the West Room before giving him the keys to Air Force One.

25. That he won't go changing just to please us, he likes himself just the way that he is.

So, go ahead, Mitt, make it interesting… The 48-hour news cycle is waiting.

If you want to, you too can add to this list as well.

Let's help Mitt out.

"If you prick us, do we not bleed?" - The Absent Humanity of Willard Mitt Romney

The quote in the title, of course, is excerpted from Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, his examination of the state of anti-Semitism during his time. The words were spoken by the character, Shylock, a Jewish merchant on trial, defending his own humanity, as well as the humanity of the Jewish people, while expressing a plea for mercy from the Christian, Portia.

Now, I don't have a degree in English lit. I don't even have a college degree and I admit that this is just another one of my clumsy ways to make a point. I do like Shakespeare, however, but only in movie form. So, give me some Kenneth Branagh as Henry V any day. But to me, that particular line from Merchant begs to ask a very salient question, however metaphorically about what's going on when you see and hear Romney say and do the things that he says and does.

"Is this man even a human being?"

Ostensibly, any question about how the play's topic on anti-Semitism itself can relate to Mitt Romney's situation is most certainly a remote one… Well, none whatsoever, as in there really no need to compare Romney to anti-Semitism. But if there is any question as to whether Romney himself would bleed if pricked, it can only be established that such a question needs to be surmised solely on the examination of his own behavior.

There is the standing joke about whether someone can figure out if he's either a space alien or a robot. His overly wooden demeanor is always a topic of conversation. His apparent lack of sympathy for his fellow human beings and so forth and so on. There have even been speculations made as to whether he suffers from either a form of sociopathy, or even autism. I don't think that he fits either of those definitions.

But let's look at the things that he has done and take it from there, shall we? It's quite clear, from this evidence, that there's something definitely wrong with the guy… But what is it? Well, let's see.

Let's start with his take on racial politics:

To Romney, the topic of Latinos are only couched in terms, classifying them as "illegals" that should self-deport:


Or that the undocumented immigrants working on his lawn only poses a political inconvenience to his own campaign:


Or on how Romney explains the negative reaction by the NAACP's mostly African-American audience to his own tone deaf speech:


His explanation boiled down to an excoriation of his audience that "If They Want More Free Stuff From The Government Vote Obama":


So when it comes to racial minorities, were there ever any natural, unpremeditated admissions that African-Americans or Latino-Americans are simply other human beings with the same desires for self-fulfillment, dignity and the need to flourish in a free society as his own or like people that he most readily identifies with? Not that I can see.

It's as if these people don't exist as people to Romney.

No, Blacks and Hispanics are only political inconveniences to him, and their heavily tilted support for his opponent, President Obama, represents no sweat off of his brow. His compensation is to try and pander to 61% of the white vote to eke out a victory, inspired his promotion outwardly racist memes, a la The Southern Strategy:


About the subject LGBT rights:

He couldn't' even conceive of the idea that LGBT people working under him desired to have families, and required the state to accord itself with laws to protect their rights as they do the rights of straight people wanting to have families. Look at this cold exchange that was recited later:

GOODRIDGE: Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?

ROMNEY: I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.


And when confronted by an older Gay military veteran, couldn't even acknowledge the basic need for his companionship with is same-sex partner. Instead, Romney coldly recited bigoted talking points to the man's face:

Now, this can simply be added up to Romney's undiluted contempt for LGBT people, as well as his blatant strategy to pander to the Religious Right and the anti-LGBT vote.

But it's the heartless manner in which he expresses these things to the very faces of LGBT people, regardless of who they are, and the lack of any consideration for their basic humanity… This, I find quite disturbing.

He might as well have been talking to paramecia, instead of to other human beings.

Romney on Women's issues:

He doesn't care about the women at all.

Women's health is on no concern to him:


He's pledged to eliminate Title X funding, if elected:


Hostile to family planning:


He's also hostile to equal pay to women for equal work:


When asked about his opinion about the Violence Against Women Act, his only response was that he didn't even know what it was:


Other than brood mares and domestic slaves, it's quite clear that Romney has no idea what the role of women in a free society would be at all. His positions would fit more closely to the world of A Handmaid's Tale, than they would the United States in the 21st Century.

Romney on the plight of the poor:

There's no dearth of information about what the situation of poor people would be in a a Romney's America. It would be ALL bad:

The poor in Romney's Americas are classified as "losers":


Which is all fine and dandy, because he's not concerned about them anyway:


When confronted about how problematic his position on poor people are, he unashamedly doubles down on it:


Eventually, he makes a political reassessment on his position, by saying that the GOP isn't the "Party of the Rich,’ But ‘of Those Who Want to Be Rich":


Again, there's no acknowledgment of someone else's basic humanity, by Romney. First, he admits what his position is, he doesn't care, and when that position proves to be problematic, we get a staid and disconnected recalculation.

And lastly, his shameful attempt at political opportunism around the deaths of American diplomats in Libya:

These pics pretty much say it all:

So, what would we see if we were to prick Romney? Well, blood of course. Mitt Romney, no question is a human being… It's just that he's barely one at that. He fits the thinest definition possible. Excuse my own admittedly non-expert opinion, it's just that I know what I'm seeing in the guy and it's just to freaking obvious as it pans out.

Now, for my own layman's diagnosis:

Although Shylock is a poor literary metaphor for Mitt Romney, there is another figure who fits him quite appropriately - And that would be the mythological figure, NARCISSUS.

If you're not familiar with Narcissus, here's a quick summary and an explanation about how Romney's world fits this particular oeuvre:

Narcissus or Narkissos (Greek: Νάρκισσος ), possibly derived from ναρκη (narke) meaning "sleep, numbness," in Greek mythology was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was exceptionally proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis saw this and attracted Narcissus to a pool where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.


I propose that Romney fits the classic definition of Narcissistic personality disorder.

Here's a list of symptoms, which on its face, portrays a clear and distinct description of the man, Mitt Romney himself:

Symptoms of this disorder include:

Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation

Taking advantage of others to reach their own goals

Exaggerating their own importance, achievements, and talents

Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

Becoming jealous easily

Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others

Being obsessed with oneself

Pursuing mainly selfish goals

Trouble keeping healthy relationships

Becoming easily hurt and rejected

Setting goals that are unrealistic

Wanting "the best" of everything

Appearing unemotional


Pursuing mainly selfish goals, taking advantage of others to reach their own goals, Wanting "the best" of everything:

Look at Mitt Romney's greatest accomplishment; he's a fabulously wealthy man. How he treats that wealth; the homes with elevators for his cars, his boats, his inability to attach any moral consideration to how he obtained that wealth, his apparent shame for hiding what he may think as a shortcoming (his love of wealth), all points to an obsession with financial self-aggrandizement.

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others, Becoming easily hurt and rejected, Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance, Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others:

As he lies constantly about his own accomplishments, he also obsessively diminishes the accomplishments of his opponents. There is absolutely nothing truthful about his description of the President's policies and accomplishments. They are all fantastic lies about President Obama going on some non-existent "Apology tour".

You would think that Romney would at least say truthful things about the President that he could object to, but instead, he has gone out of his way to fashion a straw man Obama for him to knock down.

Romney has repeated portrayed himself as a man who has singlehandedly "saved" the Olympics. He took that smug attitude of his to London, where he insulted an Olympics that he has absolutely nothing to do with and blatantly described it to be inadequate compared to his own.

Trouble keeping healthy relationships, Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others, Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation, Appearing unemotional:

That last one really resonated with me. Here he is, just after Gov. Chris Christie made the formal nomination of Romney for the GOP's presidential candidate:


This should be the greatest moment of his political career, a supremely joyous occasion for any normal person. Instead we get the expression of a guy who looks like he's waiting for the next Crosstown bus.

If anything, he's clueless about what emotion he's supposed to express. All he can do is sit there and calculate. You can see the wheels literally turning in his head.

This is why he's not connecting with people, he doesn't know how to and doesn't even care. Other people are of no consequence to him, even when he himself is the center of attention.

So, lastly… And thanks for lasting this long, by the way… What can we say about the elusive humanity of Willard Mitt Romney? Well, not much.

The man is a fabulously tailored empty suit, to be sure. If he were ever elected as President of the United States, given the absolute need for the person holding that office to embody the hearts, minds, needs and futures of the American people, as well as conduct his or her affairs on a way that considers the lives and livelihoods of many people around the world, it's most blatantly apparent that Mitt Romney shouldn't be anywhere near the Oval Office. He's a gross invitation for unmitigated disaster and all I did was just scratch the tip of the iceberg.

He also has one well established core competency, making himself rich. Everything else has been an exercise in abject incompetence. He is conducting the worst campaign for office that many experts have declared the worst that they have ever seen.


Much like the mythical Narcissus, Mitt Romney's utter incompetency as a candidate seems to spell eventual doom for his chances at getting elected. But we can't just sit on the predictions made from from his declining poll numbers, the Republicans are scheming to steal the election.

Given all of this and more… I'm concerned. Not about Romney, per se, but about our political system. In spite of it all, there are ostensibly non-partisan voices who push the idea that Romney is fit to serve as President, much less is running a campaign that justifies his winning an election. This is the supreme height of fraudulent objectiveness. There is absolutely no way that any honest non-partisan person can look at what Romney has been up to and say that he's suited to run the country.

It's a fucking joke. I'd expect the paid partisan hacks and Obama haters out there to talk up Romney like he's the Messiah, that's their job. But our country is at stake here, and we have to cope with a system that's awash in money and corruption, the cutback of voting rights and the potential for further corruption with a thoroughly partisan judiciary and a legislature broken with fringe, right wing political dilettantes.

Willard Mitt Romney is not sufficiently HUMANE to hold the office of the Presidency. Let's stop playing around, this is serious business.


Republicans are like people who serve shit sandwiches…

And will charge more than the going rate for the dining experience, all while saying that the healthy and tasty meal in the place across the street is bad for you. They declare that eating shit sandwiches is in fact patriotic and builds good moral character. Good Americans eat shit sandwiches, they say.

However, when Republicans are riding high in the saddle from all the shit sandwiches they've sold, they themselves are dining fine on filet mignon. If you're not eating as well as they are, then you must deserve the shit sandwich that they've sold to you.

People who vote for Republicans will gladly eat that shit sandwich and will thank them for the privilege. Somehow, they just can't figure out why it's not a good idea to eat it, even if they know better in the back of their minds.

The thing that they hate most is the idea that some undeserving person will get their grimy hands on THEIR shit sandwich. That would be the worst thing in the world.

When I hear people telling me that they hate Obama because he's a "commie" or a "Kenya", it's pretty clear that these are folks who like the taste of Republican shit sandwiches and are scared to death of the idea of eating real food.

I choose to not be that person who eats shit sandwiches and I'll always steer folks to good food instead whenever I can. JusT like me, I know that you'll keep telling them that shit sandwiches aren't good for them.

That's because we don't want to have to eat them ourselves because there's nothing else left, right?

In spite both the prevention and termination of unwanted pregnancies,

Not to mention the loss of wanted pregnancies through miscarriage and termination through necessary, life sustaining medical procedures, isn't it a fact that the current birth rate is still going up and up?

In America, since our rate of consumption is so much higher than every other country on the planet, wouldn't any unwanted births not ended in this country have a more detrimental effect on the globe than were they to happen anywhere else?

Why is the Right determined to impose unwanted births on women and families before they're prepared to cope with new children, while doing everything that they can to prevent the personal and societal capacity to raise these kids in the long run?

Aren't the overstrained educational system, the high umemplyoment problems, the overwhelmed medical system, the prison complex, the homelessness issues and the general failure of the social safety net progams clue enough to these people that, we have enough problems coping with everyone whose here today plus the addition of wanted pregnancies, than to add onto those existing problems by imposing unwanted births on a society that's ill-prepared for them?

If I didn't know any better, I would swear that the Right with its irrational obsession on fetuses, even to the extent that it excuses rape and incest to drive up the birth rate above existing levels, is out to destroy this planet and humanity as a whole through overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources.

The Right is clearly practicing both a form of lop-sided moral relativism, as well as a scheme to gain and maintain hegemonic power over the rest of the planet.

Through their fervent advocacy of an unmanaged birth rate as well as their efforts to man and unleash both a bloated, unequaled military and an unrestrained banking system on the planet, this is done in order to take control of global resources and humanity at will.

Their advocacy to create a constituency of wealthy elites is also required to fund a take over of our political system against a backlash of democracy, as well as the way that they use societal misery, fears and prejudices against the electorate in order to impel the majority to vote against its best interests. Simply make them believe that the things that the Right are up to are the moral things to do.

Against raising the general standard of living, managing a sustainable birth rate, pursuing peaceful resolution of conflicts, practicing safe and sustainable energy production and resource usage, the Right has distorted these things as immoral and have convinced a sizable amount of the American public that the complete opposite is moral.

It's no accident that advocates for rape like Todd Akin are using moral justifications in their defenses, this is merely their exercise of a system of control. Control of society as a whole through the control of women's reproductive systems is at the core of their strategy. Any exercise of self-control by women and families represents a fundamental threat to the Right's access to power and overall control.

In conclusion, it's quite clear to me that the Right is willing to risk the very existence of human life on this planet in order to control it.

And why not?

Their moral relativism dictates that their behavior guarantees a safe and desirable reward in the Afterlife. Nothing that happens on this planet is important to them in the long run and is thusly available to be sacrificed to obtain that much vaunted reward.

In other words, we're dealing with unreasonable fanatics who are hellbent on throwing our very existence as a species away.

If that doesn't impel you to do everything that you can to marginalize these people to the point of harmlessness, I don't know what will.

I would never presume that I'm presidential material…

Frankly, I know for a fact that I'm not fit for any elected office at all, that even goes for dog catcher.

However, I've never had the benefit of being a rich white guy who's the son of a rich white guy, and I didn't grow up being a creature of abject privilege, someone who only thinks of himself, without the willingness to work for the benefit of others.

I do, on the other hand, recognize the problem with someone like that obtaining elective office.

Romney was born in Detroit's Harper Hospital, as I was born in Herman Kiefer Hospital, just a few short miles away. But, unlike most other people born in inner city hospitals like we were, his formative years were coddled in the monied confines of Bloomfield Hills. Now, if you know anything about this area, then you would know that Bloomfield Hills contains one of the highest concentrations of rich, privileged white assholes this side of Hell… Michigan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan.

He was given the best that this country had to offer, the best schools and opportunities, all because of who he was born to and where he was raised.

Somehow, he got it inside of his empty head that all of this shit makes him fit to be president. He was lied to and was too fucking stupid to see that lie for himself. He never will see it. I suspect that he'll go to his grave thinking that he deserved to be president and was unfairly kept from office. If someone had ever told me that I could be president, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

Now, I'm going to tell you an observation I've had about Mitt that I think should be obvious to anyone reading this. Mitt Romney's chief character flaw; that as long as it's something that could be used to inflate his already gargantuan ego, he would swallow ANY bullshit that's fed to him. This very aspect of his personality is the single most important factor as to why he should never become president. I think that in the backs of most other voter's minds, they recognize that in him as well. It makes him completely inadequate for the job.

Which begs to question as to how he's found himself as his party's presumptive nominee in the first place. A Romney nomination makes absolutely no sense at all. Apparently, Mitt's only qualifications for elective office are based on two things; his unabashed willingness to lie and pander for votes and his ability to hoard a crap load of money from his halcyon days as a vulture capitalist. Money made on the rotting bones of lost American businesses and jobs.

As a politician, he is by far, the MOST incompetent campaigner I've EVER seen in my fifty short years on this planet. He doesn't take advice, he fails to research his audiences, he knows nothing about the lives of ordinary people, he takes stands that most normal people find reprehensible, his moral compass is haywire, he lies when it would to his advantage to tell the truth and blurts out factual items that would cause him political harm, he's utterly failed to prepare his financial records for the scrutiny that would be expected by any other politician running for ANY office, he's smug, arrogant, obtuse, intellectually lazy, supremely privileged and about as useful as tits on a bicycle.

In other words, he's the ultimate in Bloomfield Hills rich, white asshole technology. All of this points to the indisputable fact that the Republican Party, as we know it today, is completely hosed as an organization for allowing this bean bag to matriculate to the position of nominee.

I have no idea how or why this guy thinks that he's fit to be President of the United States. However, I don't blame him as much as I blame all of the people walking around in this country who knows ANYTHING about this guy and they also feel that he's fit to be President. I blame the broken behemoth known as the Republican Party and the media hacks who know better, yet who steadfastly refuse to admit to the truth.

Are they fucking nuts? Couldn't they buy a fucking clue after his laughable foreign country fiasco?

Say what you will about Richard "Tricky" Nixon, at least that underhanded, paranoid motherfucker was QUALIFIED for the job.

I wouldn't hire Mitt to wash dishes.

Of course Mitt picked a lame, self-obssessed, brown-noser dipshit, like Paul Ryan as his running mate. He's a son of privilege too, rich from his inheritance and ability to inside trade from his position in the Gubmint to keep himself rolling in greenbacks. These two know-nothing assholes are two peas in a gilded pod. Why didn't I figure that out to begin with? Who knows, I guess I made the mistake of thinking that Mittens wouldn't pick some guy who would have the instant cumulative effect of tossing the election, even BEFORE the national convention.

Silly me, what do I know? I guess that I forgot that Mitt is utterly in-com-pe-tent!

In spite of the efforts of state house Republicans to steal this election, I am confident that the President will win by a landslide in November.

Everyone hasn't heard of Bloomfield Hills, but most people know an incompetent, privileged asshole when they see one.

The people who recognized a person like that will always vote for the other guy instead.

Thank any non-specific mythical deity.

When I listen to Republicans, I wish that I could create a room...

A room that's bound solely by the physics of their own rhetoric. It'll be a representation of the world by which they expect the rest of us to live in, only they'll find that the things that they claim will only apply to them.

I'd put them into this room and I'd want see how long they'd last before they would give up. They could leave this room any time they'd want to.

However, I would score each Republican on the length of time they'd last in it.

Now, those that would stay in this Physics of Republicanism room the longest would get the best scores.

Although I think that the zealots, fanatics and sociopaths would top off the list in their ability to withstand the room, and the cowards, idiots and craven liars would leave the room almost immediately.

And perhaps one can surmise that each Republican could be classified in a way as was Schröedinger's Cat in his box… That unless you open the door to the room and observe the Republican, or unless the Republican quickly leaves the room, there's really no way of knowing if such a person would remain a Republican if they had to live solely under the conditions of their own ideology and rhetoric. That without direct observation or immediate exit, their republicanism would be in a state of paradoxical flux and we would not know if it either exists or doesn't exist.

I wouldn't want to enter the room at all and I assume that the rest of you feel the same. But then again, we're NOT Republicans.

But it's no secret that they're hypocrites who think that they can live in world not bound by their own design. They wish to design a world that only applies to the OTHER and not to themselves. It's my firm belief that these people can do and say the things that they claim is good for the rest of us only because there is NO room that they'd forced into to prove all the crap that they say.

Instead, the system that currently exists, otherwise known as "The Real World" is there to bail these motherfuckers out when they lead us all of the cliff with "Too big to fail".

Republicans fail, as we all do. But what makes them a problem is that they take their failures and double down on them, always thinking that they'd arrive to a different result from their same rhetoric and ideology.

Another famous physicist had something very important to say about that behavior: Albert Einstein, when he said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If that doesn't describe Republicans to a tee, I don't know what does.

No MrScorpio rant this week...

I'm taking a little time off from giving a fuck about all the utter shit that's causing America to have an intestinal blockage and I'm concentrating on something that's infinitely more important: Whatever.

You all will get the next weekly rant from yours truly whenever the mood suits me.

Taking the chill pill… NOW!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

The man behind the curtain is of course the very fact that we're in a depression at this very moment because the leaders who are running things and the media who are supposed to document it all are refusing to do their jobs. They will not question the ways of the world. They refuse to advance the right kind of questions and are also refusing to acknowledge the fact that perhaps less than five percent of this nation's wealth is actually being circulated throughout our economy.

They are afraid of the answers, it's so plain to see.

That our great wealth is set aside and is invisible to all of us, we're not even supposed to acknowledge that it even exists. It's like some great secret, known only to the mystical wizards who are guarding them away from the peasants in the street. That's because that wealth is sanctioned for making a bloated and unnecessary arsenal, which either sits around and doesn't make any return on the investment, or is sold overseas at discount prices… Think of that strategy as the kind where pushers give away freebees, hook potential customers on their highly addictive junk and then charge exorbitant prices when they come crawling back, jonesing on their knees for more.

Parts, upgrades and maintenance, that's how you hook the rubes on your Pentagon junk, baby. Those weapons, mind you, create a temping incentive to use them against other people for any damn reason that can be imagined. But more about that some other time.

But the real shameful story is that our wealth is also being hoarded by the über-rich, the multinationals and the banks. Demand creation isn't even being discussed out loud. That's because, in order to create demand, the massive amount of wealth that is currently held and is either being unused or abused by our betters is going to have to be widely redistributed to generate the engine for a truly vibrant and healthy economy.

But who wants say that?

Any one of those pols or talking heads who would say something like that will be quickly discredited and disposed of so fast that it'll make their heads spin. This is in spite of the fact that some of the slide into Republican Hell has been slowed down because of the President's own efforts in the private sector, against the efforts of the GOP dilettantes in the Congress who are refusing to move forward on job creating and while they're too busy trying to legislate uteruses and snipe chasing the Attorney General of the United States.

But, do you REALLY want to see a bloodbath? Just TRY even HINTING at massively redistributing the nation's wealth away from the hoarders at the top towards the rest of the hoi polloi who are just itching to move it along and it will create that bloodbath in the blab-o-sphere. So, we're all, you I and every other person that you know, are resorting to playing with fractions of pennies while hundred dollar bills are being used to light Cohibas in the Halls of Power and Influence.

Oh, and about those pesky banks, I didn't forget about them… They're gambling the wealth of nation on highly risky and unstable financial "instruments" with all of OUR money, while they're feathering their own nests in the long run.

What's left is a society that's been fooled into witch hunting each other for the problems created by those at the very top. Making people feel guilty for wanting fair treatment and the means to create a better standard of living for their families. The rich are at war with the rest of us because 95.5% of the wealth that they have just isn't enough for them. They want it all and they don't want anyone to pull the curtains away.

Let's say that the complete picture is right there in front of everybody, yet they have been thoroughly drilled into not seeing what is plainly there.

That is the situation that we're living in today. Now, that's the bad news.

The good news, however, is that today is the first day of Summer...


The Obvious Lie About Romney

Which is quite simply that he's only fit to govern the country merely because he's insanely rich.

OK, so he's able to spend godless amounts of money on himself and his large and similarly insanely rich family… Are we simply supposed to swallow that argument?

Now let's consider the fact that no one actually likes this guy, because of course there is really nothing about him, other than his insane riches, TO like. Granted, being "liked" really isn't a perquisite to being a good leader. Lots of great leaders were never liked, so no one really needs to like this guy. Suffice it to say, most of those "great" leaders WERE actually feared, because they were obscenely violent, authoritarian and suffered from delusions of grandeur, as they took their people down into an abyss of ruin… But hey, they've made it to the history books, right?

But let's take this "He's-Right-For-President-Merely-Because-He's-A-Rich-Guy" argument:

First off, that really is a hopelessly lame and pretty darn low bar to set for fitness to earn the highest office in the land, isn't it? Shouldn't we have a better standard of qualifications for the presidency?

Hell, this IS some really important stuff that we're considering here.

Take, for example, the standards as defined in the Self-Actualization level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As you know, the self-actualization level demonstrates achievement needs and are the highest example of actual self-development. When we put Romney up against the standards of achievement and self-actualizatiion, it's quite obvious as to what his deficiencies are. That, in spite of all of his riches, he's not a person who has reached his full potential.

Here are the qualities of self-actualizers:

Maslow's Characteristics of Self-Actualizers

A self-actualizer is a person who is living creatively and fully using his or her potentials. In his studies, Maslow found that self-actualizers share similarities. Whether famous or unknown, educated or not, rich or poor, self-actualizers tend to fit the following profile.

Efficient perceptions of reality. Self-actualizers are able to judge situations correctly and honestly. They are very sensitive to the fake and dishonest.

Comfortable acceptance of self, others, nature. Self-actualizers accept their own human nature with all its flaws. The shortcomings of others and the contradictions of the human condition are accepted with humor and tolerance.

Spontaneity. Maslow's subjects extended their creativity into everyday activities. Actualizers tend to be unusually alive, engaged, and spontaneous.

Task centering. Most of Maslow's subjects had a mission to fulfill in life or some task or problem outside of themselves to pursue. Humanitarians such as Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa represent this quality.
Autonomy. Self-actualizers are free from reliance on external authorities or other people. They tend to be resourceful and independent.

Continued freshness of appreciation. The self-actualizer seems to constantly renew appreciation of life's basic goods. A sunset or a flower will be experienced as intensely time after time as it was at first. There is an "innocence of vision", like that of an artist or child.

Fellowship with humanity. Maslow's subjects felt a deep identification with others and the human situation in general.

Profound interpersonal relationships. The interpersonal relationships of self-actualizers are marked by deep loving bonds.

Comfort with solitude. Despite their satisfying relationships with others, self-actualizing persons value solitude and are comfortable being alone.
Non-hostile sense of humor. This refers to the wonderful capacity to laugh at oneself. It also describes the kind of humor a man like Abraham Lincoln had. Lincoln probably never made a joke that hurt anybody. His wry comments were gentle prodding of human shortcomings.

Peak experiences. All of Maslow's subjects reported the frequent occurrence of peak experiences (temporary moments of self-actualization). These occasions were marked by feelings of ecstasy, harmony, and deep meaning. Self-actualizers reported feeling at one with the universe, stronger and calmer than ever before, filled with light, beautiful and good, and so forth.

In summary, self-actualizers feel safe, not anxious, accepted, loved, loving, and alive. Additionally, Schott discussed in connection with transpersonal business studies.


Now let's compare and contrast this some of this list against Romney's known qualities:

Is he moral?

No, he's not particularly MORAL, because his fealty to the Mormon church's dogma and customs only speaks to his adherence to Mormons. When it comes to actual people, he's quite clear about his general disdain. He's also a known animal abuser and bully and has never been sufficiently remorseful or sympathetic about the plight of any of his past victims.

Piety and morality are two different things. Ask any preacher that's been caught in a sex scandal or caught cheating his or her parishioners out of a lot of money.

Is he creative?

Next, he's not a creative person or appreciative of creativity. Does he sponsor or advocated the arts? Does he inspire creativity in others? Quite the opposite: One of his obvious shortfalls is that he's a bland and boring individual who can't really inspire anyone to anything.

That is an extremely detrimental quality for any leader.

Is he a proven problem solver?

Take in consideration his creation of RomneyCare as Mass. Governor: Now, that would be a great example that he can be a problem solver… Were he to run with that today. But he's not, am I right? Much of the federal Affordable Care Act was built on RomneyCare's own example and Romney himself is actually running away from that. He's discrediting himself as a proven problem solver. INSTEAD, we're supposed to base his qualifications as a problem solver strictly on his skill at making himself rich at the expense of others.

Turns out he's touting his penchant for causing people's problems, through unemployment, OVER his actions of helping people receive affordable health care.

Again, not a very good quality for a leader.

Is he spontaneous?

Unfortunately for him, any time he expresses any kind of spontaneity on the campaign trail, all it does is highlight the fact that he's obtuse and detestable. Hence his language is always regimented and tailored to whatever ever audience he's talking to at the time. It demonstrates his obvious inability to express whatever moral clarity and strength of conviction that he may have. He never wants to defend them, if he actually has them.

He merely tells people what he thinks they want to hear. Which takes to his most obvious problem:

Does he accept facts?

No, of course not. The man is a proven LIAR. He lies about EVERYTHING, even when he doesn't have to lie and even when his lies are easily disprovable. He's a practiced liar, it's not even close to being unintentional. His ONLY retort for being confronted with his own lies is MORE LIES.

The man behaves as if he's missing the chromosome that allows him to tell the truth.

Is such a craven liar really the kind of person that we want to have taking care of the nation's affairs?

This country is still in a pretty big mess and yes, there is a lot of blame to go around. Some can be blamed more than others, so it's all a matter of being relative.

However, considering the actual need for great leadership potential that any President must have to deal with all the problems that our nation faces, we really need someone to be in the Oval Office who can transcend being any level of self-aggrandizement. Just being the insanely rich guy isn't going to cut the mustard.

As long as we have half the people who vote in this country with obviously flawed values about what's required for good leadership, BEYOND some kind of penchant for amassing personal riches, we're never going to appoint qualified leadership into high public office. We're never going to provide sufficient support for leaders who are self-actualized and we're never going to find the will to build systems of self-governance to facilitate a better way of life for each and every one of ourselves.

Our value system is flawed and thus, we promote flawed leaders.

Thus we're asked to accept him, in spite of the truth about him. We're supposed to ignore the obvious lies.

Again, this is why we can never have nice things.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 Next »