A Nightmare about A Liberal Nightmare.

As I grew sleepy and weary from enjoying the fruits of capitalism, some thoughts seemed to drift up from the outer reaches of consciousness and capture my attention:

I was thinking: Sometime, we need to step back from the fumes and froth generated by the media and take stock of our relative positions in the galaxy. Apparently, we are mandated by some cosmic force to accept farcical propaganda at the slightest suggestion by someone who is an expert in media transactions and strongly influence the modulation of public sentiment. Of course, the old journalism standards are now so much intellectual cat litter since Edward R. Murrow [1]and his pro Marxist propaganda rants, but some still insist that there are sincere and dedicated public servants serving us up an unbiased account of the news and current public views. We are apparently expected to gaze upon the hallowed countenance of Walter Duranty, Pulitzer Prize Winner in the Absolute Lies Category, as it glares down upon us from the lobby of the New York Times wall in defiant glory. Red Walter, who prostrated himself to the outer frontiers of leftist-inspired journalism with a frank and determined disdain for any semblance of truth, honesty, or history and gleefully embraced progressive journalism so as to provide a suitable propaganda shield to hide the Russian atrocities where millions died opposing Marxism and other follies. Modern journalism is now based on the lofty notion that the correct political view requires a theatrical performance featuring a process of retrograde concubinage, revisionism, meat house style redactions, and meticulous sorting of facts that are to be assembled in retrograde fashion to support the political truth. While the details must be trimmed or trampled upon to suit The Times and the intellectual light of reason and honesty dimmed or extinguished as necessary.

Then, from out of nowhere, a message from the ethereal ethers (or my monitor screen) invaded my beta waves:

We have recently been alerted by a clarion call from Bernard Shaw [2] who has identified, if not only by the leading ratings, a news service that has failed to bow and grovel before the ordained News and Truth Oracles of the New York Times. The gross and insolent effrontery of Fox News toward the approved political themes so dear to the leftists is hailed as journalistic holocaust of Cambodian proportions.

A sampling of how modern TV journalism out to be from CNN’s former anchor Mr. Bernard Shaw:

What Fox does, he said, is "commentary, personal analysis."

No!

Calling himself "very straitlaced [and] very old-fashioned," Shaw said: "When anchors are reporting the news, they should report the news and allow the viewers at home to decide what they think about issues.

"I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything. Just report the news.

Oh no!! I have been the victim of personal opinions!! Oh, woe is me! Repenting in light of this stern lecture on my manifold deficiencies, and while hurriedly perusing the media archives seeking more samples of instant liberal nirvana and daydreaming of new ways to emulate a compliant liberal so as to attain some modicum of enlightenment that might charm a Clinton or a Kennedy, I was suddenly reminded of the Strange Case of Dan Rather[3]. In slobbering denial of any potential inconsistency in the esteemed view of Mr. Shaw, I was thrown into a conundrum as how to reconcile Dan’s suspected fabrication [by Fox News!!!] of the news in the Bush case. Off to the keyboard for research!

I also learned that the illness is spreading:

"But CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don't like that," he said.

I don’t watch CNN, unless Lou Dobbs is on. I must confess. Is he an anchor??

By pure chance, I stumbled across this snippet from a renowned Anchor who would not tolerate the Fox Disease or proffer lies or spin the truth!!:

“DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology? [4]

See there!! The truth is known.

Then I wondered: Is there any conflict here between the venerated Mr. Shaw and his flat journalistic assertions that he doesn’t like to hear “…anchor's personal opinion? And the need to avoid “commentary, [and] personal analysis?" I was suddenly unable to resolve this error. I was frantic. The search continued:

From the San Francisco we read:[5]

“When Rather released a statement Monday saying, "Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully," it had the whiff of the old parental chestnut, "Do as I say, not as I do."-- Tim Goodman, SFgate.com

This article then continues on with a mandatory attack on Fox News, whom, to my knowledge, did not exactly set up Dan with phony papers although I am beginning to suspect that such nefarious activity might rate leftist rave reviews and at least a few bravoes. Perhaps Dan can be vindicated by exposing some alleged irregularities on the part of Fox! A way out!

Why is Fox News always at fault here? A conspiracy!

"Ratings for 'CBS Evening News With Dan Rather' fell by 10 percent last week compared to a year ago, a drop that network sources privately attributed to the steady erosion of news viewers rather than the controversy surrounding CBS' decision to air dubious documents attacking President Bush's National Guard service," the Chicago Tribune reported today.[6]

Oh?!

We all know that modern leftist journalism did not cause this!! Nothing is more important that “…people's trust in our ability.” It must be the fault of Fox News.

Accidentally, I flash-backed a fed decades in a frantic search for a suitable retort, which turned out to be a buried and festering comment from Walter Conkrite from some hours or days after the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam where he seems to declare that:

‘we lost the war.’-- Walter Conkrite 1968. Heard on the radio in the South China Sea.

Strange, when this oracle was delivered, ex cathedra, from the lofty Anchor Position of CBS, I had just disengaged from a furious battle off the Viet Nam coast and had watched our gun ships liquidate thousands of Viet Cong. We lost?? Nobody told me! The VC were annihilated and never appeared at a press conference again.

I now suspected subterfuge and reexamined the Bernard Shaw comments with some alacrity.

I suddenly realized as I recovered from the frightening dream that Bernard Shaw was not exactly offering us some objective criticism of breaches of proper journalism and alerting us to the evils of Fox News, I was just temporarily unduly influenced by a sour, old liberal parasite, cast in the haughty, elitist Conkrite Mold, who would say or do anything to advance the tenets of sloth, sodomy, liberalism and Tax Maggotry.[7]

That was a close call!!

Relieved, I started to serenely drift back into slumber land, but as I did, the evolution of my second poem [8]seemed to spontaneously pull together in my mind:

Rather than Rather I would first peruse Baloney or Blather.

Later………

On the Value[lessness] of Your Vote

The sages have raved on for several millennia about how to construct a government that would provide justice for all, but every experiment has failed to date at least in the minds of some who have different notions of what justice ought to be. Most governments evolved to be authoritarian in nature as the millennium clock counts off centuries and detailed government histories float by. This is, consequently, quite disgusting unless you are a radical from the Bay Area or howl at the moon from the remote mountains of North Korea or Berkeley. We might have to assume that tough but time-tested government leadership roles using a host of proven methods, mostly murder, designer marriages and a general slaughter of the masses, are suitable formats for governments at least as the far left preaches. The search for justice seems to be unending. So does the ongoing quest for the meaning and progressive corruption of that word.

The Greeks are given credit, probably erroneously, for the first experiments in democracy of the direct sort although we wonder about the inhabitants of the Indus Valley and parts of East Asia as we ponder over the Greeks their failures and their ruins. Many cultures were older, wiser and more stable than the Greeks in the period of the 6^th thru 9^th century range, B.C.E. Citizens of the polis were apparently asked, or probably ordered, to vote on issues thus demonstrating that democracy was in good working order. Presumably the votes of the majority signaled the probable outcome of the vote, but we do not know that for sure. We do not know if every major or wealthy citizen had the vote, but we do know this voyage was not very popular with the ordinary people. That much we seem to have inherited from the Athens group along with a stale heap of platitudes and errant political notions. We do know that women, slaves and certain others had no vote. Apparently, democracy in the Greek venue attempted to compellingly ‘equalize’ the citizen’s resources that soon drifted away from their control in order to inspire a novel form of population control and a flat freeze on assets that would impress Fidel Castro. Citizens were expected to work part-time for the government. We are not sure if that was restricted to voters alone, but the general menial nature of government tasks suggests that probably all were forced to work to some extent. If too many mouths appeared in the narrowly proscribed homestead chow line, it seems starvation was inevitable and a Cambodian Khmer Rouge vision of sharing was envisioned. We wonder how this was voted on, or, if it ever came up. Politics requires power to coerce the masses so relinquishing power is not in the forefront of any political agenda. The right to vote must be carefully proscribed lest snippets of power stray from firm control by elites or squirm out of control in a crescendo endangering the political leaders who might lose their phony jobs and be judged social parasites. The Greek solution, paving the future ethical way for the Final Solution, utilized by Planned Parenthood to the vainglorious chants of the New York Times, was simply to starve babies. This method was welcomed joyously, but indirectly, by J. J. Rousseau, the Father of the French Revolution, who sent his five children to the Foundling Hospital in Paris, where the survival rate was less than 10%. He instructed us about juvenile education it seems. A bit indirect, judging by today’s instant standards, but this functioned as an unyielding easy solution to several social problems and received no abuse from the progressive elements of the time or even today. Life has been truncated by some short monthly metric by the liberal Supreme Court in a emotional outburst of concern of justice.

This democratic system was not popular as we learn from many Greeks, some even of reputed respectability, intellectual talents and probable literary grace. Plato was disaffected by his observations on democracy along with the masses, an improper position for a leading-edge progressive thinker, and promptly chose an alternate kind of lofty enlightened dictatorship over the obvious theoretical benefits of democracy. The Romans had a similar system a few decades later but they had a wealth-weighted system of voting in the Assemblies where those with money had more voting power than the poor. Does this sound familiar? It appears that material goods, alone, indemnify the elites. That makes sense.

No serious experiments in direct democracy seem to have been allowed on the stern advice of the Ancients after so disastrous a failure in Athens until certain Americans in the colonies began looking at alternatives to handle the crazy old King George and rid capitalism of the now-stale feudalism. Baron de Montesquieu[1] had provided an incoherent rehash of the old Roman system in time for the American Revolution by imitating the various offices and assemblies in the Roman Republic in his writings with the substitute [but equivalent] notion of ‘separation of powers.” He incorrectly assumed that there were separations of powers in England at the time with the Parliamentary system, but was wrong and Winston Churchill finally settled the matter by emasculating the House of Lords. The regent had very little true power since the Magna Charta. The purpose of MC was to limit the taxing powers of the monarchy, thus rendering the position almost functionally useless and permanently short of cash. The Romans had scads of checks and balances built into their republic and tried to spread out and flatten the power base by using such devices as: two consuls as co regents, several tribunes with unlimited veto powers, short terms, a ten-year interlude between holding the same office [Sulla’s Lex Cornelius], which resulted in frequently driving their government into a cement-like conundrum, but their system was “too complex” for the Colonials although it lasted about 9 centuries, which would tend to contradict the notion that it was somehow unworkable. Most governments do not last 8 years, some less than 8 months as in the case of the instant Soviet Republic of Munich by Rosa Luxemburg in 1919[2] [3]. They were working on a form of democracy [actually “…a humanitarian theory of Marxism, stressing democracy and revolutionary mass action to achieve international socialism.” That is a perplexing mix. The stress recoiled on that one.

Machiavelli suggested that the Roman system be revisited as a suitable model for new governments as it worked well. He was ignored. The puzzlement was how to handle the voters and ‘share power’ with the masses and to not allow the all-too-human trait of spontaneous demagoguery to guide the ignorant masses down the usual crowded path to societal destruction. The trick was to offer voter power sharing, as a political sop, and then control the outcomes regardless of voter preference. This culminated, in our enlightened times, in the US Supreme Court’s defeating the Gore court actions by a 5/4 decision along [what else?] party lines. The courts are more than willing to realign our votes to comply with the Constitution as we have seen in numerous California referendums.

The ’theory of voting’ has blossomed since just before World War II [4] although it abounds with multifarious variations too intense and intricate for the common voters to notice and most physicists to grasp the fundamentals. The easiest way to view the voting ‘right’ is to take into consideration the ’value’ of your vote on an arbitrary scale from 0 to 1.0 for any political contest offered to the masses. This is an unsophisticated charade, but it is all we have unless we read the polls to guide us, which are phony and change drastically during the intense buildup to an election. We can start with a survey of several forms of government and their voting habits, the term democracy being functionally worthless in most cases, and calculate the value of your vote in a political system where there is, in the first example, only one party.

The USSR is a prime example of that concept, along with Cuba. Here, with only one party, your vote is 0.0. There is no way you can influence any outcome whether you vote or not for a single candidate. About a decade ago, two famous political leaders boasted that they got more than 99% of the vote in their countries; they were Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein, who was properly jubilant and appreciative that only 65 or so Iraqis voted against him. The intrinsic validity of ‘voting’ in these singular cases is celebrated only by imbeciles, Shrumists[5], Communists, certain Methodists and many others with major cognitive deficiencies such as the editorial staff of the New York Times. The chart below shows how much your vote is worth depending on how many political parties participate in the fray and their relative distribution in terms of percent of members. There is no power shared with the voters by authoritarian systems in decision making with only one party. This is only political window dressing thrown up to form some talking points for Marxist wannabees and other vermin. Some clever politicos, such as in North Korea, have dreamed up a synthetic three party system, but the lower pair are controlled like cheap puppets by the big nasty one and, as such, your vote is worthless in N. K. Now, when there are two parties, the chance of having some voting power exceeding zero begin to improve in some cases. In the 90%/10% case where the big party is much larger than the little ones [Mexico had little parties for decades with no power] your vote is worthless. The Mexican PRI party stuffed the ballot boxes for decades to make sure they almost never lost an election.

The excitement that enraptures the imagination of simple people begins when there is some semblance of a two party system and they are two parties, nearly equal in voter numerical reckoning. In this unusual case, despised by experienced politicos adhering to the old proven political theories, any errant and criminal cross-voting may determine the final outcome. This is a form of anarchy in the eyes of party leaders who mutter about traitors and scabs when the precinct votes are tallied after a failed election. Predictions fail miserably when a third, small size splinter party is in the fray. It is interesting that out of all the Presidential races since 1900 only 7 have had binary contests between Republicans and Democrats[6], and the 1948 contest had 5 noisy contenders. It is interesting that Eugene V. Debs ran 5 times as a Social Democrat, and later as a straight Socialist[7], and garnered zero electoral votes for his noble efforts in two decades. Norman Thomas ran an astonishing 6 times as a Socialist and won nothing[8]. In these eleven races, there were no splinter effects as the contests were not even close. William H. Taft received only 8 electoral votes as a Republican and American Independent George Wallace’s American Independent Party was only the third third party candidate to get more than zero electoral votes in a Presidential election, for an impressive 46 electoral votes in 1968.[9] He probably diverted Democrats from voting for Humphrey and doomed his old party. Also, Perot apparently had a solid effect in 1996 on the outcome as the earlier contests did not seem to qualify as splinter party cases capable of influencing the outcomes. J. Strom Thurmond’s votes came mainly from the Southern block of Dixiecrats in 1948 and had little effect on the outcome if you believe that the South would have voted against liberalism anyway. But, that is admittedly conjectured. In those cases, nothing would have changed even if the Electoral College had been scraped and the popular vote used to determine the winner. An exception would be the 2000 Gove v. Bush race where Al Gore won the popular vote. Many liberals are unaware that we have an electoral college and believe that the popular vote should have been used to put Al Gore in the White House, e.g. the New York Times and other political stooges.

Are votes really equal if not worthless in many cases or are they moderately valuable in limited cases? The votes cast for Eugene Debs in the name of socialism probably had no value at all, demonstrating only a tautological essay in mental somnambulism or lunacy. Debs was probably a heartthrob only for losers, Marxists, hobos, non-voting migrant workers and certain inhabitants of Oakland, Boston and San Leandro. Votes are not equal from region to region! Let us ask: How many votes does it take to get Senator Joe Biden of Delaware elected compared to Senator Feinstein of California. Biden got about 70,000 votes last election and California Senators required several million to win. It should be clear that unit votes to elect Senators from different states are not very equal, by a mere ratio of 75:1 or so in big/little ratio, but are closer to equality for House Representatives unless your state is very small and rates a Congressional District regardless of the population. Note, also that all small states have two Senators just like big states. Biden has much more power than Feinstein or Schumer. Consider the table below:

The political excitement soars when there are the dreaded splinter parties that now become kingmakers in the political parlance. Here, the control of the political world fades away and drifts unceremoniously into the hands of a few voters, most of whom are only reflexively reacting upon their emotions, an outcome that frustrates seasoned politicos. For the case where three parties are distributed as 49%/49%/2% the 2% [or small splinter party] becomes the kingmaker as shown by George Wallace in 1968 and Ralph Nader some time later in 2000. Splinter parties can invent some regal and lofty notions and make unreasonable demands upon the big parties in carnival contest terms and now any wispy or silly notions about Majority Rule or other delusions vanish in the political mists. There is a fast hustle to fix the outcome with promises. Power is at risk. We do not know if Wallace was offered anything, however. The big parties usually knuckle under with a smile as they have little choice but to grovel ingloriously at the feet of their sudden political superiors and submit to some of the demands of the splinter group although they will never give up everything. Plans for future legislation or more wholesale looting of the tax base become vastly complicated in the following cases where several parties vie for control. The larger parties must now metamorphose into a different metaphysical shape and construct odd and frequently uncomfortable coalitions. Speeches on previous steadfast and dedicated true-blue and eternal policies may have to be redacted by expert spin masters to minimize the voter’s wrath and prevent them from believing that their leaders sold them out, which is exactly what they did. Look at France as an example[10]:

Citizen And Republican Movement Or MRC [Jean Pierre Chevenement]

Democratic And European Social Rally Or RDSE (Mainly Radical Republican And Socialist Parties, And Prg) [Jacques Pelletier]

French Communist Party Or PCF [Marie-George Buffet]

Greens [Yan Wehrling, National Secretary]

Left Radical Party Or PRG (Previously Radical Socialist Party Or Prs And The Left Radical Movement Or MRG) [Jean-Michel Baylet]

Movement For France Or MPF [Philippe De Villiers]

National Front Or FN [Jean-Marie Le Pen]

Rally For France Or RPF[Charles Pasqua]

Socialist Party Or PS [Francois Hollande]

Union For French Democracy Or UDF [Francois Bayrou]

Union For A Popular Movement Or UMP [Nicolas Sarkozy]

What a mess! The opportunities for chicanery abound in this myriad goulash of puppeteers and grifters. It is interesting that the Royalist Party of France is absent from the list and must have been amalgamated with one of the 13 parties listed above. The Law of Competition specifies that in any contest somebody must win something so Nicolas Sarkozy was just elected in France. How, we may never know or care.

Just to give the reader one more example, check out the Italian system:

Italian Political Parties

Center-Left Union Coalition [Romano Prodi]:

Ulivo Alliance (Including Democrats Of The Left Or Ds [Piero Fassino]

Daisy-Democracy Is Freedom Or Dl [Francesco Rutelli])

Rose In The Fist (Including Italian Social Democrats Or Sdi [Enrico Boselli]

Italian Radical Party [Emma Bonino])

Italian Communist Party Or Pdci [Oliviero Diliberto]

Green Federation [Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio]

Communist Renewal Or Rc [Fausto Bertinotti]

Italy Of Values Or Idv [Antonio Di Pietro]

Union Of Democrats For Europe Or Udeur [Clemente Mastella]

Republican European Movement Or Mre [Luciana Sbarbati]

Center-Right Freedom House Coalition [Silvio Berlusconi]:

Forza Italia Or Fi [Silvio Berlusconi]

National Alliance Or An [Gianfranco Fini]

Union Of Christian Democrats Of The Center Or Udc [Pier Ferdinando Casini] Northern League Or LEGA [Umberto Bossi]

Christian Democracy (Per La Autonomie) [Publio Fiori]

New Italian Socialist Party Or New Psi [Gianni De Michelis]

Italian Republican Party Or PRI [Giorgio La Malfa]

Social Alternative [Alessandra Mussolini]

Social Movement-Tricolor Flame Or Msi-Fiamma [Luca Romagnoli]

Social Idea Movement With Rauti Or Mis [Pino Rauti]

South Tyrol People's Party Or Svp (German Speakers) [Elmar Pichler Rolle]

Union Of Valley Aosta Region Or Uv [Guido Cesal]

Notice that there are two Communist parties?! It is interesting that the CIA site lists four parties for the US: Democratic Party [Howard Dean], Green Party [??], Libertarian Party [Steve Damerell], and the Republican Party [Ken Mehlman] as of 2006. Note that Perot’s Independent Party is not listed. I guess the CPUSA with the ubiquitous Gus Hall has collapsed.

The table below shows the US system where independents [read not affiliated] constitute about 1/3 of the voters and must vote some other way than ‘independent’ as there is no independent party candidates. Confusing?? Yes.

Now consider the Gore v. Bush Case in 2000. Here, we have the Greens siphoning off about 2% points resulting in winning no seats or electoral votes but taking votes away from the Democrats thus apparently giving Republicans a precarious victory. The leftist pronouncement on this outcome was that the election was stolen. A count and several recounts using multiple definitions of Enchanted Chads produced no evidence that Gore ever won in even one of the four key precincts in Florida. Earlier, Perot’s first attempt garnered 19% of the vote forcing Clinton into the plurality position and robbing the Republicans of another victory by the slimy hand of a spoiler. In these two cases, the assignment of relative vote value becomes extremely complicated, if it were not so in other examples given above. The Independents must vote somewhere on the ballot so they default to providing the swing votes that supply the win unless there are large number of defectors in either the Dems or Republicans. Their power rises as the party loyalists become more stubborn and dedicated to the various causes. Exit polls are notorious for being absolutely erroneous as in the John Kerry episodes, so we cannot really tell who provided the critical votes in Florida in 2000, but know for certain that the Democrats were furious with Ralph Nader, the Green Party Candidate[11], who soaked up about 2% in a close race and they challenged his every chance to register in the courts for the next election in 2004, a testament of the true meanings of democracy if there ever was one. Certain conservative candidates got excessive votes as well according to the gnomes who can predict where the votes can come from and how many. 10,000 voters from New York were technically able to vote in Florida. Sometimes a democracy is not a democracy and this notion fits in with the belief that certain votes are miscast, a crime against humanity.

It must be seen as clear, bald terms that the Green Party wrecked the chances of the Democrats, or so the Dems believe, as they still spit and fume over the episode. So, we must give a value to the Greens who voted for their candidate, and by algebraic subtraction, determined the outcome. The enigma here is that no respectable Green would ever vote for Bush, yet they did and get a full 1.0 for their heresy. That leaves questionable assessments for the absolute value of Democratic voters and the Republicans as well. Given the snarly mix of independents and Greens, it is not certain which major party gets the highest vote value from the two big parties.

The reader who has come this far has now seen the intricacies of the political world but might still seek solace in the fact that they may just have some shared power with the political parties even by serendipity. This is true only as a matter of degree. If the average voter ponders the political landscape for enough time he or she will notice that he or she has little or no inputs as to candidates. What is your vote worth now? You get a choice to vote upon a field of proven undesirables? That is power? Here, the shared power of the vote, generously bequeathed by the politicians who designed this novelty, has been corrupted. Your selections for whom to vote are selected by party leaders based on polls, money, idealism, money, union endorsements, money and more money. Unless you are a major benefactor or fund-raiser or belong to some political Dynasty, have an electrifying political message or can manage to deliver a wheel barrow full of cash at a White House Tea, the best you can get from your political contributions is a piece of an earmark or a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, probably with fresh sheets. We once more must take a closer look at H. Ross Perot, who financed his own campaign and created his Reform Party[12] and could never have pandered or begged for the 20 million dollars or so he spent if he had played the usual political game with either of the established parties. He could not call in IOUs. He had no chance except as a spoiler. Two other examples from way back are the two Wallaces [13] who made some impact on the political scenes of their era. Although Henry A. Wallace and J. Strom Thurmond got 1.1 million votes each Henry received no electoral votes and Strom got 39 with his States Rights Party. Hubert H. Humphrey was probably directly defeated by George C. Wallace because the rest of the votes were almost exactly split.

More recently, Senator Corzine spent 65,000,000$ of his own money to win a Senate Seat in New Jersey and another 25,000,000$ to get into the governor’s seat as well. While being in the majority party of that state, his money propelled him headlong into the offices he selected by the power of his money. His party had no choice but to follow along and wag the tails for the lead dog. He would otherwise grow old and grizzled as he waited patiently his turn in a long line of Democratic candidates.

It should be clear that the notion of power sharing with votes is more complicated than taught in high school civics or trumpeted by politicians. With the courts in a position to overturn the will of the voters in sensitive referendums and other laws the notion of the power of the vote is degraded to the level of absurdity.

On Political ‘Laws’ and Outcomes.

Presumably, we are taught, there are no fixed and red-hot hammered political laws in force in the galaxy. We should use reason on all issues, it is urged, and remain objective. It turns out that there are a few strong trends, if not precise laws, in effect if the proper definition of the word politics is examined with due diligence. Now, politics is the process of making decisions in groups, large or small it seems, and, as such, politics surrounds us like a moat at all times. Decisions are made daily on this planet by the gazillions, or perhaps a few more. We cannot drift too far from the kitchen, playroom, club, office at work, church or for a few beers at the corner pub without encountering an occasional opinionated snippet and frequently a full dose of politics. A secondary definition of politics is that it is the process of inflicting pain and devastation on a victim while forcing a smirky grin as a suitable response of gratitude. I suppose no sane person, initiated in the somber echelons of common politics, would ever accuse the NFL or the nefarious workings of the local ski club of the rank practice of injecting run-of-the-mill politics in their dealings with ordinary members. Just say ‘it ain’t so’ and in a flash this new thought impulse sometimes stimulates enough neurons to awaken many from their lack of attention to certain elements of life where one third or more of their income comes and goes. And, there was the draft. In most cases, however, there is witnessed as an unexciting blank stare very far away into the yonder and then silence from the common voter. Yes, like a cobra, the eyes of the politicians are on every person and their price for services varies from the usual one third of what you have [in North America but closer to 2/3 in Europe] to sometimes all, or more, of what you possess in other political arenas, like Asia or South America. The far left are famous for taking everything and leaving rotting bodies around as a post script. That lesson seems to get lost. After all, private property must be some kind of privilege as perhaps one half of all humans have little or none. And, we must trust our governments. Or, so it goes. It you want to see why the poor are poor just make a list of the poorest countries in the world and noye how many of them are Marxist dictatorships or similar authoritarian governments. Left = loser on our planet.

Now, the literature abounds with sophomoric mumblings of celebrated theories of politics, mostly crafted around such words as justice[1], freedom, democracy and a few other terms that have no fixed definition and all are such words are deemed free to toss about like so many beads on the rug. Everyone knows what justice is and what injustice means and can identify each cited incident in a nanosecond if challenged to do so. Plato wasted most of the first few chapters of his Republic[2] [and most of his life] with angst, wild arm waving amidst stress and storm and other cajoling methods using the dialogue literary style to tempt the reader somewhere close to agreement with his uncertain definitions of justice, which vary from chapter to chapter and are not coherently defined anywhere in his vast works, or elsewhere. Using ill-defined words to make a detailed political analysis and subsequent firm statement of fact is a cherished heritage from Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar Voltaire, Sartre, Kant, Lenin, Marx and many other masters of politics. The proof that the rubber words above have no specific meaning is explained by the millions of cases where war, murder, genocide and worse are labeled both as cases of fine justice or injustice depending on what limb the observing vulture happens to be perched. The outcome of the O. J. Trial was an example of true justice. The outcome of the O. J. Trial was an example of injustice. Pick one.

Since politics is clearly not based on truth, it seems worthwhile to speculate if any solid truth is really needed to flavor the political stew proffered by politicians while in competition for your money, time and votes. It is an interesting observation that blatant lies or yarns spun with half truths frequently haul over more undecided voters than the raw truth, which is too unbending to allow construction of the kind of message that brings the droolers skipping happily to the ballot box. Indeed, if some politico is actually the Patroon of Poltroonery, but offers some emotional disjointed, fact-barren essay replete with enough tears and whoops to wet every eye in the audience it might just bring home the majority of the votes and win the day. That worked for Huey Long. What they do to the poor while offering to help the poor is more than a crime: it is politics.

Amidst all this fluff and foam, one then wonders just what a political law or axiom might look like and how it gets applied to the unconscious masses, if ever. The Pendulum Law [that political or economic episodes are required to swing back and forth in some endless cycle] is too absurd to discuss at cognitive levels much higher than frogs, since it instructs the observer that there are only two options or directions for any decision and we firstly get to be whipped by one side and then, secondly, get a chance to experience some new tortures from the second bunch. Implicit in the Pendulum Law is the solemn proclamation that the first group will get a chance for revenge as soon as the polis [victims or otherwise know as ‘the people’] have had enough punishment from the last round and will change political direction and vote the opposite thus repeating the error. Our fine government has advised me not to eat eggs, or to eat eggs three times in my lifetime that I recall. Is that three errors or six?? Good political question as they have not a clue what foods we should not eat. The times are –changin’ as we were alerted in the 60s. They did. Note the circularity of this logic. False Logic is one of the high gods of politics. French Politics is like that after we read about Murat, Robespierre and De Gaulle. Both Churchills jumped parties in the British Parliament, like rabbits over the cabbage patch, several times, so they could get more chances in power. They got them.

There are other actions that appear to have the force of law. There is the esteemed sage in ‘the middle’ [read moderate here] who can compromise. Any bozo that preaches that “…we should listen to both sides of the issue” is excluding several other options from discussion and has unnecessarily narrowed the field. Closely aligned with this theory is the Compromiser who can ‘bring the opposing sides together” and reach an agreeable situation where all are satisfied. This piece of circular logic works for compromisers, Methodists, the cognitively challenged, imbeciles and persons under sedation during surgery. The leaders of political parties, who guide the misbegotten, serfs and other folk who demand relief from serious thinking, can artfully scheme to get their views and legislation to the extremes on a given issue. Both parties know about what they can finally get [and not get] from any given political contest, but both might lose the issue if other ideas are suddenly introduced! The Compromiser will fix that! Narrow down the options. The two parties lay out the playing field with narrow lines that stubbornly proscribe their limits. The rubber band is stretched as far as they can get it to go without political dangers. The extra player in politics, known and hailed ceremoniously as the ‘compromiser’ now functions as a drooling stooge for both opposing parties sometimes replete with a soiled stack of 3 x 5 cards encrypted with some ingrained lessons on sophistry permanently preserved in the form of heavily underlined platitudes from which to preach. The Compromiser is the favorite advocate for two opposing parties as he unconsciously secures for both groups exactly what they want within certain predictable limits. Sausage machines work in a similar manner. So do stooges with a good teleprompter. The word stooge needs to be pondered in some detail in this case. General George Patton once remarked that “…if everybody is thinking the same thing then nobody is thinking.” Not thinking is the political high watermark of any political party. When your victims have no more intellectual power than a box of rocks you will win. The most favorable situation is when the citizens of both parties are not thinking as this results in a political summit. The victims have already been defined and only some minor political vectors need to be aligned. Machiavelli[3] urged his readers not to experiment but use only tested political methods from history. Why be inventive when certain pedestrian level methods always seem to bring in the suckers? How about some slogans! “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” That platitude created a lot of poor folk to political advantage.

During the Jimmy Carter Era of hyperinflation, we learned of stagflation, having nothing to do with stags or flats, the nefarious process by which the average citizen was being economically strangled and this drew the attention of every shopper in the hemisphere. Everybody lost. He got the blame whether he was guilty or not. Political speeches could not talk down the prices or lower the interest rates. The accompanying high interest rates, those that depress business and boost home buying beyond the reach of many, can be added to the suspicions of a voter who suffers from this malady. “Somebody is taking my money!” Yes, indeed. The invoked ‘law’ here is that: if the economy turns down badly then the government will change. This notion is fully firm, unless, and there are always caveats to be pondered in politics, blame is placed on the innocent. Carter lost a second chance by a huge margin. Was he guilty or was this some remnant of the Nixon administration where the economy was pumped with cheap money to create ‘prosperity?’ Who was responsible for the Clinton-Gore Recession?? Bush, of course as the pundits chant. The hunt for the guilty is always successful when the innocents are identified and liquidated, using a novel political term from the Russians. Carter was a Marxist dupe and a coward and bungled the Iran situation, but he did not create hyperinflation. He did valiantly turn off the White House Christmas tree lights to conserve millions of dollars. From the law, if the party in power at the time is not vanquished, they might get a second chance to ruin things and complete the disaster. The proper political placement of blame is essential and the High Oracle of Truth need not be visited to explain who was responsible for the disaster.

Accompanying the tentative political law outlined above, we must insert a corollary that forms the basis of most politics and influences some political laws: If you have something of value, however slight, then some beady little eyes are always upon you and your assets and they will try to get some or all of them. There are no exceptions to this law. If they cannot simply summarily usurp your money and life [e.g. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution[4], …etc] then promises will have to do until they can asset-strip you and keep you on a minimal subsistence level, as the joyous Cubans found out after Castro secured his power base by firing squads. He is so wonderful. The biggest joke in politics is the offer to the ‘masses’ that ‘after the revolution there will be land reform!’ Sure. When did that ever happen? How about “After the Revolution we [all] will eat peaches and cream?’ That was a wonderful slogan. Politics of this sort are a howling success when the bodies have smiles on their faces.

When genocide or mass murder or nationalization becomes unsuitable options for a given political movement, the attention is swiftly directed to the tax base. Here, one can promise many wonderful things to spring forth from ever increasing taxes. Everybody should pay ‘their fair share’ as the slogan goes. There are always several good reasons to raise taxes it seems. We are persuaded that social programs like The Great Society, War on Poverty, WIN [whip inflation now], ‘education’ and things like busing, Affirmative Action and more will ‘solve problems.’ It is not clear who won the War on Poverty or how the Great Society ever became, but we know the poor lost both rounds here. Busing was a failure. Education reforms have not changed the cognitive gap in education. Neither has more money, more teachers and higher taxes.

Since the victims seem not to pay much attention to details or the stark reality of history, the Communists were able to murder 100,000,000 people in the last century and there is not the slightest hint of any Russian or Chinese War Crimes Tribunal to look into the ‘fairness’ of that astounding record of mass death. No punishment. For many, only praise remains as a testament for Marxism-Leninism. The UN is silent on this point. No, the far left just continue to whine about the wealth of others and appear to have no history [or future given their record] to justify or explain. The solution to all new leftist programs is to take other people’s wealth. Period. No regrets. Any way—any how.

Currently, we face some ugly enemies, some of whom are destined, according to political history, to become close allies of the political party out of power in the US. Given the comatose inattention of the polis and their preoccupation with other things like TV, sex and drugs, the American voters seem not to understand that left-liberals are actively seeking support from the Islamo-Fascists, a process known as Hezboadulation when applied to Palestine. This should not suddenly flare as a surprise to those students of history who recall the cozy relationship between American leftists, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Allende, Republicans in Spain, Communists in Germany[5], Ortega Brezhnev, Ho and Mao. We can invoke the last political ‘law’ here as being rather firm and allowing for near-certain predictions of the sort outlined above: The enemy of your enemy is your friend.[6] Trotted out in full regalia, this slogan can be translated to say that leftists in our society will befriend and support Islamic Terrorists of the sort who caused the tragedy of 911. They must do this as they are short of votes. The secondary finding here, little known by the voting public who know more about the love life of Paris Hilton and the antics of the Desperate Housewives than the operations of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbullah, is that liberal Democrats will sacrifice American lives for their political aggrandizement. But, when was it ever different? Too soon we forget the “Ho Ho Ho Chi Mingh” slogans and songs of the 60s where North Vietnamese flags were waved in California and American soldiers were called baby killers and spat on by drug-crazed hippies protesting with their lack of hygiene and throwing rocks. . That was Lyndon’s War as assessed from the 550,000 troop buildup, but the troops took the flak. LBJ’s image as a whiskey-soaked idiot was finally salvaged by Richard Nixon in the Water Gate Episodes. Herbert Hoover did as much, and more, for Franklin Roosevelt.[7]

The lessons to be learned here from a cursory inspection of the strange notion of political laws is that the victim really ought to pay attention to motives and history of the political parties that vie to chop up their lives, assets and futures. Do we have to be concerned that Nancy Pelosi was a member of the Marxist Progressive Caucus?[8] Should we be concerned that Hillary Clinton lied under oath and refused to surrender subpoenaed documents in the Rose Law Firm billings fiasco when she said she had no connections with the Castle Grande scam? Does it bother you that Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. is a crook with FBI video tapes to prove it and no Democrat is calling for his resignation or indictment? He sits on the Homeland Security Committee of the House, a fitting place for leftist crooks. Are you concerned the presidential candidate Edwards can channel the dead?[9] What are we doing about 12, 000,000 illegal aliens in this country. How many of them vote in certain states that do not require ID to vote?? Would a national ID system reduce the number of Democrat votes?

Is anybody paying attention to political history and the ‘laws’ and trends that influence their behavior?? Is anybody still bawling about the demise of the USSR?? Anybody wonder how things might change if 8,000,000 illegal aliens get to vote?? Is anybody thinking in political terms?

Think.