time to go... [View all]

I wonder what makes anyone want to write something critical about conservative politics - is it to offer a previously unrepresented point of view, suppressed as politically incorrect? Maybe we want to advocate for those who don't have the means to challenge a corporate sponsored point of view? Or is it just a metaphysical itch that needs to be scratched?

I'm sure it can be fun for some, but for me, it isn't. Presenting unpopular, difficult points of view missing from our national dialog often requires sharp criticism. Just the mere mention of these issues is enough to cause discomfort, especially among large political organizations concentrating power when they should be solving problems.

While there are no absolutes in this world, there is an asymptotic trajectory the Democratic Party is traveling along that leads to zero citizen participation and an over-reliance on a minority of wealthy decision makers. It's about as absolute as it can get.

A technocrat will argue that this is OK because every message can be analytically controlled for perfect pitch. The end-product resonates perfectly among "independent voters" drawing them in. This is the way, they argue, the Democratic Party is best served. We simply send money and leave it up to the professionals, the experts at managing perceptions.

The processed image, of course, is Photoshop perfect. Too perfect. Like the beautiful, happy people popping pills in a TV drug ad. Like the people in the video announcing Hillary as a presidential candidate. Like profit sharing and corporate tax breaks as a means to solve Black unemployment. Images of medicated bliss are so powerful, we simply ignore the side effects, such as brain hemorrhage, liver cancer, unemployment, poverty and prison.

But let's not dwell on the negative. Who doesn't love profit sharing? There you go, unemployed men and women of America - we are giving you PROFIT SHARING (*). When you get a job, you can share the profit. See, we're helping the Black community, unlike the other candidates.

So, why should I write about it? Why not leave it up to the professionals? I guess because even they don't always get it right. Or perhaps they have their own interests and narrow point of view leaving a large gap of understanding. Or maybe the editor just doesn't give a shit about jobs to Asia or tax breaks for the rich.

Whatever it is, I believe the more unique and critical voices the better. And that's the problem for me. In an increasingly technocratic world, we have the false notion that everything can be controlled. Every opinion is becoming is carefully sculpted to an ideal beauty, i.e. the lowest common denominator of electoral sensitivity. Naturally, some things just cannot be said.

It's a standard of American beauty I can't meet. For example, I think it is important to point out, given worldwide hacking, the irresponsibility of a Sec. of State keeping a secret email server managed by who-knows. It was horrible judgement. I don't care who the fuck did it before her. She has 1000s of people in her organization working for her and her foundation. Someone should have told her. Were they afraid?

And it IS fucked up to accept cash for her foundation from foreign countries at the same time State Dept. negotiations with the same country are on-going.

If we don't call this shit out for what it is "fucked up" then just how bad does someone have to behave before we hold them accountable? What next? It's the same logic that let the banks get away with conspiracy and fraud - they should have been brought up on RICO.

That's what I think. It makes me imperfect. A dissonance within a Democratic Party that demands perfect resonance.

Democratic Party leadership has dropped anchor in trickle-down harbor. They intend to drill deep and they don't give a fuck. Why not protest? The technocrats who see everything as some sort of multi-variate calculus of political advantage will always dominate this place. Absolutely safe, they say. And that's sort of what's happening to American life on a larger scale, carefully managed image of exceptionalism propping up a severely broken political process. We focus on the process, not the product. And, of course, we fall farther and farther behind.

Those who have the skills, time and courage to voice a strong, critical, dissenting view within their own political party, you have my total respect. This is something that gets harder and harder each passing year as our political elite intersect around self-serving economic policies supporting rich over the non-rich. Few people have the time to fight it. We are too busy trying to put food on the table.

Before PETA complains about the horse I am beating - best wishes to everyone in the progressive group. I've enjoyed sharing thoughts with kindred spirits.

(*) holy mother of fucking god, she really did offer this as a credible economic plan. It is THE most cynical thing I've seen any (mainstream) candidate propose during a crisis of disparity since Reagan. PROFIT SHARING of what - Walmart, Burger King, Uber drivers? We are moving to the gig economy (think poverty stricken China and India) and Clinton rolls out corporate tax breaks and profit sharing. It's fucked up and needs to be called out as a shitty economic proposal during a crisis of inequality.