The Sanders - Clinton War

Recently on Facebook I saw a graphic flow by that caught my eye. It was a quote, taken out of context and I am not going to follow up.I know that it was taken out of context because it floating all alone with no context. I don't care about the context. I will address the words. The context is not important. I have no idea what Marianne Williamson actually thinks, it could easily be the opposite of what is has been presented. This is not about her, at all, even thought I use her name; it is about the words that someone told me that she said:

"I want a woman president - really, I do. A lot of us do. And yes, you're qualified, and yes, we've known you forever, and yes, you'd know what to do from Day 1. But none of that is enough to get my vote, or the vote of a lot of people I know. we only want to vote for you if you run like hell away from that corporate box you've landed in. Stop cozying up to the banks, to the chemical companies, to the military-industrial complex, to the party machine, and to all the various financiers who make up the plutocracy now ruining this country. I want you to rail against the chemical companies and their GMO's - not support them..." - Marianne Williamson.  Letter to Hillary Clinton.

I have a problem with what Marianne Williamson had to say. I WANT Hillary close to the banks and the centers of power. I *want* her knowing all their names and having lunch with them. I want her taking their money. I *want* her doing the same with the unions and the person on the street. Hell, if it were not for Clinton we would not have this step forward in Health Care. In her first effort she excluded the Health Industry and got nowhere. Democrats have gotten nowhere for 50 yr on this issue. In the following round, the industry was included and we win. It was in their best interest. There is an adage regarding conflict that has to do with keeping the "enemy" even closer than the friends. It has been around for a very long time. Marianne Williamson has said the the reverse is true. I humbly disagree.

This struggle between different segments of society has been going on for many thousands of generations and everyone has made substantial progress. The rates of violence, standards of living, rates of disease and hunger have been steadily falling for hundreds of generations. Statistically people on the planet are more free, the best fed and the most comfortable, in all senses of the word, than at any other point in the history of man. Two hundred years ago a person had a reasonably high chance of being murdered, robbed, raped and otherwise abused simply by traveling from Avignon to Paris. That is no longer the case. Mothers worried about their children taking such a trip. Not any more. now they worry if the train will be on time and complain at the price of wine in the dining car while they are en route. The lack of freedoms suffered in times passed were  suffered by the rich and poor alike. Disease is not interested in economic class; the Baron that criticized the king was likely to have his head chopped off as well. There has been, is, and always will be, a pecking order. That is how human society works. And it does work, if we exclude the rest of the species and planet.

Lets put this in perspective. Thirty minutes ago I ate a soup with white beans, leaks, potatoes, sausage, bell peppers, carrots with a side of sesame seed bread and coffee with a glass of red wine. OK, I did not drink the wine but I will get it right now. Many of these ingredients I pulled out of my refrigerator and I cooked it on my gas stove. I have a refrigerator and a gas stove in my apartment! Shoot, I have the thermostat set too high, I think that I will lower it. (actually I don't but I think you get my point). Three years ago I broke my leg and collar bone in a way that would have left me crippled 200 yr ago. I am totally and completely recovered. In another couple of months I am going to get on a plane and travel to another continent on the other side of the whole fucking planet *and back* for less than the average guys monthly salary. Freedom? Freedom! We have more freedom now than ever before in the history of mankind. Freedom to travel, from the constraints of hunger and disease. Hell, mothers no longer even worry about their children traveling from Avignon to Paris. Shit, I even have the freedom to say that the President's wife is fat and ugly, well I could have always said that, but now, I will not be killed or rot in jail for the rest of my short miserable life. {By the way, Michelle, if I may address you informally. I actually think that you are fantastically beautiful and so smart that I like being on the same planet as you. So, ... if you tire of Barack? ... } Two hundred years ago, that too could easily have me 'chastised'. Not today. Freedom.

Fine, rally the masses, that is important. But to handle this as a "war between the rich and the poor"? Please, this is frankly, stupid. Sorry for being blunt. Yes, there is a 'level one' conflict and people do get rich from running the economic machine that gives us the freedom and food that we have. I certainly agree that many in these centers of power are beginning to damage the system that has taken millennium to build. And I certainly agree that some of the people controlling the production machinery need to be in jail or at least be have their assets confiscated, then be given a janitors slot to clean up after others more worthy than they. Yes, some of them are just ass-holes. Fine. But there are others that are doing a damn good job. I know that just by looking at the life that I live. Statistically our systems with its central banks and tyrants and theft by taxes has been, overall, doing a damn good job. There is indeed a step backwards once in a while, no need to mention the most recent. The system works so long as the population does not go off the deep end. Which it is doing at the moment. It is not just the banks that have the power to destroy civilization. They 'masses' are pretty damn good at destroying everything too.

Presently there is a problem. A statistically significant percentage of the population believe things with their whole hearts and souls that are flat out demonstrably wrong. It is not a class war or a war between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots; it is a war between ideas, between memes. Both poor and rich believe that "poor people are lazy creatures that need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and get to work. Not, us or our friends, of course (the government is messing us up), but the others, you know the guys over there, the lazy ones that are sucking off the system, not us, them". This is an idea that transcends economic class. No, there is no class war. There is a war between memes. Are people inherently lazy, or not. Are Muslims mostly terrorist and do should we kill them all, or not. These ideas all transcend economic class. The fundamental problems that we have as a society today have absolutely nothing at all to do with economic class.

Essentially, Marianne Williamson has accused Clinton of being on the "side of the rich and powerful", not on the "side of the common man". She does this even as the man she 'supposedly' supports has asked her not to do it. Bernie Sanders has explicitly told her not to attack or be negative with respect to Hillary Clinton. She is doing it anyway; she is dividing the country into good and evil. She, of course, is on the side of the good and we need to destroy the evil. And she is not dividing it up into ineffective ideas vs effective ideas, she is promoting class warfare where none exists. I just demonstrated that. She has no respect for Sanders and his understanding on how to improve society, she thinks that she understands politics better then he. She wants the "powers at be" to listen to her and do it her way and on her schedule. She will be a supporter of Sanders but only if Sanders does it her way. Hey, she understands the world better than he does, or so she says.

Marianne Williamson is intellectually and emotionally a child. She criticizes Clinton for being close to the power centers? Well, OK. Williamson has her opinion. Maybe she is correct. Me, I'll stick with the wisdom of the ages. Stay a close as you can to everyone. Have lunch, talk about your children, get drunk together. That does *not* mean that you agree with their philosophy of life but unless you know the opposition, you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of countering their arguments and their power. Yes, take their money too. Yes, work to help their kids too. Do it *your* way, not theirs. There is very little in the career of Hillary Clinton that leads me to believe that she is in anyones pocket, or has ever been or ever will be. There is much in her record to tell me that she is the one who charts her course and that others follow. She does not have "keepers". She charts the course and how to get there; she always has.

Personally, I do not want another 'French Revolution' with rivers of blood flowing in the streets. I do not want revolution, at all. Been there done that personally, not at all interested in doing it again. It is a last and desperate move to stay alive, the last possible thing to do. It is a very bad idea and I oppose the rhetoric that leads in that direction. I am not a pacifist, in any sense of the word.

Yes, it is time to change, it is always time to change and for thousands of years, we *are* changing. The direction and the rate of change and the strategy for choosing the goal and the direction and the strategies are important. That is a bit more practical than discussing who is good for the job and who is bad for the job. Especially when we are discussing people who need, like and respect each other. Both candidates have asked their supporters not to slam the other. Marianne Williamson does not care what Sanders thinks, she only cares what she thinks. Both have asked their supporters to change the traditional approach and stop attacking the individuals and start discussing the issues. Marianne is not interested in change, she won't do it. She wants to tell Hillary and Sanders both how to do their jobs. I humbly submit that Marianne is *not* a Sanders supporter. If Sanders were ever to even suggest a different approach than Williamson approves, she will become a detractor and make is job more difficult. No, Marianne Williamson does not support Sanders, she does not support Clinton. She supports herself. That's it. She is the smart one on the planet.

Williamson wants to divide the world into 'us' and 'them'. It is the same thought process that many of us have been fighting for our whole lives. Sanders and Clinton included. I do not know this woman Williamson, at all. This quote is the first that I have heard of her and I don't think that it puts her in a good light. I do not think that she will make Sanders' or Clinton's job easier. She is already making Clinton's and Sanders' job (creating a more functional society) more difficult. And she has disregarded what Sanders has asked her not to do. She is *not* a Sanders supporter. She won't even follow his lead on this very simple concept.

Clinton and Sanders each have their own strengths and weaknesses and each needs the other; they know that. They have respect for each other. Neither wants their supporters to attack the other. They want to work together. They have each asked explicitly that their constituents work together without tearing down the other. There is an 'after election' and both candidates know that they need the other. They need each other badly. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place. The strategy is different; that's fair. Do lets discuss the strategy, not which candidate is better, which strategy is better. Please do not forget that there is the 'after election' and both candidates  need the other especially after the election when the real work begins and unity is even more important. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place.

Bernie Sanders has made it his life's mission to fight for the common man. He knows far more than Hilary Clinton about how the distribution of income affects the social structure of the country. He knows far more about the actual details of the capitalist economy and where its strengths and weaknesses are, he also knows far more about economic theories from around the world.  He has done this at ground level. His work has been directly with the people at the State level. Sanders has made his career knowing how to speak with the common man about those things that affect the health of the society. He is good at this; he is better than Clinton at this. He has studied the effects of the economic engine on the common man to a much higher degree than Clinton. He is a more effective speaker than Clinton from what I can see. Bernie Sanders is a strong candidate and I will be more than pleased to support him and to vote for him in the general elections should he when the opportunity.

Hillary Clinton has also made it her career to fight for the common man. I will use her efforts in Health Care and womens rights as examples. She is just as cognizant as Sanders about the short deal that many US workers have received at the hands of the power brokers, especially in the last 45 yr or so. Clinton has made it her business to know how the power flows in the economic and social systems. She has worked at the National and International levels for her career. She understands the reality of the working economic machine far better than Sanders. She has gotten up close to the political, economic, and military realities of the world far more than Sanders. This is hugely important for driving the ship of state. One cannot *only* pay attention to the desires of the common man, one must also pay attention to the machine that supplies the food, clothing, health care to the population. Clinton has made her career knowing how to work with the machine that provides the material needed for the 'general welfare'. She understands the power structures far better than Sanders. She understands the world power relationships better than Sanders.

So shall we go with the rally the crowd and tear down the establishment strategy (no that is not what Sanders is all about) or the be nice to the power structure and ask them to change nicely strategy (no that is not what Clinton is about either). Does anyone out there actually know what the different strategies are? Anyone. The candidates do, so do I. Time to get real and stop calling the candidates names. Time to talk about the strategies. It is time to recognize the the war is not a class war it is a war between effective and ineffective ideas. Clinton and Sanders both know this. They are saying the same thing. So, supporters of either, don't you think that it is time to actually give your chosen candidates a certain amount of respect and actually listen to what they are saying and help them get the job done?

Islamic Terrorism, My Take

The Daily Beast. Are all terrorists muslims?

Frankly, I want people to stop talking about Muslims and Islam, totally and completely. Let's start talking about the problem, not our prejudice. That's my take so far. Want to stop Muslim terrorism? Christian terrorism? nationalistic terrorism? economic terrorism? Catch my drift? This type of behaviour transcends ideology or religions. They all have it. therefore the problem is not the ideology. That is the logical "therefore" that I use here, by the way. Ideology/religion is one of the tools that sociopathic people use to rationalize/justify their behaviour. It they were born Christian or Hindu or ... instead of Muslim, they would still destroy the social structure around them if it suited their purpose. Time to stop talking about the ideology as if it were the problem. The individuals that use the ideology to trick or otherwise convince other to kill and destroy are the problem. Some people get sucked into things because they are not clever enough to figure it out. That is common. Some people, however, actively convince others to go out and destroy and kill; THEY are the problem, not the foot soldiers.

ALL the ideologies have their deranged. Yes, some ideologies are better than others and some rationalize killing non believers and some rationalize killing homosexuals and some rationalize ejecting families out on the street if they loose their jobs and some rationalize punishing people that dance or drink or listen to the wrong music. What the fuck is the difference? Nasty people are the problem, nasty people wrote the 'rules' and then claim transgression as an excuse to 'punish them'. Nasty people actually like punishing people, they like making rules too. Nasty people think that the world is out to get them, because it is; people do not like ass-holes and will get them if they can. Nasty people need guns to defend themselves and then create an environment where everyone actually needs a gun to protect themselves. We call these areas war zones.

Vengeful people who think that their take on reality is the one 'true' take on reality are the problem. They 'know' how things 'should be' and 'would be' if it were not for 'them'. They are capitalists, socialists, Catholic, Muslim, saxophone players, painters, scientists etc. Stop talking about Islam as if it were the problem, it is not. Vengeful sociopathic people are the problem. I estimate, that a good 30 percent of USians are obsessed with punishing transgressors. this is a number that I invented. Look at our incarceration rate. 'Punishing' people is counterproductive; it makes the problem worse. Think about it. If you want to 'punish' the people that planned the latest round of attacks, then YOU, my friend, are part of the problem. Think very carefully about the word punish and the concept of vengeance.

There are some very strong indications, supported by objective fact, that the the worlds largest terrorist state, averaged over the last 50 yr, is the United States. Average over the last hundred years and Europe becomes the culprit. Yes, yes, I know... Russia, China, Cambodia, Argentina, ... , This serves to strengthen my case. Terrorism, at its root, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing, zero; it transcends even ideology and jumps into nationalism as well.

Neither Africa nor the Arabs, nor any of the Islamic states individually or in total has risen to the level of butchery that Europe and the United States have perpetrated against the rest of the world, and themselves over the last 5 generations. The Africans and Muslims do not even reach the knees of the 'Western World' in this regard; is not even close. Just count up the dead, that is all you have to do. I don't want to hear anything about morals or justification. Now, stop this nonsense about "Islamic" Terrorism. The numbers killed is easy to find. I leave it as an exercise for the reader. Just count up the fucking dead!

Islam is not the biggest problem, not by a long-shot. Our false perceptions and bad reactions and totally ineffective Reality Models are the problem. Open the  borders and take in these poor refugees, no questions, give them free train and plane bus tickets; give them food and shelter so that they can get to their friends and relatives houses and get set up as quickly and efficiently as possible. We can do the paperwork later. The numbers of people coming is insignificant. Yes, some will be thieves and murderers, so what. Statistics over the years show that migrants commit Less violent crimes than the 'native' populations; they have more to lose. The great majority of these people hate violence. It would be nice if the 'Western Nations' would stop being ass-holes. Want to improve crime statistics? Want to reduce the levels of violence on the planet? Yes? Open the borders. Do it now; it is easy and costs virtually nothing. The alternative is devastatingly expensive and sows the seeds of conflict for another five generations. Open the fucking borders!

Power, Diplomacy and Balls: Terrified Republicans.

I read a Globalpost article By Michael Moran, Why Israel and Saudi Arabia really hate the Iran deal. He gave me food for thought. I have reduced it to the components that I could use. It was a good article, filled with the nutrients needed to build and interesting structure. Here is what I build with it ______________________

Apparently the Executive Branch of the US government has just wrapped up a deal with Iran that is supposed to reduce the danger that Iran poses to 'the west'. This has met with some pretty strong criticism from people within the US and from some World governments, notably Syria and Israel. Each country has it's own constituency and its own problems. For whatever reason some of the upper echelon of these countries have expressed their misgivings. I have no idea whether this is political posturing for some hidden treasure or if they are indeed unhappy with the deal. Frankly, I don't care because I don't know enough about their situations and culture and I can not do anything about it anyway. I do know something about the American culture and what is traveling around the blogosphere and newspapers. In America we have one group in particular (New Conservatives) who have lots of people that are outraged that we would 'appease the enemy'.

I would like to expose these 'hardliners', these defenders of liberty for what they are. Fearful cowards, but more than just fearful cowards, they are ignorant jerks that do not understand power or its use. I am being generous here. War is the last resort of someone who has already lost. This is nothing new for those that study conflict. For these conservatives however, the only 'acceptable' outcome To the US 'negotiation' with Iran would be war. For war is the only definitive way to solve 'the problem', whatever that means. These are people that accuse the American President of weakness and even traitorous behavior when he allows anyone in his administration to have any contact with someone in a 'hostile country'. Any compromise is seen as defeat, even saying hello on the street is seen as defeat.

Only those that are strong have the option of being generous with their opponents. I am not speaking of a perception of strength, I am speaking of real demonstrable strength. America has finally begun to behave as if it were strong; strong enough to talk with those that disagree and even strong enough to throw them a face-saving bone once in a while. America has started to behave as if it is not afraid of the boogie man anymore and has the quiet confidence of a country with real power. Absolute power.

This is the image that Barak Obama is now projecting. He has started to show respect for those that disagree, he will listen to them and even try to help them out once in a while, he will show them real respect. I am pleased, for this is the stance of a person that controls real power, the winning hand. His position is so strong that he can even grant them some concessions if it will help them manage their own internal public relationship challenges. Why not? They will have to come around eventually, there is no choice. They know that and we know that. Why make it difficult on them? It is not courteous. We have real power we do not need to strut around on the world stage like a 13 year old bully taunting his prey.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of the New Conservatives total lack of confidence in American power; They are the ones that think we are weak and cannot afford to negotiate. They are the ones that make Americans look fearful and weak to the rest of the world. This is more than just an appearance. These people are afraid and fear does make one weak and vulnerable. These are the people that are so afraid of being perceived as 'weak' that we cannot treat our opponents on the world stage with the utmost courtesy and respect. These are the people that think America is so weak that we cannot give them concession that will make it easier for them to manage their own people.

Let me remind our terrified and insecure Conservative cowards that America has the power to vaporize any of these 'problems' in just a couple of hours for a cost of a couple of billion dollars and without the loss of a single American. We can do this in the afternoon then go out to dinner that evening. I am not exaggerating  at all. We can afford to be courteous and respectful with our 'opponents' because anything short of that, is a straightforward admission that we are just asshole bullies and nothing else.

The Iranian culture deserves a HUGE amount of respect. Now, in addition to just being assholes, the 'War Monger Conservatives' are also demonstrating that they are dumb-fucks as well. Read some history about the rise of civilization on the planet and the place that Iranian culture played in that rise. Dumb people seldom win conflicts. A battle once in a while but never the conflict. You give our opponents confidence and you destroy the confidence that is rightly ours.

Now, you 'New Conservatives', stand up straight and stop acting like terrified little children. We have real power and everyone on the planet knows it. Grow some balls. Treat the 'enemy' with the utmost courtesy and respect. Offer to talk anytime and give them the concessions the need to effectively govern their people. This is very important because one afternoon, on one cloudy day, we might have to annihilate their entire civilization from the planet and that would be sad.