Framing Debate

If you set the terms of the debate, you can't lose it. Though this is an obvious point, it seems the press and Democrats either don't understand it or choose to ignore it.

There is no war on terrorism. "Democracy in Iraq" is nothing but an empty slogan. There are no plans for removing US troops from that part of the world. Even if a candidate gets elected president after promising to withdraw US troops, he/she will change course once they are in a position to do so. Guaranteed.

This is all about energy supplies. Terrorism, democracy and the rest of it are all side-shows at best, pure distraction at worst. By letting the administration frame the debate in terms of "progress toward democracy" or "fighting terrorists," our press and false opposition party participate in the fraud being perpetrated upon the public. By accepting that this is a worthy conversation, we allow the fraud to continue.

From beginning to end, this is about oil. Nothing else. Control the oil and you control the world. Simple as that. Brutal, but true. Anyone who thinks the US is fighting for "freedom" or "democracy" is deluded. The Democrats are in on the game, like the guys who pretend to lose then win at Three Card Monty. It's all part of the game. In the end, they all go home and split the take.

Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Delayed Gore

Given the events of the past 7 years, how many people do you think there are in the US who are kicking themselves for not voting for Gore in 2000? While Bush and the republican leadership have been wrong on every major issue they've confronted, Gore, it seems, has been right. Global warming, Iraq, 9/11, taxes, budgetary constraint.... With Bush's approval ratings reduced to the hard-core zealots who think world-wide disaster is the necessary precursor to the return of their bearded savior, I'd imagine the other (sane) former-Bush supporters might be willing -- eager even -- to give Gore his chance. According to this report, a shadow staff is assembling in the wings, waiting for Al to give the word.

Those same former Bush supporters would be unlikely, I suspect, to vote for Hillary. She just rubs too many people the wrong way. And haven't we had enough of the dynasties in the White House?

The republicans don't seem to be offering anyone truly viable: a Mormon who has changed his position on abortion, gay marriage and hunting? A New York cross-dresser who has shamelessly cashed-in on 9/11, with a slew of ex-wives and mistresses and ties to organized crime? Another bad actor with cancer and a trophy wife younger than his children? A former hero who sold his soul and dignity, far too cheaply and now can't look himself in the mirror?

In a previous post, I talked about how the only leaders worth following really don't want the job. I think Gore fits into that category at this point. We need his leadership much more than he needs our admiration.

"Primitive" Politics

"Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia. "
Kurt Vonnegut

Of the many lessons we could learn from pre-agricultural cultures, one of the most valuable may concern politics. In hunter-gatherer societies, political power is diffuse and fluid. Leaders are generally not really "chosen" in any concrete way; people just gravitate toward those who seem to inspire confidence, based upon their track record, character and generosity. So one person might be "leader" when it came to questions of where to hunt, while another might be "leader" in questions of domestic disputes, and so on. But there is one quality that universally disqualifies anyone from becoming a "leader" in these societies: the desire to be a leader.

Wanting to be in a position of authority is seen as a sure sign of lack of character and is a clear demonstration of bad decision-making. After all, being a leader is a pain in the ass. The leader is expected to be generous, so he/she normally has the smallest hut, shares the most food, is the first one awakened to deal with any late-night crisis, etc. Who, but a fool, would choose such responsibility?

What we call ambition is seen as disgraceful self-importance, a pathetic lack of self-respect and perspective.

Perhaps this is why our political system so often seems like a beauty contest where only the ugliest can compete. Look at the pantheon of self-important, attention-starved, ass-kissing losers we have to choose from! Witness the self-humiliation required for entry into the contest, even from someone like McCain or Kerry, who one would think are above such a need.

The only light on the horizon, as far as I'm concerned, would be a Draft Gore movement, that succeeded in convincing Mr. Gore to come to the aid of his party and planet. He seems genuinely uninterested, so such a movement would have to be passionately convincing. And this is as it should be. We should have to convince reluctant leaders, otherwise they're not worth following.

The political process in the United States today reminds me of looking for darkness with a flashlight. The process defeats the purpose. With apologies to Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want any leader who would want to be my leader!