Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under democrat...

Hope is Fading Fast

This is why there is no credible or real opposition from the Republican Party or from the conservative movement as a whole:

It’s been easily a decade since Freshjive did something to truly get collective panties in a bunch. But this new “Hope Is Fading Fast” shirt is sure to have some folks up in arms. The real question is, would you wear it?

Basically, the “Freshjive” people have these grievances against the Obama Administration: 

  • consolidates a multi-tiered “state always wins” system of “justice”
  • continues to assert a radical version of the “state secrets” privelidge
  • nominates a pesticide pushing lobbyist to a top agriculture post, breaking once again his campaign promise not to hire lobbyists
  • nominates Bush’s final spokesliar, Dana Perino, to the Broadcasting Board of Governors
  • breaks his promise to close Guantanamo prison within a year, even as people long known to be innocent still languish there- not to mention an expasion of that other “Guantanamo” at Bagram Air Base
  • protects torturers from accountability
  • and contemplates a massive escalation in Afghanistan
  • Now, contrast that with something from Larry Johnson’s “No Quarter:”

    1.Select government reports to the contrary, the massive failings within the financial regulatory structure with specific emphasis on FINRA and the SEC.

    2. Goldman Sachs CEO Llloyd Blankfein’s confession just this week that Goldman had engaged in activities that were clearly wrong and led to the economic crisis.

    3.I have no doubt that many within our nation believe the Obama administration fundamentally believes in the principle of redistributing wealth via a number of programs. This emphasis on redistribution in one direction while simultaneously bailing out financial institutions leaves a very large percentage of those in the middle and on both sides of the aisle feeling totally disenfranchised. Not only do these people feel disenfranchised, but they feel that the government is not being honest with them regarding its motivations.

    Now, ask yourself this.

    Who nailed it?

    The attack from the left absolutely nails the Obama Administration. The attack from the “center,” which is where I’ll put the above, whiffs and misses.

    Oh, from the right? From the right, you ask?

    Barack Obama and his liberal allies do not even pretend to care that these are anything other than show trials that will end in the deaths of the defendants. It needs to be said—very clearly and plainly—that the reason the Administration decided to avoid the proper forum of a military tribunal for these terrorists is a warped, bitter desire carry out yet another partisan attack against the successful work of their predecessors. And in a sad way, it makes sense.

    If the radical leftists in the White House cannot use this circus to publicly invalidate the eight years of successful tactics and strategies developed during the post-9/11 Bush years, then they cannot easily return to the 9/10, head-in-the-sand, terrorism-is-a-law-enforcement-problem mentality that is their comfort zone.

    No. No, that does not nail it like the attack from Freshjive does. If anything, that makes people want to run out and vote for President Obama, and it isn’t even election day yet. It is much more effective to go with the rule of law than against it, and it is much more effective to go with the idea that a broad international footprint with an overstretched military that is costing us billions works against us rather than for us. And, of course, we already know that the more effective way to fight terrorism is with law enforcement techniques, not with putting several hundred thousand U.S. troops halfway around the globe.

    So far, there are more credible attacks coming from the left than from the center or the right. Sometimes, you just have to play to your base. Like it or not, it did work pretty well for President Bush to play to his base, and to keep them as happy as he could for as long as he did. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary, they still carry water for him.

    Filed under: Democrat

    You know, when people say that we really have gotten “change” since President Obama took over, I always laugh and call them names. Well, not really. But I do laugh. I do note that President Obama is maintaining a perfect “C” average. He is never really doing the right thing, never doing anything entirely wrong, and is still getting by on looks, rhetoric and speeches when he should be burying the Republican Party with answers, solutions, programs, and achievements.

    I have noticed that, if you happen to point out that one of his friends is a corrupt individual, they will cut you to pieces and destroy you—shades of Karl Rove—and they will get away with it because we have little or no functioning or working media anymore:

    A GOP congressional report accuses the White House of doing favors for Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and prominent ally of President Barack Obama.

    The report was spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

    The investigation also found evidence that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled “damage control” after allegations surfaced of sexual misconduct against Johnson, her now-fiancé.

    The probe was launched after an AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, was abruptly fired in June by White House lawyer Norm Eisen. Walpin, who was appointed to his position during the Bush administration, was pursuing allegations that Johnson misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit school he headed for several years.

    Among the accusations: AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for Johnson, washed his car and engaged in political activities.

    Walpin’s firing caused an uproar, with his defenders arguing that his removal was politically motivated and that Walpin was an effective watchdog who blew the whistle on the president’s friends and pet causes.

    You have to be fair and cite the fact that Republicans in Congress acquiesced to far too much of what Rove did in their name, and you have to accept the criticism that they are without credibility on this issue. As I pointed out when Walpin was fired, they destroyed the man, personally and professionally:

    When you hear Mr. Walpin’s side, you come away with a different view:

    “Anybody who’s heard me speaking more than I’m used to speaking on radio and TV in recent days, obviously under great pressure from what happened would clearly know that I know what I’m saying and what I’m doing and I’m not incoherent,” Walpin told POLITICO. “There’s nothing confusing about malfeasance and there’s nothing confusing about what appears to be the fact that they terminated me because I was doing my job because the White House wanted to protect people who proclaim they are friends of the White House.”

    Walpin said he did recall a board meeting where he became frustrated over “constant interruption…consistently breaking up my organization.”

    Asked about the May 20 session, Walpin said, “It’s certainly possible at that meeting I had a bug and was tired. I can’t remember right now…All I can say is this is a weak reed to now be relying on.”

    Walpin said he worked full-time in the Washington office for his first two years as inspector general and only began “teleworking” from New York after members of his staff convinced him to withdraw a resignation he tendered in January. He said he ran his plan to telecommute by the corporation’s acting CEO and general counsel, who had no objections.

    “This is an afterthought,” Walpin said. “The problem isn’t that I’m not there. The problem is that I’m too much there.”

    Walpin has alleged in recent interviews that his removal appeared to be in retaliation two reports he recently produced. One faulted a political supporter of Obama who is now mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, for misuse of federal Americorps personnel. Another criticized Americorps grants for participants in a City College of New York teacher training program.

    Another man destroyed to protect a friend of the President. I wish it were not so, but this is commonplace in American politics. It is not new.

    What is new is that many people seem to think President Obama is an annointed saint, sent to save us all. No, he’s just a President. They do things like this. They send their minions out to destroy lowly Poindexters and bureaucrats because of political expediency.

    When Republicans do it, it is wrong. When Democrats do it, it is wrong. The only thing that changes is which side of the aisle that the mindless defenders will come from. We are inherently polarized, and reality and facts don’t seem to count for anything anymore. Change the “D” to an “R” and you see all kinds of righteous indignation replacing carefully parsed justifications. It’s merely intellectual dishonesty at work, all of it driven by a bloodlust for holding onto power.

    So, what is Mr. Johnson, the former basketball star, accused of doing:

    During the course of Walpin’s investigation into Johnson’s activities, according to the Grassley-Issa report, Walpin’s team received complaints that Johnson made inappropriate advances toward three young woman involved in the St. Hope program and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women hush money.

    In one particularly incendiary passage in the report, one of the girls who had accused Johnson of inappropriately touching her said she told federal agents that he offered to pay her $1,000 a month to keep quiet.

    Johnson’s spokesman vehemently denied the reports charges.

    “There is absolutely no merit to these politically-motivated allegations,” said Steven Maviglio. “They are categorically false. It is sad and unfortunate that the right-wing minority in Congress is playing politics with rehashed allegations that have been dismissed by professional prosecutors, the Republican U.S. Attorney, and federal officials at AmeriCorps from both political parties.”

    And Ms. Rhee is accused of:

    When the complaints of sexual misconduct were first made, Rhee was a member of the board of St. Hope. A former St. Hope employee told Walpin’s investigators that Rhee “learned of the allegations and played the role of fixer, doing ‘damage control,’” the report states.

    A spokeswoman for the chancellor’s office dismissed the allegations in the report as old news that never amounted to criminal charges against Johnson. 



    “Chancellor Rhee is mentioned in one paragraph of the 62-page Joint Staff Report,” said Jennifer Calloway. “It rehashes old allegations that have long since been dismissed and deemed meritless by local and federal law enforcement officials, including the Sacramento Police Department and the U.S. Attorney.”

    Senator Grassley’s report goes on to say:

    The report accuses the White House Counsel’s Office of withholding information from Congress and misleading investigators after Grassley and Issa questioned Obama’s methods and motives for removing Walpin.

    It also provides new details about the role several other Obama allies played in Walpin’s firing. The then-chairman of the CNCS, a division of AmeriCorps that Walpin was investigating, is Alan Solomant, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and Obama supporter who spoke with Eisen in the White House parking lot hours after hearing Walpin’s objections to a settlement of the St. Hope matter. Solomant shared his concern that Walpin was no longer fit for the job based on his alleged inability to answer questions during the day’s board meeting, the report found.


    Eisen has claimed that the president’s decision to remove Walpin was the result of a thorough review of his performance and fitness to continue serving as an inspector general. He also has said that Walpin’s firing was unanimously supported by the CNCS board.

    I have to say, firing ANY inspector general is going to bring in charges of favoritism, pandering, corruption or whatever else you can throw in there—sodomy and grandstanding also come to mind. You simply cannot just go and fire an IG without expecting some sort of recrimination. The problem here is, Walpin got dangerously close to an Obama confidante, and Chicago-style politics kicked in. Sorry, kids. That won’t play everywhere you try it.

    Filed under: Democrat

    Just a few miles outside Suozzi’s Nassau County, Rep. Tim Bishop has drawn a promising Republican challenger in businessman Randy Altschuler, who could give the Long Island Democrat his stiffest challenge since his first election in 2002.

    read more...

    Filed under: democrat

    Don't speak of a honeymoon--that's long gone. That's over. That's a thing of the past.

    Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher goes after the Obama Administration and the Congress:

    There’s a shit storm going down on TV right now on CSPAN as the health care bill hits the floor of the House.

    Thank you Democrats, for making women take a punch in the throatfrom a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own problems. So Rahm and Obama (who did nothing to stop it) can have their “w”:

    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.

    “Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation,” the Bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. “Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion.”

    Well, you have to give the culture warriors something, so they can go around cheering about the big victory that they got in this bill.  So happy to have the chance to line it all up for you all.

    Thank you, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, from the bottom of my heart, for sitting on your hands and enabling this shit.  Hope you have fun at all those Common Purpose meetings, those cocktail parties at the Pelosi’s.

    You own this one.

    There's no way a Republican could write or say anything worse about this administration. That's a devastating attack from the base, and it is the kind of attack that should make a sensible incumbent fear for their job.

    I firmly believe that 2011 will be spent pandering to the liberal base to try to make up for days like today. Whether that will do any good is anyone's guess. Will there even be a thing called blogging in 2011? Is it going to become micro-blogging or something like Tumblr? Yes, I did figure out Tumblr. Now, I cannot stop. I just...cannot stop. It possesses my soul now, like some religious artifact from a long-dead religion based on fear and evil.

    Wait, who were we talking about?

    Filed under: Democrat

       Beware of What You Pick From the Vine

    Now, I am against the idea of marginalizing critics and creating an "enemies list." I don't think you can do such things and still claim to be governing effectively in this country. You can keep tabs on the people who oppose you, and you can certainly hit back at anyone who takes shots at you. I don't think we should expect the Obama Administration to roll over and absorb body blows. I do think we can rise above this sort of thing:

    Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) accused the White House on Wednesday of "street-brawling" with opponents, and said the West Wing's strategy of freezing out opponents amounts to a latter-day "enemies list," a reference to an infamous practice of President Richard Nixon.

    "An 'enemies list' only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself," Alexander said on the Senate floor. "These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy."

    Alexander quoted from a POLITICO article headlined "White House plan: Neuter the Chamber."

    "According to Politico," Alexander said, "the White House plans to 'neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce," an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The Chamber had supported the president’s stimulus package and some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals."

    In this post-Karl Rove world, the Republican Party cannot lecture anyone about anything, I'm afraid. Insinuation and political ruin were the favored tactics of Mr. Rove, and, love him or hate him, he has as much to do with the low state of our political discourse as anyone. Years of going for the jugular and hitting below the belt have left people reeling. How do you express your disapproval of what the Obama Administration is doing without being labeled racist or crazy? How do you engage in legitimate dissent and operate from a position of being loyal, yet opposed?

    First, we must acknowledge the poisoning of the well. The well was poisoned by years of opposing President Clinton and by defending President Bush. Vicious attacks, unfair tactics, and unhinged accusations--the slate must be wiped clean. It's a little like looking down into an enclosed arena, and everyone is covered in mud and filth, and trying to say that the people with blue shirts are clean and the people with red shirts are more dirty than the others. Well, no, everyone has some degree of filth on them, some more than others, but the only way we're going to sort this out is to stop throwing the mud.

    Second, we must acknowledge the need to repair broken institutions and reform key aspects of what the government does. This is good for business, you see. No one can go forward with anything until we ease the health care burden on small business and get us out of the wars we are in. We are being bled dry, literally and figuratively. We have an out-of-control ship steering for the rocks. Now IS the time for good government, and our political elites are blind to this fact.

    Third, we must allow for reasonable dissent and we must denounce the hatred on the left and the right. I don't care what stripe you wear on your political underwear, sir--you don't get to hate people just because your daddy taught you to be a Republican or because your crazy aunt taught you to be a liberal. Attack the position, not the person, unless the person it a complete idiot. In that case, attack what they've done. Leave family out of it. I have a tag here called "Incompetence" and it covers stupid things and a failure to do the right thing and know how to do things. It's broad on purpose. You can be incompetent, but I'll still shake your hand and be your friend. I may not like what you do, but I'll still like you. I like President Obama--he's a good guy. I'd be happy and honored to meet him. The same with President Bush and President Clinton and President Bush the older and President Carter. All good guys, like them all, and remember--that's your President, sir. Have some respect. You can disagree, and you can say what you like because this is America. But grow up and maintain some dignity. Yes, you can slip up once in a while when you're mad. I think we all lose our minds when things matter to us. But your basic functioning state should be tolerance and skepticism, not screaming and frothing at the mouth.

    Fourth, quit thinking talk radio is relevant to the discussion. It's not. It's entertainment. Those people just talk that way in order to gin up phony outrage and make people howl. Ignore them and they'll go away because they don't really believe what they're saying--they just believe that they'll make more money if you start hopping up and down and writing curse words on your lame blog, sir.

    Fifth, the Republic has been here longer than you, and it's more important than you, and no one in the government is there to make you miserable. It's We the People, not I am John Galt. Let's dispense with that nonsense. The entire history of human civilization comes down to the rational way in which we organize ourselves into a society based on cooperation and living together, not running around, asking for a government grant in order to start a think tank subsidized by private enterprise that champions the individual's ability to live without government. I've never understood the attraction to Ayn Rand. Alexander Hamilton would have eaten Ayn Rand for breakfast. No one has the ability to ruin the American form of government, not least of which are the people who get to try for their entire lives. Senator Edward Kennedy spent more than half of his life as a U.S. Senator, and never even came close to ruining anything, so that ought to tell you something. President Bush didn't ruin America, nor did any of his pasty-faced underlings. They did the best they could with what they had, and got away with whatever they could get away with, so get over it. They're no longer running things, and the Republic is still here, so grow up. I know, I know--your little blog, lefty Blogosphere in general, not specifically, used to do gangbusters when you would howl about Bush and his cohorts and now, no one wants to read you because of the shellshock. I'm sure you're doing well enough without the phony outrage, but that's neither here nor there. All of your friends are in the same boat, and paddling wildly, trying to negotiate these new realities. Here's a hint--try thinking before you hit publish. It sometimes works for me.

    So, in summary--no, Republicans cannot lecture anyone. Democrats cannot claim the high ground, thanks to how they tread during the Bush years. Everyone, shush. Let's have honest dissent and advocacy, and start anew. Follow my lead, and try to dissent honestly and rationally. I'm not perfect, nor would I say that I was. I think the happy medium is to avoid being unhinged and insane, where possible. I readily admit when my bullshit is refuted. I readily admit my past indiscretions--of course I'm a hypocrite. We're all hypocrites. How a person looks into the mirror and honestly addresses past failures is the key. I own my failures, and I'm here because my heart is in the right place, I believe. I'm here because it's Wednesday, and I don't have anything else to do, actually. Do you need a better reason than that?

    Filed under: Democrat

    vpm says...

    Here's a visual. I'll call her "one woman", but it could be anyone. We're all the same, and we're also all different. What's the same in us, though, is, that we have different formulas of subpersonalities. So follow my little story...

    There is a home that some people live in. Several people live in this home. It isn't very large, but it has quite a few inhabitants. It's a two story home, with a basement, too. From the outside, the home looks lovely, just like other homes. Lots of homes on the street are similar in look and feel, but it's paint, garden, decor, etc. makes this home unique, and all the other homes on the street are unique in their way.

    This particular home that we are talking about, though, inside and out, has a modern, yet warm, earthy, homey feeling. You walk inside. The home is decorated in a most pleasant combination of earthy colors, modern shapes, lived in and welcoming. It's a combination of earthy (not country) and contemporary. The person living in the house with the most "personality" decorated it and controls it. That family member, modern, outgoing, warm, democratic, progressive...is sitting in the living room, living her life, as you enter her home to visit. This particular person, let's call her IN THE NOW/MODERN, controls that house. That house is me, aka "one woman". IN THE NOW/MODERN is so strongly identified as me, "one woman", that she thinks she IS "one woman", but she's not; she is simply a part of "one woman". The big twist is that most of her life, until this was learned, "one woman" went about on HER merry way thinking that SHE was IN THE NOW/MODERN. "One woman" did not understand that the IN THE NOW/MODERN is only a part of "one woman" that "one woman" seems to indentify with and define herself as.  This, however, is very limiting, and also, very likely, an inaccurate definition.

    The IN THE NOW/MODERN is a separate entity living inside of "one woman"...simply living HER life INSIDE of "one woman". She has a whole story, life, belief system, feelings, nature, etc. If you sat on the living room couch inside of "one woman's" home and spoke to that part of "one woman", she could tell you her full life story...when she was born inside of "one woman", why she exists, how she saved "one woman", how she protects "one woman", who she's stifling, why inside that same house lives a TRADITIONAL side, too. That TRADITIONAL side stifled inside of "one woman" is is forced to live in the basement, hiding in a corner. The IN THE NOW/MODERN side won't let the TRADITIONAL side come out and be free. The TRADITIONAL side is stifled, and angry, and, because it's been stuffed down for so long, it has become bigger than it really is. It really is a small part of "one woman", but, without attention, it grows and grows, longing to be heard and seen. When it does see the TRADITIONAL subpersonality in other people, free and roaming around, it shouts out from the basement, "I'm here. I hear you. I want to get out. I agree with you." But, the IN THE NOW/MODERN, who is on the surface and seemingly in charge, clamps down on the TRADITIONAL subpersonality, pads the basement so that the IN THE NOW/MODERN can not hear what's going on in there, and locks the basement door. In this scenario, "one woman" is living eyes wide shut, and is oblivious as to her inner world, and as to how the outer world affects it. Until "one woman" realizes that this is going on inside her, "one woman" is oblivious to the situation, and no real choice can be made directly by "one woman".

    Time passes. The "TRADITIONAL" magnet subpersonality inside of "one woman", buried in the subconsious, has enormous power in its unknown state. The "TRADITIONAL" chooses a husband for "one woman". Who, you might ask? Someone who the "TRADITIONAL" can relate to...another "TRADITIONAL". (what you resist persists, remember?). Some years pass. There is great love, but also marital conflict. The "MODERN" wife can't relate to the "TRADITIONAL" husband's values, and vica-versa. Don't even bring up the subject of politics...way too hot a topic. They irritate and grate at one another. They both yearn to know someone more similar to who they are. They both do not see that they are each other's disowned subpersonalities, missing in the other.

    "One woman", over time and with work, slowly wakes up and realizes there is an inner world inside her. "One woman" realizes there is choice through the path of balance and embrace. "One woman", now in a healthier scenario at this point in her life, is still more modern. Her primary belief system is still what it is, and her primary subpersonality is MODERN, not TRADITIONAL. However, "one woman" now understands the inner workings of the mind and psyche and the personality structure within.

    Like developing a muscle, she works to develop her inner CHOOSER. This CHOOSER, like any other inner member of society, has always existed, but simply needed to be exercised and fine tuned and worked. The CHOOSER/DIRECTOR becomes a main, everyday component in managing the responsibilities and roles in the inner family of "one woman". The CHOOSER/DIRECTOR turns to the INNER MOTHER, who has been dormant. The INNER MOTHER is finally is strong enough to help the inner family and to see the need to help. She finds an enormous microscope and takes hold of it. It's two times the size of her. She walks over to the basement and unlocks the door. The MODERN subpersonality is right there in the living room, extremely nervous and unhappy and fearful of being disenfrancised. She would like to stop the INNER MOTHER, but the INNER MOTHER is not stopping. Their eyes meet and they both share piercing expressions, though the INNER MOTHER's face is filled with love for the MODERN and knows that she will not harm the MODERN in any way. The INNER MOTHER continues with her goal: she goes into the basement with the enormous microscope. It may be the first time she's been there. It's dark, and in the corner is a vision of someone who is hiding like a child. It is the hidden TRADITIONAL/CONSERVATIVE. It is actually very small, just a few inches tall, but it exists and needs recognition. The INNER MOTHER puts the TRADITIONAL/CONSERVATIVE underneath the microscope, and is now bigger than life. It is truly a conservative; truly a traditional; truly raging and angry at being ignored for so long. Right there, inside of "one woman"...to the surprise and shock of "one woman"...is an INNER TRADITIONALIST/CONSERVATIVE! Holy cow!

    The INNER MOTHER, lovingly, lets the TRADITIONAL/CONSERVATIVE speak, share it's point of view, it's beliefs, it's sadness, it's oppression. The MODERN, out of sight, fears this inner CONSERVATIVE and has a long term inner hatred for it. But, ear pressed to the door of the basement, the MODERN hears every word of the TRADITIONAL/CONSERVATIVE'S story and, for the first time in all of their lives, the MODERN feels empathy for the TRADITIONAL and not threat. They never meet face to face; they never talk and never will, but the MODERN hears the whole story and is not threated by the small person in the basement. As the inner TRADITIONAL/inner CONSERVATIVE continues to get it's thoughts and feelings out, it calms down greatly. The pain of being stiffled has relaxed now. The INNER MOTHER assures the CONSERVATIVE that she heard the whole thing and will definitely take the CONSERVATIVE'S feelings into account, and will. The INNER MOTHER further nurtures the situation by putting on a nightlight so that the basement is not quite as dark as it once was...now there's some illumination. She raises the thermostat and makes it cozy, piles up some pillows from the basement to create a comfortable spot, and takes a blanket and covers the TRADITIONALIST and looks into her eyes and smiles. She slightly opens the curtains to the basement window and lets a bit of light stream in. It's homier down there now. The INNER MOTHER promises to revisit, and will. The INNER MOTHER then takes the microscope away, and poof, even to the INNER MOTHER'S amazement, the TRADITIONAL is again the size of a spec of dust. In reality, that's all it is in size, but it is alive and vibrant, and powerful and magnetic and it was heard and is now content and peaceful. The door to the basement is closed, not locked, though the INNER CONSERVATIVE gladly stays in "one woman's" basement for now, and later, may only occasionally come out. Still, even when or if it ever roams "one woman's" house freely, it's size is tiny. It's impact, when buried in the basement (subconscious) is enormous. Once it's heard, the impact changes. It can have more input into "one woman's life" with the permission of the "DIRECTOR" and the 'INNER MOTHER" and at the acceptance of the "MODERN", or it may stay as little as it is, but now calm and relaxed.

    "One woman's" marriage changes dramatically. The bond between the MODERN in her and the CONSERVATIVE in her spouse changes dynamic, and great respect for one another's differences takes place. It is remarkable. "One woman's" outlook on the world and others changes dramatically. She sees and understands with more respect other viewpoints, even if she disagrees with them. She still takes a stand, but sees value, at some level, regarding the other viewpoint. The inner war between these polar opposites has greatly diminished, and the outer war diminishes proportionally.

    The road to a healthy person has nothing to do with being left or right...not really. The road has to do with our relationship to the spec of dust within that is shouting. Under the microscope, that spec of dust can be given some respect and time to get it's beliefs expressed and to be understood. Then, after the spec of dust is done shouting and knows that it was heard and loved and understood, the microscope is taken away. The spec of dust is still there, but now it is calm and silent. Nothing seemed to change, but everything did change, because the inner war was arrested finally.

    People are either traditional or modern, Republican or Democratic, right or left, religious or new thought, believing or athiest, etc. But, in every person, there is a seed of the opposite view that he/she seemingly finds so irritating. It is an irritant because it is a strong but silent voice in their own padded basement, and when the opposite view pops up in people "out there", it stimulates the spec of a subpersonality "in here" that is longing to simply be heard and understood. That spec doesn't require control...just a voice.

    This is a great challenge to humanity. On the surface, it seems far easier to just have a position and despise the other position. That approach demands nothing of us in terms of being better people; it puts the onus on others...out there. However, the "seek within yourself" approach challenges us all to embrace the opposite. The traditional is challenged to embrace something progressive. The progressive is challenged to embrace the more traditional. Inner struggles are to be embraced rather than left dormant. People may hear what is going on inside themselves and come to peace with their emotional polarities. They will have an opportunity to open their minds and hearts to who they really are, and will have the additional opportunity to more easily accept others for whom they are. For those who cannot love beyond themselves, this will enable themselves to, because the more subpersonalities within themselves that they become acquainted with and befriend, the more they will be at ease with those subpersonalities in others in the outer world.

    I believe in a Creator with Infinite Wisdom. For those who do not, and feel otherwise, nothing really changes in terms of my message. I believe that what is asked of all of us is the mighty and correct task to attempt to reach, within all of us, our opposing beliefs and subpersonalities and to embrace them. I believe that religion, with all of it's wonderful differences and wonderful rites of passage and beautiful rituals and cultures within each religion itself, are all collectively on a mission to do the same, but they express it differently. Balance IS the path. This type of formula...embrace and balance...can help all people of all faiths leap from point A to point B, which appears to be the underlying goal of humanity at it's best, no matter what one believes. 

    All things that humans are capable of are within us. We are capable of utmost beauty and utmost evil. We are capable of creation and destruction. All the supersonalities from holiness to evil lies within us. It's amazing when you really look at it.

    The goal of embracing and balancing is not yet fully realized, but I tend to believe that the goal, at it's core, is to step inward, and all walks of life are trying to attain this. Which, when done, will release us from our personal and collective illusion and can change reality greatly.

    Comments welcome.

    "Balance is the path."

    Please note that this is original content and I am the author and copyright holder. This is original intellectual property belonging to onewomansthoughts.posterous.com.  Use of copyright protected material without permission is illegal under copyright laws.

     

    Filed under: democrat

    Mohit says...

    Filed under: democrat

    thetrudz says...

    Two of the most irrational things on Earth are love and hate. Neither make any sense. I suspect that they are not supposed to. This is why they are emotions. Emotions are not supposed to be logical. However, actions can be. I never blame a person for how they feel. However, I do hold them accountable for what they decide to say and how they behave. 

    To love or support a person is not the same as worship. To disagree with a person is not the same as hatred (although sometimes the delineations can be marginal). We can agree or disagree with a person and still be able to view them as a real person. However, this can easily change when overpowering emotions lead us into illogical statements and dangerous behaviors.  

    I notice that women who are madly in love do crazy things. Men do too. I have seen some women elevate their male partners to a god status and began to believe that all men are great because they themselves happen to be in a relationship that they enjoy.  I also have noticed the reverse. When a woman is wronged, that same male partner can be demoted to devil status and then all men are evil because she happens to be out of a relationship that she once adored. By god status I mean that words and behaviors that are extremely dangerous are ignored, even to the point of detriment. By devil status I mean that all that is potentially good and residual is forgotten and the person is vilified. Many women seem to take the god vs. devil approach to love; even I have been guilty of that in the past and I think that is a mistake. Women have to allow men to simply be men. To clarify, I do not mean to use this statement in the ignorant way that I often see it used where it means that men should do whatever they want to women, not be accountable for it and and women should just suck it up and deal with it. Instead, I mean that men are human--both good and flawed; gods and devils are supernatural beings with an inordinate amount of power and are not allowed to be both good and flawed. A person's true character has both good and flaws. Women are not alone in the extreme polar opposite typecasting. Men have done this since the beginning of time with the pure madonna vs. whore typecast. I chuckle to myself because I have entered the early stages of dating with a few guys who have tried to shove me into either category and then would decide how they would treat me based on either category. When their attempts were unsuccessful, they usually lost interest. It would be nice to simply be allowed to be a woman, a human, both good and flawed, instead of either extreme category.  

    This doesn't only occur in love; extreme typecasting rears its head in politics as well. Some Republicans are completely incapable of seeing anyone outside of the god vs. devil typecast. To some of them, all Republicans are good, wise and want the best for the country and all Democrats are vile, un-Christian and basically devils. Certainly the same thing can be said about some Democrats; some view all Republicans as negative, racist, undereducated and greedy and think that all Democrats are good. We have a tendency to want to shove people into extreme polar opposite typecasts instead of recognizing that humans are just that, human, and a combination of good and bad qualities. This is not to say that the bad qualities are not annoying or even angering.  For some people, the amount of bad is extreme, as you would see in a person with an Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis (if they are also a criminal who may have hurt other people). But most people are a blend of good and bad and should not be viewed in terms of extremes, which often assigns them power that they really do not have.  

    A clear political example of this is occurs with President Barack Obama. Most people view him as a man, with good and bad traits and a combination of personality facets and insights that makes him who he is. Good? Yes. Flawed? Indeed; just as almost everyone else is. Some agree with his views and some respectfully disagree. However, there are people on the fringes who seem to view him in a god vs. devil typecast. This does a disservice to both the people who view him this way and to the President himself. He is not a god.* He does not have god-like powers. By viewing him this way, people are not able to clearly analyze him or his decisions and will see any decision that he makes as perfect. We cannot make perfect decisions. We are not perfect beings. We can only weigh options, seek counsel, evaluate information and make what we feel is the best choice for the decision at hand. Conversely, he is not a devil. He is not evil. By viewing him this way, people are not able to clearly analyze him or his decisions and will see any decision that he makes as wrong or evil.  

    When people defame his face to make him look like Hitler and The Joker (instead of perhaps bringing copies of the HR3200 bill to the tea parties and burning/defaming that if they disagree with the legislation) they send a disgusting message to their children. Imagine if children brought home defamed photographs of their teachers and classmates if they disagreed with them over how an assignment should be completed? Any accurate review of his personality, background and political agenda clearly reveals that he is not like Hitler. The tangents that are used to connect their lives and personalities are inaccurate, shallow and short-sighted. I saw several tweets/blogs regarding the education speech that he made a few weeks ago where people connected the fact that he was going to give a speech to Hitler's mass audience speeches. By this tangent, all past Presidents are like Hitler then. See how ridiculous that reads? Loose tangents based on hyperbole are a complete intellectual abomination to anyone who has to experience them. Obama should not be offended though; here is a whole list of people, as well as a cat, that have been called Hitler. I definitely do not see any congruence between Obama and The Joker. Any respectable DC Comic Fan (although I prefer Marvel Comics) would know that The Joker was an anarchist who simply wanted "to watch the world burn." That is clearly not Obama's objective. Also, I do not see the personal congruency between Obama and Hitler, but I will review the idea of the mass movements to reveal congruencies that can exist within mass movements themselves. 

    In the book The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature of Mass Movements by 1983 Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Eric Hoffer, he surmises that mass movements are in fact interchangeable and tend to operate similarly, even when their goals are unequivocally opposed. So for those who feel that Obama and his supporters are equivalent to Hitler and the Nazis, they are in fact accepting that their own movement is also equivalent to Hitler and the Nazis. In the book, Hoffer mentions how people who want to escape a feeling of a flawed self often join a movement to feel more powerful and inclusive of a large group or the basic the whole is greater than the sum of its parts idea. I think we can find some people with a flawed self-concept within both Obama's supporters and detractors. The driving force (motivation due to a believed cause) for those at Grant Park in Chicago on Election night may not be that different than those who showed up at the Tea Parties, even if the outward form of expression was markedly different.**  People who march in the name of love or in hate can be substituting group pride for personal self-confidence. However, this changes and worsens when the motivation for supporting Obama is within the view of him as a god or the motivation for not supporting him is within the view of him as a devil. Sometimes the greater problem is within the psyche of supporters/detractors rather than the leaders themselves. Leaders make many errors but some (not all) still try to do what is best for their respective countries. However, if a supporter's or detractor's personal view of themselves allows them to see more of their own flaws rather than their personal good, their own decision-making and tendency to view others via extreme polar opposite typcasting becomes more prevalent and can pose a serious problem, especially when collectively executed.  Again, I do not believe this train of thought applies to most people, but in fact within some very dangerous fringe thinkers. Many support a cause simply because they believe in it and have a very healthy self-concept and amount of self-esteem. 

    Whether in love, politics or life in general, extreme polar opposite typecasting seems to be similar to traveling throughout life with the largest possible blinders on. Gods, devils and men have to be defined by what they actually are. People are both good and flawed and the only way to truly see a person is to see them in their entirety. 

    *I do note that many people do not view him as a god but are accused of doing so by others who in fact assign him that power by reffering to him as a"messiah" with a condescending tone. 

    **This is not to assert that all that were at Grant Park or all Tea Party supporters automatically view the President in god vs. devil typecasting; the statement was just to illustrate two gatherings where some who view him in this way could have been present. 

    Filed under: democrat

    Tom says...

    The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity.

    Great article in the New York Times about the myth of the power allegedly held by the Limbaughs and Becks in the media. They pander to a lot of listeners, but it doesn't translate to votes or action. As soon as the GOP realizes this they can make themselves a better party.

    Sadly, the article doesn't mention the same is true of the loud-mouthed media personalities on the left, such as Olbermann.

    If both partys would ignore the blowhards at their far ends, they could focus more on reasoned debate and a centrist approach, which is ultimately where all compromise must take place.

    At this country's formation, the Founding Fathers had far greater disagreement than we have today. Yet these men hammered out the Constitution; where is that sense of compromise today?

    Filed under: democrat

    Nick Uva says...

    Gallup comes in today with bad news for Democrats, whose approval rating for Congress dropped from 54% to 36% in just a single month. Perhaps even more alarmingly, support among Independents fell to 16%.

    Filed under: democrat