Profile cover photo
Profile photo
A place for creative ideas on politics and pop culture.
A place for creative ideas on politics and pop culture.


Post has attachment
Why Is Hillary In Panic Mode?

A very curious question of the moment is, why is Hillary in panic mode? The evidence of her panic is fairly obvious given her campaign’s recent clumsy even amateurish attempts to attack Bernie. We will get to the details of the evidence of panic later but an intriguing possible reason for her panic is what she is seeing in her internal polling.

It took the genius pundits awhile before they finally recognized that this presidential election process is unique compared to those in the recent past. Very high levels of citizen anger have changed voting patterns. This change includes energizing younger citizens and other previously apathetic citizens to want to vote. The pols which are based on “likely voters” have not been including this new wave of expected voters. In the Democratic primaries this bloc is virtually all on Bernie’s side. So the pols have not adequately taken into account this group of potential voters. Couple that with the latest pols of likely voters that have Bernie in a virtual dead heat with Hillary in Iowa and consistently have him being ahead in New Hampshire and the political winds appear to be blowing hard into Bernie’s sails. If these new voters come out of the woodwork as expected, Bernie could very well be looking at a big win in both states. To back up this premise, a New York Times article interviewed 11 Hillary insiders. The article states the Clintons are “unnerved by the possibility that Mr. Sanders will foment a large wave of first-time voters and liberals that will derail her in Iowa.”
The consensus among these insiders was that it was a mistake to not play hard ball with Bernie early and often and that this allowed him to create momentum. This public criticism is amusing because it feels a bit like “experts” covering their butts to maintain their “expert” status. Pointing fingers before the campaign corpse becomes a corpse just reeks of beltway cynicism that seems to be a core value of Team Hillary. If Hillary’s internal polling can somehow account for a potential new wave of voters, this might have sent HRC down the rabbit hole of high anxiety and big time desperation.

Another possibility for her panic is the expansion of the investigation by the DOJ about her emails as Secretary of State to include possible pay to play influence connected to the Clinton Foundation. Only she and Bill really know if there is something to worry about but the circumstantial evidence looks bad for her.

Yet another potential reason for her panic is just the possibility of a nightmarish repeat of her blowing a second chance to be the first woman to be a US president. Maybe even a 50/50 chance of losing again is enough to push her internal panic button. Obviously, going in twice as a prohibitive favorite and failing both times has an ulcer inducing quality to it.

Hillary’s panic mode got off to a running start with her campaign surrogate’s claim that Bernie is ignoring the shadow banking problem and that Hillary would do a much better job of cleaning up Wall St. It seems that Hillary is doing her own shadow dancing around this all important issue. It comes off as quite condescending for her to try and sell that the person who has taken millions from Wall St. will be better at reining in Wall St. then the candidate who refuses money from Wall St. or any big donor. This kind of flim flam is just not going to sell to the angry voters that are ticked at Wall St. and their bought off politicians.

Then her campaign really tripped over both feet when her daughter Chelsea took her campaign into it’s own version of amateur hour. She attempted to criticize Bernie’s push for a single payer health care plan for all Americans by making the outrageous claim that Bernie wants to take away all the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. No reasonably intelligent undecided voter is buying this nonsense. Bernie is trying to upgrade the ACA not eliminate its benefits. His plan is to make certain everyone in America has health insurance which the ACA does not do.

Last but not least, Hillary is basically trying to attack Bernie’s character. Hillary is claiming in a Bernie ad the distinction being made between how the two will go after Wall St. is false. Rachel Maddow in an interview with Hillary asserts that her campaign “set its own hair on fire a little bit” by over reacting to this ad and is basically calling Bernie dishonest. Going after Bernie’s character is certainly strong evidence that Team Hillary is in full panic mode. This is just so Karl Rovian going after a competitor’s strength. Call Bernie a lot of things but not dishonest! It appears she is projecting her own behavior onto Bernie.

If the well heeled well informed Hillary Clinton is panicking over another possible epic fail in losing to Bernie, maybe its time for those feeling the Bern to start smiling. Those smiles will only be sustained of course as long as voters stay motivated to act on their dissatisfaction and vote as informed participants of a democracy.

Does anger rule the 2016 Presidential election? Yes indeed it does. Recently, the media has been referring to anger in politics but as usual they completely miss the point. The feckless elite media is focusing on the anger of politicians not the anger of voters. The reason anger rules is because of what Citizens United has done to politics. The anger created by Citizens United in combination with the rapidly declining number of jobs and earning power of the middle-class has ignited voter anger with the power of rocket fuel. In understanding today’s politics, it is helpful to look back and identify what emotion primarily motivated voters in recent elections. For example, it is easy to identify fear for the security of the US as the primary reason why Bush won re-election in 2004. The attack on 9/11 left many afraid and thereby reluctant for a regime change. In 2008, a good case can be made that fear of the economy continuing to fail was even more of a force in that election than anger over Bush’s disastrous Iraq War. Digging a little deeper, the way the Republican Party and their media outlets have for a long time manipulated voters is by primarily leveraging greed and fear. When manipulating voters it is best to keep anger simmering but the use of greed and fear is the money play for voter manipulation. When voters react to their own greed and fear it typically leads to predictable outcomes. Pushing the anger button too hard and long, is way too much of a wild card play when trying to control behavior.

The existence of Citizens United is the reason outsider types like Trump, Carson and Fiorina are leading in the Republican pols. This is certainly not the behavior the power elite of the GOP wanted from their voters. It is ironic because Citizens United was created by Republicans to counter the burgeoning influence of small donations made by Democrats. The unexpected byproduct of Citizens United is that middle-class GOP voters are feeling relatively impotent as part of the body politic. This has absolutely infuriated these voters. The reason for this is that Citizens United created billionaire kingmakers like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson. Republican middle-class voters get what happens when billionaires control candidates. They understand that when middle-class needs and wants conflict with 1% needs and wants, the vast majority of the time they lose.

History teaches us that all revolutions need the support of the middle-class to succeed. Presidential elections are nothing but bloodless coups. The history of US elections shows that very often when our country has been really angered by politicians, people that normally do not vote, step up and vote. There are many examples of how anger has changed the political tides. The seemingly entrenched LBJ was kicked out because of how he handled Vietnam. Carter beat Ford in good part because of anger over pardoning Nixon. Carter lost because of anger over how he handled the Iran hostage crisis. George HW Bush lied about raising taxes and so he only lasted for a single term. The anger over Dubya’s eight disastrous years as president was voluminous and key to Obama winning. Turning to the present, the candidate that best deals with voter anger especially from the middle-class will win the 2016 presidential election. If you want to understand the ebb and flow of the current presidential nominating process, you need to understand how anger affects people. Anger puts us on a fast track to taking action. It typically clouds good judgment but at times can also bring clarity out of apathy and confusion. More often than not anger leads to impulsive self-destructive behavior. A strong case can be made that anger has brought clarity for those that support Bernie Sanders and that Donald Trump supporters are in self-destructive mode. To understand this coming election take a personal inventory about how many times you made a good or bad decision while angry.

When a typical voter contemplates whom to vote for, just thinking about our dysfunctional government is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Positions and policy proposals that don’t effectively address this anger are a waste of time as far as gathering votes go. At present, Bernie and Trump are drawing big enthusiastic crowds. The rest of the candidates are not. This is because they are doing a very good job of addressing voter anger.

Whether Bernie or Trump can win the nomination of the two major parties is far from decided. However, of the nominated candidates, whoever learns how to best address this anger and is most believable in how to fix what is causing this anger, is very likely going to be our next president.

Post has attachment
What Is Love

What is Love, a timely question for this time of year. Most everyone wants to experience love. Yet do most of us really know what is true love? If someone wants to have a better understanding of how to love in order to fully experience love, they need to get a grip on the concept of “unconditional love”. We all experience love in some form and in some way, but do we really contemplate what it is? It is important to understand that love is experienced by the lover. When you love someone, that is your very personal experience of love. The person you are loving may experience the love they feel from you. However, the love that they experience toward you maybe be different than your experience of love toward them. These differences may be profound or subtle but it is likely that these differences do indeed exist. For example, one party may be in touch with their love with another while the other party may not be feeling it on that moment, that day or that week etc. The experience of love is typically filtered through the mind and its minefield of possible thoughts to the heart. The less the mind is at play and the more the heart is at play the deeper we feel love. We can categorically claim that love is a unique experience of feeling love for another.

There is a paradoxical element about love. As stated, the experience of love can be unique to each person. However, love is also a union between two parties. The experience of this merging is central to experiencing love. It is this profound bonding where a person loses their sense of individuality for finite moments in time that draws us most to love.

A telling behavior of love is self-sacrifice. Therefore, love can also be an act of self-sacrifice. Some acts of selflessness may look like love. However, if an act is primarily motivated by the ego, than this is not love. Ego is about experiencing separation. The ego wants to make you feel better than everyone else or smaller than everyone else. Either way the ego wins and love loses. The place, the experience where there is no beginning or end, this is love.

Love is unconditional. We enter this world with many needs, the need for unconditional love is the most profound. If a parent or parent figure does not consistently deliver unconditional love to a child, the child will have doubts about how lovable they are. Young minds are extremely impressionable. They absorb lots of information quickly but often misinterpret it. If a child does not get enough unconditional love growing up, he or she primarily feels lovable based on conditions. As an adult this can be overcome but quite often takes great effort. The idea that love conquers all does not really apply to someone who has severe problems and constrictions with feeling lovable. Romantic love will not solve this problem. The surest way to remove the learned behavior of only feeling lovable based on conditions is for someone to experience unconditional love coming from a parent figure. Here is an illustration of how unconditional love is delivered. A devoted mother knows the needs of her child both big and small. She knows what will make her child safe and happy. This type of mother gives much effort to anticipating these needs and fulfilling as many of them as she possibly can. Of course a child also need structure and discipline. These elements round out a person so they can respect themselves as well as others. Good parents know that and put it all together. No one ever said being a good parent was at all easy. Being a parent is in fact a true a labor of love.

On your path to find love, the question will no doubt arise, do I love this person. There is a simple way to to clear up any possible confusion. First mentally ask the question on one side then internally weigh the feeling. Then ask the question on the other side and weigh the feeling. Whichever feeling weighs even slightly more that is how you truly feel. This method works for any doubts you may have about how you feel about virtually anything.

Conditional love includes unnecessarily harsh conditions and other inappropriate strings attached to a relationship. Given that we live in the world of duality all relationships to one degree or another have legitimate expectations. Parent to child, child to parent, spouse to spouse, family member to family member all have very specific appropriate expectations. Friend to friend is the relationship with the least amount of societal obligations. In friend to friend love, the only bond is really the relationship itself. As human being to human being there are levels of respect and propriety that inherently exist.

The friend to friend love has from society’s perspective limited expectations. Somewhat surprisingly, it is the form of love that mirrors unconditional love more than any other relationship. The obligations we feel for a friend come from the pure place of the heart. Of course unconditional love can and should be part of all relationships. Ironically, the course we navigate for relationships that come with an assortment of expectations but also are typically our closest relationships has narrower lane for unconditional love than the open ended friend to friend love. The path of unconditional love maybe wider yet the connection of love may not be experienced as deeply.

Love is a selfless experience. In spiritual circles there is a line drawn between what is love versus what is attachment. Attachment feels like love, looks like love, has an element of love in it, but is not really love. Attachment is much more about ego and selfish desires than it is about the selfless merging experience of love. One cannot really experience the profoundness of love if their ego and its selfish desires are too prominent in a relationship. One cannot have a selfless experience if they are primarily experiencing their ego in what they believe is a feeling of love or an act of love.

The issue of duality versus non-duality is a hidden element of love. The experience of duality, is about a singular being feeling separate from other humans and the physical world. From a spiritual perspective this is simply a starting point and not indicative of the whole picture of who we are and what we are. An example of an experience beyond duality is when we close our eyes, let our thoughts truly vanish and are only aware of the experience of love as a merging with one person, our loved ones, all of humanity, nature etc.

There is not one kind of love that is better than another because it all comes from the same source. Romantic love is not a higher form of love than friend to friend love. The intensity of love based on the dynamics of the relationship could make the romantic love a person feels more important to that person. However, from an overall standpoint it is all love and it is all very vital.

In summarizing what is love, the best place to start is with the purest love which is unconditional love. Love is respect for yourself and others. An act of self-sacrifice is often love in action. The experience of love is a unique experience, a merging of mind and heart, and a selfless experience.
Wait while more posts are being loaded