HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TahitiNut » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Body in Michigan - Heart in California
Home country: Born in USA ... Reborn in Tahiti
Current location: Right here, under my hat
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 71,611

About Me

Matrimonially experienced man, leading edge baby boomer, seeking long term relationship with warm sunshine, seawater, soft breezes, coral reefs, palm trees, and the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. http://www.tahitinut.com/

Journal Archives

It's always more about how WE see the President than about him (or her, hopefully soon).

JFK wasn't a 'great' because of his accomplishments in office, which were few. He was a 'great' because of the FEELINGS of the population of the country ... what "we the people" projected upon him and invested in him. That's what it's all about, really, about the feelings and optimism and mythologies and aspirations and confidence and respect THE PEOPLE have in the individual. Yes, the person must behave in a manner that isn't overtly contradictory to the values projected upon him, but when push comes to shove it's NOT about him -- it's about US.

Obama knows this. He's said it. It's just one more reason we can choose to be confident in him -- he's "keepin' it real." To the degree that right-wingers invested such feelings in Duhbya (choosing NOT to see his clay feet), there is a valid basis for elevating his ranking. (That does NOT prevent me from regarding him and the Dick as War Criminals who belong in prison.)

But it IS about US ... and whether WE choose, in concert, to adopt a confident, optimistic, unified attitude. There are a LOT of "players" in creating and maintaining this mindset, but virtually every "player" is so because THE PEOPLE choose to be affected by them, whether they be the media, other politicians, or the Ruling Class. In the final analysis, absolutely NOBODY can have power over THE PEOPLE'S attitudes without THE PEOPLE'S consent.

It's said that Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself without your permission. (I agree.) Likewise, nobody can affect the feelings and attitudes of We The People without the Consent of We The People.

That Consent comes with a price ... and an even bigger price for refusing to give it anymore once given.

The MittWit is an extraordinary acrobat, able to put his foot in his mouth ...

... while his head is up his ass. It must be all that Olympics "experience."

If ...

"[font size=3]If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream---and not make dreams your master;
If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!

-- Rudyard Kipling

Most of us older DUers were required to learn this in grade school. I get the impression that it's no longer a part of the standard curriculum.

Given President Obama's mature demeanor and grace under pressure, it seemed to me to be an appropriate time to post this... if only as a reminder.

I like to think perhaps a young Barack Obama heard this poem from his grandfather, given that his father was absent. As someone old enough to be Obama's father, all I can say is

Obama ... is a man.

Myth alert: The MittWit is NOT a "businessman."

The MittWit is a predatory capitalist whose 'business' was sucking the cash out of the pension funds and other assets of "under-performing" REAL businesses (i.e. employers offering real services or tangible products), saddling them with back-breaking debt, and leaving them to die.

A "businessman" is more than some indolent shit with a wallet full of cash. A real "businessman" has some comprehension of operations in offering a service or creating a product. A real "businessman" should possess some skills in a craft or profession ... other than Casino Capitalism.

The MittWit is NONE of that.

He has ZERO, zilch, nada OPERATIONAL management experience.

He couldn't MANAGE his way out of a wet paper sack. He has delivered neither a PRODUCT nor a SERVICE and has relied solely on entitlements to plunder labor equity, pensions, and borrowed cash while saddling acquired companies with debt or dissolution.

He's a VAMPIRE ... sucking the 'blood' out of companies and leaving them to die.

Years or decades of work by craftsmen and product-oriented labor is meaningless to Rmoney ... who'd be lost (or killed) on a shop floor.

He's even LESS skilled and experienced than Dumbya, which is saying something.

The MittWit has NO "managerial skills" whatsoever.

He likes to fire people. That's not "management" ... that's mismanagement. In order to have "managerial skills," he would have to be operationally-oriented. He's NOT. This is NOT a person at all interested in or experienced in operations. That's "shop floor" stuff ... actually focused on DOING something. That's where we discover things like "craftsmanship" and "quality." The operations of an enterprise (whether it's a manufacturing company, woodworking shop, or political campaign) are almost totally distinct from the financials of an enterprise. The MittWit is, as a result of both interest and experience, all about the money. He's interested in cost, expense, profit, and salvage value ... not about "how" but about "how much."

Thorstein Veblen described the two distinct interests in any economic activity over 100 years ago. He described the "engineering" attitude ... people involved in some economic activity because they loved the product or service that the enterprise provided ... and the "financial" attitude ... people involved in an economic activity solely because they loved the money. The latter types are typically unconcerned with the product or service except insofar as the economic cachet.

This is what ruined General Motors. When the company was run by engineers who loved cars, it produced the '57 Chevy and the Corvette and was the most dominant automobile company on earth. Then, along came Roger Smith and his ilk. All they cared about was economic power ... getting rich and sucking dollars out of the company. They merged the various product lines (e.g Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac) into generic operations (e.g. assembly, fabrication) with a mindset that ignored the product-orientation of the labor force. LOTS of auto-workers LOVED cars ... took a tribal/familial pride in the vehicles they were producing.

Roger Smith and his ilk knew nothing but dollars ... no pride. No craftsmanship

The MittWit, unlike his father, would get lost (or killed) on the shop floor. He cares nothing about craftsmanship. He's a liar and a cheat, entirely consumed by his love of money. Notice that when he talks about the federal government, he doesn't give a shit about what is done or how it's done ... only about what it costs and how much it pays (profits for his cronies, not wages). It's never about "better" except when that means "cheaper." When he talks about Medicare, it's 99% about cost and less than 1% about health. No matter what he talks about, it's the same. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

See... this is what's so fucking annoying about it.

You just don't GET IT. It's not surprising ... so few do. So, let me try to make it clearer.

I DON'T want "credit" or an "attaboy" or to be treated as some kind of "hero." Never did. Never will.
I don't know any (real) Viet Nam Vet who looks at it that way. It's hard to feel "heroic" when so much of the time in Nam was infuriating Mickey Mose nonsense and utter boredom, punctuated by short times of pants-pissing terror that the incoming is gonna blow you up or leave you without an arm or a leg. I don't know ANYONE I was with that felt particularly "heroic" or "brave." No fucking way. Every damned swinging dick was focused on one thing: counting down their own 365 and getting the fuck out of there. I don't know a single swinging dick that didn't envy guys like you ... or guys that managed to avoid the draft altogether. Even Jody. Everyone did it differently ... but nobody I ever knew was eager for medals or pats on the back. (Least of all... medals.)

That's the WHOLE POINT. It was a matter of survival ... and getting back to the real world.
All I EVER wanted was for my wife, family and friends to be glad I got back alive and in one piece.
The "welcome" I wanted wasn't a parade for "heroes" ... just relief and some expression of love.

Instead, it was a kick in the teeth. That's ESPECIALLY difficult to deal with when, as often happens, I felt some degree of "survivor's guilt." You see, we all went to Nam alone. And we came back alone. In between, we made friends that became closer than we'd ever had. We didn't fuck with each other. Long nights standing guard on some bunker line ... we talked. We shared parts of ourselves we'd never trusted anyone with before. We got drunk together. We trusted each other. Leaving Nam to go back to the world felt like abandoning friends.

For what? Just to survive. That's all.

Then we see all the "Rambos" ... guys claiming some kind of credit that it never even occurred to me to want. There are so fucking many of them that everyone misses the fucking point! Other people form their impressions MOSTLY from such frauds ... and the movies. It, Just. Ain't. That. Way.

For you to equate my annoyance to some "dishonor" for YOUR service is just nuts.

But there's a DIFFERENCE between surviving ... counting down 365 days and hoping you didn't get killed or (worse) maimed for life ... scared ... and doing your time stateside. A BIG difference. It's a difference tht can't be described. No matter how much you THINK maybe you "get it" from what I've said ... you don't.

The "Kept Us Safe" meme was/is the BIGGEST of the Big Lies from Cheney/Bush.

It's the most obvious counter-factual bald-faced lie imaginable. Absolutely EVERYONE has more than enough information (i.e. there are NO "low-information" people in the audience for this) to IMMEDIATELY respond to such an assertion by regarding anyone able to state such a lie as absolutely INSANE. It's worse than "the sky is green" where one might question the individual's eyesight or language skills.

It's just ASTOUNDING ("Through The Looking Glass" that such an assertion would be regarded as anything but beyond even the furthest fringe claim, being so unarguably false. 9/11 was the single most fatal day of attacks (remember, it was FOUR attacks!) on U.S. soil, BY FAR, in the entire history of this nation! Cheney/Bush CLEARLY had more than enough information to prevent or reduce the fatalities on that day and CLEARLY acted in, at the very least, an incompetent manner by ignoring and suppressing that information.

I regard ANYONE who'd make such a assertion as disconnected from reality to a degree that should qualify them for commitment in a mental institution.

It's beyond bizarre.

I'd be happy to support any politician that truly supported "win-win" relationships ...

.... instead of "win-lose" AND, when confronted by adversaries playing "win-lose," understood the Prisoner's Dilemma ... and played "tit-for-tat" until the adversary abandoned "win-lose" in favor of "win-win."

It's astounding how few actually comprehend that THIS is the seminal issue in our culture today, no matter whether it's about economics or civil liberties.

It's like kicking the dog.

It is NEVER 'correct' to put the blame on the BOTTOM of the ladder. When we're "in service to our country," we effectively suspend our role as SOVEREIGNS (The People are sovereign in a democracy) and place ourselves in service to the Will of The People. To be in service to a Nation is to be in service to PEOPLE. A 'nation' isn't dirt, it isn't elected officials (politicians we once called "public servants", and it isn't some piece of colorful cloth. (Unlike corporations) it IS people! Possibly the most profound statement of faith in a democracy is to enter into National Service. When "the people" cynically abdicate their role as sovereigns, whining and whimpering about "they won't let me have my way," it's cowardly and childish.

The longer "We The People" cynically and dismissively put crooks into office and abdicate our responsibility to participate in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" the sooner we'll face again the need to spill blood in the streets to regain the sovereignty we willfully abdicated. Forget Mr. Goodwrench, when it's "pay me now or pay me later" it's never so true as when it's political self-determination.

There was MUCH about "the 60s" that I loved. The people who directed their ire at guys in uniform -- telling the FEW to bear the greatest cost by deserting or refusing to obey orders -- those people were idiots. Even worse were those who "protested" hypocritically ... NOT "the war" but THE DRAFT. God forbid THEIR rosy little asses be "skin in the game" that compelled them to actually participate ... belatedly.

When Jane "crossed the line" from PROTESTING "the war" to the point that she actually posed on an antiaircraft gun like she was on the NVA side in killing Americans, there wasn't an iota of 'pacifism' in her motive. Joan Baez I revered. She walked the talk. She offered aid to the "boat people" and worked to help veterans. Jane Fonda is a despicable self-indulged hypocrite who didn't lift a finger to help either.

Beating up on "the troops" went on for a LOOOONG time. Not only were some spat upon (I was), they were THEN CALLED LIARS for saying so (I was) because of Lembke's specious "scholarship" that totally failed to examine the context wherein, at its peak, more FIVE TIMES AS MANY GUYS WERE CLAIMING TO BE VIET NAM VETS than actually served in-country during the entire war! In the "chain of command" The People are supposed to be at the top -- sovereigns -- and us poor enlisted grunts were at the very bottom. Beating up on those at the bottom is despicable cowardice.

That profoundly misguided error was compounded when the Reich Wing hijacked the merit of respecting folks in Service to their Nation and, in the 80s onward, equated honoring servicemen to supporting misbegotten wars! Fucking appalling! But they COULD NOT HAVE HIJACKED the flag or the troops if it wasn't for MISGUIDED and HYPOCRITICAL "leftists" (who don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what it means to be 'liberal') who scapegoated guys in uniform and were far more against The Draft than any war. Just. Fucking. Obscene.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »