The Left Column

Politics for Poets

As much as we love someone, we ought to tell them when they are delusional. In the case of polls that go against a person, yes, there are people who are not loving our new president. So that's that. Deal with it. Don't say 'the bad polls are fake news'. The poll is news. It's real news. To say it is fake is inaccurate. It may be false. It's not necessarily correct in all it's aspect, it could be tainted, but it really is 'news'. Yes, it's a quality of news that we deprecate.

We need to be clear, some people are scared of what reformation of governance means? It means a constant and dedicated effort to always improve all aspects of governance, and also to let work well those parts (those parts?) that were already working, even if they are seemingly festering pools of nepotistic group think.

In the case of California, which demands to be a special case, we have a country that is dominated by some-urban-few who delude, yes, delude!, that they are doing the thinking for everyone within their domain. Maybe they haven't shagged around the block a few times, out in the Central Valley, or in those illustrious and luminous and luminescent foot hills of the Sierra. It's a vast region with multitudes of different places, along a long spine of gold-dust encrusted hillsides. But digging for that gold isn't what they do so much. They just let it filter into their hands. It's a low damage activity. Those places might not go along for the ride if 'California' decided to hike it of here (here being our wonderful Republic). Yes, Mr. Brown, they really are free. And you don't do their thinking.

40 million people are said to live in what we call 'California'. Much of them suffer, sad to say, what is called in anthropology, 'the delusion of central position'. And thus, how could anyone claim to know what they all want, what they all respect, who they cheer for. And as if they all think and act and sound the same, they do not. And really, it's anyone from anywhere who goes there and then says 'now I am, too, a Californian'. And suddenly do they get to think for everyone too? Of course not. Technology for group think does not exist. Consensus is often happy delusion of some few, who all charged up with self importance claim 'come one come all, we know you want it and here it is and now you agree that what we do works, and is wonderful, like a Disney Film. Who is going to say 'wow, this isn't so wonderful'. How California? But we all know the seedy narratives that those who would hope to co-opt that kind of group-glee-genre of . . . that feeling you get when you shoot up for the first time . . . I wouldn't know about that myself. I hope you don't either. But if that's your deal, then I'm not going to make it worse for you by . . . enforcing my point of view on you however . . . don't be around those who need you not be high when you are high. A rule that gets broken too much, and it's a criminal thing to be a caregiver, when somone needs care, and being too junked up to do it. Listen to me up on my pulpit.

A governor is a 'caregiver' for democracy and good government. Such a person ought to be committed to following the laws. We hear some things that do get enforced for the purposes of just keeping people safe, etc, that we really not to ought to want to have as a reason for poaching people from a citizen populations. We can all agree that these people are citizens. They just are not citizens of our country. And isn't it OK for us to say 'if you aren't a citizen than you have this to explain if you get . . . so to speak . . . popped. But we don't want friendly happy friend nation dude, with his good will, to be popped for being a stupid car ride idiot wiht his new honking mobile going 'dutt duuut do due doot doo due do' when officer Rusty needs to make his quota for the day (a grotesece parody of law enforcement , , , hurrrfffaaa, throat clearing sounds). So if he's Rogaciando from Chiapas we want a diff set of rules than for . . . some other guy from a different part of the world. And it ought to be fair, so we say, how is that fair? We like the guy from Mexico so we let him go on his way, but the guy from Fallucia, in hellholl-istan (as some might call it thinking that is osmehow cleaver or funny, doubtfull when you put it all through the telescope of reading factual news. Don't just read the news, read factual and authentic journalism.

So we make the argument 'tiss unfair to give all of our southern friends and neighbors a free pass, Western Hemispheric privilege, and right of passage'. And perhaps it is a little bit unfair. Not the kind of policy we need for long term? Too easy for our friends and keeping our enemies at bay? Why should it be easy for one group and not another? Who is it that gets to decide who the special guests should be? Clearly we all have an interest in allowing people to come and go as tourists and guests, when necessary, so what is this crazy (some say) idea of using . . . what some call discrimination, but what I'm sure is also seen as discernment, concerning people from parts of the world that, until just recently, were under full attack by various actors and agents of some cause driven . . . endeavor: the dame had a fondness for ethnically and societally named 'Springs', and used that as an excuse for constant overwhelming warfare against . . . anyone who was in their way? This writer isn't privy to the secret inner plans of the delusional world-leadership class, or those of that who may have crafted seemingly criminal endeavors and called it 'foreign policy' and run activities from foreign nations for the purposes of 'import/export' where the material had a declared value that was much less than stated, and had the classification of 'contraband'. You know what I'm talking about. More speculative conjectural nonsense. Fact: this war is still going on. Fact: our last regime was total ahoes to all the people in those parts and war-mongered very hard for a very long time under our banners and our titles and whacked a lot of hornets, and made a lot of trouble, and didn't play nice in a lot of cases, even, some say, and I won't repeat it hear, about who made it out and who didn't make it out and who was betrayed and . . . I won't channel that negative alternative conjecture because it's just too toxic to put it out there for others to misconceive even with my stock caveat that every thing you think you know about the world and politics is a kind of inner conjecture that seems to fit in to what you seem to be seeing in this wide world of ours. If you get your points of view from just websites and blog-snot (like this) then you ought to peak your head outside for a while and decide to free yourself from this delusive bubble that 'tech' tries to blow around us, and entrap us in (more fowl and unsubstantiated conjecture, but isn't that what conjecture often needs to be).

So the old world is having a time of reflection "why don't they love us. What did we do wrong. We believed everything we were told. We went along with all the best of intentions. We agreed to submit to that which they demanded. Why don't they lvoe us. We want to help the poor and the downtrodden. Oh, yes, please, donate to my charitable trust. Why don't you give me money anymore? Why have you stopped? Don't you love me anymore? Spare change?"

The old world is not a beggar. They don't need our charity anymore.

One world? What a delusion! If I look out tonight to the zodiac I can see at least 3 planets without trying too hard to find them. And each person has their own world, too, and maybe very many different realms of that, and all of these realms worlds of a kind, too. And it all works and lives within itself, everyone's worlds, for the most part, existing within the same space and time, a separate way to render their purpose in life, while they are breathing and walking around. Each person within their own purpose. And we like to think that these purposes have congruence, and we call such congruence 'commonality' or 'the world'. In fact there is not a guarantee of any such commonality or congruence about how people think and act and sound and behave.

So, yes, in one sense, there is the unity of all, the single universe. But if you think of 'world' as how we explain some aspect of 'the universe' then there are billions of worlds, all swirlled together. Some of them often go unnoticed. And no one has to agree that they see what you see, or want what you want, even if they did and you could know that they did, they might still disagree with you just to 'fun' with you (and fun it won't be for you) to 'get you going' to show you how your single purpose, which you delude is the central position of all (that delusion of cnetral position) you delude this crentrality and they 'f' with you to get you to start tearing down the wall of your delusions. And start letting the pudding of everything else seep into your starving lands and feed it off the wonders of everything and everyone else, who don't have your purpose. But they probably won't be opposed to much of it, if you get to know them. Interact without perscribing their 'world view'. Take a trip out of your own delusions, and maybe you won't ever go back to them. And there is the delusion, as well, that well known things, that are proven, might, as well, be a delusion. But worry not if you reject some good things for a while because things that are true will still be true, even if you fall into delusion and think that they aren't anymore. So rest. And free yourself from perscribing thought to the world. Get over yourself. Live in the now. stop type casting people and caseting them as demons in your street theatre dance-production (at the protest)

Oh, boy, automatic typing. I got to edit stuff sometimes. If people don't understand? They think I'm a blowtard? And given how mean some of the polemicists have been lately, and this pop-up mask dance riot deal that someone's producing (and that is not cool), it's a little bit scary. If you have a tiger by the tail, you are in great danger. There are some authentic causes, world wide, that fly under the banner of . . . and those people might be afraid right now that the direction of reformation of nepotistic ideological regressive policy towards the old-order 'usual suspects' might, instead, manifest in some other way. All the 'weathermen' of the world fear perhaps fear being outed.

I know nothing of ot except I once knew a fearful man who had . . . back in Chicago . . . and he didn't want to be called a Weatherman, though I didn't know it was a label of a certain type of partisan. He had regretted his days in that scene, and was hiding out, at the time, from what I am pretty sure now were just fearful delusions that someone was still somehow looking for him as a domestic terrorist. I kind of doubt it. That was 35 years ago, by now. And he was a harmless loving soul, anyway, and didn't want harm to come to anyone. and very dear, though eccentric and very odd (very odd, I guess that is kind of a judgment)

My point: if you involve yourself with violent people, and participate in their street-show rioting, you had better understand what fair warning is. This is fair warning: prosecutors don't write serious charges, and jury's don't convict for serious charges unless . . . a due process occurs. So they do take it seriously and if you involve yourself in riots, you will be part of that due process. And if you aren't, the guilt of what you have done will follow you around the rest of your days (maybe not the rest of your days) but very very many years, perhaps, until you mitigate the damage of what you did to someone else to appease your own conscience. Your humanity will cause you to regret the violence, and atone for it, and to make restitution. And if not, you probably will have a criminal bend and end up in prison anyway.

Prison isn't anywhere where anyone should end up . . . but it happens out of the necessity of enforcing the laws that matter. In the case of the immigrants who are here without a visa, then isn't it important that we note that they are breaking a law by being here? And if they are from a place with which this last regime put our good nation at war against their good nation, and the turse and the peace has not been reestablished, then we are delusional to think that eople form those parts are the same as some dude from Mexico come to see his abuelito for her ninteeth birthday. They are not equivalent.

In the case of Mexicans verses other people. Mexicans aren't ever really 'illegal' because we do have a neighborly relationship with them. And thus it ought to be OK that someone one California, for example, the Senate President of the California State Assembly, says that 50 % of his relatives are 'illegal'. He sounds like someone who can vouch for them. Should we not have a sane way to allow for the obvious: that some groups exist across the border and they ought to be able to pass back and forth freely, as long as it's being 'vouched' for, IE: they are our friends. How do we know that? How do we know that they are friendly? If we say 'well, we know that Mexicans are awesome, isn't that a diss on, say, Persians? We know that Persians are awesome. But Persians from Iran, we need to know why they are here, who they are visiting, who can 'vouch' for them. It's not too much to ask.

So special case people? It's not prefered, but it's a fact. And who are the special case people who should be given a visa? Anyone who are our friends. That includes some Iranians, and some Mexicans. Most all Mexicans. Most all Guatemalans. Most all of anyone.

Here is what I think is going on: some people are fearful because they don't want to be treated like we would treat those who we fear come here to do us harm. We know that Mexicans are here to work and do good for themselves and for us. So why worry that someone is going to see them as an existential threat like they do with the nation with which we were pitted and in a war stance opposed to them, from the last regime, who seemed to get everything wrong in the foriegn policy arena. We are still at war with most of those places. A prudent peace can be achieved. And those who fear that we are being invade? Maybe they have information that you don't have. Maybe you have information that they don't have.

Just how serious is the threat? Those opposed to the new Presidents temporary vetting do not have all of the information. We don't get the briefings. So we don't know the threats.

The swarm of righteous indignation riled up by heedless remote-warfare from various corners does present a problem because even though we don't want to keep those policies going with our new reformation of governance, and a reassessment of the bad-deals that self-dealing old-regime people brokered, we are in a state of war. Or we are in state of denial. I tend to think that it is the first. And that being so, the Commander in Chief ought to be heeded. Heeded by courts and by governors.

What about the legitimate concerns of the California friends of the Latinos? Friends of . . . Iranians, Friends of Latinos. Both are large in Los Angeles. The solution? I do not know it. But it ought to not include California becoming a separate country. Instead it ought to recognize who are friends and family and have a reason to be here for that. The friends ought to be able to come. If they can stay? That's not up to me but should be left to a rational policy crafted by legitimate legislative processes, not through the bullying of executive order, or rouge anti-constitutionalists like those of that last regime.

The excuse of 'it is for National Security' ought not be used to institute a tyranny. The pop-up protests don't actually mention any actual tyranny. They are protests against imaginary tyranny. The protesters expend their energies on protesting nothing. And if anything then needs really to be protested? Who will believe these people then? They are already incredulous now, like the characters of a bad play.

But it really is for National Security that we need a sane border policy. The hyperbole of a wall might manifest as intelligent gantries. But a wall is a way to also create wildlife zones, which is always a good thing to do for conservation.

The ones who will benefit most from a new sane gantrying of entry are those who would otherwise be victims of the trafficking that is current now. And thus there will be far fewer bodies found in shallow unmarked graves, and people found dead in the desert on the journey north. That is the hope. And any resolution of the social upheaval in the border region due to problems in the street trade. All astute readers know I'm talking about the current drug cartel wars that have been going on for far too long.

rant off.

Feb 6, 2017

Sean!

hover over the logo images for a page modification effect.

  

They collect
environmental fines
to fund their lavishness

    
    
🖐morning
clover🖐

these can get you banned from school?!:
🔫 🚀 🚙🚤🚣c🍀⚜⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣🚣
🚣🚣🚣  🚀  🚀🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🔨 🚙 🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣

spinfont unicode-isms
🍀 Praise God! 🍀
🍀⏲⏱⏰⏲⏱🔫⏰⏰⏲⏱🔫⏰⏰🍀
🎠 
🎠 
🎠 
🔫
🔨🔨 
🍀 Praise God! 🍀

 

🚀 🚙🚤🚣c🍀⚜⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣🚣
🚣🚣🚣  🚀  🚀🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🔨 🚙 🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🖐

Here is today's pretty poem:

  

The whole world is not watching.
      

    

🖐 🌙 🖑
🖑🌛 🌜🖐
   
 🖐🖑

 ♥♥?
Blathertational


 🖐🖑
🖑🖐


glossary of what's next
 ♥♥? : 

Be nice to yourself and others. What other choice?

What we have done
What we have failed to do.

Wake up!

♥♥ Praise ♥♥ the ♥♥ Lord ♥♥ !!

end of column