The Left Column

Politics for Poets

politics of the here and now

Effectatious President.

When you glow, you glow. You can turn a fire hose on a bonfire, but it just produces steam. And if you are killjoy at the bonfire, then everyone is going to see what you are doing.

They will say "We see what you are doing." and then, perhaps chillingly (if you make the scary version) We know what you did last Summer. And if you want to bring it even lower, to make it inot an Internet Video (IV) you say "we have film of . . . your . . . Italian pie party."

Somone might ask now "Why is he saying Italian pie? What does that mean?"

The answer: "The author makes a euphemism of a euphemism to further indicate the possibly (and hopefully) fraudulent nature of certain tainted news (Soft Cell soundtrack suddenly turns on in the authors mind. He wants to make up parody lyrics, but he knows that he already did months earlier, so he goes on about how he wants to do that, but he'll just deffer to last summer (because they know what he did last Summer, he kept posting, over and over 'vote Trump Vote Trump Vote Trump. Trump is an Everyman. No one thinks he's a god. No one wants him to be dictator. He's doing it for his friends who can't do it themselves. They know what you did for hte last eight Summers. No one was impressed with the last president at the end except to say 'hurrah, his term ended. Now he can go away'

So why doesn't all the 'hate' from the bull-horn section of the pay-ed for crowd of usual suspects not effect the way that many feel about our current president? Remember, we weren't the ones who plumbed the septic lie-factory to the mainstream news. We have admitted novelist wannabe ex-pres press sec who concocted luscious and bloated and obviously false 'narratives' and then made perfectly self-respecting Marxists, of the last administration, go out and parrot that as if it were doctrine.

I don't know Susan Rice. Her persona seems that of a disgruntled revolutionary. But she had a certain gravitas, in that you wanted to believe in her. You wanted to disagree with her ideas about Socialism, and how bankers have been. You long to explain to her, near a bonfire, about how her delusions about bankers and money and power of the 'conservatives' is all a great big lie. That no one was ever putting her down for being who she was. That she can love a capitalist, and he isn't really a pig. That you should never base your love life on delusions about politics. Republicans can date Democrats, can marry and have children and we are all one great big happy family of America

At which point she might just look with a befuddled look and say "Are you putting me on?" becase yes it's true about Democrats and Republicans being able to actually get along, and even people of different social status, but we all know that in past generations there were taboos and hangups about race and who you could or could not marry.

Yes, we can't ignore our tainted past. But is it still actual, or just Historical. If you think that Whites and Blacks and Puerto Ricans dont' get along, then what decade are you living in?

So, ya, 'race' and 'ethnicity' is still a touchy subject.

In any case, Donald has already been through the mudslinging, years and year ago. Schooled in the harsh double back stab by participating in numerous celebrity roasts over the years, and already besmirched because of the red-haired badger look of his coiffure (his hair. I need to spell check!), and already a standing joke, so much so that he shows up on numerous situation comedies as a standing joke. For example Chandler and Monica . . . supposedly saw him on an elevator . . . in one episode of Friends. Fran Dressier had his ex-wife on her show The Nanny. Trump was vetted by American Culture (as if we all have a single mind, we don't) long long ago. He was mocked and made fun of constantly and with with the best minds of their generation throwing dung at his visage long long ago into the eons of past time, back to the oh-oh's, in the 90's. the in the 80's. Even back in the '70's

But just because a famous person is fun to make-fun-of, doesn't mean that he's a bad guy. And you can see clips of Donald locked in a loving battle with the best and brightest put-down comics of the last 25 years. Donald Trump has the persona of the best of them, and he's got that to augment his warm heart. He is not a push over. He knows how to get to the crux of the matter. And thus, being an insult comic, is a residual skill. We hope that he uses it for the good. He seems to. He definitely throws it right back at the mean liars whatever nonsense that they are dishing out to the world. They are not used to the cowed and pliant public actually having a champion who gets that the New York Times has farmed out lies for at least 15 years, or more. Or that various 'news' agencies of network television are more 'news-tainment' and aren't always fair or ballanced, to use the lingo of the journalistic trade and, perhaps, trade marked words of one or more organizations or individuals.

Mr Trump may seem unkind when he is blunt. Usually his bluntness is a direct volley back-at-cha, in an on-going parley, between people who are bent on his destruction, not just politically but personally. Is it unkind to bully-back at a bully? Is that not what Trump does everytime? It's like General Patton: he had no time for feelings and nonsense. Get to the heart of the matter. We are at war. A general doesn't explain himself in the height of battle.

So when is Trump actually mean or unkind to people without call? In what way might he seem unkind? In fact, if you have been following him . . .you know that he's got a very warm and endearing side to him. Ya, he talks like a bowery long-shoreman at the speakeasy. He talks about women in a crude way that is distasteful to many. I can assure that men don't all talk like that. The ones that don't speak English, They don't. They have their own thing. Basica point: lusty, boastful, seemingly conceited because he is self-promoting. He was all of these things long before June of 2015 when he finally through his hat into the ring, for sure, at great cost to his personal business and his net worth. But he is a man who understand that valuation isn't something to just monetize. There are certain aspects of human life that ought not be commotized and shopped off. We have to have various bedrock features of life that we don't just shill off.

The Constitution of the United States of America, as flawed as it is, it's not a rag to be disrespected. And so what won by Mr. Trump winning, as the front man for the cause of maintaining our Republic?

You can't bring down the idea of maintaining our Republic. No matter who 'the owners' are of all the stores and gas stations, what country the money flows back to. They don't get to buy our republic too. They don't get to erase the border. They don't get to decide who can and cannot drive a car. They can't say, just because they have all the money, that you can't publish things that they don't like. They can't come and take all the guns. They can't tell you that you have to pay for the wars overseas and then pay for all the refugees too, meanwhile those nations are closed off ot ordinary people from anywhere else. The attempt, as it is alleged, was to 'merge' The United States of America with some larger, and less democratic regime of 'leadership class' 'special citizen' diplomats, probably with super immunity. The new lords and masters, a return to feudalism of organizations. That is how is seemed to very very many people. And we didn't think that there was much that we could do to curtail the 'full steam ahead' aspect of what was being slammed down our gullets. Either we capitulate, or we starve, seemed like it to many. Didn't it all seem as if it were but a delusion? And if it were but a delusion, then why such opposition to the reasonable return to rule of law and respect of The Constitution of the United States of America?

what did our last election bring?

So what just happened? What did the new president bring? Insider knowledge of the fullness of just how low some (not most) can become. Someone who knew the game, to take advantage of it, but fell down on the road (to Damascus, like Saint Paul) and discovered that there was a higher calling. We just couldn't let the profiteering go on of various factions of . . . unaccountable hedgemons.

The hard part for those who run crooked cartel entities (most won't be crooked, they might be 'cartel' but they might be above board and designed to be good for all the poeple, like the power company or the highway department, as many problems as they have.

If you are doing good for the world, no matter what your social hierarchy, monarch or mole, if you do good for the people, then what are you worried about? This is a constatutionalist president. You have rights. Those rights are to be preserved. We aren't going to stop you from screaming like a fool at a rally. But you had better not cross over into insurrection. And as far as that goes: the rules of civil society have existed for generations and generations. The consequences of bad behavior, like sucker punching imagined political opponents, haven't changed in 200 years. So don't act surprised when actual physical bullies are called before judges and juries. Sticks and stones can break your bones. And if you resort to them you will be deemed by those who deemed to be dealt with by courts and juries.

Trump is an awesome man. He's flawed about some things in the sense that he's a crude and in your face orator (at times). He's got a good heart and he wants to do well for all the people. That includes his political opponents. That includes anyone.

Secure border helps Mexicans too

And as far as people being deported, it is my understanding that only includes criminals, not people who are here without authorization. So, if someone is dealing illegally, and gang-banging (you know what I mean) then they might need to worry. But that kind ought to worry anyway, if they are part of a criminal gang. If they are part of a criminal gang they have bigger things to worry about. The cartel wars have been raging in that sphere for a long time now, through the whole of the last presidency, and even before that. Parts of Mexico, our awesome southern neighbor, are basically occupied and controlled by cartels in certain Mexican states.

I won't go into the grim details. Let's just say it's not a pretty story.

We thus hear 'the cry of the poor', crying out for justice. We need a secure border. We need it so that the cartel violence will be curtailed. The drug trade needs to be unwound. Violence needs to end against innocent citizens. And Mexicans, as a class, are not the problem. The list of victims in these cartel wars is mostly filled with names of Mexicans. it is in the interests of both nations to solve this problem, to end these wars, to restore civilian order and remove cartel governance.

solutions, some seemingly awful.

solutions are neccessary. People are suffering so solutions are necessary

But how do we restore civilian order? 'Remove' doesn't mean 'replace the people'. It means that those there, and how they form their governance, must deal, from now forward into the future, within the law.

And as far as people being deported, it is my understanding that only includes criminals, not people who are here without authorization. So, if someone is dealing illegally, and gang-banging (you know what I mean) then they might need to worry. But that kind ought to worry anyway, if they are part of a criminal gang. If they are part of a criminal gang they have bigger things to worry about. The cartel wars have been raging in that sphere for a long time now, through the whole of the last presidency, and even before that. Parts of Mexico, our awesome southern neighbor, are basically occupied and controlled by cartels in certain Mexican states.

I won't go into the grim details. Let's just say it's not a pretty story.

We thus hear 'the cry of the poor', crying out for justice. We need a secure border. We need it so that the cartel violence will be curtailed. The drug trade needs to be unwound. Violence needs to end against innocent citizens. And Mexicans, as a class, are not the problem. The list of victims in these cartel wars is mostly filled with names of Mexicans. it is in the interests of both nations to solve this problem, to end these wars, to restore civilian order and remove cartel governance.

But how? And 'remove' doesn't mean 'replace the people'. It means that they deal from now forward into the future, within the law. A general amnesty for certain types of crimes might be in order. And an acceptance of the (alledged) criminal past of various 'leaders' in certain regions . . . to give them a way out so it's not a battle to return to civil society. The man who is drawn into the cartel violence at an early age, and is this a liberal cliche(?), might not really have had much other opportunity. We can't just say that every male between the age of 18 and 65 is a criminal and needs to be jailed for their past crimes. In some parts, if you could know everything everyone thought that they had to do (thought that they had to do), you might be able to bring a whole towns population under indictment. Logisitics of it say it's untenible. The war should be declared over, and the amnesty ought to be put in for those who can admit to their crimes. Leniency might be the better route for many of these cartel regions.

The solution might be hundreds and hundreds of new jobs for the honest people of that region. How about anyone who works on the wall is given a special status as friend of the wall, and they are then allowed to be on either side of it with little or no difficulty?

Construction jobs are good for a region's economy. A sane gantried passageway is also good for business on either side of it. In places like El Paso or San Diego the local culture gets sliced in two by the international border. Locals in such regions ought to be able to pass back and forth in their routine travels without few issues, and without a lot of hassling.

An open border? It's not a border at all. So what I'm saying if you are a Vermonter in Vermont and you live near the border it ought to be no big deal for you to pass back and forth. But if you are from Asia or from South America, or even from Massachusetts just driving up for the day, it's not unreasonable to have to go through a border crossing and have some scruteny applied to you.

Same deal in El Paso, Same deal in Laredo. Same deal in Los Cruces, or in San Diego. Or up in Vancouver.

Alright, I got stuff to do. I've been divagating off from the various topics, and got into the whole 'border needs a sane gantry', which some call a wall, bit that I sometimes write about.

In conclusion: Trump is awesome. He's brave to do what he is doing. And even if you hate his politics, you ought to love the man. Even if you don't love him, really, seriously, hate? Is hate for another person ever really correct? Maybe introspection is what you need.

Second conclusion: America is always good to people from elsewhere. All we are trying to do is to tame the aspect that seems as if some from somewhere are taking advantage of The United States of America, and it seems to many that some (who?) wish that America, as a nation, were just merged into the wider world of old-world cartel aristocracy. It would make it so much easier for them to govern us from afar if we'd just give up our borders and capitulate to the old-world money mavens, and the operatives of cartel governance.

We don't want one world order this year. We don't want special citizen diplomats with super-diplomatic-immunity lording over us. We don't want to be ruled by unknown cartels from overseas. We don't want the richest people telling us that we won't be able to drive a car in 2025. We are sick to death of the collectivism of the Federal Bureaucracy (in some sectors).

The International order hasn't disappeared. And no one would want it to. We ought not to villainize it. They might think what they do is for the better, what they call 'progress', but which to many seems a retrograde, and dead common, return to feudalism. Only it would be feudalism of unknown cartels and governance. It would be undemocratic. It would be retrograde. It's not progress, it's collectivism designed to promote eventual fiscal insolvency of the nations that undergo it; who then, under dictatorship, sell out to the cartel governance and cede the sovereignty of various provinces to . . . unknown and heedless hedgemons of unknown origin; so it seems to many, this dark view of the collapse of puppet dictatorship. We see the most recent example in Venezuela. Mining rights were easily pawned off to get capital for the dictator-general who had no more cash.

you can hate his politics
but you have to love the man!

Feb 17, 2017

 
 
 
He was April fooled again! 
but that won't be for another month an
a half.
   

Sean!

  

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:

  

Equalibrium quickly reestablishes
      

    

🖐 🌙 🖑
🖑🌛 🌜🖐
   
 🖐🖑

🖐🖑 🖑🖐

 ♥♥?
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!

wake up

♥♥ Praise ♥♥ the ♥♥ Lord ♥♥ !!

end of column