All the World's a Stage

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, his act being seven ages.

William Shakespeare, As You Like It

As we return to a time where our politicians and the population resume our expected roles it will be amusing to watch society attempt to regain a sense of what is normal and right.  Those of us entering our seventh act will worry about how those younger than us will carry on. While those youngsters, passions inflamed, will bemoan the idea we’ve not yet left the stage.

Within the modern Colosseum (Our Capitol) the gladiators we’ve chosen to represent us will resume their traditional roles. The Democrats will be the strong guardians of freedom, while the Republicans will be the loyal opposition.  The media will do its utmost to paint the dominant party as brave, trustworthy, and kind. While showing the opposition as cowardly stooges of the rich. This way when it comes time for the gladiator to look to the crowd for the final disposition the choice will be clear. Truth is only a relative value.

We, like the citizens of Rome, seek the circus as a means to relieve the angst of our daily lives, and for one brief moment bask in the glory of our empire.  Now, with all the modern tools of control, we can once again be assured of the final victory.  We don’t have to worry, at least for a brief time, about the Visigoths or the Huns attacking from our borders.  Caesar can issue his (or her) edicts from the comfort of the palace, guarded by the Pretorians. 

Hail Caesar!

From Lewis Carroll to Today

In my youth, I learned a segment of a poem written by Lewis Carroll.  It comes from his most famous work, “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, published in 1872. That brief snippet of the poem has stayed with me these many decades.  But the poem, in its entirety, seems to offer an analogy to the politics we oysters have chosen for ourselves. 

 

The Walrus and The Carpenter

 

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

That Was Then - This is Now.

In 2009 I was hopeful the Democratic sweep into the Congress and the White House would result in a functioning government where they would learn from the failures of the Bush/Cheney administration and they would work in a bipartisan manner to solve some of the big problems of America.

I was not against universal health care and would have supported it if they had simply shown how they would pay for it, but they couldn’t.  As it turned out with acknowledgments after the fact there was never any attempt to make it affordable.  It was simply a bait and switch to consolidate government power.

Today, I have no such allusions regarding the transition of power.  The DNC will simply enrich its major stakeholders while making the neediest more dependent on government largess for their survival.  In many ways, it will be a return of the plantation system which is at the heart of the Democratic Party mindset.

What Kind of World Do We Want?

At the heart of all our political debates is really one simple question.  What kind of world do we want? What separates us all are not dramatic differences in the answer to this question, but rather our understanding of humanity and the potential to achieve the desired end. Mankind has struggled with this question since the time we began rational thought. Yet, here we are untold millenniums later still wrestling with it.

We’ve gone through how many great and lessor civilizations as we attempt to answer that question for the betterment of us?  But it always comes down to societies where there are those with much and those with little. Why? Today, we see a continuation of the economic struggles we saw in the Nineteenth Century and earlier. The same conditions Charles Dicken’s condemned in his famous depiction of Ebenezer Scrooge. 

Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.

Why despite all the political protestations and promises of universal wealth have we apparently not progressed onto a utopia where all mankind is rewarded for their being a part of the great society and sharing in the wealth of the planet?

“Socrates defined men as limited and therefore not capable of reaching absolute truth, he also believed they had an immense capability for attaining an ever more refined idea of the just and the good. This awareness and definition of man as primarily a thinking being is the basis of Western philosophy.”[1]

As Socrates noted almost 2,500 years ago, man is limited, and therefore the solutions we enter into are limited by our understandings. Our founding fathers, in their Declaration of Independence from King George and Great Brittan, noted that “all men are created equal” a wonderful statement intended to dismiss the superiority of the Crown.  But does it truly mean that all men and women are equal in all aspects of life?  It wasn’t true when Thomas Jefferson wrote it and it’s not true today.  If it was then everyone would excel at everything and there would be no elites.  It doesn’t matter if it is in sports, entertainment, industry, politics, or finance.  There are elites in each.  Some are born into an elite status; others earn their way into it and still, others join elites only to fall from grace. For example, King George was born into the elite, and because of his inability to govern lost the American Colonies.  O.J. Simpson was perhaps one of the greatest running backs, yet from his choices he has fallen from grace, spending time in prison and carrying with him the accusation of murder. In the 1800s, with the start of the industrial revolution, we saw the rise of wealth with tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt (shipping & trains), John D. Rockefeller (oil), Andrew Carnegie (steel) where a few men created employment for thousands, but almost unimaginable wealth for themselves.  

Of course, over time, lesser men and women who did not achieve their own fortunes came to call them the “Robber Barons” of the industrial revolution.  Don’t we see the exact same thing today? Where those who would seek the power and wealth of the billionaires claim billionaires are immoral for their wealth and only achieved it because the government allowed it.  They, the politicians, if given half a chance would seek to redistribute their wealth to make everyone a little richer?  What doesn’t get mentioned too often is what percentage would be taken by those who control the redistribution system, or what would happen to the industries they’ve created?

Mankind has understood since the advent of the written word we come to this life with a variety of qualities.  Some good and some bad.  For the Israelites, God gave Moses 10 rules to live by. Over time they were greatly expanded until Jesus came to simplify them back into their original form. Other faiths and societies have come to similar conclusions. At their heart is the realization mankind is greedy and selfish and allowed to go unchecked it will lead to our destruction. 

Thus, we are in a struggle today, which has been repeated a thousand times throughout history. Is the path to utopia found in an all-powerful government, which makes grand promises, but at the end consolidates its power and wealth in a privileged ruling class, or do we decentralize power to the individuals and expect those individuals to act towards a common good?

Our founders argued this question and we can see the two sides laid out in the Federalist papers and the “anti-Federalist” rebuttal.  In the end, they reached a compromise where they recognized the potential for abuse by the federal system and allowed the states a degree of autonomy as a check for that potential.  They also established a system of “checks and balances” within the federal system.  Unfortunately, over the years the government has grown so vast and powerful there is a real question as to the legitimacy of those checks.

In conclusion, we return to the question of “what kind of world do we want?”  A world where everything is done for us, or one where we have the authority to choose for ourselves what course our life will take?  For those are the two paths we have.  The history of mankind has shown when we have an all-powerful government, the choices of the individual (at least those not in the ruling class) are limited by what the ruling class allows.

---

[1] https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/according-socrates-what-definition-man-791161

Transitions

The time between the election and the inauguration of the President is one of transition.  Not only for the key political players and their financial backers/ardent supporters but for the common citizen.  It is a time with great similarities to a sporting event where the players on the field move from offense to defense and the spectators’ transition from supporting their team to the condemnation of any event that seems to present a positive gain for the opposition.

We are beginning to see that transition in the media now, where according to the broadcasters the incoming team is above approach.  These are the same “professionals” who just a matter of days ago spent most of their time condemning the current administration as incompetent and incapable of finding their way out a paper bag, despite the evidence that seemed to refute that.  For example, according to the Democratic politicians as broadcast by the media the reason we have over 300,000 dead from COVID is all President Trump’s fault, despite the fact under our system it was the decisions of the various Governors which most affect the death rates within their states.

From a common person perspective, those who have rioted and protested just a few short days and weeks ago claiming America was a fascist blight on the face of the earth are now going to have to claim we are once more a shining light of freedom for that same world.  The irony here is that 99% of the government that were all fascist last week will still be at work after January 20^th.

Those politicians in charge of the major cities, who just weeks ago, were justifying the need to defund the police and open their cities to invasion by anarchists are now going to see a need for some limits on what “peaceful” protest really means.  I wonder how the anarchists and the police forces will deal with these political transitions?

On the fashion front, those who thought little of the current first lady’s wardrobe are going now going to be over-the-top in their admiration of the incoming first lady’s fashion sense as she sets the style trends for the nation.  While I doubt she will receive the same adulation as Michele Obama, it seems to me there will be a big demand for extravagant adjectives seeking to reflect how smart she dresses for someone with such brilliant educational credentials.

Speaking of educational credentials, it seems to me to be an amazing thing to have a big kafuffle over.  Some writer says having an Ed. D isn’t the same as being a real doctor and the world goes crazy.  The Ph. Ds and Ed. Ds of the world are united in their belief that having any kind of doctorate is worthy of being called a doctor, while some lawyers with Juris Doctorates seem to disagree.  I’ve not polled the medical community but the few I know are of the opinion they are the only REAL doctors (at least according to Hippocrates). Personally, I know a couple of good ol’ tobacco chewing country boys with Ed. Ds and I think they are good with nicknames, although Dr. REDMAN is probably also acceptable.  I know Whoopi Goldberg weighed in on this at the beginning of the pandemic and claimed Dr. Biden was “a hell of a doctor” so there is that.

But then we can make a dividing controversy out of any and everything.  Take the recently approved COVID immunizations.  Their release this December is a miracle, at least according to the projections of scientists who engage in the political debate. The first doses are going to the frontline workers and those most at risk in the nursing homes.  This seems to be one thing no one is arguing about, but who should get the next release?  Ah, that is worth arguing about.  Should it be the Presidential transition team, the current White House staff, the members of Congress, or those in the public that want to jump on board?  How about those who don’t want the vaccine?  Should they be forced into taking it to use public transportation, or should they have a small yellow COVID star sewn on their clothing so the liberals know who is unclean and not part of this great social movement?

Finally, I wonder if all the entertainment award shows can get back to patting themselves on the back for being so great instead of having to spend the majority of their speaking parts condemning the government.  I know that is probably too much to ask for and now those same celebrities will have to tell us how great it is to be in a nation that supports a unified world solution (except for China and Russia of course) for all the environmental issues the government will now address through its increased taxes.  While we’ve not yet increased taxes I’ll take Biden and Harris at their word that we must do that to rebuild America in their image.

It's a Curiosity

           It appears the mainstream media has recently noticed that Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings maybe some kind of issue.  This comes on the heels of an announcement the Department of Justice has several on-going investigations into Biden’s financial dealings.  While it would not seem unusual for the press to report these facts it is remarkable, they are just now coming to the forefront.  After the Biden-Harris win.

It is almost as if some hidden power is pulling all the strings in preparation for a transition of the Presidency from Trump to Biden to Harris.  While many of us speculated on the mental soundness of Biden to hold the office it would seem the real kingmakers are leaving nothing to chance.  If they can’t get him out with the 25^th Amendment then they go for resignation in lieu of impeachment as the alternative.

My money is on Harris as President before the summer solstice.

Random Thoughts

We’ve just had a weird election where the rules changed in the middle of the extended campaign creating an appearance of partisan fraud, and the President is on social media making his case (rather poorly in my opinion).  Ultimately, the courts will at some point probably side with the various states that the certification of results is a state issue and that is all that counts.  Will this undermine the next President’s administration?  In the wise words of Bugs Bunny, “hmmm, could be.”  But with an adoring press and social media probably not.

This got me to thinking about the road we’ve traveled to this point.  Elections have always been a contentious thing with good and bad winners, or good and bad losers.  I don’t think John Adams was particularly enamored with his job after coming in second to George Washington, and not too long after that the election of the Vice President became linked to the election of the President.

In the early, to mid-nineteenth century the South would routinely threaten to leave the union unless their favored Democrat (or Democrat-Republican) was elected.  With the election of Abraham Lincoln, they made good on their threat. I guess this would be the ultimate example of “delegitimizing” a Presidency.  After the war, the winners got the spoils and there was a period where only Republicans were elected followed by a relatively even period of swapping where both parties traded power back and forth.  At least until Franklin Roosevelt felt it was his destiny to save the nation and held onto the office for four terms (he died in office or it might have been five terms). 

After the latest of the World Wars (2^nd for those keeping track), both parties were made up of liberals, moderates, and conservative, but with the advent of President Johnson’s “Great Society,” and the recognition of the overt racism still plaguing America that began to shift as the parties seemed to abandon an inclusive approach to appeal to specific population segments.  I often wonder if the creation of the Presidential primary system did this?  For me, it is kind of a chicken and egg question.  Did the primaries create the power of political activists or did the activists lead to the creation of the primaries?

What I’ve seen in my lifetime, the role of the President has gone from an astute politician/administrator, seeking to protect the country from its outside enemies, while working towards what he viewed as best for the nation (meaning he would work with the opposition when he could convince enough members of the other side it was in both parties interest) to the point where we are at today where each party believes only they have the nation's interest at heart and they need to control the entire government so they don’t have to work with those “other guys,” or if they don’t have the entire government they have enough to stop “those other guys” from doing all sorts of bad things.

We as a society, thanks to the internet and social media, have pushed that relationship with mass movements to legitimize or delegitimize both parties and their candidates.  For brevity let's only go back to the very end of the last century where the Florida election held up the concession of Al Gore until the Supreme Court ruled in GW’s (Bush the younger) favor. I think he would have remained a challenged President by the losers if 9/11 hadn’t united the nation at least for the next several years.

In 2009 when Barrack Obama was sworn in – those who didn’t like him spent years on the conspiracy trail claiming he wasn’t really a natural-born citizen and in so doing sowed the seeds of dissent.  The fact he came out of almost nowhere to win the Democratic Party’s nomination and all his records were sealed only added fuel to the conspiracy fire.  For the eight years of his Presidency, the press seemed to find a lot of things to investigate, but those questions weren’t high on their list of things to wonder about.

Then we come to 2016.  A year when both the major parties find as their “best choice” candidates, people who carried as much excess baggage as Jacob Marley[1].  When the anointed Democratic woman lost, the left went wild.  We had women marching where the women wore “pussy hats” to demonstrate their mature response to the loss.  We had street riots where stores were vandalized to demonstrate the principled response to what was clearly a stolen election.  Then there were the never-ending investigations of the Trump campaign and principles associated with the campaign.  The evidence now strongly suggests many of these activities were begun by the previous administration which had, in its words, “a scandal-free administration.”

I’m just guessing here but I assume two things.  First, President Trump will be unsuccessful in his appeals since the Federal Courts are hesitant to step into something that is really a state issue.  (The Dominion Servers issue might be a federal issue which the court could address under the Commerce clause but that seems unlikely to me.)  The second is the media will return to its preferred role of quiet partnership with the DNC where its sole role is to protect the Democratic incumbent whoever he or she might be.

---

[1] Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol”