The Wordshed . . . Recent Posts

The Wordshed . . . Recent Posts http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/rss/ . . . takin' it to 'em one word at a time. Dispatches from the green and "social" left. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:02:06 -0500 en-us The Les Miserables Dichotomy: America and socialism http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/fhwovzqIusQ/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2013/03/the-les-miserables-dichotomy-america-and-socialism/#comments Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:02:06 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1482 Axiom (per Dictionary.com) noun 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 2. a universally accepted principle or rule. 3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. So let us try this axiom on for size: the United States loves Les Miserables. Les Miserables is a romantic and heroic story of community and collective action. Does the U.S. then love socialism? Is it really this simple? Mainstream U.S. consumers love socialism? The recent fascination in Victor Hugo’s seminal novel, I will argue, is not coincidental. The musical rose to slow but steady prominence in the mid-1980’s amidst Reagan and Thatcherism, a time foreshadowing the U.S. right’s rediscovery of and in some quarters desire to apply the works of the marginal reactionary writer Ayn Rand to the national body politic. We perhaps see this attempted application most aggressively pursued by 2012 Republican Vice Presidential candidate and House Representative from Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional district Paul Ryan though he is certainly not the only force behind this attempt. Les Miserables initially opened in Paris in 1980, however by 1985 it moved to London’s Barbican Theatre where it began its extraordinary and historic run. Critical reviews were at best mixed. The public, however, had other ideas. By 2012, Les Miserables had become the longest running musical and second longest running show in West End History. In the US, Les Miserables (or Les Mis or Miz to its fans) ran steadily from 1987 to 2003 (4^th longest running show in Broadway history) garnering 8 Tony awards in the process and was impetus for a number of touring productions that continue to this day. Most recently, Les Miserables was for the second time turned into a cinematic production since its being presented as a musical and on this occasion, was successfully produced earning 8 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. It has also been bestowed with a number of other nominations and awards in other award venues. If one hasn’t seen it they should, and I doubt one would be reading this article if they haven’t. Briefly, the story works using two story-telling devices: man versus man and man versus himself. In context of the man versus man motif, it is a tale that primarily presents three complexly interwoven plots. The first places an ex-convict in search of redemption all while being harassed then pursued by an overzealous officer of the French court. The second plot line finds us at the inception of one of the many grass roots attempts by France’s activist intellectual class to foment activism and change within the working and sub-classes. The last plot line more-or-less ties the previous two together in the form of a romantic story that faces a series of arduous challenges. The man versus himself theme, as one might imagine, is the moral compass of the work and again primarily involves the three sets of characters; the convict and his struggle for redemption, the court officer and his struggle with honor in the face of duty, the students and their collective dilemma as to the value of their sacrifice as seen by the classes for whom they seek to liberate and lastly, the couple and the age-old pursuit of lasting bliss. Suffice it to say, then, the commercial success of a story that essentially speaks to and promotes the struggle for universal human dignity, suffrage, and aspirational inclusion in the economic vitality of one’s society –in short, the tenets of socialism-- has been largely missing through the years just as it is now. Perhaps more than any popular, politically critical artistic endeavor since the so-called “counter-cultural” events in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s by the likes of Woody and Arlo Guthrie, Nina Simone, the “Beatniks,” the “Race Rockers,” Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Miriam Makeba, the “Hippies/Yippies, Joan Baez, Bob Marley, the Ska/Reggae/Rude Boy/2 Tone movements, Buffy Sainte-Marie, Joe Strummer, Siouxsie Sioux, Patti Smith, and the Punk Rockers, Les Mis awakens us to what we know is true and are too often afraid to admit is happening around us where it is far easier to close our suburban doors to the realities around us. Like the students in Les Mis, forsaken by the proletarian masses that were afraid to gather in support in numbers and in strength at the barricades, it is simply easier for contemporary people in the U.S. to change the channel when presented with Orwellian double-speak by today’s politicians or their operatives. Les Mis reminds us of the consequences of inaction. This leaves us to ponder the question of our current and often time troubling response(s) to obvious problems confronting our society. If we in the U.S. in fact do not love socialism, what then might explain our fascination with a story of socialism? Two lines of thought come to mind; America’s “incomplete” and ever evolving revolution and the co-opting of language. The early and fledgling United States sought to solidify a structure more akin to a neo-feudal order than a rejection of the structure (classes and aligned privileges) found in its recently deposed monarchy. Simply put, the 19^th and 20^th centuries sought to advance such rhetorical “revolutionary promise” by way of women’s suffrage, labor, and civil rights movements. We see by the late 20^th century a desire to repeal many of these gains as the increasingly right-wing minority elite in the U.S., perhaps simply seeking a return to an order perceived to be their “birthright” and playing on racial and other fears found in their working-class supporters, people often encouraged to act and vote contrary to their specific “bread and butter” economic class interests. This sleight–of-hand is often found in the simple and elegant coopting of language. In the era since Reagan, the use of language and meaning has found a singular, Orwellian, home within the Republican and right-wing dialectic. Being applied as strategic doctrine by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and subsequently perfected under Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove during the Bush/Cheney Administration, Republican and right-wing operatives have owned the use and meaning of many words (including the use of the words and meanings of liberal and “left”). But perhaps no word has been more appropriated, mis-and-reinterpreted, and outright lied about than the word “socialism.” Furthermore, this theft has been met without refutation by the Democratic Party in general and without effective refutation by the “genuine left” in specific. In the rest of the advanced and modern West, class distinctions and issues are well and widely known and are accepted as legitimate topics of political debate. In the United States, such class distinction and debate over economic justice have all too often been replaced by mythical platitudes regarding “opportunity,” “educational attainment,” the “American dream” and other types of rhetorical devices. Meanwhile, the word “socialism” during this time though certainly not exclusive to it, was further turned into an un-patriotic pejorative; something to fear, roundly rebuke, run away from, revile, and simply fear unlike its home within political discourse as found with our more advanced peers within Western democracies. Les Mis, like any great work of art, speaks to the chasms in life; in this case, the chasm between rhetorical mythology and aspirational reality within the post-colonial West in general and obviously revolutionary France specifically. Furthermore, Les Miserables as a work of art, in its own way, speaks to the current cultural void in the U.S., perhaps most notably for the first time in a number of generations the lack of a vibrant, critical, and urgent “youth culture.” The fact that Les Miserables is successful should give us all pause and hope that the spirit embodied therein has not died. Indeed it can compete at the highest levels in the arena of pop cultural ideas and propaganda with the likes of exploitative cinema, Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashians, Justin Beiber, as well as with the political appropriation of language by the likes of the US Chamber, Karl Rove, FreedomWorks, etc.. But much like in Les Mis, it will be up to the discriminating among us to demand that words be defined as they are and protected for whom they represent. “Socialism” as a concept (not the all too often self-serving political movement per se) should be employed and debated, it should certainly not be owned by anyone: not Marxists, not the popular media, and certainly not the U.S. political “right.” Now, along with Hugo, if only we could reprise the Guthries and other heroic artists amongst us that speak for the average bloke . . .]]> Axiom (per Dictionary.com) noun 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 2. a universally accepted principle or rule. 3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. So let us try this axiom on for size: the United States loves Les Miserables. Les Miserables is a romantic and heroic story of community and collective action. Does the U.S. then love socialism? Is it really this simple? Mainstream U.S. consumers love socialism? The recent fascination in Victor Hugo’s seminal novel, I will argue, is not coincidental. The musical rose to slow but steady prominence in the mid-1980’s amidst Reagan and Thatcherism, a time foreshadowing the U.S. right’s rediscovery of and in some quarters desire to apply the works of the marginal reactionary writer Ayn Rand to the national body politic. We perhaps see this attempted application most aggressively pursued by 2012 Republican Vice Presidential candidate and House Representative from Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional district Paul Ryan though he is certainly not the only force behind this attempt. Les Miserables initially opened in Paris in 1980, however by 1985 it moved to London’s Barbican Theatre where it began its extraordinary and historic run. Critical reviews were at best mixed. The public, however, had other ideas. By 2012, Les Miserables had become the longest running musical and second longest running show in West End History. In the US, Les Miserables (or Les Mis or Miz to its fans) ran steadily from 1987 to 2003 (4^th longest running show in Broadway history) garnering 8 Tony awards in the process and was impetus for a number of touring productions that continue to this day. Most recently, Les Miserables was for the second time turned into a cinematic production since its being presented as a musical and on this occasion, was successfully produced earning 8 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. It has also been bestowed with a number of other nominations and awards in other award venues. If one hasn’t seen it they should, and I doubt one would be reading this article if they haven’t. Briefly, the story works using two story-telling devices: man versus man and man versus himself. In context of the man versus man motif, it is a tale that primarily presents three complexly interwoven plots. The first places an ex-convict in search of redemption all while being harassed then pursued by an overzealous officer of the French court. The second plot line finds us at the inception of one of the many grass roots attempts by France’s activist intellectual class to foment activism and change within the working and sub-classes. The last plot line more-or-less ties the previous two together in the form of a romantic story that faces a series of arduous challenges. The man versus himself theme, as one might imagine, is the moral compass of the work and again primarily involves the three sets of characters; the convict and his struggle for redemption, the court officer and his struggle with honor in the face of duty, the students and their collective dilemma as to the value of their sacrifice as seen by the classes for whom they seek to liberate and lastly, the couple and the age-old pursuit of lasting bliss. Suffice it to say, then, the commercial success of a story that essentially speaks to and promotes the struggle for universal human dignity, suffrage, and aspirational inclusion in the economic vitality of one’s society –in short, the tenets of socialism-- has been largely missing through the years just as it is now. Perhaps more than any popular, politically critical artistic endeavor since the so-called “counter-cultural” events in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s by the likes of Woody and Arlo Guthrie, Nina Simone, the “Beatniks,” the “Race Rockers,” Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Miriam Makeba, the “Hippies/Yippies, Joan Baez, Bob Marley, the Ska/Reggae/Rude Boy/2 Tone movements, Buffy Sainte-Marie, Joe Strummer, Siouxsie Sioux, Patti Smith, and the Punk Rockers, Les Mis awakens us to what we know is true and are too often afraid to admit is happening around us where it is far easier to close our suburban doors to the realities around us. Like the students in Les Mis, forsaken by the proletarian masses that were afraid to gather in support in numbers and in strength at the barricades, it is simply easier for contemporary people in the U.S. to change the channel when presented with Orwellian double-speak by today’s politicians or their operatives. Les Mis reminds us of the consequences of inaction. This leaves us to ponder the question of our current and often time troubling response(s) to obvious problems confronting our society. If we in the U.S. in fact do not love socialism, what then might explain our fascination with a story of socialism? Two lines of thought come to mind; America’s “incomplete” and ever evolving revolution and the co-opting of language. The early and fledgling United States sought to solidify a structure more akin to a neo-feudal order than a rejection of the structure (classes and aligned privileges) found in its recently deposed monarchy. Simply put, the 19^th and 20^th centuries sought to advance such rhetorical “revolutionary promise” by way of women’s suffrage, labor, and civil rights movements. We see by the late 20^th century a desire to repeal many of these gains as the increasingly right-wing minority elite in the U.S., perhaps simply seeking a return to an order perceived to be their “birthright” and playing on racial and other fears found in their working-class supporters, people often encouraged to act and vote contrary to their specific “bread and butter” economic class interests. This sleight–of-hand is often found in the simple and elegant coopting of language. In the era since Reagan, the use of language and meaning has found a singular, Orwellian, home within the Republican and right-wing dialectic. Being applied as strategic doctrine by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and subsequently perfected under Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove during the Bush/Cheney Administration, Republican and right-wing operatives have owned the use and meaning of many words (including the use of the words and meanings of liberal and “left”). But perhaps no word has been more appropriated, mis-and-reinterpreted, and outright lied about than the word “socialism.” Furthermore, this theft has been met without refutation by the Democratic Party in general and without effective refutation by the “genuine left” in specific. In the rest of the advanced and modern West, class distinctions and issues are well and widely known and are accepted as legitimate topics of political debate. In the United States, such class distinction and debate over economic justice have all too often been replaced by mythical platitudes regarding “opportunity,” “educational attainment,” the “American dream” and other types of rhetorical devices. Meanwhile, the word “socialism” during this time though certainly not exclusive to it, was further turned into an un-patriotic pejorative; something to fear, roundly rebuke, run away from, revile, and simply fear unlike its home within political discourse as found with our more advanced peers within Western democracies. Les Mis, like any great work of art, speaks to the chasms in life; in this case, the chasm between rhetorical mythology and aspirational reality within the post-colonial West in general and obviously revolutionary France specifically. Furthermore, Les Miserables as a work of art, in its own way, speaks to the current cultural void in the U.S., perhaps most notably for the first time in a number of generations the lack of a vibrant, critical, and urgent “youth culture.” The fact that Les Miserables is successful should give us all pause and hope that the spirit embodied therein has not died. Indeed it can compete at the highest levels in the arena of pop cultural ideas and propaganda with the likes of exploitative cinema, Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashians, Justin Beiber, as well as with the political appropriation of language by the likes of the US Chamber, Karl Rove, FreedomWorks, etc.. But much like in Les Mis, it will be up to the discriminating among us to demand that words be defined as they are and protected for whom they represent. “Socialism” as a concept (not the all too often self-serving political movement per se) should be employed and debated, it should certainly not be owned by anyone: not Marxists, not the popular media, and certainly not the U.S. political “right.” Now, along with Hugo, if only we could reprise the Guthries and other heroic artists amongst us that speak for the average bloke . . .]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2013/03/the-les-miserables-dichotomy-america-and-socialism/ 2012 Election Wrapup in Two Sentences . . . http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/Zgw1R-T2CZY/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/2012-election-wrapup-in-two-sentences/#comments Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:15:10 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1472 Springsteen, Jay-Z, Katy Perry 2) Romney: Kid Rock and the Marshall Tucker Band 'Nuff said . . .]]> Springsteen, Jay-Z, Katy Perry 2) Romney: Kid Rock and the Marshall Tucker Band 'Nuff said . . .]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/2012-election-wrapup-in-two-sentences/ 2012: the year traditional conservatism died http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/9cdQOxSMj-Q/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/2012-the-year-traditional-conservatism-died/#comments Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:11:11 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1443 This is more than an American political campaign logo and slogan: it is the iconic representation of the time America shed yet another layer of its divisive past; the time this massive North American continent went from its chrysalis of being the United States to embarking on its butterfly promise toward America and a more perfect union. Whether it be demonstrated by way of marriage equality referenda, the record number of women being sent to a newly reconstituted Senate (one openly lesbian), or marijuana legalization, 2012 marked a decisive turning point in the American body politic where the share of the White male vote again fell against a backdrop of the rising participation of the majority of its citizens led by women and non-White Americans -- and this is a good and democratic thing! As both a White male (3/4s anyway) and citizen to the left of President Obama I see in the policy prescriptions thus far presented by the 44th President a 3rd-way, centrist pragmatism often too conservative for my personal tastes but "pitch perfect" to the slightly left-of-center nation we see we are when a plurality of participation occurs. This is the second national election where this reality became manifest so it is not a fluke nor is it likely to change with the speed that demographic change is occurring (50,000 Hispanics turning 18 every month). In making these observations I do not do so as a wild-eyed dreamer nor a sage or seer. It should be obvious to any one not blinded with fear. Conservatives and conservatism will still have a place in this new American society and they should. But what the likes of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (we will see if he remains as such), House Speaker John Boehner and his cohort Eric Cantor best understand is that the brand of mythical, "Father Knows Best," White nostalgic, Barry Goldwater/John Birch/Tea Party conservatism has been relegated to a fringe and regional philosophy once again proven by a massive second straight loss when these ideals are presented on a national stage. During his resounding national rebuke last night Fox News pundit, "Bush's Brain," and American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS founder Karl Rove bent himself into pretzels trying to hitch his caboose to the new demographics train perhaps being led by Hispanics. Rove attempted to wax poetic about the Latino family, their devotion to faith and family, as if other groups somehow have not strived for this ability in the face of say Jim Crow, red-lining in housing and other anti-family, anti-stabilizing efforts. Indeed, we saw Jim Crow-era tactics at play in trying to suppress non-white and younger voters. Attempts which failed! Anti-democratic, Anti-American forces always will. This is what Rove (we could name others like Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) does not understand. Though Hispanics and other "minorities" may be receptive to a "conservative" message, it can not nor will not come from the traditional philosophy born essentially of White "supremacy" and privilege. It will have to morph into the quasi-socialist messages offered by the Christ these groups revere. It will have to teach people to fish and then encourage people to become fishermen themselves but will have to acknowledge that teachers of all types (including parents, caregivers, etc.) need to be groomed, appreciated . . . and paid! The Democratic Party (the Green Party as well) is full of young men and women as diverse as a rainbow and if conservatives and/or the Republican Party hope to remain relevant in the 21st century and beyond, they had best look at themselves in the mirror and realize . . . they do not look like America. ]]> This is more than an American political campaign logo and slogan: it is the iconic representation of the time America shed yet another layer of its divisive past; the time this massive North American continent went from its chrysalis of being the United States to embarking on its butterfly promise toward America and a more perfect union. Whether it be demonstrated by way of marriage equality referenda, the record number of women being sent to a newly reconstituted Senate (one openly lesbian), or marijuana legalization, 2012 marked a decisive turning point in the American body politic where the share of the White male vote again fell against a backdrop of the rising participation of the majority of its citizens led by women and non-White Americans -- and this is a good and democratic thing! As both a White male (3/4s anyway) and citizen to the left of President Obama I see in the policy prescriptions thus far presented by the 44th President a 3rd-way, centrist pragmatism often too conservative for my personal tastes but "pitch perfect" to the slightly left-of-center nation we see we are when a plurality of participation occurs. This is the second national election where this reality became manifest so it is not a fluke nor is it likely to change with the speed that demographic change is occurring (50,000 Hispanics turning 18 every month). In making these observations I do not do so as a wild-eyed dreamer nor a sage or seer. It should be obvious to any one not blinded with fear. Conservatives and conservatism will still have a place in this new American society and they should. But what the likes of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (we will see if he remains as such), House Speaker John Boehner and his cohort Eric Cantor best understand is that the brand of mythical, "Father Knows Best," White nostalgic, Barry Goldwater/John Birch/Tea Party conservatism has been relegated to a fringe and regional philosophy once again proven by a massive second straight loss when these ideals are presented on a national stage. During his resounding national rebuke last night Fox News pundit, "Bush's Brain," and American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS founder Karl Rove bent himself into pretzels trying to hitch his caboose to the new demographics train perhaps being led by Hispanics. Rove attempted to wax poetic about the Latino family, their devotion to faith and family, as if other groups somehow have not strived for this ability in the face of say Jim Crow, red-lining in housing and other anti-family, anti-stabilizing efforts. Indeed, we saw Jim Crow-era tactics at play in trying to suppress non-white and younger voters. Attempts which failed! Anti-democratic, Anti-American forces always will. This is what Rove (we could name others like Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) does not understand. Though Hispanics and other "minorities" may be receptive to a "conservative" message, it can not nor will not come from the traditional philosophy born essentially of White "supremacy" and privilege. It will have to morph into the quasi-socialist messages offered by the Christ these groups revere. It will have to teach people to fish and then encourage people to become fishermen themselves but will have to acknowledge that teachers of all types (including parents, caregivers, etc.) need to be groomed, appreciated . . . and paid! The Democratic Party (the Green Party as well) is full of young men and women as diverse as a rainbow and if conservatives and/or the Republican Party hope to remain relevant in the 21st century and beyond, they had best look at themselves in the mirror and realize . . . they do not look like America. ]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/2012-the-year-traditional-conservatism-died/ Obama Wins! http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/B4vDsJjvrb4/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/obama-wins/#comments Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:20:02 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1438 THE PRESIDENT! . . . More to follow!]]> THE PRESIDENT! . . . More to follow!]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/11/obama-wins/ Why Willard "Mitt" Romney will NEVER be AMERICA's President http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/xkVj2nhCBG8/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/10/why-willard-mitt-romney-will-never-be-americas-president/#comments Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:20:48 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1408 This statement comes from the fact that there is virtually ZERO chance that Willard Romney will secure enough support from the citizenry nor enough votes in general to overcome the following realities: 1) At least 48-50% of the electorate will not support him, 2) that Republican efforts to traitorously suppress voter access and turnout speaks to their fear of the 80%, record turnout of 2008 which resulted in the record breaking vote for Barack Obama, 3) an apathetic percentage within the voting age population, 4) the fact that "the franchise" is inconsistently and unbalanced for the incarcerated and paroled in the US, making the voices of these yes citizens under, and I would add unfairly, represented. So what the facts show is that while Romney may eek out a dubious electoral "win" and by statute be proclaimed the President of the United States, we can see that he will hardly have the support of the nation as a whole to become the leader of America and subsequently his presidency would be shrouded in a quasi-illegitimacy and certainly will never have a functional "mandate" to rule -- even while he rhetorically devises one in the recesses of his imagination. Romney's "47%" comment notwithstanding, where he essentially said that this percentage of fellow Americans are not his concern, and revealed in points 2-4 above show us is that there is an unheard voice within America that may not be represented. While the Republicans in general and Romney by way of his 47% comment specifically discard this segment of the population, their presence will be felt in myriad socio-economic ways ranging from education, to nutrition, to healthcare, to transportation, to employment (or unemployment, AFDC and the like) to the costs of incarceration should these former unmet needs find them resorting to the underground or alternative economies and/or crime. The Republicans/Romney could opt for Paul Ryan's solution and essentially let them run amok as the US devolves into an Ayn Randian dystopia. But here too the "libertarian" crowd will rue the day as disease and crime would undoubtedly outpace "law and order," reverting the country into not a Randian dystopia but more probably something more resembling a neo-feudal cesspool. Avoiding this dilemma and preserving America will then fall to the Senate Democrats (now predicted to retain majority within the Senate) to neutralize a Ryan/Romney/Republican crusade on America and to, in turn coining McConnell's pronouncement, "make Romney a one-term president" and neuter his agenda! (Refer to previous post on this topic). So we can see that even if Willard "Mitt" Romney becomes the 45th President of the United States, he will do so with a minority of support and with a country more fractured than anytime since the Civil War. Romney will not have a mandate for anything and quite the contrary; will have to "govern" a country that at least functionally, and I would add patriotically, does not "have his back". In this circumstance, good luck Mr. Romney. Democratic Senators, do your thing! ]]> This statement comes from the fact that there is virtually ZERO chance that Willard Romney will secure enough support from the citizenry nor enough votes in general to overcome the following realities: 1) At least 48-50% of the electorate will not support him, 2) that Republican efforts to traitorously suppress voter access and turnout speaks to their fear of the 80%, record turnout of 2008 which resulted in the record breaking vote for Barack Obama, 3) an apathetic percentage within the voting age population, 4) the fact that "the franchise" is inconsistently and unbalanced for the incarcerated and paroled in the US, making the voices of these yes citizens under, and I would add unfairly, represented. So what the facts show is that while Romney may eek out a dubious electoral "win" and by statute be proclaimed the President of the United States, we can see that he will hardly have the support of the nation as a whole to become the leader of America and subsequently his presidency would be shrouded in a quasi-illegitimacy and certainly will never have a functional "mandate" to rule -- even while he rhetorically devises one in the recesses of his imagination. Romney's "47%" comment notwithstanding, where he essentially said that this percentage of fellow Americans are not his concern, and revealed in points 2-4 above show us is that there is an unheard voice within America that may not be represented. While the Republicans in general and Romney by way of his 47% comment specifically discard this segment of the population, their presence will be felt in myriad socio-economic ways ranging from education, to nutrition, to healthcare, to transportation, to employment (or unemployment, AFDC and the like) to the costs of incarceration should these former unmet needs find them resorting to the underground or alternative economies and/or crime. The Republicans/Romney could opt for Paul Ryan's solution and essentially let them run amok as the US devolves into an Ayn Randian dystopia. But here too the "libertarian" crowd will rue the day as disease and crime would undoubtedly outpace "law and order," reverting the country into not a Randian dystopia but more probably something more resembling a neo-feudal cesspool. Avoiding this dilemma and preserving America will then fall to the Senate Democrats (now predicted to retain majority within the Senate) to neutralize a Ryan/Romney/Republican crusade on America and to, in turn coining McConnell's pronouncement, "make Romney a one-term president" and neuter his agenda! (Refer to previous post on this topic). So we can see that even if Willard "Mitt" Romney becomes the 45th President of the United States, he will do so with a minority of support and with a country more fractured than anytime since the Civil War. Romney will not have a mandate for anything and quite the contrary; will have to "govern" a country that at least functionally, and I would add patriotically, does not "have his back". In this circumstance, good luck Mr. Romney. Democratic Senators, do your thing! ]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/10/why-willard-mitt-romney-will-never-be-americas-president/ Right-Wing Pundits Scoff At Romney; Limbaugh Equates Him To Elmer Fudd http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/-B51_pmg_z8/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/right-wing-pundits-scoff-at-romney-limbaugh-equates-him-to-elmer-fudd/#comments Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:09:56 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1399 Romney, his candidacy, his platform is simply not ready for prime-time nor the ever evolving majority of the changing electorate! One need not be a fan of Obama to see the danger in Romney as many on "the left" are equally suspicious of Obama for being too conservative. What we can see in the honest opinions of the right-wing -- and in intellectual moderates like George Will -- is the disquiet that comes from watching a man whose whole life has been built for an event he is ill-prepared for. A man who, while governor of Massachusetts, was proudly moderate and now disavows his entire tenure as governor, instead running on rhetorical philosophies most can not even fathom. Willard "Mitt" Romney is simply not ready for prime-time. Can one envision Romney standing down Putin or other of the world's strongmen? Sure, he will go in with his neo-con/Cheneyeque, spoon-fed talking points but when called on those . . . what then? We have seen his contortions with softball questioning by his "home team" Fox network! The simple fact is: in casting a vote for President Obama one is casting their vote for centrism and moderation (read post on Obama centrism). Full disclosure: this assessment comes from one of those many who find his policies and demeanor far too conservative. People change their minds, people flip-flop, people pander . . . people lie. Who or what Willard Romney is we will likely never know. What we do know, however, is that "Mitt's" math just doesn't add up for the middle-class -- just ask fellow Republicans.]]> Romney, his candidacy, his platform is simply not ready for prime-time nor the ever evolving majority of the changing electorate! One need not be a fan of Obama to see the danger in Romney as many on "the left" are equally suspicious of Obama for being too conservative. What we can see in the honest opinions of the right-wing -- and in intellectual moderates like George Will -- is the disquiet that comes from watching a man whose whole life has been built for an event he is ill-prepared for. A man who, while governor of Massachusetts, was proudly moderate and now disavows his entire tenure as governor, instead running on rhetorical philosophies most can not even fathom. Willard "Mitt" Romney is simply not ready for prime-time. Can one envision Romney standing down Putin or other of the world's strongmen? Sure, he will go in with his neo-con/Cheneyeque, spoon-fed talking points but when called on those . . . what then? We have seen his contortions with softball questioning by his "home team" Fox network! The simple fact is: in casting a vote for President Obama one is casting their vote for centrism and moderation (read post on Obama centrism). Full disclosure: this assessment comes from one of those many who find his policies and demeanor far too conservative. People change their minds, people flip-flop, people pander . . . people lie. Who or what Willard Romney is we will likely never know. What we do know, however, is that "Mitt's" math just doesn't add up for the middle-class -- just ask fellow Republicans.]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/right-wing-pundits-scoff-at-romney-limbaugh-equates-him-to-elmer-fudd/ Romney Disses Troops: essentially says talk of soldiers is "unimportant"? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/tWbqRI4u26o/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/romney-disses-troops-essentially-says-talk-of-soldiers-is-unimportant/#comments Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:53:46 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1390 to spend over and above what the Pentagon has projected its needs will be. Romney notes, "you talk about things you think are important". Apparently that does not include actual human beings. But coming from one that believes that legally constructed, inanimate entities (corporations) are people should this surprise us? Again, Romney rolls out charts and figures showing zero empathy for the lives (the soldiers and their families) affected. Perhaps this is what happens when two candidates (Romney and Ryan) are so detached from such service? Video from Bret Baier's program.]]> to spend over and above what the Pentagon has projected its needs will be. Romney notes, "you talk about things you think are important". Apparently that does not include actual human beings. But coming from one that believes that legally constructed, inanimate entities (corporations) are people should this surprise us? Again, Romney rolls out charts and figures showing zero empathy for the lives (the soldiers and their families) affected. Perhaps this is what happens when two candidates (Romney and Ryan) are so detached from such service? Video from Bret Baier's program.]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/romney-disses-troops-essentially-says-talk-of-soldiers-is-unimportant/ LOL! Fox News Fears Ex-GOP Governor Crist! http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/exhJMRgswlc/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/lol-fox-news-fears-ex-gop-governor-crist/#comments Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:20:45 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1380 Fox News muted his audio and squeezed the video into a tiny box as they ran advertisements. . . . and to keep their viewers from the truth it was a good thing they did as the Floridian Crist noted the proposed Romney-Ryan decimation plan for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In a posting earlier yesterday, I noted that the GOP has all but admitted the the Democratic Party, as an institution, is ideologically centrist and Fox News just solidfied that point.]]> Fox News muted his audio and squeezed the video into a tiny box as they ran advertisements. . . . and to keep their viewers from the truth it was a good thing they did as the Floridian Crist noted the proposed Romney-Ryan decimation plan for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In a posting earlier yesterday, I noted that the GOP has all but admitted the the Democratic Party, as an institution, is ideologically centrist and Fox News just solidfied that point.]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/lol-fox-news-fears-ex-gop-governor-crist/ GOP Helps Make the Case: the Democrats ARE generally a centrist party! http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/n-YGTWneN24/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/gop-helps-make-the-case-the-democrats-are-generally-a-centrist-party/#comments Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1372 baggage of party identity and in the currying of loyalty that precludes one from speaking the truth not being liberated from such baggage! The "truth" was actually and inadvertently exposed by Curry: that save a number of notable members the structure, overall plank, policies in pursuit, and most notably the ideological underpinnings of the Democrats (as a party) is that of a highly centrist, third way centrist, political organization! Third way centrism is an idea (ideal) that has been around since the mid-20th Century (see definition) and was notably the driving ideological premise of compromise that swept a new breed of center-left politicians into office by way of Britain's Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in the United States. Barack Obama has manifestly continued in this tradition being proven by his most noted achievement (the Affordable Care Act) that had its origins in the think tank of the far right-wing Heritage Foundation and being first put into tangible practice by the rhetorically flip-flopping, Republican presidential candidate Willard "Mitt" Romney while governor of Massachusetts. The fact that Crist's (former?) party has lurched so radically rightward speaks to his "homelessness" and in suggesting otherwise, Curry simply admits that in having Crist speak the Democrats have indeed, as a party, completely embraced such a third way centrist ideology! The fact is that if anyone is "homeless," it is the true left that, given a current set of nonviable Green or Socialist alternative parties in the United States, such a "leftist" either sits out elections, writes in preferred candidates, or holds their nose and votes for the centrist Democrats -- something I imagine a lot of moderate Republicans will do this cycle as well. But in so voting Democratic, the left in particular simply seeks to assert their franchise: not their approval! So thank you Mr. Curry for in your belabored attempt to minimize your former leader's endorsement of the president and then marginalize Crist as a man, you actually helped me to focus my argument and the policy-driven facts:

President Barack Obama has governed as a centrist!

]]> baggage of party identity and in the currying of loyalty that precludes one from speaking the truth not being liberated from such baggage! The "truth" was actually and inadvertently exposed by Curry: that save a number of notable members the structure, overall plank, policies in pursuit, and most notably the ideological underpinnings of the Democrats (as a party) is that of a highly centrist, third way centrist, political organization! Third way centrism is an idea (ideal) that has been around since the mid-20th Century (see definition) and was notably the driving ideological premise of compromise that swept a new breed of center-left politicians into office by way of Britain's Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in the United States. Barack Obama has manifestly continued in this tradition being proven by his most noted achievement (the Affordable Care Act) that had its origins in the think tank of the far right-wing Heritage Foundation and being first put into tangible practice by the rhetorically flip-flopping, Republican presidential candidate Willard "Mitt" Romney while governor of Massachusetts. The fact that Crist's (former?) party has lurched so radically rightward speaks to his "homelessness" and in suggesting otherwise, Curry simply admits that in having Crist speak the Democrats have indeed, as a party, completely embraced such a third way centrist ideology! The fact is that if anyone is "homeless," it is the true left that, given a current set of nonviable Green or Socialist alternative parties in the United States, such a "leftist" either sits out elections, writes in preferred candidates, or holds their nose and votes for the centrist Democrats -- something I imagine a lot of moderate Republicans will do this cycle as well. But in so voting Democratic, the left in particular simply seeks to assert their franchise: not their approval! So thank you Mr. Curry for in your belabored attempt to minimize your former leader's endorsement of the president and then marginalize Crist as a man, you actually helped me to focus my argument and the policy-driven facts:

President Barack Obama has governed as a centrist!

]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/09/gop-helps-make-the-case-the-democrats-are-generally-a-centrist-party/ The Consensus Opinion: Ryan Speech Full of Lies, Now It's Romney's Turn http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWordshedRecentPosts/~3/8RVt8pMww-0/ http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/08/the-universal-opinion-ryan-speech-full-of-lies-now-its-romneys-turn/#comments Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:38:58 -0500 Ameriviking http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/?p=1362 Full Story . . .]]> Full Story . . .]]> http://www.chicagonow.com/wordshed/2012/08/the-universal-opinion-ryan-speech-full-of-lies-now-its-romneys-turn/