News & Articles

“Never be friends with Kuba!”

The political ad season is enough to make me want anarchy, in theory. But luckily I have a theory risen from entertainment, which politics isn’t.

In entertainment there are two main types. There’s the program performance and the performer performance. Much as the old Romans once said, never trust the prostitute or the actor (include politician) because their profession is largely to profess what they are not.

Not entirely true, but close enough.

Doubt me? Well there’s a clue in how many protestations aim at how bad the other performer is. Not performance. The performer. Some call it mudslinging.

(Hey, you need this!)

And, gosh-be-damned, I remember when it wasn’t so grossly so. Back a time when I lobbied in DC for a spell it didn’t seem at all necessary to see those with opposing views as mortal enemies. In fact one of my former teachers was on the side I wasn’t. That was fine.

(Just for you!)

For those inclined to forget it, a two-party system was intended to consider opposing views.
Why? Because a one-side view assumes (incorrectly, experience tells us) that it and it alone is the correct, proper, best view. Sounds a bit supremacist and authoritarian, maybe.

Whatever side a person takes (as I understand things) should include the possibility the other side has some merit and can contribute. That’s where compromise and settlement come in.
(Here’s the best deal of the season!)

When I lobbied I often heard people complain about how long it took to get a decision from the government.

What?

Did and does anyone really want a force the size of the U.S. government to move quickly? Stampede’s move quickly and are often lethal.

A governmental decision takes time because time is needed to hear and consider a variety of views and sometimes conflicting facts.

Of course, there’s a difference between deliberation and obstruction. Same as there’s a gap (big one) between 100% certainty and a safe assumption.

Are there cases where requiring 100% certainty has led to crippling inaction or worse. I bet you know of some, and even among those the 100% sure and the most likely will exist.
I hope you wondered what the nut-bar writer was doing inserting junk in parenthesis. That was my poor attempt to remind us of how often a train of thought is interrupted and ignored by the media selling something, including itself. I doubt such distractions are helpful in deliberation. But enough on that.

During election season I was struck by how often affordability came up.

Gads, but there’s a lot of tail goes along with that wish, especially as a governmental objective. I suspect if government did manipulate or control affordability (prices, including costs) it would also have to manipulate income, and a lot more besides.

Affordability as a “vote for it” goal leads, I ‘spect, to a Solomon and the baby dilemma where carving a hole can prove lethal.

Remember what Pope (Alexander, not “the” Pope in Rome) said?

“We murder to dissect.”

A dissected organism/body is not longer among the living. There’s rather a danger there. Some, I think, choices are rather binary. Either or.

In the area of real estate prices for a formerly $50,000 house are much higher. Good for the seller. But whatever the sales price, higher or lower, there’s no new housing in the sale.

However, as I like to say, “It is what it is when it is.” If only doesn’t factor in. Not at all.

The election cycle has also warmed up hatred of the wealthy, lucky, successful, privileged and so on.

I’ve known some very wealthy people. But, envying them wasn’t in the cards, not with all the side effects they have to deal with. No thanks. There are levels of complication I’d rather I’d never see or have to deal with once, much less regularly or often.

It was also true my affluent friends didn’t eat a dozen breakfasts or fly to four places at a go. Their assets and funds were at “work” in some way or other, not kept in a sack in a vault.

Maybe if I knew some billionaires my tune would change. Could be. But so far I’m not billionaphobic.
I don’t want to cast a person into a negative category due to language, color, education or etc. Being a person, as I see it, does not begin or end with the cost of your lodging or shoes.

The times in my life when I was hard pressed financially didn’t make me less of a person any more than does economic stability rules me out or personhood.

Because a topic or personality is “hot” on any of the platforms (which to me still means for rail, etc.) doesn’t mean they or their topic is worth a wit.

Do you remember who won an Oscar two years ago? It was all over the “news.”

But, to me, some to much and occasionally all the news is garbage news (not to be confused with the fake news topic) soon to be out-of-date, cast out and forgotten.

I sometimes think the public is being fed (in part because we continue to go for it) fluff because lacking real substance it suckers us along toward the next fluff. Some things have substance that others lack.
I’m not saying what, only that the distinction exists. And I’ll assure you telling the difference isn’t ever going to be snap-crackle.

I’ll use a simple comparison by asking how easy it is to tell fake sincerity from the real thing. Some fakes, as I bet the farm you know from experience, are very convincing. But, being swayed does not mean the spiel was honest.

It’s typical of modern dictators to swear love of the people as the reason for their acts. To keep order or prosperity or to protect the much-loved people, a dictator might have to eliminate quite a few of them.
Joe Stalin’s nickname was Kuba. High ranking fellow communists would say “Never be friends with Kuba.”

If power is dangerous for elected officials who can be removed, for a dictator the danger is considerably more.