Archive / Politics

RSS feed for this section

Impulsively Induced Inaugural

P178-03A.JPGI don’t know about you but I can certainly be unthinking at times. I know when it is happening, I’m being ferried along by a power that almost has substance, it surrounds me and fills my mind with 1,000 reasons why I should do something I ought not to do. For instance, I see something I want to buy and I self-talk myself into believing that a). I can afford it when I can’t, or b). I tell myself I’ll worry about it later and then proceed to embrace the momentary pleasure that comes from being propelled both forward and through obvious involuntary impulses. Or how about when you’ve been emotionally moved to make a decision that you haven’t had the time to think through? Your emotions sway you to make a choice to do something based on how you feel at any given point.

Our emotions, wants and needs are influential motivators and have a controlling effect on us impelling us in any one particular direction. We are incited daily to act upon our passions, feelings, wants and needs and many of our reactions are impulsive in nature. We are individuals who oftentimes don’t judge on a macro level. We become victimized by the mechanics of force, captives lodged in the moment making life altering decisions that are driven solely by sentiment and not by knowledge or experience.

I wonder if that is what happened in the housing crisis? People, who didn’t have the money to afford something they wanted, saw an opportunity to purchase it anyway. Did they ask themselves, “Why not, it will be OK?” Could it be that many of these same people reacted impulsively to the opportunity by telling themselves they deserved a house? I wonder if after being wooed in by lenders who promised them the world, these same people pushed reality out of their mind. Intrinsically don’t we all know what we can afford and what we cannot afford? Did they chant the hasty person’s mantra, “I’ll worry about it later?” Not thinking through the ramifications of taking a loan you have no means to pay back and then merrily walking off with the keys to a house you can’t afford is momentary gratification, the ultimate reward for victims of impulsive behavior.

Usually, impulsiveness is cured when the pain of the decision is driven home and the next venture into spontaneous, emotion driven decision making is met with some hesitancy as a result of painful realities that come as a consequence of past impulsive decisions.

This didn’t seem to be the case this election year. Droves of impulsive people were clamoring for someone to alleviate the pain of their reckless choices. They desired someone to rush in with an economic shot of Novocain to numb their financial pain. Unfortunately, when finding the antidote to their impulse impasse, instead of learning from their past mistakes, they exercised a brash reaction once again. Large masses of people were swayed by emotional rhetoric and responded in waves with involuntary impulsiveness, born solely from speechifying and oratory that had the power to impel them in the direction the words wanted them to go, right to the polling place. Those who should have learned from their past were incited to action. There was no information to think through but that didn’t seem to matter. The history presented to them was blanketed by the same voices that usher an impulsive shopper toward cashier. “Ignore the warnings”, “Rush toward your desire”, which is usually met with fevered abandon. This election year, the mechanics of force were successful in inciting a momentary response in the voter, without encouraging continuous, measured, thoughtful consideration of the choice that was being made. This is defined as being impulsive. Impulsive people in debt, who wanted a quick fix correction to the result of their original impulsive mistakes, made another impulsive decision in hopes the second would correct the first poor choice?

This is an example of an impetuous citizenry who made a decision born solely out of emotion. A spontaneous choice made like madcap shoppers responding to a glossy, falsely convincing Madison Avenue advertisement. A cadre’ of consumers oblivious to the possibility of having to one day handle the dismal consequences of a wrong purchase. This is a corporate decision, which is dreadfully impulsive, brash, hasty, irresponsible and nationally reckless.

Copyrighted:  No part of this Website of any of its contents can be reproduced without permission.

Why Weren’t the Proletariats Invited to the Party They Paid For?

130071Does anyone recall the relentless, persistent flogging Sarah Palin received for a $150,000.00 wardrobe purchased for her to wear on the campaign trail by the Republican Party? Her intolerable extravagance is 0.009% the cost of Michelle and Barry’s bash next Tuesday and not a whimper of criticism from the left? Where is the New York Slimes, whose reporters were obsessively fixated on the price of Sarah’s Naughty Monkey Heels?

Life & Style image consultant Michael Sands said, “Sarah became Cinderella, and the fairy godmother was the Republican Party. If she had stayed in her own clothes…she would have had far more impact.” Conservative columnist Mona Charen made the point at that time the controversy was flaring, in National Review Online, that the Democrats weren’t exactly dressing down: Barack Obama’s suits go for $1500 and that Michele wears designer duds all the time (except when appearing on The View when she boasted of wearing an under $200 dress). Sarah who was bullied and bruised repeatedly assured the American public, “…at the end of the campaign, they’ll be donated to charity.” Who can forget Diane Sawyer’s disapproving eyebrow furrow when discussing Sarah’s Sergio Rossi, red pumps? My question is will Michelle be donating the clothes from the Inaugural to Prom Spot? When Bush had a barbecue for his Inauguration he was excoriated…why isn’t anyone questioning the sea scallops and the pheasant on the menu for next Tuesday’s post-swearing in luncheon?

What Mona and other conservative commentators obviously don’t understand is that as far as the left is concerned conservatives deserve to be dressed in penitentiary attire replete with vertical stripes eating offal and liberals deserve the best that money can buy. I am also interested to know why the money that those evil corporations are spending to have private Inaugural celebrations next Tuesday like the $40,000 donated by American Airlines to a January 19 ball sponsored by the Illinois State Society or that evil Chicago-based utility Exelon donating $80,000 to the Illinois ball and a separate gala for Pennsylvania power brokers is not being criticized in the least? To the left, this is evil corporate money well spent.

These hypocrites wouldn’t tolerate a political party investing $150,000.00, of their own money, on a wardrobe for their candidate. Moreover, they have no problem spending exorbitant amounts of cash on a one-day swanky “Aren’t I Wonderful Gala” without restraint or sensitivity to the needs of the gullible proletariat that got them elected in the first place. Those champions of fairness and even handed, unbiased journalism have no problem with a 160 million coming out party and are willing to spend any amount without limit to celebrate victory? The only problem is their victory party expense account contradicts the tenants they were elected upon. Wasn’t Barry the one who stoically instructed us that we’d all, “…have to sacrifice for the common good?” The price of his “I’ve Made History Party” gives new meaning to a word he loves so to freely toss around with wild abandon, “entitlement”.

Are we in the midst of the dire depression that Barry says we are? If so, then next Tuesday’s ego orgy can be likened to Michelle passing the bread line in their Heavily-Armored 2009 Cadillac Limo and when asked what should be done about the fact that the people have no bread replying, a la Marie-Antoinette, “Let (the peons) eat pastry”! Maybe she can toss little Inaugural cakes, to the swarming masses from the window of the vehicle to show she cares.

I’m sure the designer dress Michelle will wear to the Inaugural Ball will have a price tag that will rival the amount of Sarah’s full campaign, then expediently donated to charity, wardrobe. In Michelle’s case each and every one of those dazzling sequence represent an individual campaign dollar of people who might presently be in foreclosure. Get used to it people, less money in your pay check means a closet full of Jimmy Choo’s for Michelle. Don’t have a job, can’t pay your mortgage? No problem let the caviar & Courvoisier® Cognac, flow it’s party time at the top of the socialist social structure!

Now I have to clarify here, I wouldn’t care if Obama’s Inauguration cost 500 million dollars, I’m serious. I had no problem when Ronald and Nancy had their elegant event complete with Frank Sinatra crooning while they slow danced. Spend as much as you want. My temper is riled by out and out unbridled double standards and hypocrisy run amok. This is just another example of liberals doing something, which is categorically, disproportionately worse than what they spent the last year criticizing conservatives for, and they do it with unabashed personal aplomb and receive zero criticism from the same piranhas’ who criticized George W. Bush in 2005 for hosting a picnic during a war.

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s Inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be canceled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?” Fast forward to 2009. (AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend) http://newsbusters.org/ blogs/rich-noyes/ 2009/ 01/ 14/2009.

It would serve our new President well to set an example of the “…personal sacrifice” he is purporting we as a nation adopt as our mantra for the next four to eight years. He could begin by really making history and heeding the advice of Albert Einstein when he said, “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others; it is the only means.” Barry could accomplish that goal by returning to the Inauguration Day policies of Presidents like Warren G. Harding. In 1921 Harding requested that the Inaugural committee do away with the elaborate ball and parade as well, in hopes of setting an example of thrift and simplicity. Subsequent Inaugurations followed this trend, with charity balls becoming the fashion for the Inaugurations of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt now that would be a “Change” we could believe in but I trust won’t be realized.

Copyrighted:  No part of this Website of any of its contents can be reproduced without permission.

“Yeah, but there were shooting sounds coming from the carnival arcade”

carnival

Hillary Clinton habitually, can’t recall, misspeaks, is being misunderstood, does not remember, has no memory, has no recollection, misremembered a fact or major event and continually exaggerates her “35 years” of vast and far reaching experience. Ms. Rodham fancies herself a great American leader, repeatedly reminding the public she would be the best and most capable President in spite of what many professionals would diagnose as a chronic case of amnesia.

When it comes to explaining her involvement or experience, “I do not remember…”, “I have no recollection whatsoever…”, “I do not recall…”, “I have no memory…” and “I also have no recollection…” are her constant mantras. How can she expect the American people to entrust her with the intricate codes for authorizing a nuclear attack when she can’t remember that she was singing folk songs in Bosnia and not dodging bullets?

Copyrighted:  No part of this Website of any of its contents can be reproduced without permission.

%d bloggers like this: