Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Obama finally coming to grips with the truth?

This interview with David Axelrod reveals that perhaps now--finally--the Obama Administration realized the idiocy of working with Republicans. Unfortunately, this top advisor/insider (at least) doesn't seem to quite get what a lot of us wanted. “I don’t regret his making the effort because I think people elected him to get things done. They didn’t elect him to wage a partisan war . . ."
David, David, David. (And should I add: Barack, Barack, Barack?) How can I parse this complete whiff?
1) "People" never elect a President to "get things done." They elect a President to get what they want done. That you (two?) still believe this is just plain ignorant and has destroyed the best, last chance this country had of halting its decline into probable Third World status. The voters spoke in 2006 and 2008 to get rid of as many Republicans and all of their ideas, because after a quarter century of getting shafted by them, the majority of voters, at least, finally figured that out. By providing the Democrats their largest majorities in Congress and a Democratic President--one who was noticeably of color at that!!--in quite a few generations, our voters spoke in as loud a voice as it is possible in our political system for what we wanted, and it wasn't "bipartisanship" or "compromise" or "incrementalism" or whatever mealy-mouthed garbage you guys thought. It was, to not coin a phrase, for "hope and change." And the "change" part of that phrase meant change in direction and policy. Not change in tone or tenor of debate--who the fuckety-fuck-fuck-fuck cares about that? Jebus!
2) How in all the gods' names do you know that the 2008 voters didn't elect Obama to "wage a partisan war"? I doubt I was the only one to do so, given that the other side of this supposed "war" declared it against us starting in 1980? (I put "war" in quotation marks not because it isn't one, but because you can't have a war when one side--ours--never fights back.) In point of fact, I would argue that is indeed why most people voted for Obama; they finally came to understand that there was a war going on, and those in the bottom 99%ile were losing it and needed/wanted/desperately cried out for someone who would fight for them. Instead, we got you clowns. Since the other party stands rock solid for that top 1% in word and deed, the majority of voters put in power the other party everywhere they could. How and why was that so hard for you bozos to understand?
One could argue, if one were so inclined, that we now have a "better late than never" situation, but I think what we really have is a "too little, too late" instead. We lost the House in 2010, and the demographics and logistics of our system make the Senate likely to go Republican in 2012. So even if we take back the House, we're staring down the barrel of losing the Senate; even if we keep the Senate and retake the House, there is no way on earth we will have anything close to what we already had in 2008-2010! Perhaps this new attitude of Obama's (and the loss of many of the Blue Dogs/centrists from 2010 to now) will help, but unless we keep the Senate and retake the House and rewrite the filibuster rules for the new session of the Senate starting in 2013, we will be in a weaker position than we had back then. Color me doubtful.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 06, 2011


Every day I wake up and I feel exhausted. One could think it's the cat waking me up anywhere between 1-3 every night to be fed (otherwise, her scratching at the door keeps me up for as long as I don't), but I think it's something more fundamental, because I can never seem to get enough sleep. Perhaps it's the long hangover after having a newborn, but you would think after 2 years of not having to wake up every two hours, I would have gotten back to some semblance of a normal restfulness. And perhaps it's some chemical imbalance that I plan on checking out by seeing an endocrinologist at some point. On the other hand, I'm also in pain a lot, but again, that could simply be the wear and tear of having a toddler jump on my stomach--"Yay, that's fun daddy!"--and me hoisting him in the air many times every day off I have.
Or is it simply a function of age? I just turned 49; is that too soon to have these kinds of physical ailments? I've never been 49 before, after all--maybe this is normal. I sure feel like it is not normal, because the reality is that ever since I had chemotherapy, I've felt this way--is it some kind of lingering and permanent after-effect of chemotherapy? Have I been prematurely aged beyond my years? Who can say with any surety? Certainly not the oncologist that I've talked to; her job was done once the cancer was eliminated (and I don't begrudge her for that, of course.) It does seem like nobody has looked into these kinds of things too much, although the newness of many of the chemo drugs makes long term research impossible for a while yet. (The "chemo brain" effect, the actuality of which I can attest, is just recently being studied and accepted as "real." Other after-effects must surely exist as well, one would have to assume at this point.) I have yet to do much research myself in gerontology, so I have to admit I know next to nothing about the aging process, but then again, who in the mid-late 40s thinks in those terms, really? It seems too early in life for me to feel this lousy all the time, but maybe I'm simply ignorant. I know plenty of people plenty older than me that don't have these issues, but then again, none of them have 2+ year-old kids, either.
Gaahh. It just goes round and round . . .

Labels: ,