United States of America, Inc.
Why a change of President matters little


Einstein once said that, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Similarly, W.L. Bateman stated that, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep on getting what you’ve always got.”

Both of these adages – both subjectively identical – couldn’t be more applicable than they are regarding the current world events; particularly, as it relates to the political arena, which is largely the reason the U.S. has found a large number of its citizens electing a President whose temperament, ideologies and approach appear to be in direct contrast to those who have presided in recent history.

Few would argue the volatility of the U.S. economy in which its current condition – whether fairly or unfairly – is largely attributed to the decisions and policies of the Bush administration. In fact, considering the core responsibility of government to maintain stability and growth, it becomes virtually impossible to disassociate the administration’s influence or contribution to the problems without assuming their complicity and/or incompetence; both of which would arguable deem them unfit for continued leadership.

Therefore, unless one wanted more of the same, what sense would it make to continue supporting someone or something that has proven defective and/or flawed in recent history? After all, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

But day by day, more and more people are realizing that what we are witnessing is not the accidental deterioration of veracious systems, but rather, the revelation of the intentional and complicit corruption behind them; all packaged and sold under the guise of legitimacy, but built on a malicious framework of oligarchic manipulation.

Consider the United States government for example, an institution that is no different – in structure or functionality – than any other large corporation or union of corporations, which flourish and fail in the same manner, eventually collapsing, only to rebuild under new leadership and identity, but maintaining the same owners and intentions.

The exposed fraud and corruption of Enron and Arthur Anderson; the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the “golden parachute” securities of CEO’s; and the financial bailout in the duplicity of Wall Street (aka welfare for the rich), are merely microcosms of the greater culture, line-of-thinking, and values of the parent company; The United States of America, Inc.

Therefore, if the values don’t change, then the line-of-thinking doesn’t change. And if the line-of-thinking doesn’t change, then the culture doesn’t change. And if the culture doesn’t change, then it matters little who becomes the next CEO (President) of the organization.


Here are the parallels:


Company = U.S. Government
Shareholders/Board = Special Interest Groups (Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Big Business, Oil Companies, financiers, etc.)
CEO = President (i.e. Bush, Obama, etc.)
Managerial Staff = Presidential Administration (VP, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.)
Employee/Customer = The People, citizens (aka The American People)
Product = (Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity, Democracy)
Projects = (War on Terror, Bringing home the troops, restoring the economy, securing the U.S., mortgage crisis, etc.)
Agent = Media (TV, News, Radio)


The only difference between Government and a Corporation is that Government allows the Employee/Customer to believe that they are selecting their CEO (aka voting). In actuality, the choice for president is done by a “selection” – much like a conclave - and not an “election” as we are led to believe. The elections of 2000 and 2004 have more than proven this. Simply put, the people elect from a pre-selected set of candidates; likened to being forced to choose between liver and chick gizzards for your favorite meal, resulting in the individual choosing the one that they can stomach the most.

**In fact, if a corporation really wanted to make its employees believe that their input was valuable and appreciated and that their thoughts were instrumental in determining the direction of the company, the corporation should do the same as government and allow employees to vote for their CEO. This - although a placebo by effect - would surely promote employee loyalty by providing them the perception and the “warm and fuzzy” feeling of inclusion**

Unfortunately, voting - primarily when the people don't take the extra steps and responsibility to hold the incumbents accountable to their word - serves to be no more than a suggestion or a glorified people poll/survey. However, if the people were to take the necessary step of going beyond the vote to hold political pundits accountable to their actions and promises by way of such tools as impeachment or civil disobedience, then the vote becomes more than a voice; it becomes a virtue; but I digress.

The CEO is ALWAYS selected by the Shareholders/Board. The CEO (President) is determined by his/her ability to effectively manage and direct the company (Government) as desired by the Shareholders (Big Business) in order to increase revenue or control of the market. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the candidate who raises or spends the most money wins up to 95% of the elections; generating funds at levels of what less than 1% of citizens can afford; siphoning much of the money from non-district residents and corporations who are not even permitted to vote in the election they seek to influence. But what better way to garner support from foreign interests other than through corporate sponsorship?

The CEO (President) is only concerned with the happiness and progression of the Employee/Customer (the people) to the degree that it impacts the revenue for the Shareholders (Big Business). Therefore, a CEO’s (President’s) obligation is to the Shareholders (Big Business), NOT to the Employee/Customer (the people). A CEO who attempts to work in the best interest of the Employee/Customer (The People) in spite of the intentions of the Shareholders will be promptly fired…..or fired upon. (i.e. JFK).

The Company (Government) is more concerned with the Employee/Customers (the people's) habits than it is their happiness. Unhappiness is overlooked until it results in habits that could potentially have an adverse effect on the company’s revenue. Reason: A change of Employee/Customer habit will change the direction of the company entirely; because a change in habit is often a direct reflection in the change of values; and things control you to the degree that they control what you value the most.

Therefore, the CEO must sell a vision of the Company (government) to the Employee/Customer that is motivational and inspirational so that the Employee/Customer will continue to work hard to support and defend the company (Government) in order to assure the coffers (i.e. revenue, stocks) of the Shareholders under the misassumption that they are assuring their own [insert Enron story here].

Speeches and photo-ops are no different than commercials and advertisements that are offered by the Media (The Agent), designed to sell an image to inspire trust, hope, fear, and/or desire in a product (i.e. Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity); the product being an ideological aspiration that is often in direct contrast to the actual goal of the Shareholders (Big Business). The product is the motivation. The project (i.e. War on Terror, mortgage crisis, etc.) is merely a means to an end; changeable as desired, often offering no measureable and/or tangible goal. Without such earmarks, projects like the “War On Terror” can rage on indefinitely because it’s end was never intended in the first place.

However, the original business plan (the Constitution) was designed so that the true power of the company rested in the hands of the Employee/Customer (the people), who provide the greatest energy (i.e. work, money) to the company, and therefore, should reap the greatest rewards and benefits. It created checks and balances to keep the Employee/Customer (the people) safe from mismanagement and tyrannical rule; which is why we now find the CEO (President) and his Managerial Staff making changes and usurping the original business plan (the Constitution).

Contrary to popular belief, President Bush did NOT fail in his role over the last 8 years. He accomplished exactly what the Shareholders wanted him to accomplish, which is why he has been able to stave persecution from such contemptuous acts. He was a protected investment, and now, the baton has been passed to an even more effective and more protected investment; being protected to the point of receiving Secret Service assignment even before announcing his run for Presidency.

Likely, President Bush won’t be held accountable or answerable to his role in the current state of things until after he is no longer President. That way, the parties who are truly in control (i.e. Shareholders) can create the perception of change and progress, which wins the support of the masses by offering just one or a few sacrificial lambs in exchange for Employee/Customer dedication and loyalty; something that ALL companies desire.

However, as is stands today, the corporation (Government) is still controlled by the same Shareholders….or at least, the same lines-of-thinking. Therefore, the change of CEO (President) matters little; particularly, if the values, vision, and direction of the Shareholders remains the same (to stay rich and powerful).....and there is no reason for us to believe that it has changed. The Rich always want to stay rich, and power is never willfully relinquished.

The Employee/Customer (the people) is the greatest resource in the world; no business could exist without them. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Company (Government) to either keep them happy, or to keep them fearful; both of which would promote specific, predictable habits.

However, when a company doesn’t operate transparently and with integrity, and instead, resorts to corruption and deceit as a means to an end, then, it becomes imbalanced and starts losing the control and confidence of its Employees/Customers (the people), and thus, has to resort to using “fear and uncertainty” as a means of regaining and maintaining control. The company (government) must place itself in a position to where the Employee/Customer (the people) feels that they need the company more than the company needs them. Therefore, in order to remain all-powerful, more dire circumstances will be created by the company in order to promote dependency.

In such institutions, fearful people are always preferred over thinking ones, because they are quick to acquiesce and offer little resistance to a system that obviously and overtly works against their best interest.

“So helpless does slavery make men that they grow fond of it.” - Vauvenargues

With all things considered regarding the inner-workings of this giant machine of which we all play an integral part, imagine the impact and outcome if the Employee/Customer changed her thinking, her values, and resultantly, her habits. Suppose that the Employee/Customer’s got on one accord and stopped working and giving money to a company that refused to recognize and meet their needs. What would happen to the company if the Employee/Customer realized that the Company works for them – and not the other way around – and then started conducting themselves as Shareholders as opposed to Employees/Customers?

But, as with most companies during the introduction of a new CEO, expectations are running high; based primarily on the anticipation of success, change, growth, and progress. The stocks increase; and for the first several months, you can expect positive reports of progress and change (regardless if it is true or not), because this is absolutely necessary in quelling the anxieties of the Employee/Customer and Business Partners (foreign companies), and fostering an environment of prosperity, freedom, and security (The Product). All will intentionally appear well and successful…………until.

Unfortunately, due to the excitement, fanfare, and momentum of this historic moment, all forms of constructive criticism that are not aligned with those of the status quo or popular opinion will be deemed as seditious and/or antagonistic, and will go largely ignored; resulting in the true opportunities for change to go unnoticed and under-appreciated during the most opportune times; that is, until a catastrophic event presents itself and places us in a position to where we are forced to reckon with our greatest rival and limitation: Ourselves.

“It seldom happens that a man changes his life through his habitual reasoning. No matter how fully he may sense the new plans and aims revealed to him by reason, he continues to plod along in the old paths until his life becomes frustrating and unbearable…he finally makes the change only when his usual life can no longer be tolerated.” - Tolstoy

Peaces,

Tungz

Barren Land: A Lamenting Stream of Consciousness

By: Tungz



Barren; Love finds its absence in a land of matter, ironically, destitute of things that matter.

It is here where Evil ascends to the throne; lips chaffed from the heat of lies; knuckles whiten as a clenched right hand conceals Life, extended left hand reaches low offering Death. Gritty, hate under its nails impaled through flesh, fearing the duty of Wisdom; Salvation its’ reap.

Succumbing to false Gods we honor their image and call them “Leaders” as their deceptive tongues mold their cheeks - evil spirits molding flesh - finely draped in tailored suits, tasseled shoes, pinned lapels, and ulterior motives.

The President: The Head of State and the Mind of the Body politic.

Change.

A change of mind means little without a change of heart.

Who’s at the heart?

Wide-eyed, we accustom to the Dark and call it Light.
Unable to discern the bars we call it Freedom.
We deny what’s Wright and call it Wrong.

The Book of Jeremiah still weeps; still laments. The Kingdom of Judah still falls…….still, they don’t listen.

Still.

Even in its reflection its back is turned; denying its own face.

Scales tilt on the balance of “Perception versus Principle”. Principle remains high; the feather to the heavy heart.

Truth finds the middle.

We bow our heads not from prayer - but in shame - in order to bear the weight of invisible chains, adding charms to flatter our enslavement and embellish our stupidity. Diamonds anyone?

We’ve found that we’re lost.
We’ve learned that we’re ignorant.
We’ve grown up to be children.

Entertained by the barbarianism of ultimate fighting we feast heartedly in hell’s kitchen; burnt tongues numb to the flavor of Love as Ignorance becomes the American idol. In the moments of truth we remain lost.

Worshipping money, our conscience remains burdened by God; thus, we sell salvation and pawn righteousness. Pimps and Preachers both don crucifixes. The difference is in the whore’s tithe; both on their knees desiring to stand on their feet.

Heaven reserved for those who can afford it.

Hell is guaranteed.

The heavens recede.
The sun dips.
The moon dims.
And Gaea stirs, restless; begging for mercy as her ravaged garments and plundered womb drips blackness; raped.

Jewels sold; made the eternal concubine.

Eve further subjugated; bound and gagged.

We hunt for fun while others hunt for food, gluttonous, feverishly indulging in hotdog-eating contests while Ethiopian bellies wantonly swell.

Two swollen bellies; both remain empty.

Diana shamed.

Nuclear waste smolders in dark places - bodies and earthly bowels - undeserving.

O’ such levels of ignorance to succeed at wasting waste as we look down upon the starving beggar who makes use of it.

Our audacity calls us “civilized” and our arrogance calls us “intelligent”, but even roaches don’t kill their own.

Irony is seldom without realization as pride is seldom without pity.

God bless America……but damn the rest of the world!

Pride is seldom without pity.

Thus, the Towers fall; following the inverted Devil.

Technology shrinks the world.

We endeavor to know more so that we can do less.
We venture to have more only to possess less.
We strive to communicate more only to say less.

And thus, the world shrinks.

This “Land of Opportunity” is so because of its vices as opposed to its virtues.

White hating black, and black hating white, is proof that there is a deficiency in grey matters.

This is your brain without love.

But soon – and unexpectedly – thorned crowns sprout roses, transforming the “hated” into “heros”. The meek inherits the earth and the brutal inherits its debts. The karmic pendulum swings in search of rest.

The sun sets; the moon wanes.
The heavens cry; the earth bleeds.
Our fruit bears no seeds, and from such trees we continue to feast.

Empty stomachs breed empty minds. Barren Lands our wells run dry. Heed the water-bearer who comes to quench thirsts. The land in the water.

Definitions are limitations; therefore, for the wise, Creation remains nameless.

Things controlled to the degree that they are defined. To free yourself - define yourself.

Be formless, but form yourself. The Water.

Be undefinable, but define yourself. The Air.

Be invisible, but visible through your actions. The Wind.

Be unknowable, but know yourself. The Mind.

Be David to Goliath.

Be who you wish you were and who your greatest admirer believes you to be.

Be more.

Be.

Tavis, Obama, and Black People

This commentary was inspired but they recent announcement that Tavis Smiley will be discontinuing his 12 year relationship with the Tom Joyner Morning Show, in part (according to Tom Joyner), due to the less than favorable comments that he has received from the Black community regarding his concerns/reservations on Barack Obama.

“Don’t fall so madly in love (with Obama) that you surrender your power to hold people accountable. … I’m not saying overlook Senator Obama, but you now better be ready to look him over.” –Tavis Smiley

No truer words have ever been spoken. And if there ever were one grouping of people who would adamantly defend something that they know least about, it would arguably have to be Black folks…….at least as long as the thing defended “appears” to relate and operate in their best interest.

After all, who was it that coined Bill Clinton the “first black President”??? It surely wasn’t Caucasians. And who was it that voted for George W. Bush in record numbers after he stated that he is a Christian that is against gay marriage? Again, it was black folks. If your memory doesn’t serve you correctly, try this link http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/Newsday11-14-2004.pdf .

One African American woman who admittedly voted for George W. Bush, Jr. because of his Christian belief and stance on gay marriage went as far to say that “He’s strong in his morals.”

This may or may not be true considering that we don’t really know what his morals are. However, what we do know is that these so-called morals aren’t what most of us believed them to be.

If you still feel that Bush is a Christian, then ask yourself “Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus leave stranded in a coliseum without food and water for 5 days???” I guess that Bush couldn’t find those 2 fish and a loaf of bread that Jesus had, but I’m sure that the National Guard could have provided it for him since they were guarding the stores that these hungry black refugees were looting,…….but I digress.

“To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” – Mahatma Gandhi

I echo Smiley’s sentiments, concerns, and reservations regarding Obama albeit not exactly for the same reasons.

Smiley criticizes Obama for not attending symposiums that were geared to address concerns in the Black community; namely, the State of the Black Union in New Orleans and the Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of MLK in Memphis.

I think that Obama’s absence from these events was clear. Politically speaking, there was no need for him to attend these events. If he already knows that he has the Black vote in pocket, why expend the energy, time, and effort to attend such events when he can use it to target a demographic that he has yet to convince? After all, he is trying to win an election!

Consequently, it is this very reason that Hillary Clinton was motivated to attend the State of the Black Union. It was a glaring opportunity for her to win over the Black vote amid the disappointments of Obama’s decline to attend. If she would have had the Black vote secured already (like Obama), you can rest assured that she would not have attended the forum either.

In short, his attendance wasn’t politically feasible. Hers was.

It seems, however, that such an action would raise concerns as well as “red flags” as to whether or not the candidates are more concerned with the “Black Vote” as opposed to the “Black Community”, because surely, a person truly concerned with the community would place the progress of the community over his/her own political agenda – right? You would think so; but not in politics.

In politics, perception always trumps principle - and herein lies the problem - because it is this dichotomy that determines integrity.

Integrity is the right that one does even in the absence of an audience; and principle is the adherence to such. Therefore, principle is always more valuable than perception because it never seeks validation outside of itself.

Perception, however, is merely the “appearance” of correctness, therefore, its validity is determined by how it looks and is received by its audience.

For example, it is because of perception - or rather misperception - that America is now led by a tyrant whose practices and policies are in lockstep with Adolf Hitler’s (For more info regarding this, click here: http://www.28daysmovement.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1377). Most people are acutely unaware of his familial ties to the evil dictator himself (Prescott Bush, George Bush’s grandfather, financed Hitler).

Additionally, it is because of perception that the Catholic Church is now led by an ex-Nazi (Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI), who was also the Prefect of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition).

Of course the Inquisition is an event that the Catholic church would like to forget and move beyond, but the remnants of religious persecutions that still exists today make it rather difficult.

And let us not forget that Hitler was also a devout Catholic.

Therefore, it is only right that President Bush ceremonially greet Pope Benedict XVI – replete with pomp and circumstance - on his arrival to America. What other way to welcome your greatest accomplice? Is it not suspect and contradictory for the Pope to condemn the atrocities of the war while simultaneously breaking bread with the warmonger???

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

Guess whose home!

Perception provides the opportunity to mask the truth, particularly in the absence of principle; and through the guise of great images and flowery speeches, we relinquish our personal power to the comfort and control of perceived power. We are more concerned with the appearance of legitimacy and piety than the action of it.

So, how does this relates to Tavis, Obama, and Black People? I’m glad that you asked!

Because Obama is black, and speaks of his community work in impovershed neighborhoods, many black people assume that he is attuned and empathizes with the concerns and struggles of the black community, and as a result, they tend to hope for the best from him; that as President, he would do more than any of his predecessors to sincerely address the concerns of black people in America; almost as if he is Black America’s secret weapon and last hope.

He may or may not be a secret weapon - either way - you can guarantee that he won’t be one that is for the betterment of Black people, regardless of his intent, not as long as the presidency remains controlled by special interest and despots. But again, I digress.

As a result, Obama gets a pass from the black community at large, even when he “misspeaks”. Case in point: Obama recently referred to his Caucasian grandmother as a “typical white person”. Although this comment is blatantly stereotypical, many black people turned a deaf ear; possibly because many of them can also relate to this comment, resultantly serving as a confirmation for them that “Barack is truly one of us…..truly one who understands the Black plight.”

Now, imagine if Hillary – or any other white politician for that matter – referred to another African American as a “typical black person”. Many in the black community would most certainly be incensed and offended, and would likely accuse the offender of being racist.

So, is Obama a racist, or was it just a Freudian slip? Maybe it was both. Like the old saying goes “If it isn’t in you, then it won’t come out of you.” But when the comment comes from somebody we admire, we tend to look the other way and not hold them accountable to principle, because again, we are more driven by perceptions. You can say or do something bad as long as you continue to look good.

For many black people, the possibility of seeing a black man in the role of President is too alluring. The excitement of a black man achieving such heights in America is redemptive. The opportunity to thumb their nose at a white America that has historically and heinously discredited everything brown and black is too tempting. Not only do black people want to be led by someone who they can identify with, but also, by somebody who can identify with them. And since there are many white people who are equally enamored with Obama, his viability is further validated and the awe compounded.

Now all that is needed is an Obama music video, some footage of him playing basketball, and a video snippet of him doing the Electric Slide while saying “Yes I Can”, and it will be official. Well, two out of the three isn’t bad.

As an unfortunate result however, any black person who is not enthralled by Obama, who asks the black community to be even more skeptical and dubious of Obama’s wide acceptance given the history of an American government that has the propensity to use minorities when convenient….who decrees the use of “accountability” as being the true test of “integrity” and the revealer of intent as Tavis Smiley attempted to do…..is immediately perceived as a sell-out, a trader, a “crab-in-the-bucket”, a detractor; someone who is not for the advancement of the black community; suggesting that any line-of-thought that does not follow the black status quo is divisive and non-constructive. The ideology becomes “either you are with us….. or you are against us.”

Resultantly, reason succumbs to reverence.

Consequently, since Hillary is white, and has the perception of being calculating and opportunistic, many blacks have come to expect more of the same, which is the very reason her recent “misspoken” comment (more commonly know as a “lie”) regarding her vivid and repeated recollection of being under sniper attack in Bosnia was shrugged off as “typical Hillary”; alluding to the known and common tactics of political embellishments and habitual lying all for the sake of winning. It is the “political” way.

“The political has noting in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim [the people], but we must in no wise be guided by them.” - Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion (Protocol #1)

But aren’t Obama and Clinton both politicians??? Yes, they are!

Since the word “politician” has come to be synonymous to lies, deceit, corruption, and conspiracy, the most successful politician will be the one who can appear the least like one. The pundit will need to appear more personable than political; more charismatic than conniving; and this is largely where Obama prevails and where Clinton falters.

Obama’s political history - or lack thereof - gives little for those to check against the perception that he has created, with the exception of the two books that he has written; while Hillary’s political history lends a trail to remind us just how much of a politician she truly is, despite the book that she has written.

But in all honesty, what person casts himself/herself in a negative light in an autobiography, particularly when they are seeking a role of political leadership? No one! Even if one admits to various indiscretions and improprieties (which they most often do), it is always followed and ended in an commendable and praiseworthy “lesson learned”; an inadvertent stumble to contribute to forming the wonderful person that he/she is today.

Even Hitler portrays himself as a valiant hero in his semi-autobiography, Mein Kampf. Therefore, an autobiography serves to be no more than personalized propaganda use to create a desired perception.

Simply put, Obama just may be a better “politician” than Hillary….but that is not necessarily a good thing.

But with an empowered, informed, and thinking populace, the power and lure of politics wanes, which is the very reason that people like Tavis Smiley are so important and necessary, even if you don’t agree with their points-of-view and opinions.

Personally speaking, I’m not the biggest Tavis Smiley fan in the world; however, I do recognize and appreciate his contributions by way of his willingness to facilitate open, intelligent, discussions and interviews with various people of all colors, cultures, characters, and creeds.

At a bare minimum – at least for on open-minded community – such insights provide for opportunities of reflective thought, dialogue and discussion; something that the propagandistic, one-way media does not provide. This is the only way that we can grow as community; through open communication that is founded in “principle”, not “perception”.

Open your mind. You just might learn something.

“The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Tungz

Change!


I was driving home the other day when I came to a stop at a traffic light that dangled tirelessly beneath an overpass. The air was damp and brisk; uninviting of an afternoon stroll.

I looked over to my left, and observed a man who I presumed homeless, clad in weathered and trodden garb that draped his emaciated frame as he held chest-high a cardboard sign with faint and faded letters that read - “Please Spare Change” – with the word “Change” being the most discernible and prominent of the three.

I watched as passer-bys conveniently held their cell phones to their ears, eyes locked in a wayward gaze in every direction except towards the wanting man, all but calling him “invisible” - which in fact he was - merely an erasable figment of Will justified by society’s classification as the “lowest of the low”, “the despised of the despised”, ranking even lower than the vilest crimes of being “black”, “brown”, “female”, or “foreign”; all of which he was neither.

I watched as he cautiously approached pedestrians, eyes wracked with sincere hope and want, only to be met with gazes of judgment and condemnation; sneers of scorn that might as well have been hurled with warm spit, but rather, were cooled with cold-shouldered retorts of “I have nothing to give you”, “I can’t help you”, “No, sorry!”, “Why don’t you help yourself?”,……but most frequently, silence and avoidance.

The light turns green and I proceed; eyes still locked on the pariah, observing as he repositions himself for the new batch of opportunity that is streaming up to the intersection; his hopeful eyes fighting persistently against the downward pull of dejection and inhumanity that weighed heavy on his brow, which again, soon come. But there, he stood.

For some reason, this image sat with me – closely - sharing a space in my conscience that alluded disregard, like the proverbial Pink Elephant in the room.

And just as I felt that I had succeeded in painting the Pink Elephant brownish-grey, I walked into my home, turned on the TV, and was met by a news report of Barack Obama, copiously flanked by craving patrons; their eyes brimming over with sincere hope and want, bearing chest-high and overhead cardboard signs sprawled with the beggar’s cry for “Change”, seeking rescue from a stream of past disappointments, in the desperate hopes that this passer-by will be different. And there, at this intersection, they stood.

I couldn’t help but wonder how we – those of us who believe ourselves to be better off - are any different than the beggar on the street; blaming the homeless and destitute for their failed conditions while ignoring our own, while sitting together, side-by-side on the curb of “hopelessness” begging for “Change”; with each side asking the other, “How could you let this happen???”

Still inebriated on the ether of our pseudo-success and regressive progression, we chide the beggar to “Change” himself; to stop wallowing in the pity of irresponsibility and economic duress, while we simultaneously - and excusably - beg our government for the same type of “Change” resulting from the same shortcomings; pathetically disregarding our own advice.

Our sobriety now offered in vapid doses of foreclosures, unemployment, and a weakening dollar, has transformed our neighbor to nemesis and savior to enslaver; revealing the hater to be no different than the hated, foreseeing our reckoning with Humility to be inevitable, which undoubtedly, soon come.

One has to wonder what would happen – what could be accomplished - if we changed ourselves instead of waiting for somebody else to change us.

“If you want to change the world, change your mind.” – Unknown

Peaces,

Tungz

The Obama Paradigm

This commentary is by no means in support of or against Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate or party. It is merely a contemplative assessment of the political parody in general; offering a perspective that is infrequently discussed and largely ignored by mainstream outlets…….for obvious reasons.

Barack Obama has been steadily emerging as a "crowd favorite" since his keynote address in the Democratic National Convention in 2004; a status recently confirmed in the Iowa caucus on January 3rd, 2008.

But what is it about a political pundit that creates a “celebrity-like” – almost Rock Star - appeal? Is it the personal magnetism of the incumbent himself; is it the public's hunger and want for something “hopeful” in the face of hopelessness; or is it something much deeper and involved?

I think that it’s all of the above, but especially, the latter.

When you have a situation to where the majority of the world populace is frustrated and disgruntled with the figurehead on one side of the coin (the Bush administration), and you have a growing number of immigrants and minorities (i.e. African Americans, Hispanics, etc.) who almost monolithically vote Democratic - not to mention a voting "young" population (i.e. college students) who are more open-minded, tolerant, and less conservative than previous generations - the "controllers-of-the-coin" (i.e. Big Businesses, financiers, bankers, oil companies, etc.) need to put forth or support someone who can represent those ideals in the form of opposition to the current status quo (aka "playing both sides of the field").

Enter: Barack Obama.

Barack is young, charismatic, new, and of mixed ethnicity; and, as a result, has the ability to galvanize the minds and interests of minorities and young people in large numbers; both of which are critical forces in the tides of power. This is a big contrast to what has historically occupied the Whitehouse. Articulation and charisma clearly separates him from the current, notwithstanding, his likable and magnetic nature. All of which are “Aces-in-the-Hole” for any politician as it relates to perception.

He is the personification of change; however, NOBODY makes it into the political arena – particularly in a role of power and influence - without the approval of the "controllers-of-the-coin"; regardless of charisma, ESPECIALLY if their political history barely spans a couple of eloquent speeches and photo-ops.

Truthfully speaking, ones “political history” has little relevance in identifying his ability to lead, but rather, chronicles his ability to create alliances and profits, out of which a boss is appointed (emphasis on the word “boss”). There are distinct differences between a “boss” and a “leader”. The former has only to satisfy those above him to retain his position; the latter’s position is at the assertion of his followers, whom of which he inspires.

The past few elections and appointments have proven that our political structure – a so-called Democracy - is better equipped at churning out bosses more so than leaders.

Therefore, if the "controllers-of-the-coin" didn't see any use for Obama, he would have been discredited and dismissed a long time ago based on lack of experience alone, regardless of how factual this may or may not be.

In a nation where racism is still very much a real phenomenon; a festering sore where the social and racial lines of demarcation are still very prominent everywhere - particularly in the South - it is difficult to imagine and accept that Americans have matured enough to accept an African American as its leader when it has yet to accept them as their equal.

However, unlike other black or minority leaders, Obama has an uncanny ability to attract both sides of the fence, and this is a VERY attractive and useful talent for those who are really in power (i.e. the “controller-of-the-coin”).

Obama’s ability to come off as “less political” and “more personable” than his contemporaries is tantamount……particularly in a time when the word “politics” is synonymous to “lies”, “deceit”, and “corruption”, and when people are losing their faith in the political structure altogether, virtually begging for that last glimmer of hope; another ideal that Obama has come to personify.

“Hope” is always a necessary good; but absent of inspiration, it serves only to be a longing; an awaited, unfulfilled desire that seeks gratification from something outside of itself……..whereas inspiration assumes the responsibility itself for its own end.

Hope without inspiration is “helplessness”; and in such a state we become gullible – almost desperate - to any tongue that can stir our hopes and direct our actions without us taking the personal responsibility to reform the very structure in which it stands and breathes; a void that government has always capitalized on, however, I digress.

A path is being laid for Barack Obama, and either way, he will go far in his campaign and career........at least as long as he remains useful (kind of like Ron Brown, Colin Powell, Bin Laden, and Sadam Hussein) to the powers behind the puppets.

But regardless of how genuine and charismatic he or any other pundit may be, they still must work within the "good ol' boy network" (government), which is an institution that is fueled by corruption and conspiracy that has always used minorities and well-meaning personalities in order to galvanize some self-interest, positing Obama to be an ideal “Trojan Horse".

Someone will eventually be in control as President.....but who will control the "Presidency"? There are distinct differences between the two, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner that we, the people, will be able to avert a repeat of the situations and circumstances that the current administration has gotten us into. In other words, more importantly than new Presidents, we need new Precedence.

“So soon as a nation discovers that it holds in the heads and hearts of its individual citizens the vast mine of knowledge, out of which it may build a just government, then, more and more, it calls those citizens to select their rulers and to judge the justice of their acts.” – W.E.B. Du Bois



Tungz