Prospects for a Politcal Loose Nuke

While the Democratic primaries are weeks from being over at this writing, the prospect the election and caucus outcomes that remain will resolve the nomination for the Party is virtually nil. For the young, that is anyone alive since the MSM have homogenized our nation into a quasi-monolithic political entity, albeit with two "parties" to represent our "diverse" differences, this prospect, that there might remain a degree of indecision about the outcome until the convention in Denver in August of 2008, may feel unnerving.

In the end there can really be only one of two outcomes. Either Barack Obama will face John McCain for the office of President, or Hillary Clinton will do that. It is the strategic prospects for each that require consideration by the Democrats, and in particular, the Super-Delegates who are likely to face the decision which candidate deserves the nomination, and more importantly, which candidate can deliver the Nation the stated objectives of their personal candidacy and the Party Platform.

For today, I will conjecture on the prospect of Clinton returning to the White House. Not Hillary by election, but Bill, on her coat tails, or would it be proper to describe them as "apron strings"?

Many Hillary supporters discount any concerns about him returning to the White House because they are truly more enamored of Bill than of Hillary. It is his return they seek, and a restoration of what they believe was the last period of conscientious governance over our Nation. They yearn for the 1990's once again, and for the opportunity to replay the "9th Inning" again. Hillary's campaign alludes to such a prospect, albeit cautiously.

Others in her camp contend that she deserves to run, and stand on her own merits, and be elevated to the office without any consideration whatsoever about Bill being her spouse. It makes no difference in their minds, and connotes sexist bigotry toward her, they argue, to concern ourselves with his effect upon her candidacy, or the prospects of her presidency.

Both notions are naive, and each is fraught with the risk of self-delusion in defiance of simple political pragmatism. The graver concerns, however, come of Bill Clinton's engagements since leaving office, as a speaker, an investor, a partner in various businesses, and as a paid lobbyist.

The number of hypotheticals that can be raised from such a person being spouse to the President of the United States are nearly infinite in number. The law, it should be noted, has never been written which would address many of the possible legal concerns.

For example, if a legal case were brought, that by accepting fees for supporting a foreign entity's interests, say Colombia, that the First Gentleman had been paid a fee, say $ 800,000, which then had accrued to the joint interest of the President, Hillary, ... would she be able to testify against him if some impropriety or conflict of interest were to be alleged against him, ... or against her? Would she be able to claim immunity against testifying against him as his wife?

At a more basic level, should his access to the White House and his wife's ear, particularly in light of his previous occupancy of the office, preclude him from continuing to speak in public on governmental issues, and being paid to do so? Would this, or could this, continuing occupation as a speaker for personal gain, be seen as a conflict of interest in his role as spouse to the President? Should it be left at the door to the White House if his wife is elected, ... and remain out of bounds until she has left office? I would argue it should. Bill would argue, ... I presume at $ 150,000 an hour, that he should go his merry way throughout the coming administration and be allowed to speak anywhere, and at any price, about almost anything.

I believe it is these sort of heady and knotty issues which would inevitably arise in a second Clinton White House. I've not heard anyone raise them publicly. I hope we don't wait until November to ask them for the first time in a political forum of some kind!

My barber, Sal, had more practical concerns about the Clintons coming back when we spoke earlier today. He wondered whether the Clintons would "steal more stuff from the White House when they leave office again the next time"! My guess is, come November, ... that will sway his thinking even more than some convoluted concern I might bring up about man and wife, and Common Law, and honoraria.

It is strange what drives politics in the end. The experience of power in office seems to drive a sense of almost unlimited entitlement. "Pay me what I ask, and I will tell you what I know!" Or maybe a quiet conversation with staff member to " ... slip that ashtray with the Presidential Seal into that box over there." Strange indeed!

Wal-Mart and Freddy Krueger

While I do have a contract with my employer, I have no contract with Wal-Mart to purchase from them, nor even to visit their stores.

Corporate defenders argue that poor Wal-Mart was subject to terms of their coverage contract with their "health insurance company". Really? Perhaps this mindless behemoth of retailing could stand up for its employees and tell their (many) insurers that they could "shove" the terms of their contract, ... or even spot their former employee the $ 470,000 the suit sought to recover. After all, it was all about the money from the beginning as far as the insurance company was concerned.

In the end, the taxpayer covers Wal-Mart's sad butt on this one, ... for their former employee falls onto the MedicAid rolls. I am pleased to pay taxes to care and provide for their former employee since they would not. Who made out in their deal? The insurance company and Wal-Mart? No, ... for Wal-Mart lost customers permanently, as you can read above. How many more new customers will Wal-Mart need to replace us in a deteriorating economy? Or do you think you will become the Woolworth's of the coming depression? Be careful, Wal-Mart, what you wish for!

Who was the insurer? Was there a contractual provision to recover costs paid, ... or is this just another specious argument to defend a corporate misdeed? "Misdeed"?, you Wal-Mart shareholders might screech, as if assaulting a corporation is akin to the permanent bodily injuries sustained by this woman, this mother.

In the end, a corporation is a human invention created solely to avoid the inconvenience of having a soul. For Mankind to maintain a semblence of control over its existence, it must, on occasion, take these mindless devices to the precipice, and throw them into the abyss. The "chapters", "11", "13", and so forth, read like Freddy Krueger novels, and allow corporations to be reincarnated in ways we mortals can only envy.

I've owned a corporation, worked for them, and invested in them. They are harder to kill than roaches, and spread more misery among us than the plague. Our fascination in them is based upon the greedy notion that if we strip our conscience from its "unholy" effect upon our investment dollars, ... we will succeed where our conscience would otherwise fail us. We will grow wealthy, and excuse any ill-gotten profits by this cognitive dissociation we call "the corporation". What a sick premise for how we should interact upon the Earth with one another.

I will buy from my local hardware store, ... the one I worked for as a kid. I will buy from my locally owned dairy and convenience store. I'll shop smaller and wiser, ... not "big box". I'll shop local and live local.

Wal-Mart will never know I am gone, for I was never there. But in the depths of their market research department, there is a database swelling with a number of American Consumers whom they can not touch, ... not with their schmooze, nor advertising, nor public relations. They know, ... somewhere in the bowels of the corporate offices in Benton, Arkansas, ... that some of us feel closer to this brain-damaged mother of a dead soldier, ... than we do to our 401K and 403B investments in their corporation. And that, ... in the end, will cost Wal-Mart Billions of dollars. Because, you see, ... I'd rather rather pay taxes and rest assured this mother is cared for, than buy from Wal-Mart, knowing they did not give a damn!

In the end, I was not born to fuel Wal-Mart's profits, ... but to understand what it means to have a friend, a mother, or a neighbor need my help. In the midst of an economic slump, ... a "recession", ... or whatever we find ourselves in, ... it is all the more important that I side with people, ... and not corporations. We are, you see, at the precipice again. Every hand I have held or shaken is worth far more to me than a slip of paper granting me a "share" in a corporation. No matter whjat the shares traded for today, ... they are always worth less than the people behind the corporate veil.

When did we forget that?