Honey Our Cheeses, please

If the world had to go without honey -- I mean, as in a hypothetical pollster asking a for-instance question -- most people would likely shrug, "Oh, that's too bad." Ask the same of the disappearances of their cheeses, however, and we'd see an avalanche of verbal horrors that might have frightened Wes Craven into an earlier grave.

People love their cheeses. Particularly, it seems, the well-off ... people and cheese types, I mean. The more exotic and tangy or deep and musky, the more the better. But what of the honeys? There are literally hundreds of kinds of the sticky sweet variations from nearly every part of the planet, ranging from pure white to nearly pitch black.

Yet, we merely grunt at the loss of a little of the gold.

And the reason: Because honey is, generically and globally speaking, the product of simplicity and of the poor. While cheeses, on the other hand ... well ... they so nicely seem to represent a diversity of the slices of the good lives of those who savor and favor the gourmet niceties of the world.

Which gets us back to the point of no panic for the loss of honeys (and the bees). It seems we think we can live with sugar or corn syrup. But without the cheeses of the fortunate?

What would happen, after all, if the nectar of the greens went away and we could no longer enjoy the molding of the ... hey ... wait a minute ... the nectar of the greens? Isn't that what makes the honeys?

Well, yes, of course, it is. But it is also true for the cheeses. Think about it. In reality, honeys and cheeses are made out of the same basic ingredients, the juices of various plants and flowers. What results in the differences in their substance are the efforts of the beasts and the process that make them into our goodies.

Cow lactations (though other mammals too) transformed chemically with the help of heat and humans, in the company of a panoply of temperate molds, turns milk into the smoldering cauldrons of what eventually dries and hardens into cheese. But for honeys, the magic is in the digestive steadiness of the bees and their nearly OCD infatuation with storing their sugary yumminess in a sterile and outrageously clean environment -- a capacity that makes them useful to save lives, heal wounds and pretty much last forever.

Which means if we pair them as belonging together, wouldn't we get closer to what could or should be happening? If we got the rich and the poor consumers of each to come together, might not we create an environment of consumption that favors both and brings more resources to bear for both?

In many countries that are struggling with economic and natural disasters, bees are saving forested areas and provide income to individuals who desperately need assistance. And cheesemaking is rescuing small farms and local harvestings.

But why should they do that? Suffer or thrive apart?

In a hypothetical question, after all, I ask you: Who the hell wouldn't love more and affordable pairings of the finest of honeys and cheeses from 'round the planet?

Honey my cheese, please.

Black is the New Political Happy Color

Blazing a Bright Trail: Personally, either Hillary or Bernie would please me. She's not yet fired up and his visions aren't broad enough, but their foundations are solid though I've made it clear that I believe #WomanPresidentMatters.

Which is why my message remains sound. They need to stop planning and thinking and strategizing privately as if what matters are their secret goals. Instead, they need to openly huddle around ideas that grow what Obama has already done and say to themselves, "What would a black president do?"

Black is the new happy color in politics and change agents need to wear it proudly.

Seems trite and borderline offensive if you react emotionally, but not if you give it a bit of consideration. Having been blocked from using the full presidential capacities of his office, Obama rode out the game of niceness until he was forced to say enough: "we have to do what is right." And in so doing, he turned to his grounding and began his executive initiatives that have lit the way toward bringing core justices into the open -- which, of course, is exactly what is causing conservatarians to be so disoriented that they actually believe the glowing White Trump is a savior.

As such, the smart path either Hillary or Sanders needs to "Bern" has to be one that continues what their predecessor started. They can readily blaze and expand the same old trail comfortable all while steadying the course the black guy saw and charted successfully. History is going to show that Obama did well on many fronts.

For an avowed Democratic Socialist or the first female Commander-in-Chief to deviate from these steps in favor of building strategies just to call them their own does a disservice to the heart of Obama's efforts. Plus, such traditional approaches would play all the more into the hands of the opponents who will try to use all types of corporate tactics to derail their more solitary struggles.

If either allows this, then they would be culpable in pushing the black guy deeper back into the bus of progress from which he escaped. On every front, black is the Democrat's happy color! Take pride in that.

My Shot at Gun Change

I was approached -- some might say confronted -- in my Twitterverse the other day about gunsense. What would I do, Mr. Smarty Pants, communist-loving, anti-freedom monster who has no respect for the misdeeds of the past? How would I go about taking away all the guns ... I mean, it's not the NRA's fault ... people die every day in Chicago!

Which was essentially the gist of their ramblings. But it got me thinking. I haven't really seen anyone planning out a multi-part strategy for ridding the nation and our enforcement sectors of the guns they really, really, really don't need and shouldn't have. So while I answered off the cuff, in retrospect, I kind of like the tendencies in my brain fart.

So here's my take on how to set our culture on the course of gun change:

PART 1: Start by doubling the size of America's law enforcement community. Yes, that's what I said. Double the size of America's law enforcement troops.

But the fine print is important; the caveat has to be that these officers would only be armed with the monitoring technology to watch what they do, and would then be given access to a growing and major investment of the armaments for quality community and neighborhood empowerment.

For each officer on the street with a gun, another mirrors him (or her) with the wisdom of other tactics.

PART 2: See, without guns, these officers would be forced to use and showcase the core ideas of protecting and serving the citizenry. In so doing, they would readily demonstrate to the troops who remain married to the idea that they are more than happy to pry guns away from someone else's cold, dead fingers, that there is a better way.

And low and behold, very soon it will be possible to begin phasing out the Wild West officers, replacing them with justice lovers who glow with the authority of respect, not with the fear of guns.

PART 3: For good measure, however, I would add one more element. We have proven that quality, interesting social media and commercial messages work. So I would get corporate America to see the wisdom of the ways that they can play to send out the message to everyone that guns are about as far from cool as possible.

And presto-chango: We've fixed an entire culture without so much as giving up a core freedom.

Your move gun buddies. Show me the selfie perspective you have on what it will take to fix this messed up part of the American society.

Don't Tax, Don't Pump

PBO DOES THE O BUSINESS JUSTICE: President Obama has effectively driven a stake through the heart of the oil creatures. What’s all the more impressive -- and what I believe may become the heart of his legacy -- is that he did so relatively quietly and without lots of squirming and kicking. 

Similarly to the way that he executed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell changes that have fundamentally improved the military (that’s creepy to say!), the president has issued orders and played out his legislative cards so that our culture is moving away from petroleum consumption towards alternative fuel sources -- as if we’ve accepted that there are all types of viable energy orientations we aren’t afraid to share a bunk with.

This is justice doing in action. Well done, Mr. President.  

The extraordinary accomplishments in this field, as with his directives toward equality on many fronts, weren’t cut out of oily whole cloth. Many helped lay the groundwork over the years, preparing the pump to disappear.

But knowing when to say enough, when to lay down one’s well of treasure so as to get away with it almost noiselessly is good leadership; knowing how to do it without causing the gushers of anxiety that others expect when they are forced to shower naked next to their enemy … that’s hella wella impressive drilling for success.

Go read a book called Blessed Unrest. I’ll let you get what you get from it, then, if anyone asks, I’ll happily give you my take on what it means and why it lead us to where we are, where we should be, and even all the more where we could be in the forthcoming decade. Or at least over the course of the next nine years, right, Madam President?

#WomanPresidentMatters

Progressives fall into as many traps as other political enthusiasts, even those they (we) don't love so much. This was my point in my last posting about how Opposites Distract. You can feel The Bern (or the Sand) of Senator Sanders and of The DonDon Trump, but among wildly different outlier crowds. But like it or not, both crowds are outliers and need to be considered that way. Trump's are unreasonable; The Sand's are not.

Which is why it isn't acceptable for us to let get lost in the shuffle the fact that being a female president likely matters; matters a lot.

As I was arguing about this in my Twitterverse, the New York Times came out with a piece about the momentum to put a woman in charge of the global UN establishment. Women do things differently, regardless of other factors like their policy inclinations. And the world needs a different, more gender-sensitive perspective.

So why not the same for The Hill(ary)? Arguably, President Obama was doubly challenged by his foolish haters because of what he wanted to do AND because of the color/shade of his skin. They built a massive, systemic wall of opposition to force him back because he is a Black guy who carries all that means in reality with him.

Color, for people of color, cannot be ignored no matter what us "white folks" wish for. Doing so erases the awareness they struggle with across their lives. The same is true for gender. Men or women cannot wish gender into oblivion.

Unfortunately, those feeling The Bern of Sanders are forgetting this and need to consider it seriously. As great as he is, he is less likely to be selected as the party nominee than Trump is to lead the crazy folks! And though I applaud the enthusiasm of the B men and women, I would rather that energy be directed toward forcing all of our best resources together into one campaign aimed SPECIFICALLY to continuing what President Obama, as a Black president, started.

Remember, technically, one person has to be President and one VP; and they have various benefits and obligations. But the leadership team can be a team, a marriage. And nothing would stop that gathering from having an awesome team of its own who advice (without consent) on directions.

If The Hill and The Bern do this, we all win and we do it with respect to the important factors that shape great results.

But the important thing to remember is that, like The Hill or not, this thinking and acting outside of the election boxes cannot be done by Hillary alone or by her friends or funders. It needs to be a strategy undertaken by the army of women who see its value. They then become the power that keep the leaders heading in the "feminine" ways.

This logic is so clear that, to be honest, I didn't think it needed to be debated by progressives (Social Democrats or otherwise). Sadly, the #BlackLivesMatter confrontations with patterns of prejudice sent signals that women should be reading for the same reasons. Black lives are impacted more horribly than are white ones across the socio-economic spectrum. Women live through similar blockades of their own, and we as collective allies ought to see this -- see those troubles coming -- and fight them, not the vicious anti-Hill, anti-women tactics that further get in the way.

If it's good enough for there to be a world of momentum to have a woman lead the UN, there should be ten times more momentum to recognize that an American #WomanPresidentMatters. With respect, Senator Bernie, burn up the VP slot as an ally to a gender title wave, don't pretend it isn't there. And Joe: Don't run. Be part of the gender team for a new genderation!

NOTE TO TWITTER FOES: This is not the detailed piece I promised, more of another version of my argument. My full response is in the works in another format, but I'll share.

ObamaDare -- The Doctrine of the Ranger Ladies

If I’m right about what will be the Obama Doctrine once he’s given up on us, the inclusion of women into combat will occur by November, regardless of whether the leadership of the forces agrees or not. The Lady Rangers will become all they deserve to be. And it will be a huge symbolic reflection of the most important decisions he’s made to date. His initiative is to change the American fighting strategy from the inside moving out, and I agree with him.

Rather than ending the wars and conflicts the US is involved in -- and, out of technological necessity, evolving into drone tactics -- he is opting to fix the internal injustices of the machines behind our wars. If he can do that by installing/instilling equality and interpersonal humanity into the ranks, the armed troops of the future will be better than they are today. And we may no longer have to use the  “Axis of Evil” mentality that has driven the world against us everywhere (i.e., terror, anti-Americanism).

By daring to question and force operational changes, Obama started massive transformations of ideology inside the rigid male universe of fighting. But he couldn’t do that and give away all his chips by also unilaterally ceasing the wars that Reagan started and Bush, out of ill informed bravado, exacerbated. So rather than ordering a wholesale end of hostilities (and closing Gitmo, etc.), he traded that authority for other forms of compliance -- including letting women, LGBT, gender justice inside.

Obama coulda, woulda, perhaps shoulda done it differently in a perfect, dictatorial world. Since he couldn’t, he went for a tradeoff, accepting a philosophical shift first. Having achieved that, his legacy will be sound and -- with any luck -- the next, female Commander-in-Chief will have a foundation to correct the damage done by decades of foolish old-fashion war.

In selecting this route, Obama required that we continue for too long the hurt that is still in place. I think the Iran agreement is a logical extension of his ObamaDares ideas. Nuclear war, after all, is a dead concept. It’s better to build better soldier systems for future conflicts, even at the cost of keeping in place the errors of the past.

The Trump vs The Sand - Opposites Distract

They can deny as they will, but Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump share many commonalities. They are both outliers looking to capitalize on numerous systemic weaknesses.

RE THE TRUMPSTER: I personally think Trump is unworthy of his glorification; and, I trust, time will eliminate him from realistic consideration. But regardless, he does reflect something of importance: bone-shaking conservative fear. Just as with Reality TV, he reflects the assumption that the world can be as comforting and simple as many have come to believe it can be -- something they learned in school and have had reinforced from our culture's celebration of thoughtlessness.

The fact that technology has transmogrified (shape-shifted) this juvenile optimism right out from under them leaves them uncertain, worried, wanting easy answers. Donald Trump offers a false sense of confidence that not all is lost, that the good old days of racial, gender, and global understanding (White, US, men first) will return, though in their minds they likely will be ablt to regain their anchor without giving up on the fun shit the virtual universe offers for blowing up evils.

RE THE SANDERS: Sanders, on the other hand, offers the promises of a collective that looks forward and sees cherished ideals warping to within reach. Digital connectivity, data gathering, interactive awesomeness, global visioning: these realities are coming into focus, being usable, and affirming expectations. Their easily upgraded promises are turning out to be very damaging to conservatarian beliefs. The future is progressive; and it has very little to do with many of the foundational beliefs mom and dad and our founders lead us to expect. Which is good, exciting, inspirational. And which is why so many people have taken to jumping on board the good-ship Bernie without deep consideration to what his major changes will require.

Personally, I love Bernie. But more I love the reality that Hillary should be the presidential candidate and Bernie the Second Lady. There has been little leadership as influential as the hiring of a Black Commander- and Administrator-in-Chief, and the same will likely happen if The Hill takes over for two terms. Imagine what can result from the fact that, if she wins and wins again, an entire American generation will have been raised to voterhood without living under a white, male leader?

Both The Sand and The Hill should be stating what they are going to do to move the good the O has done forard. This I would love because it would not only feed the fear of the Trumpeters but nurture the opportunities that the Sanderites revel in. And we can hardly ask for more than that form any US election.