The Wolf, The Bureaucrat And The Sheep And The Cult Of Losers

In my hockey pool there's a tendency for some to divide the pool into two types of people: The predator and prey. The naif and the savvy. The proletariat and the industrialist. Winners and losers.

Never mind that one man's perception is another man's realism. All trades and dealings are reduced to a "you got screwed or duped by a sharper knife in the drawer."

Wolf: Growl. 
Bureaucrat: Now, now. Let's see. Hm. *Scratches head*
Sheep: Baaah, baaah.

It's all bull shit of course. One man's perception is another man's realism. Each operates according to his own needs and wants. It's a fluid process not easily defined in concrete terms. One guy may not understand the deal between to poolsters but that's really none of his business. He can comment but can't profess to know what was best for either side or "what he would have done" because he's not privy to the private circumstances of the parties involved. It's called free-will and free enterprise. Either you believe in it or you don't.

Through the pool, I can see how the tendency to over-regulate or slow down the successful makes its way through public policy. It's always in "the best interest of" and where there's an absence of rules, accusations of not operating "within in the spirit of the rules" can always be used. Oh Lord do we argue! Better that than bludgeoning creative juices through more policies. The pool rules are already three pages long. I haven't read it in seven years.

Again. It's normal but all bull shit. The pool has two choices. Either it appoints a czar to overlook every controversial or non-controversial deal to which point it no longer is a free system or it faces the warts human activity has through free will.

This notion of "play nice" is code for "I should have thought of that" or "play by my rules" or "I don't like your methods and you should follow my example."

Bull shit. Of course.

I hate whiners as most of you know. In sports and politics especially. Nothing grates me more than a politician expecting to be "done right by." No one twisted their effen arms to serve the public. In American politics, Clinton and Bush often complained about mistreatment at the hands of the press. Obama has taken this whining to new, dizzying heights. He keeps going at this pace and he'll start seeing conspiracies in everything.

There's a certain, "why can't they see it my way" attitude to these guys that's annoyingly pathetic. Here in Canada, we apply "the play nice" tag to Harper. All of a sudden, this guy has to play according to rules set forth by others. A twisted logic of "yeah, well you have to govern for the 66% who didn't vote for you" mentality grips the mind set.

It seems we're not allowed to lose anymore. Or put another way, we've become sore losers. Either because we're so arrogant to the point of disbelief when we lose or we literally believe people to be dumb.

Take Fox News. Fox isn't just winning the network battle; they're kicking everyone's ass. The way I see its rise is as a symbol of what's going on around us. People simply have tuned out to the message sent out by other media outlets. The people don't believe them to be "centrist" as they claim to be. When a major anchorperson like Katie Couric still harps on the "I can see Russia from my house" line, it pretty much summarizes her philosophical capabilities.The only comeback liberals can muster against it is A) it's not a real news organization B) they wouldn't stoop to Fox's level (see "play nice" above) and C) people are stupid for following Fox - see the "predator and prey" logic above. In other words, the American people are intellectually weak enough to be duped by a news network.

Politicians do the same crap. Notice how Obama suavely has set up the narrative to make it look as though big business (business in general) to be the enemy of the people. Why does it have to be insurance companies versus the people to push forth health reform? If you polarize to make something whole, won't it prove a mirage?

Speaking of Sarah Palin. I don't think she's Presidential material. Not even close. She's not conservative. She's a populist ruffian. I like her and all but really, she's not fit to lead the GOP. However, I do think people are fools to dismiss her because I think she represents a backlash in American society that is real. The GOP can't let her go off on a third ticket. That's why it behooves them to absorb the moderate portions of the Tea Party into the Republican fray. I know hard conservatives loathe the "Big tent" theory, but if they want the Democrats out, that's the best way to do it. Hard conservatives have little tolerance for RINO's, however, I don't think their outlook has enough votes in their pockets.

Personally, I think, (in a larger sense) down the road, either a 1984 type of government will prevail (green police are on their way!) or a "Churchillian" conservative/libertarian renaissance will take place. In whatever form it can't go on the way it is.