In ancient times courts employed fools and by the Middle Ages the jester was a familiar figure. In Renaissance times, aristocratic households in Britain employed licensed fools or jesters, who sometimes dressed as other servants were dressed, but generally wore a motley (i.e. parti-coloured) coat, hood with ass’s (i.e. donkey) ears or a red-flannel coxcomb and bells. Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool. (Court Jester – The Full Wiki)
American liberals think themselves very smart because they have Jon Stewart and Bill Maher on their side, not realizing that in a state-controlled media there has to pressure-release valve. Stewart takes himself very seriously (as evidenced by his idiotic “Rally for Sanity), and does not understand why he is given seeming free rein. Maher is a little more modest, which I appreciate, but his problem can be summed up with remarks from last night’s show about Obama:
Let’s not forget that $450 billion was cut in the 2010 continuing resolution. Remember the first debt ceiling fight – $200 billion. $960 billion [was taken] out of the budget control .. like that was the debt ceiling. [?] The fiscal cliff deal … $860 billion. $3.6 trillion dollars have been cut, by this president! He’s also cut public service jobs by 750,000. Way more than Bush ever did. The first thing he ever did was a tax cut. You would think the [Tea Party] – what does it stand for? “Taxed Enough Already” – you would think that when the first thing the president did was cut taxes, they would like that.
Keep in mind, Maher is defending Obama!
We have supposedly smart non-comedic punditry (i.e. Ezra Klein, Dan Froomkin) weighing in on the topics of the day. They cannot get their heads out of partisan politics, but even so, I wish they had half the impact of the comedians. Politics is show business. Realpolitik never sees the light of day, and even as the pundits never quite get it, the comedians keep the base satisfied.
The current impasse is Washington is scripted. How do I know this? Because it is Washington. Imagine, if you will, that 30 recalcitrant progressives (are there even that many in the House?) had decided in 2002 that they would block any effort to attack Iraq. Imagine they threatened to shut down the government unless Bush backed down. What would have happened? There would be private meetings. Remember, NSA knows all there is to know about them. Is someone having an affair? Is someone a closet homosexual? Is someone a pedophile? Who knows? NSA knows. Even if they are clean, FBI can easily manufacture something, plant a story, make a scandal.
The House of Representatives does not run the government! Good grief, people. Remember that period 2006 to 2008 where the Democratic-run house went crazy passing really good legislation? Remember what happened to all of that legislation? That’s correct. It all died in the Senate, courtesy of the power of filibuster given the Republicans by the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, who herself likely has no progressive impulses, realized that she was free to please the base because nothing would come of it.
Politics is not surface phenomena. Politics is hidden. We have to think, examine, rethink, doubt everyone and everything. We have to be vigilant citizens.
So the question is: What is really going on with the current “impasse” and government shut-down? I can only consider possibilities, and stand to be corrected both by events playing out and more insightful political minds, but here’s a few possibilities: 
- A distraction. LizFowlercare (aka “Obamacare”) is a bitter pill to swallow. But most media talk surrounds the shutdown, and very little about the crap being offered on the exchanges. (If I hear any talk at all, of course, it is only about premiums, and not coverage.)
- A positioning tool. Obama could have done none of the wonderful things that Maher praised him for above without having positioned himself correctly. The “Tea Party,” for example, was not a natural phenomenon, and arose at the time that LizFowlercare was being stirred into the Jello of public opinion. Such ferocious and irrational opposition was important to passage of the bill. So it might well be that the current standoff is a perception tool to allow Obama to pleasure Maher even more.
- Economic destruction: Even as party leadership knows better, fools are allowed to preach idiotic economics such as government spending being a problem. They know, true leaders do, that shutting down various agencies is a damper on activity and will eventually hurt everyone deeply. If they know this and are letting it happen, then I think it safe to assume that they want yet more suffering. To what end? I can only speculate, but it’s been apparent since Reagan took office that the New Deal was under attack. Obama is the latest weapon. If economic activity is diminished, tax collections suffer, then Obama is positioned yet again to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and every other practical program of benefit to ordinary people.
The Tea Party made him do it, you see.
Politics should not be left to an uninformed and guileless public, especially those diddled on a higher level by the Court Jesters of the left. As Ralph Nader said so many years ago, “If you don’t do politics, politicians will do you.”
You’re being done, folks.
Piece of Mindful 
Here’s the proof Mark. Obama is a closeted Tea Partier.
LikeLike
I cannot deal with someone who deals in politics on your level. OK?
LikeLike
Just trying to help you out Mark.
LikeLike
Why do you think public remarks by any politician have any importance?
LikeLike
Actions do speak louder than words.
Like closing veteran war memorials.
LikeLike
Never let it be said that you could be manipulated by a symbol. Never happens. Not to you boyo.
LikeLike
Like videos of airliners crashing into buildings?
LikeLike
Er, uh, Swede … Only one of us thinks that was real. That would be the one who don’t think so good.
LikeLike
Realpolitik never sees the light of day
You keep saying this kind of stuff, and I keep asking you that if this is the case, then tell me who is REALLY running things, so I can petition them to fix some crappy things out here, like no logging on federal forests.
shutting down various agencies is a damper on activity and will eventually hurt everyone deeply
I’m trying to decide who is more evil: Libertarians, who argue that any central planning is evil; or you, who thinks that any governmental activity is legitimate economic activity.
LikeLike
Part one, I do not know. Power does not reveal itself in public, and only acts through operatives. I suggest you follow the money.
Part two is classic black/white thinking. What you say of libertarians is not true as I have interacted with them, and your statement about me is false.
LikeLike
Power does not reveal itself in public…follow the money
Not really a good reply. The actors to whom you allude should be a discoverable entity. If not, I suspect you are imagining an edifice to explain the world in an emotionally satisfactory way.
What you say of libertarians is not true..
You are retreating into legalism here. You know what I mean.
You assert that federal spending by the usual suspects here can generate economic growth. Maybe so, but maybe not. There is a lot of things involved here, but in general I don’t see a correlation between federal spending and economic growth.
LikeLike
I do not know who did 9/11. I doubt most people in government do more than suspect this or that person as having a small part. But as Bush rode on Air Force one that day, they received a message that “angel is next.” “Angel” is AF1. The message contained secret nuclear launch codes so that the executive branch would know that the threat was credible and that an internal coup d’état was underway. Later that day, they surrendered. I do not know who the nameless people behind Angel Is Next are, but they are there, Fred.
How can I know who power is when power does not want to be known? But if I see the executive tripping over itself to attack Syria with evidence that can only be called ludicrous, I know that Angel is Next is still there. It was a coup d’état. Power is there and does not reveal itself. In domestic politics, power does not show its hand. You have to analyze, follow the money, engage in conjecture, and above all, not trust anyone.
I’ve written about this ad nauseum over the years. You cannot understand politics unless you understand how power works. It is force, it is money, murder, bribes, entrapment, eavesdropping, false friends … For the general public, mere diddling with images and illusions. Persuasion plays only a minor role.
Your assumptions that taxation is a negative and that federal spending is counter or non-productive could use a little honest inspection. I think your whole outlook is wrong-headed.
LikeLike
Link for above I need to up my nerd game.
LikeLike
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/angel_is_next.html"<Seems to me the evidence for "angel" amounting to anything is flimsy. More like anxiety over a misunderstood relay. You are prone to spinning tangential remarks and events into machinations of hidden forces backed by “force, money, murder, bribes, entrapment, eavesdropping, and false friends.”
I don’t know everything, and I’ll consider your point of view, but the nature and lines of evidence you push are pretty scant. Your whole schtick here, that there is omnipotent power that hides itself except for a few slips that only a priesthood of Tomato Guys can interpret, is pretty specious. That Santa Claus exists is still on the table in this milieu: he’s just good at covering his tracks and intimidating witnesses.
You are anxious to socialize health care; and commerce in general; but doesn’t this hand more power, or possible power, to the evil-doers you keep telling us inhabit the corridors of these large groups? Why not advocate for smaller, more transparent organizations of our affairs?
You rail against those who don’t see “the truth, the way, and the light”, but you don’t have that much commitment to the truth. You pretty much follow political correctness: feminism good, minority good, homosexual good, Whitey bad. When I’ve pressed you about biological differences between people/ethnies/races that might have implications for public policy, you say “I’m not going to go there. It just sets it up so people get their feelings hurt and nothing good comes of it.” So in such matter you demur, and say “everyone is equal”; “it’s all luck that separates the have from the have-nots”; “early childhood intervention will close education gaps.” That doesn’t sound like someone committed to the unvarnished truth. Just keep living around Boulder et al.
Your assumptions that taxation is a negative and that federal spending is counter or non-productive could use a little honest inspection.
Not my take. SOME taxation is positive; SOME spending is productive. Not all of it.
LikeLike
Every “myth” concerning 9/11 has a debunking website, the object to intercept you before you actually go look at the evidence, which usually turns heads. That you instantly went to a myth site means you have not examined the evidence. Report back when you do.
Evidence is abundant, by the way, on every detail of that day. It’s hard to find anything int the offical story that has strong evidential backing as opposed to reliance on authority figures and TV news as reality. As Dr. Wood reminds us, people generally are not good at solving problems, but beyond that are subject to group-think, and even if they confront evidence as so frightened by the implications that they immediately look away, often resort to ridicule.
I suggest you go to Tarpley directly, avoiding second-hand reporting about what he said. He’s got volumes, and AIN is only one small part.*(PS: The closer to that actual event, the more likely that someone is giving an honest opinion, as the filters have not yet resettled.)
I am anxious to socialize health care, as that’s a system that is proven to work well enough that it is deeply embedded wherever in use, never dislodged due to popularity. Canadians will tell you they are unhappy with their health care system in many ways. But they do not want ours. Period.
There are evil people indeed, and remember that power cedes to those who want it, and not those who are not willing to fight to get it. So by definition, good people who do not desire power do not have it.
Experience has taught us that policy differences based on ethnicity, race, sex or sexual preference lead to very bad outcomes. Can you see why I want to avoid such talk? It’s not that there are not differences, but rather what happens when people in power make policy based on those differences.
Your last statement is vague enough to serve everyone, and is therefore useless.
LikeLike
I started with Tarpley and found it intriguing. But how does it stand up to scrutiny? You just can’t suggest alternatives and expect uncritical acceptance.
I don’t want to get emotionally invested in the official story, but I’m nonplussed by the counter points. I’ve read some, I think enough to be fair, and what I’ve seen is people with scant technical background protesting too much.
Experience has taught us that policy differences based on ethnicity, race, sex or sexual preference lead to very bad outcomes.
Dude, look around. Much of what passes for public policy is dishing out this and that based on race, sex, and ethnicity. I’m not telling everyone to join the Klan, but I’d like to see a little more honesty in public debates. **As Dr. Wood reminds us, people generally are not good at solving problems, and beyond that they are subject to group-think. Even if they are confronted by evidence, they are so frightened by the implications that they immediately look away and often resort to ridicule.** If people of self proclaimed independent thought are cowed, can we consider ourselves on any kind of a good path into the future? Others are not so squeamish.
LikeLike
You a logger, Fredddy? tee hee. SO, you actually think we can cut our way out of our economic woes? Geez, that hilarious. You’re kinda stuck in the seventies mode, dude.
LikeLike
[They are not “teatards,” Larry, but rather “Tea Party. If you want to post here, you must write understandably and avoid those stupid nicknames. Try again please. ]
LikeLike
Calm down, Larry. Fred is a regular here and is a thoughtful guy. If you have an argument, state it, but that is nothing like one.
LikeLike