Sunday, December 28, 2014

Where's the Revolution

Today's post resulted from these articles regarding Hillary Clinton.

I'm always a little shocked by how gullible the electorate is and has always been. We take everyone at face value. It is an old tradition, or was between gentlemen, that a hand shake was a man's bond. Women always knew that this was a patent lie but we were rarely asked. But it did work to a degree. 

However, there is still this belief in the population that a person in public office should not be questioned, particularly if they belong to one's own party. It is unfortunate that no one investigated the Clintons long before they were elected. I simply mark it up to greasy palms. You grease enough of them and you can cover Mt. Everest. The truth is, that we've grown lazy and complacent with these kind of people. We figure "everyone's doing it" (some of us are too) and so what's the big deal. 

I'm sure there were people in Cuba at one point that really believed that Castro was a wonderful man. There still are. There were people who believe Chavez was a wonderful man. There were those who believed the Russian revolution was a great thing. All of those proved extremely false and devastating assumptions. 

I suspect that true or not, there will be those who will elect such people here. Why? Because ethics, integrity, and honesty are old fashioned ideas and accountability is considered abuse. No one is to be held accountable for their sins in the modern world. It is simply not acceptable to be ethical.

Revolution is just an election away at any time. If we viewed every election as a sort of revolution, we'd have no vested politicians and no chance of one. There would be a reshuffling of the deck every 4 years. 

It is important to keep in mind that real revolution means "change". Beware of those using the word change. What they really mean is revolution and not all revolutions are good, as Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia, to name a few, discovered.


  1. Agreed. We accept responsibility when we spend time selecting the person for whom we vote - and know why we voted for them over everyone else. We lose respect for ourselves - and them - when we don't.

  2. I tend to take these types of stories with a grain of salt, especially when they come from slanted news sites. If Zeifman did in fact fire Clinton as he claims, why did he tell the Sacramento Bee back in 1998 that he did not have the authority to fire her? Or later that same year when Zeifman told radio host Neil Boortz that Clinton was let go as a layoff as the Watergate hearings were winding down. If Clinton's behavior was so bad at the time, why didn't Zeifman move to have her disbarred, which he most certainly could have done. Or could it be that Zeifman wrote one of those tell all books back in 2006 ("Hillary's Abuse of Power) and during the election of 2008, when there was a chance she would have been the Democratic nominee, Zeifman saw a chance to cash in financially.

    1. LOL, well they ALL cash in on everything thing they can get their grubby paws on. There's not a single one on either side of the aisle who wouldn't do the same thing. But... they can cash in all they want if it is the truth. My belief is that regardless of your party (and I think parties are crap) integrity is mandatory when you are a leader who is responsible for the welfare of millions of people.

      Do I think the tattletales are nice people? I don't care. I want to know what these people are doing. I want to know if they have been honest in their business dealings. I don't care about their bedroom antics as long as they keep it in their bedroom. But when it comes to their ethics regarding things that affect me and my country I care a great deal.

      This is why the Snowdens of the world are absolutely necessary. And that's a very sad statement to make. The fact that we'd even need to rely on people with like him to tell us the truth is ludicrous. His actions may put people in danger but are we in any less danger with corrupt lying leaders? No.

  3. I don't begrudge Zeifman for attempting to cash in, it's the American way to make as much money with as little effort as is humanly possible. I am just saying that Zeifman lied, he can't have it both ways, telling one outlet he fired Clinton while telling the other that he didn't have the power to fire her. Mind you the two outlets are completely different, when he said he fired Clinton he was doing an interview with someone who was working on the Herman Cain campaign, when he said he didn't have the authority to fire Clinton he was speaking to the Scripps News service. Switching his story simply to either suit the audience in question or to suit his own pockets makes Zeifman nothing like Snowden.