As IF Times

link Obama Promises He Will Win Virginia and the Election.

Those that care for this kind of thing will note that the media are ratcheting up for this year’s pivotal U.S. elections.  Accusations and claims upon the character of the respective protagonists are fired like bullets at a Palestinian wedding, which means randomly in the air and mostly harmless. Nevertheless, political spin-meisters from both sides are feverishly attacking each other in a political fight to the death.   The classic barbs are expectedly thrown; liar, cheater, stupid and of course corrupt.  Clearly there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules governing political scuffles.  But calling a politician a liar is pretty lame these days, it would be like calling Michael Moore a slob, it really has no shock value.

There is a lot at stake in this election; it is not a simple Coke vs Pepsi issue of personal preferences.  In the case of the election, choosing one over the other does say much about the value system  of the voter.  As is the case with professional sports teams, fans will be loyal to their side (mostly) regardless of how badly their team fares.  Tribalism is a strong human urge and manifestations of this via sports of all stripes are obvious for all to observe.  I mean seriously, what rational person can be a Leafs fan?  Politics is the same thing.  In the U.S. case, it’s not only about tribal associations, it’s also about money.  Both sides of the political divide will have their die hard adherents.  Regardless of actual performance records, the rabid supporters will champion their side despite any evidence of logic to do so, even to the point of their own negative self interest.  We would not find this in the animal world.  In the animal world, we don’t have the variable of money which can strangely pervert human activity.  So both sides of the political spectrum will have their hard wired supporters.

That leaves the group which the media refers to as, “the independents” , those that have no formal party or ideological affiliation.  This is a myth.  It is impossible not to have an established set of values  based on one’s personal life circumstances.  One cannot be ambivalent about issues concerning personal freedom and self determination, social responsibility, free markets and ability to progress in life.  The linked article describes that Obama promises to win the election.  Of course anything is possible.  His base will certainly be loyal.  But if the “independents” are to be counted upon to support him, we can only conclude that there must be parts of the country which don’t have access to current news.

On the one side, we have a guy who has successfully built up his life and the lives of hundreds of employees via job creation, has held public office and successfully run an Olympics, both without pay and who has experience in running and administering complex businesses.  He is for self determination and the reduction in the scope of government intrusion in people’s lives.  On the other side is a guy who has a murky past, whose supporters are peppered with felons, has never held a job in the private sector and has always nursed at the public teat.  He also nakedly endorses  the philosophy of governments being actively involved in peoples’ lives including what to eat.  If this stark choice between the candidates is a difficult one for the “independents”, we really are in trouble.

While it may have been fashionable to vote for the exotic guy 4 years ago, the passage of time since has shown that like the character Chauncey Gardner in the 1979 film “Being There”, there is no substance to the soaring rhetoric that mesmerized people back then.  Aside from political spin, there have been no achievements, none, made during his term in office which can be pointed to as advancing the plight of the American people.  Quite the contrary;  by any measure, economic, social, legal, international affairs, it has been a dismal and catastrophic 4 years.  So when the President promises that he will win the upcoming election, he is either pathologically delusional or believes the electorate is.

link Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to run away and hide from gunmen | Fox News.

Even border patrol guards have their pride.   The directive from Homeland Security instructing guards to run for it if a gunman happens to confront them while on the job has some guards up in arms…   Luckily, the border guard union is not taking kindly to this new de-fanged role.   If this policy is followed, their job descriptions will likely change from Border Guards to Border Impediments, hardly something to brag about at a bar.  The DHS obviously haven’t thought this through since implementing this new job policy will in fact bring in millions of school crossing guards who can easily replace their overpaid union ranks.  We’ll have Don Knotts clones at every border post.

Most people today acquiesce  to surly and snippy attitudes from border guards on the acknowledgement that they are only doing their jobs to “protect” the public.  Such as the time I was asked by a border/customs officer on why I was going to Hawaii.  We dutifully accept obnoxious attitudes because, after all, they are brave and put their lives on the line every day for the helpless public and presumably are compensated to some degree for this danger.

If the new policy gets put into place, then the “guard” aspect of their job disappears and they may as well be greeters at a Costco; only surly.  Not a lot of jobs will expose you to possible gun violence, but something tells me that if the word “guard” or “officer” is in your job description and you are issued firearms, the risk of being exposed to violence is not just an abstract possibility.

If the Department of Homeland Security is successful in having their way on this issue, imagine how many other professions can be affected by this mindset.  Lifeguards at beaches wouldn’t be obligated to jump into the water to save swimmers in distress.  They would instead phone for backup from the Coast Guard and just yell “help! help!” until they arrive.  The DHS is of course responsible for feeling up grandmothers in wheelchairs, terrorizing 4 year olds and making the travelling public unwitting porn stars during their airport inspections.

As in most inane policy directives that are foisted upon the hapless public, they usually emanate from the mind of a single misguided person.  We don’t know who the genius was who thought up this policy, but he was aided and abetted by others who rubber stamped this idea without pushing back.  But if you think about it, the public has been conditioned for years to accept the dictates of authority regardless of how much it flies in the face of common sense.   How often are we told to “let the police handle it” instead of actively defending our own lives or property?  It’s one thing to neuter the public, it’s another to de-claw those that are supposed to protect the neutered public.   There’s a famous quote, much attributed to George Orwell, but actually by Winston Churchill that comes to mind:

“…We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm…”

If the mindset of the DHS policy holds, forget the beds, start looking for skirts to hide behind.

Update:  I can’t make this stuff up:  Lifeguard fired