Yahoo is running a story about Julian Assange, courtesy of Pamela Anderson, once of the sunny beaches of Bay Watch. It is Oscar time in Hollywood; apparently Pamela Anderson doesn’t have much to do here. She is inspecting the sewers in Europe.

According to Anderson, Sweden is progressive. Scandinavians are returning to Viking ways. They are understanding about crimes involving sex. Rape is OK. Assange is rumored to be dating Anderson, who never gave ex-husbands so much time. Assange is innocent! Once a proponent against molesting children, Anderson’s new quest is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Other than committing acts making him a sexual predator in almost every state in the Union, Assange hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2015-16; he joined with the Ruskies to obtain and release emails from the Democratic Party. Every American, Left or Right, knows the email hacking and the release are unAmerican and illegal, except Pamela Anderson. She obviously believes no email hacking occurred; Julian told her so: Everyone has forgotten about the election including Assange’s hacking.

Pamela Anderson should know better, except she may be retarded – an imbecile – a moron – an idiot. Or is Anderson a Democrat so doesn’t remember what happened last week, last month, a year ago? Your choice – publicity or oblivion?



Why did the Democrats lose? Each analyst, columnist and expert reads the results and expresses good points, many of which are found in statistics of the election.

A compelling, overarching reason for the Democratic loss is their static view of the electorate and issues. The Democrats constructed a model, like a model guiding stock market trades. The Democrats enunciated the model and gave it support at every opportunity. The pre-election polls indicated the model was sound; the Democrats were favored.

The model included philosophy as well as philosophy of governing; where to spend money. It included psychology, how to react to things (insults), what to say, how to contact the electorate, etc. The model representing the theory of philosophy and the psychology was imprecise and incomplete. Bless her, Hillary Clinton stuck with the model.

What the model also overlooked was Hillary Clinton’s effectiveness as a candidate. At the beginning of the campaign the candidate and the Democrats knew of her flaws and ingrained behaviors. Hillary is bookish; her speech can be elevated to obscurity and incomprehension – she spoke in complete sentences; her movements and motions before a crowd can seem defensive. Hillary Clinton did improve as a campaigner, but she also lapsed into more familiar ways. There are things – Certainly if talk is in complete sentences, but talk in short sentences. Never say Motor Vehicle; say car. Use the Anglo-Saxon side of the language rather than the French (Latin). The grammar is Anglo-Saxon. Mark Twain also observed, At a dime a word, I never use metropolis when I can use city. [Note Metropolis is used in cartoons today.]

Hillary Clinton also had a public record that was known to the American people. Whether they believed she did some or all the things listed, her ratings on trustworthiness were very low. She never got a positive trustworthy rating, even in comparison to her opponent. She carried that load through the election but lost to another New Yorker whom Americans also did not trust. In the end Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate beaten by another flawed candidate.

Analysts, columnists and experts don’t talk about the best candidates. I am not referring to Bernie Sanders, who was incredibly sincere and seemingly honest in his campaign. He spoke well and had enthusiastic crowds, but the Democrats would have suffered the same fate. Bernie was more to the Left and easily placed there. The Democrats who came to Trump would not have gone elsewhere in large numbers.

A Sanders nomination, along with Trump, would have brought forth a real third party – Michael Bloomberg. He had the revenues, he had the ability, he had the resume, he had the ability and he had conducted polling. He could have taken the middle of America. Second Amendment people complain about him, but in California and especially in Nevada, his local, small-step gun control measures won in referenda. Bloomberg did not run.

The Democrats lost their best choice, Joe Biden. Certainly, he was part of the Obama Administration; he had that baggage. But he likes people and attracts crowds; he seems openly friendly. Despite a long public record, he had no glaring embarrassments to bite him.

Sanders’ supporters believed if Hillary Clinton were dropped or were rejected in the Winter 2016, Bernie would have gotten the nomination. Head to head with Biden, it is likely Sanders would have lost.

This speculation over candidates and each of their strengths is why columnists, analysts and experts forego looking at the Democratic nominee. Nobody wants to believe that Hillary Clinton lost one or two-tenths of a percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin based upon perceptions of her earlier public life. The percentage of the vote lost in each state may be narrower.

Now, reporters, analysts and experts are coming from the woodwork for their year-end analyses. THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENED. In The Big Short, Michael Lewis, quotes a trader who sums up his trade and the after reaction from the financial community:
“I must say that I have been astonished by how many people now say they saw the subprime meltdown, the commodities boom and the fading economy coming…And if they don’t always say it in so many words, they do it by appearing on TV or extending interviews to journalists, stridently projecting their own confidence in what will happen next. And surely, these people would never have the nerve to tell what’s happening next, if they were so horribly wrong on what happened last, right? (p. 246)
Guess what journalists, experts, analysis’s and columnists are doing today, all without doing much thinking, doing no research, doing no analyses and failing to be trustworthy and honest. They’re just moving their mouthes because that’s all these jokers can do!

Looking at the entire election and asking about the substance and method to convey it, plus scrutinizing the candidates. is important. The whole thing did not need changing. Hillary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote; she came close to victory. Democrats now cannot turn off her voters. But the message of the Democratic Party should be more hopeful. For example,
the problem with Obamacare is Bill Clinton is correct: It’s crazy to double costs and cut in half services provided. As costs got worse over the years, the Democratic Party never announced solutions to address the issue. They stuck with the model; they adhered to theory. They worshipped Health Insurance figureheads that might be idolized. No one in Congress proposed anything resembling healthcare – paying for health insurance does not mean one has healthcare. Happily one roadblock is removed in January 2017. Old-timer, Harry Reid was a deceitful, detestful man whose slime trail leads to the flames of Hell.


The improbability this election presented was Trump’s victory after using offensive statements, jests and situations in today’s America. Not only did it seem Trump said everything wrong, but he frequently did everything wrong. Seldom did he say he was sorry but heart-felt apologies were ridiculous. It was obvious that no one believed Trump’s sincerity; they learned later that Trump had done or said something else which was more grossly offensive. And in the end everyone wondered, with the same question: How could this man have become president?

There are two reasons why Americans excused Trump’s language and behavior. In the current culture in words and action, a lot of Trump’s words and actions, are heard and seen everywhere, not just locker rooms. There is an acceptance of them uttering and sensing, hearing and sometimes experiencing. But do people actually engage in those actions, outside of TV? Most Americans don’t like to realize that someone might actually do gross, rude, obscene and criminal acts. Those words and phrases are part of the general vocabulary, confronting people every day. When saying a woman bleeds from her eyes “or wherever,” there has to be Halloween costumes worse than that; there may be more costumes among “undead outfits.” Movies and TV are worse. I’ve seen characters (players) that have no skin – it’s just blood.

The background drumbeat of words, once shocking, are now incorporated into the vernacular as verbalizations or major restatements of society. There is no refinement. It is a greater denigration leading to decadence. Early in life Americans are subject to the torments of personal abuse. Before puberty some girls are being destroyed; some are called sluts by classmates. They are critiqued by body size, brain size (head shape I suppose) and bra size. Many of those comments has been present throughout the post-elementary school experience. Words will be said. Now any infraction raises the cry, bully. Not every statement is one of a bully; the heart and soul of the speaker may not be in it. But no one knows, and Americans must learn that not every one went to the Ivy League and has manners, and took speaking lessons, mastering something George Orwell called newspeak.

Words, meanings and insinuations do carry too far. Being vulgar, boorish, uncouth is not penalized now. Being loud, aggressive and ignorant is accepted. Gentleness, understanding and diplomacy are weaknesses. Firmness, responsibility and social obligations (once known as public virtue) are obsolete. Fact, reason, wisdom and judgment are eschewed. Displays of emotions and drama entertain but fail to substitute for politics – policies, legislation and putting words into action. During the election of 2016 that is what Americans saw, and that is the choice they had:
When people want to give Trump a chance or they claim Trump wasn’t truly elected, it is on these points, his manner of appealing as an entertainer, making emotional appeals and producing phony dramas. That way forward should unsettle all Americans. In our politics we have learned to take concrete steps into the future.

It is unlikely Trump will differ much from Obama. During its beginning months, a sentence of policy emerged from Obama: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is not clear that Trump will abandon his campaigning ways (anymore than Obama did). Americans seem stuck with what is presented to us in a semantic conundrum: “Versions are released for the people from above and can be altered the very next day. There is no reliable criterion of truth apart from what is the declared truth at any moment. Thus, the lie in fact, becomes the truth, or at any rate the distinction between the truth and lies, in the ordinary sense of the words, disappears. This is a great triumph … in the sphere of knowledge: to the extent that it succeeds in demolishing the notion of truth, it cannot be accused of lying.” Volkogonov, Dmitri, Autopsy for an Empire, The Free Press, N.Y. 1998, p. 393.

If I were in the Democratic Party camp and had money, I would spend on facts, reason, judgment and wisdom. I would fund legal research on one issue within the English speaking world: Conflicts of Interest. A couple of thousand law review articles written by summer’s end should provide enough of a foundation. If these facts within Trump’s administration might already present themselves; the Democrats must be totally prepared: Dump a thousand cases on Trump and the Republicans showing a conflict of interest. When the next conflict of interest arises, dump another thousand cases.

Trump owns a so-called luxury hotel in Washington DC. Should any department or agency of the United States government patronize that hotel while Trump is in the Presidency? No. Why? Conflicts of Interest. Democrats should keep a list of who uses that hotel, and what favors and meeting those people get from the Trump administration. And journalists, always short on research and shorter on leg work, will have to be ready. Will anyone step up and review actions of Trump’s actions as he tries to be President and run his businesses. Some of that research should have been done during the 2016 campaign. Trump will claim Executive Privilege, and the Democrats following Obama’s lead should agree, believe nothing should be investigated. Democrats approved of Obama’s claiming Executive Privilege went beyond his person and the White House staff; entire agencies and Departments fell under Executive Privilege protections.

Perhaps, the Democrats should insist a special prosecutor be appointed. Oddly enough, a special prosecutor was the same action Republicans proposed to investigate issues among Democrats. Obama, and the Democrats refused. If Americans want to return to fact, reason, judgment and wisdom, they must start in a place where those traits are prized and used. Otherwise, the country will receive no solace for four years: Language will become more intemperate and more demeaning with Ivy League newspeak, or schoolyard trash-talk.


2016 politics has revealed a candidate using methods of oratory to make himself a hero in the public’s eye. This storyline is easily plotted from two sources: Joseph Campbell’s How-to books and Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Mein Kampf is one of the worst written books by anyone. Heinrich Boell, the German novelist, tells of exercises a school teacher mandated: Rewrite Mein Kampf. In class students reduced the book to one-third its length while preserving its hate and abortional shrills. Historians, politicians and literary persons have spotted one bit of brilliance in Mein. The Mad Mustacher knew how to sway the common people with oratory. A favorite line was, “Making Germany great again.” Mein is an excellent how-to book about persuasive, swaying oratory.

Chose issues or people and say outrageous, impolite, anti-social cliches about each one. Rich guys, bad people, and bad situations, mention them all. Talk like Kim Jong Un, North Korean Leader. When he speaks, he has to threaten war, this year a Sacred War. Claim the words spoken represent reality. Repeat, repeat, repeat, like a broken record; utter childish impulses and label anyone. Accuse anyone who disagrees is opposed to the truth. Hide behind the American flag. Anyone running for President wants the USA to be great in the future, not great once again. Personally attack anyone who mentions inconsistencies, dishonesties and depredations, always the fault and and shame of the orator but now the problem of all Americans. Monopolize the news media, always hot for dispute but lacking independent criticism and fairness, an acceptable result: Push the Orator’s name and recently used cliches. Everyone must follow the new trail.

Americans have never fallen for so simple a tactic as oratory and cliches. They want substance, beyond what they have learned from talk shows: They crave understanding in candidates beyond the use of cliches. The Constitution itself has a Preamble of cliches, but the remainder is meat and potatoes, which must be known, consumed and digested. Will the American people again chose someone in experience who is so uncomfortable and sensitive that he is frozen in office? Will the American people choose someone with a mind oriented to cliches? Or do Americans want someone appreciating the balance of faces affecting political power and who is capable of working within that system and producing results?

The Germans believed the oratory, and that it was communicated by a savior, the Mad Mustacher. He never got more than a third of the vote. Coming to power he dismantled structures of democratic government and quickly made Germany a totalitarian society. That would never happen in the United States. Americans own too many guns.

But some Americans and one group of broadcasters believe the Savior has arrived in the 2016 campaign. Late in 2015 newbie-broadcaster objected to the Savior being labelled a clown. Again and again the show guest repeated “clown,” and the newbie-broadcaster said, “He is not a clown.” On another show a guest said the appeal of the Savior was understandable but the messages were hogwash and shams. The program host decried none of it was hogwash or a sham. Preferably Americans would understand if the show hosts asked the reasons or facts behind the clown, hogwash/sham conclusions. Those broadcasters did not. Americans learned nothing.

What is the source to the incompetent existence allowing journalists and politicians to survive? Joseph Campbell. Let’s the the record straight. Campbell’s learned from Mein Kampf, the Nazis, German philosophy and the Germans. All his books were published after World War Two. Campbell knew Nazis and fascism were not marketable. He said his books had everything to do with myths. Anyone historically knowledgable know the Nazis were big myth resurrectors, and looking for myth, Old Joe C. copied Nazi ideology.

All right, I concede Americans live in an age of myths – Harry Potter, Star Wars, Vampires and the Undead. It’s a scary world, but don’t be deceived.

Old Joe C. was an academic who believed he had discovered a how-to-write-a-compelling story. Hero, make the protagonist a hero. The reader and movie audiences will fawn over him. Old Joe listed the ingredients [elements]. [steps], [manifestations], [parts], [units] and discussed many of them. Other writers have picked up these lists which comprise their interpretation of Old Joe’s work. It is therefore easy to conclude that Old Joe’s books are not well-written (because a lot of other authors make much more money explaining Old Joe myths things).

From the standpoint of literature Old Joe’s work is pure crap. However less refined and less rigorous media like movies and TV, have accept Joe’s methods. The quality and the quantity of each has declined. More frequently the audience is presented with characters in impossibly human situations, parakeets running wild, and deep sea adventures which end in outer space. The players are supposed to work through each scenario: A myth! How does a favorite actors handle it? It does not matter. It’s a myth! Don’t make it real, the myths of reality TV shows.

The American audience has lost the idea and the appreciation that forms of art in TV and movies can reflect human existence on Earth. What is offered to Americans? Rote and routine from Old Joe’s myth’s, hero, savior, everyone will be all right if one follows blindly because no one can ever see a Savior let alone understand speech of an orator, now a mad tyrant.

Indeed, the 2016 campaign one candidate presents his myth fitting Old Joe’s compendium: There have been no claims of his being born in a manger or found floating among the bulrushes. But suppressing underlings and deriding the poor is his stamp, and his greed, extravagance and profligacy are trump cards he loves to play.

Some hero elements used in 2016 are off Old Joe’s list, but indoctrinated, ignorant audiences are ready to overlook oversights and incongruent addenda: Producing far more harm and hardship to thousands of people than the orator has ever had himself. Making misjudgments that cost thousands of people employment. Having a sense of entitlement and privilege feeding the most extreme forms of narcissism and opportunism. A physical inability to portray himself as a human being, but as a piece of plaster of paris statuary on display at a Carnival. An unwillingness to expose himself to danger, hoping surrogates will carry that lead. An imprudent mouth not controlled by temper, judgment or reason. Lies, deceptions and tergiversations are primary communications.

The public relations make for an incoherent, uncogent campaign. Pick an issue out of the blue, and sky is the only common connection it has to Americans. Many of the comments are ill advised, infantile, ignorant or poorly put – make up the words, which ever words meet whim. Sentences don’t have to make sense, just bombastic, revealing emotion, irrationality and the intuition matching that of an ape, pounding the chest, hitting the ground and truly wondering what to do next.

This is 2016, time for Americans to get beyond the oratory, and search for a human being who understands issues beyond cliches.