Reflections From a Murky Pond

It may just be possible that Obama is resigned to being a One-Term President. Most incumbents actually seeking- and having some expectation of attaining reelection do not make public statements about how their families are “not invested” in their continuing in office past the next election, yet that is exactly what Obama has just done.

From AP via Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says his wife and daughters aren’t “invested” in him being president and would have been fine had he decided against running for re-election. But he says they believe in what he’s doing for the country.

Asked about his family’s reaction to his wanting another term, Obama said: “Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, `You know, guys, I want to do something different,’ They’d be fine. They’re not invested in daddy being president or my husband being president.”

Of course, Americans could easily argue that Obama has no need – beyond any that his ego and narcissism might demand – to even attempt reelection, having already accomplished so much of what he set out to do.

It would certainly be an easier and less stressful life for the Obamas if he got out of the White House as soon as was feasible, especially since the more nightmarish components of ObamaCare are set to “go live” in 2014, taking whatever is left of America’s economy down the drain. It be even easier and less stressful them if they got out of the country before then – potentially safer as well.

Personally I’m a traditionalist. I’d suggest that the Obamas move to Mauritania where they could live out their lives in the manner and style that they’ve become accustomed to. 😉

Perhaps it’s just me and the odd way my mind works, but the dichotomy in both legal and societal reaction to blackmail and “investigative journalism” seems quite odd to me. The difference between how we as a society view the two enterprises doesn’t seem to have any real, fact-based reasoning.

Why is Blackmail a crime, a felony in most or all cases, and “investigative journalism,” which is often better described as “muckraking” and does greater perceived harm to the victim an oft-lauded and protected activity?

The Shamed – Might They Have Preferred Blackmail?

Both blackmail and “investigative journalism” are based upon finding damaging and/or embarrassing details about a victim. The only difference is that a blackmailer gives the victim an alternative to being exposed.

So why is the blackmailer vilified and the reporter oft-times lauded?

It can’t be because blackmail causes greater harm to the victim than the muckraker does. Simple economics require that the price asked of the the victim by the blackmailer be less painful than exposure would be. Blackmail, after all, is a consumer driven industry where the victim sets the price based upon his or perceived pain points.

It can’t be because the blackmailer profits from his activities. Journalists, paparazzi, and random individuals with access to “sensitive” information regularly profit from exposing influential or famous people’s various faults, flaws, failings, and peccadilloes.

Nor can I see where or how it could be that blackmail is a crime against the People or State as opposed to being a crime against a Person. Not all, or even most cases of blackmail have involved politicians or businessmen in the context of their jobs and few of those that we know of have involved extorting them to act in certain manners. In point of fact, the exposées much touted by the media have seemingly had far more impact upon corporations and politics, yet they are legal and societally approved of.

It just doesn’t some to make any logical sense, yet I and all who I know are firm in our convictions that blackmail is wrong and must be a crime, whereas “investigative journalism” – or even “tell all,” unapproved biographies – are to be protected as basic rights necessary to our society.

So what would it be like if one took three of DC comics super heroines and set them in Victorian England? Michael Dooney aka ~doonboy has been both talented and kind enough to give us an idea.

Lady Zatanna, The Black Cat, and Super Girl would have looked quite different, but still quite lovely, in the late 19th Century.

Of course my opinion is heavily prejudiced. One of the things I like about the Steampunk meme is the resurgence of the sensibilities and conceits of Victorian fashion.

The theory of Biogenetic Law can be summed up with the phrase, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This is the hypothesis that as an animal develops from embryo to mature adult, it goes through series of morphological stages resembling or representing the successive stages in the the animal’s evolution.

This process has some interesting macro-societal implications. 😛

All Babies are Born Liberals. They are helpless, dependent and do not respect the rights of others, demanding to have their needs met at once. Conservatives grow up!

— Unknown, NC State Republican Convention

H/T to Bill Moore for the quote.

Old Ernst Haeckel may have overplayed the Lamarckian components of his Biogenetic Law theory but it’s pretty clear that he got a lot of it right. The simple fact that people become less Liberal and more Conservative as they mature is evidence to this effect.

It’s a common cry by incumbent politicians during election season – Don’t change horses in mid-stream!

Obama 2012- Don’t Change Horse In Mid-Stream

Of course, when the stream has run dry largely because the incumbents in question redistributed the flow elsewhere the situation – and the worth of these politicians’ cries – is more than a bit different. 😉

When your “horse” is actually a spavined and balky jackass and the stream has run dry it’s time to “trade up” if you can and change horses – and, at this sad point, even “shank’s mare” is a trade up.