Authored by William Robert Barber

Bipartisan, meaning cooperation, agreement, and compromise as practiced by this nation’s political parties, is definitively a misnomer of delineation. Considering the diametric differing of political ideology, statecraft, and policies, after eight years of Presidents Bush and Obama this polarized right-to-left has had a whipsawed effect on the electors.

And then there’s President Trump, the disrupter: He distinctively points out that Bush and Obama are just partisans on the opposite sides of the same governing establishment. Both from Ivy League pedigree sporting law degrees and the ability to successfully persuade; however, in actuality, both are representing the establishment — one is simply more conservative, the other more progressive.

The administrations of Bush and Obama added to the national debt, both subjected commercial America to more regulations, one invaded Iraq, the other confusingly sleepwalked and wandered about in the Middle East, allowing the very worst of the worst of Jihadist expeditiously procreate.

 Withstanding the significance of the Trump presidency, the Republican capture of legislative function and the defeat of the Democrats have been nullified by the purist within the Republican Party. The Speaker of the House did not manage the process of legislative requirements in a prudent manner; he alienated and divided, confused and befuddled, tried to force the round onto the square: he ignominiously failed. Constitutional governance was forfeited and conveyed into the abyss of what could have been. The concept of convenience underpinned by the believers of this or that have once again defeated the good of common interest. The presenters of policy attested the complicity of incompetence with the receivers; their musings of stupefied arrogance and disregarding ignorance proved destructively proportional in ineffectiveness.

I suggest, Speaker Ryan, recreate and resubmit…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Today’s unfolding events are delivered to us consumers of information by means concurrent and distinct. These events are disproportionately varied in accord to and discordant from ideological determinatives.  In the midst of an aroused 24/7 profit motivated media focused on populating eyeballs to their particular venue, the titillation evoked by the written word has displaced the reporters’ essential: Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Reporters are novelists. When a story is analyzed as “worthy” by the reportage, but the supportive facts prove weak, even distorted, reporters dig deep to justify (within the purview of statutorily compliant deception) a joint-venture of opportuneness with contrivance and — voilà, the “worthy” story is saved.

The perfect example is this contrivance of Russia conspiring with the Trump campaign acolytes to secure Trump’s presidency: There is not a shred of evidence to sustain that charge, nonetheless the Democrats press on simply for the negative effect of such misinformation on the Trump presidency. Of course if our president could stop tweeting nonsense and stupid that might stop him from aiding and abetting his democratic enemies; of course that is obviously asking way-too-much of my president.

Seemingly, promoted by the televised drama of daily news followed by Sunday news specials, the pundit is now a celebrity. Their persuasion is a production. The production of a news show is — with notable exceptions — contingent on the network’s political ideal of the “truth.” The news show’s host usually reflects a venerable person espousing a known perspective. In other words, the viewer, embodied with progressive thought, is comforted by knowing there will be no ideological or truth-telling revelations to contradict closely held beliefs as long as they tune in to the NBC brand. If one is a holder of conservative views, the Hannity at FOX will never let them down. Generally, the viewer requires a reinforcement of preordained perspective. If however, a differing or contrary offering is presented, then in the first cause that contrary offering must be profoundly dissected. If upon dissection the differing is found truthful, then that truth must be slowly pieced into acceptance.

Such is the “slings and arrows” of self-governing. It’s a mess. However, remembering the history of this nation’s tussle with self-governance at the least, the Tories are no longer fighting their rebel brethren and the North is not facing the South at Gettysburg.  

Yes, the battle over the philosophical interpretive of what’s best for the common good is frustrating. The diverse character and differing appreciative perceptions induced by our nation’s varied social fabric is confusing. The concept of self-reliance is waning in direct proportion to our embrace of a socialistic economic system, and from my personal insight, the often out-and-out counter-cognitive of dealing with those that do not agree with me… imagine that!

Self-governing is chaos seeking a bridle…