Stop, look, and LISTEN

When I was in college, I took a course in personal communications, which included a segment on listening. Really listening. That's a skill that's greatly lacking among Democrats and many other politicians.

The first thing I learned -- and it's true -- is that most people don't listen to each other. They're either focused on the question they just posed instead of registering its response, or they're busting with eagerness to get their two cents in the conversation. They hear, but they don't listen.

Listening is indispensable to journalists. You must listen to the response to any question you ask, if only so that you can ask appropriate follow-ups. Watch the very best journalists when they do an interview. They usually very calmly and intently listen to the answer before they rush ahead to the next question.

So, anyway, lots of stuff on the news today about congresscritters being terrorized by their constituents at town hall meetings. It's funny -- I mean "ha-ha" funny. You have these men, mostly, from congress standing in front of a crowd spewing their meaningless talking points like used car salesmen, and the crowds just aren't having any. The voters want to know this and that -- and they've been asking pretty specific questions in most cases. They know what's going on. And usually they have a certain level of rage in their tone of voice.

As the congresscritter unwraps yet another canned answer -- he got Pelosi's memo -- the crowd jeers and shouts him down. A little sick of the b.s., maybe? And all too aware that the guy is just blowing smoke.

The congresscritters are appalled. How dare these peons talk back? They don't appreciate how hard congress works and the binding nature of the promises they've made to The Comrade to "deliver" support. This rabble knows more about the legislative proposals than their representatives do. And this rabble is pissed.

Worst of all, this sass blows to hell the theory that is apparently commonly-held among congresscritters that the general populace is ignorant, uninformed, unsophistcated, and not very bright. The congresscritters don't how to handle this. It's a whole new world for them, and they aren't in charge anymore.

At a meeting in South Austin, Texas, Rep Lloyd Doggett ran for cover. The crowd followed him out to his car in the parking lot, chanting, "Just say no! Just say no!" I believe it was Doggett who complained that these people weren't even from his district. Or possibly he just didn't recognize them as the same ol' lowly citizens and voters.

The Democrat National party responds to this phenomona by claiming it's all a nefarious plot instigated by "you know who." No, I really don't know who. And I'm not hearing the names of any specific people or organizations, except that Dick(head) Durbin, Senate Dem whip, called the town hall people "tea-baggers and birthers," and pretty much blew them off as lunatic fringe.

At the DNC website, they've posted a press release with hyperlinks to hell's-own-cheat-sheet called "Rock the Town Hall," or something like that. It's a PDF file and tells dissenters how to organize to attend a town hall meeting. It advises people to check the congresscritter's voting record, write down specific questions beforehand -- and include facts and figures. Don't ask vague questions. Don't just whine and complain. Keep your questions short and to the point. Spread your companions among the crowd, keep your hands up to be picked to ask a question. By spreading out, they have a more likely chance of asking more questions and they'll look like a majority.

Somehow, the Democrats think this is a hideous plot to overthrow the American way of life. That's only one indication of how little they know about this country.

I looked up the organization that issued the advice sheet. It's at: http://www.rightprinciples.com/ . Take a look. Apparently it's a group of five guys who all have day jobs, although one says he's a retired attorney. They aren't politicians. They're just concerned citizens, and most haven't been politically active before in their lives.

O-o-o-o-h, scary. At least it is if you're trying to defend the Democrat leadership's socialist agenda.

So what do the Democrats plan to do to overcome the public revulsion at socialized medicine? A group of Dem senators had lunch at the White House today to discuss strategies. They were interviewed as they were leaving, and the scene was rather embarrasing. Max Baucus, who I thought had some sense, was all a-tingle at being in The Comrade's holy presence and just went on and on about The Comrade's wonderful style of presenting himself. Sounds like Baucus is in l-u-u-v.

But more seriously, these creeps are once again raising the specter of "reconciliation." That is to say, they'll present a complete bill for vote on the floor, accept no amendments, severely limit debate, and require a straight "yay" or "nay" vote... and a simple majority wins.

In other words, when reason and persuasion fail, f*** the public. Jam it down their throats. Force them to accept it. Once it's law, you can throw them in jail if they refuse to dance to The Comrade's tune.

These people are lower than pond scum, you do realize that?

An interesting anecdote from history:

George Armstrong Custer remains, as far as I know, the youngest man in US history ever to be made a general. It was a field promotion (brevet) and he went back to a more normal rank after the Civil War.

Anyway, he was a very popular guy. Very flambuoyant. He was the most-photographed officer in the Civil War. He also sometimes took reckless and unnecessary risks with his commands, apparently in hopes of promoting his own career.

As an Indian fighter on the Great Plains, he was hunting buffalo one time and shot his horse in the head by accident and had to walk about five miles back to where his command was bivouacked. It's kinda hard to load and fire a rifle when you're on a galloping horse. Custer didn't often let common sense get in the way of his bravado, though.

The fiasco at Little Big Horn is pretty well known. Custer divided his command, sending one group of his men to the far end of an impromptu village made up of several different nations of Indians. The idea was, one bunch of the US cavalry would ride into the village and drive the Indians to the other end... Where Custer and his men would be waiting for them with hot lead and cold steel.

Well, the Indians figured it out. They had better rifles, too -- breech-loading repeaters, which the US government didn't want to spend money on for the cavalry; they figured most of the troopers would only waste more ammunition. After a couple hours or so of pretty heavy combat, Custer's command was wiped out, except for one horse.

The Indians, even when they were fighting amongst themselves, mutilated the bodies of dead enemies. Each tribe left a distinctive mark to show who'd done the damage. One tribe of Sioux cut throats, another slashed thighs. The Cheyenne cut off fingers, and so on. So the bodies of Custer's cavalry were duly mutiliated. They were stripped naked, relieved of their weapons, etc. Except for Custer, or so the legend goes.

They didn't touch Custer's body. Except that the Indian women punctured his ear drums so that he might learn to listen.

By the way, the Sioux, who had a major presence at Little Big Horn, never lost a battle against the US cavalry. Rather, they were starved into submission and dependency and herded onto government-run reservations.