Transparent : (adj.) capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material (2)Easily seen through or detected; obvious; (3) Free from guile; candid or open.
Translucent: (adj) transmitting light but causing sufficient diffusion to prevent perception of distinct images. [The American Heritage College Dictionary 2004 (ISBN 0-618-45300-8)]
A lot’s being said about the job offer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) received from the Obama administration to get him to bail on his bid for the Senatorial Seat thought to be owned by Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA). To many it’s a matter of business as usual and no really “big thing” in the course of standard politics in Washington.
I’d normally agree. But didn’t Barack Obama say there’d be “transparency” in his administration? Didn’t he proclaim business would be conducted in front of the cameras supplied by C-Span on national television? His exact words were
“transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” (1-21-2009) Did Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid not get the memo?
Nancy Pelosi, The Mouth of the House, conducted Congressional debate so well and so transparently she made her now famous statement;
“we’ll have to pass it (Universal Health Care Bill) in order to find out what’s in it!” And Harry Reid, The Human Sand Flea from Nevada, conducted all debate on the issue behind closed doors and excluded nearly all Republican Party members of any stature to ram the legislation through. All the while this was going on Obama, Reid and Pelosi kept complaining about the lack of bipartisan support for Obama’s wish-list.
Excuse me folks, but the Republican Party members for the Congress and Senate have keys to the Executive Washrooms, not the Septic Tanks you people deposit and debate your legislation for American dispersal and disposal into.
In case nobody’s noticed, Obama’s still whining about the lack of support for his programs from the Right-Wing of the Congress. This is because Obama’s definition of bipartisan support is something along the lines of; “Support what I say I want or I’ll drag you through the mud even though my policies stink worse than your defiance.” Or, in other words “bipartisan support
equals complete capitulation and denial of all you believe”. (Quotations are mine for emphasis.)
A question arises in my mind: just who do these people think they’re fooling with this “plausible deniability” garbage? Either they’re stupid or they think we are. If that’s not the case then who exactly is running the White House (as in the government) – Barack Obama or Rahm Emanuel?
What could make a guy (a political Hit-man of the eminent stature of Rahm Emanuel) believe he could get away with the attempted bribery (by offering a political appointment) of a U.S. Representative unless he knew he’d be forgiven by his boss? And that ladies and gentlemen is business as usual in Washington. It’s noted in the full glare of public review, this operation was being handled in a back-room at the Capitol. Now, Barack Obama is continuing his TV “face-time” at our expense as the Gulf turns into one great big overflow pit for British Petroleum and dealing as he does best-out of sight. This is also in spite of his declarations supporting transparency in government.
He’s becoming transparent in his determination to pull his political aspirations out of a very righteous, fury-driven fire licking flames at his butt cheeks. In this case transparent means we can see right through him. But now, maybe his own people will put aside the game he talks and start looking at the one he plays. This isn’t round-ball played on a court with no consequences other than who buys the next round.
This is the governance of the United States of America. And it’s being conducted by people who have always felt themselves above the law. Take Bill “The Perjuror” Clinton as an active example in this case. They get you looking one way and he does his dirty little deeds in the opposite direction. Just when you thought we’d gotten rid of his oily fluidity we find out differently.
Obama, Emanuel, Pelosi and Reid et al. are the total package as it concerns oily operations. Obama’s a clean-cut example of the great American dream of growing to be a leader in the land his parents politicked the downfall of in their time. He’s slender, graceful and has a beautiful wife and children making for an advertising coup. Can we hear a rendition of the “Stars and Stripes Forever” please? His climb in politics is near meteoric.
But he doesn’t read dictionaries as well or as often as he should. He’s called for transparency but rejected it for himself. Nixon had that problem too as I remember. Obama said he’ll conduct government openly, in “transparency” (my italics and quotation for emphasis). What he’s really giving us is the definition noted in the header of this piece: Translucence.
We see him operating behind closed doors with frosted glass. We see the movement behind the glass, but don’t know what’s going on. Just a thought: was that a statement or proposal handed from one to the other? Or was it a cash filled envelope? The SEIU and Organized Labor are making progress by leaps and bounds; how’s that coming about? We just don’t know what to think; do we?
We’ll never know will we? At least not until somebody delivers what he’s advertising: like letting us to see our government consistently being operated openly.
Thanks for listening
