Pot Stirrer: A person who feels it necessary to try and create more drama in regards to a situation/arguement/debate in which they are an outside observer. Usually by way of a comment or statement.
One who causes unrest; one who stirs the pot.
"She was a stirrer of the pot, a lover of intrigue and distress, a creature who seemed to draw oxygen from the spectacle of people at each other's throat,
everybody in a state of upset and talking about her." - David Gilmore
"Just keep stirring the pot, you never know what will come up." - Lee Atwater
"I like stirring the pot - I think it's part of my duty, to shake people up a bit - make them look at things in a different way." - Nina Bawden
"I like stirring things up. I'm on the side of the kids more than I am on the adults.
And occasionally I find some adults that have that same mischievous streak, so I don't get in too much trouble." - William Joyce
fable (n.) – a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop’s fables.
The idea of moral tales in literature is, in terms of the current narrative in Hollywood, the programming offices of the major networks and the ivy covered halls of academia, a desiccated idea that has no sway over modern (i.e., liberal/Progressive approved) story telling.
Yet one moral tale is told again and again in modern culture. It is the story of the unfaithful spouse, usually a man, who is a serial betrayer of his long suffering wife. Yet in this day and age, the ending of the suffering of said spouse is relatively easy to achieve through divorce. Or, if the format is a crime drama, having hubby shot/stabbed/poisoned by the wife.
So why do our televised morality plays offer this as a solution? Because that would shift the plot of the story from one where retribution is inflicted on the wayward spouse, and the story becomes one of the struggles the wife faces as she tries bravely to enter a world that is unfamiliar territory. Now what could have been a true morality play (with, you know, an actual moral message) becomes just a mundane tale about a woman’s lack of coping skills.
The most pathetic part of these semi-morality plays is the fact that in all of them, the wife knows that her husband is cheating, she knows that he is unfaithful, and he invariable finds greater pleasure in the arms of a younger or more attractive woman, but for financial reasons, he refuses to seek a divorce because he knows that he won’t be faithful to any future spouse either.
They key to the pathos is that the wife always takes the husband back. He apologizes for not paying enough attention to her, he buys her flowers, takes her to dinner, tells her that he loves her, while we (the audience) has already seen him arrange another dalliance. We know he’s a serial liar.
Now, about this point you’re asking yourself “Hey, Yardley, what’s with all the literary criticism? Do you think all of us watch soap operas?”
The answer is of course not. I don’t think many people actually watch soaps. But I do think, politically speaking, that we all effectively live in a soap opera. A soap opera about those serially cheating spouses and how we keep taking those spouses back for nothing more than just a fist full of daisies.
But wait, you say, my spouse is faithful. Or my spouse has passed away, so there’s nothing applicable. Or I’m a single person, where is the commonality? Well, if you’ll recall, I did say that we were speaking in political terms, not actually spousal fidelity.
In political terms, the unfaithful spouse is the Senator, Congressman, President, well any elected official for that matter, who you “married” years ago and who has been serially unfaithful to you since then…except just before an election. That’s when he or she comes crawling back to you, promising on a stack of bibles (or at least their own campaign literature) that they will be true until the end of time.
And every two, four or six years the electorate falls for it again. And again. And again.
Until election time, the elected spouse is too busy to even attend too many town-hall type meetings because they have “prior commitments.” The commitments they’ve made to the very, very appealing special interest groups who have much bigger, let’s just say, assets. Assets such as bigger bank accounts for bigger campaign contributions. They will promise the special interests that they will introduce legislation to kill the coal industry, and they assure voters who work in the mines that they really, really love you, and don’t toss them out of the house (or Senate as the case may be).
They may even bring metaphorical flowers, in the form of special government freebees like grants, to prove how much they love the voters. And the voter’s hearts melt, and then they vote the lying, cheating, philandering scum back into office again.
Think it’s an exaggeration? Just look at the rate that sitting members of Congress get re-elected.
Tiger Woods doesn’t win this often! And it certainly doesn’t reflect the real (i.e. non-political) world. I mean, seriously, if that high a percentage of betrayed spouses were willing to take back their straying partners, wouldn’t the divorce rate be a lot lower?
And finally, as for those of you who vote for the same person again and again because they “bring home the bacon”, you are really selling yourselves out for less than Esau did in the Bible.
To refresh your memory, Esau was the lad who came in from working hard in the fields and was really, really hungry. His brother offered him a bowl of pottage, which doesn’t exactly sound appetizing no matter what it actually is, in exchange for his birthright. He gave up his inheritance for just a bowl of pottage. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer that fellow Esau, now was he?
Yet he is actually smarter than we are when we keep re-electing the same posse of criminals and incompetents election cycle after election cycle. Yes, Esau only got a bowl of pottage, while the voters get block grants. Except for one telling difference.
Esau’s brother actually paid for the pottage. Politicians first take your money from you, and when they return a small portion of it, they expect you to wriggle like puppies, voter for them again, and accept that they will be unfaithful – again.
Yep, it sure seems like Esau made out like a bandit by comparison. At least it’s something to think about when you pull the curtain behind you in the voting booth for the next primary or general election
Why should we be conceened about this? Because it concerns US security, and because it provides Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama with yet another opportunity to sell us out to the Russians in the name of "reset," or "flexibility," or whatever he calls his foreign policy this week.
First, the Open Skies treaty. It was signed in 1992, and permits each signer to conduct short-notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights over any others signer's territories to collect data on military forces and activities. Satellites can provide the same information (usually in greater detail), but not all of the treaty signers have such capabilities. Observation aircraft must be equipped with sensors that enable the observing party to identify significant military equipment. The treaty went into effect in 2002.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. Russia has asked for a spying equipment upgrade for planes that will fly over the US, one that would result in a large increase in Russia's spying capabilities. Obama wants to approve the request. Hence the meeting. The Defense Department and the House Intelligence Committee are against permitting the upgrade, especially in view of Russia's actions in Crimeia and Ukraine. But the White House and State Department favor it. Sources say that Obama is likely to side with the State Department. It's also interesting to note that Obama has been "less than forthcoming" regarding information requests from the House Intelligence Committee.
Is this another attempt by Obama to "reset" relations with Russia? Obama has a history of this kind of action. The chaos in Kiev, Ukraine, the deteriorating conditions in Syria, and the failures with Iran are the results of Obama's "reset" with Russia and Putin. On Tuesday, February 18, George Will said:
What we are seeing in the Ukraine, what we've seen in Syria and what we will see again in Iran is a complete failure of what I think was the centerpiece of the president's foreign policy and that is the reset of the relations with Russia. They are not helpful with regard to Iran. They are positively pernicious in Syria. And Putin is obviously bolstering the government in Ukraine. ... I don't know what reset was supposed to mean but I know I can't see any of it that it has helped.
Or is Obama being "more flexible?" In 2012, in Seoul, Korea, Obama was caught on camera assuring out-going Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the US presidential election.
Will Obama overrule his own defense and intelligence officials in order to placate Vladimir Putin and Russia? How many more "resets" can we take?
But that's just my opinion.
The dust-up between Attorney General Eric Holder and Congressman Louie Gohmert during a congressional hearing was later that day followed by Mr. Holder addressing Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s (NAN) conference in Washington.
It was during Holder’s address to a presumably friendly audience that the implication of racism raised its ugly head and Mr. Holder is quoted as saying:
“I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” he continued.
“If you don’t believe that, you look at the way, forget about me, you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee … What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” (emphasis supplied, but we’ll come back to it later)
Accusations of racism are a staple of political discourse for any person of color if they are infected by the Democrat desire for totalitarian control. When “racism” doesn’t drive the nail home, other accusations, such as the ever popular “sexism” or (in the case of Harry Reid) the indictment of being wealthy and having a last name that sounds like a very popular carbonated cola.
And what better forum could Mr. Holder have used than an organization founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton who insisted that Tawana Brawley was raped by whites and who decided based on absolutely no evidence that George Zimmerman (a “white”-Hispanic) was guilty of murder.
Time and again accusations of racism have been hurled at those in opposition to the unhinged wish list of Democrat policies that do nothing but undermine and diminish the very country that these same Democrats want to rule. And time and again these same accusations have been proven to be utterly unfounded.
But apparently Democrats, who claim intellectual superiority over, well, everybody who isn’t a Kool-Aid drinking Progressive, are ignorant of a gentleman who is often cited as the source for the story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” who is known today as Aesop. Aesop had a pretty clear idea of how human behavior actually works, which is to say, he certainly wasn’t a Progressive or a Democrat. He noted in “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” that telling a lie again and again when evidence indicates clearly that there actually was no basis for the lie is a self-defeating strategy. Even with the main stream media carrying water for the Democrats, the obviousness of the lie is apparent to anyone paying even a minimal amount of attention.
The same situation exists for Democrat/Progressives when it comes to accusations of “sexism”, waging a war on women, waging a war on the elderly/social security beneficiaries, “islamophobia” and on and on and on.
Every time we hear that type of thing from acquaintances, neighbors of even family members, it might be useful to counterattack with one simple phrase: Well, that’s just another “wolf-ism”!
By using the word “wolf-ism” it will initially beg the eloquently phrased question from your Democrat/Progressive listener: Huh? A quick recap of Aesop’s fable, and the explanation that it’s just a lie being repeated and repeated, will force your listener into defending the lie, not you defending the accusation. And using “wolf-ism” might become popular enough to not even need the explanation about Aesop. With a little luck it would become our generations equivalent to Ronald Reagan’s famous “There you go again” line in his debate with Walter Mondale.
As I promised at the beginning of this piece, getting back to Eric Holder’s comments at the NAN conference, it should be noted that Mr. Holder’s remarks are just chock-a-block full of “wolf-isms”. Just look at the way he describes his ordeal as “unprecedented”. If one looks at the word, it literally means that having a member of Congress question the veracity and character of a sitting Attorney General has never, ever happened before. I’d be willing to bet real money that Angelo Gonzales, Janet Reno and John Mitchell would all beg to differ, and I’ve a more extensive example if you wish to read it