Cattle Keepers Make For Leaders of Cows

The writer below has come up with a great answer as to the psychology of what makes Bush tick.
Forget "sheeple", our country has been herded like a bunch of cows to the slaughter pen.

I left the link to the cattle ringtone just in case you want to have your phone moo like all of those who have followed this president down the path of destruction of our country, and that includes every single Democrat who has gone along with funding the war in Iraq and signed off on every single law which has destroyed our civil liberties! You might want to forward the link to your congressman and senator with a little note. You've heard them moo, and you want them to become responsible elected officials if AT ALL possible!


Source

Uganda: Why Some Cattle Keepers At Times Make Bad Democrats

The Monitor (Kampala)

OPINION
26 February 2008
Posted to the web 25 February 2008

Nicholas Sengoba

Those who know him very well, claim that the "most powerful man on earth," US President, George Walker Bush who was in Africa last week to say his farewells, is a proud and an avid Texan rancher.

They allege that he loves his animals so much so that when he meets presidents known to keep cattle like himself, Bush always asks about their cows, wives and children (in that order) and compares notes thereafter.

It is known that many cattle keepers bond so well with their animals to the extent that a great number feel that the quality time they spend with the bovines, is more fulfilling than that with human beings.

There is a possibility that if a cattle keeper LIKE GEORGE BUSH opts for politics as a calling, his experience with cattle will have a huge bearing on his outlook as far as mode of governance and democratic credentials is concerned.

Because animals do not verbally communicate the need for milking, medical attention, feeding etc like humans, cattle keepers develop an intuition to provide "unsolicited" help and care.

Politically they are known to appoint themselves as "fighters for the oppressed" to rid them of "bad leaders and dictators." Bush did so in Iraq. Not withstanding the fact that they go on to "single handedly" decide the future of the "liberated," the way a hunter determines the "sharing" of the prey.

Likewise, because they think and decide for the cows, they develop a false sense of superiority and it is not rare to hear them pronouncing the supremacy of their "vision" and opinion as opposed to that of others which is considered "obscurantist."

Just as they do not discuss with the cows but only "command" them on what to do, herdsmen in politics are known to love monologues as opposed to engaging in dialogue. They take great exception to alternative views to their own and are likely to describe them as "insults."

This spirit is what prompted Bush to historically claim that "you are either with us or against us!" It is from this that they are usually accused of harbouring "dictatorial tendencies."

In equal measure the cattle keeper solely determines what to do with the produce (meat, milk, hides and skins etc.) of the animals from which he benefits without considering the say or concerns of his animals.

Presidents from this setting have a menacing penchant for treating national resources as personal property which they use as and when they wish, for the sake of patronage and self preservation.

Some critics in the USA feel that many aspects of Bush's war on terror are a veiled pursuit of a personal vendetta against people like the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, using national resources.

Since cattle are vulnerable and defenceless in the face of predators like lions, hyenas etc, cattle keepers develop a fierce militant and protective streak to ensure safety for their charges. They carry a staff or rod (and in modern times, guns) which they use to defend the animals and at times "straighten" any of the cows that goes astray.

In leadership situations, the use of force and coercion is never a distant option in sorting out matters of contention. In the end their history is littered with healthy records of wars, invasions, rebellions and concomitant human rights abuses.

From the background that the cattle keeper disposes of his animals when and as he sees fit, it is worth noting that many critics in the Muslim world claimed that the victims of the aerial bombings and the hanging of Saddam Hussein were like "helpless cows being mercilessly slaughtered on a farm."

Given that cattle never chose their keeper and that the cattle keeper simply "imposes" himself on the cattle, leaders with this background are likely to have a controversial and an uncomfortable history when it comes to being "democratically chosen" to lead their charges.

Added the fact that most cattle keepers consider it a "bad omen" to count their animals, coincidentally it is often difficult to ascertain the votes they get in an election, like it happened to Bush in Florida. Many of their elections are accompanied by cries of "rigging."

Seeing their herds grow tremendously is second nature to cattle keepers. This quest for growth is carried along to the economies of many nations run by presidents with a cattle keeping background which usually experience impressive sustained growth even when the majority do not feel the impact. Or when the cost to the environment and education (wetlands plus forests and school land gifted to investors respectively) is high.

For the sake of quality and harmony, good cattle keepers do not usually mix their herds with goats, sheep and pigs. When it comes to politics, the pursuit for "homogeneity" leads some presidents with cattle keeping roots to excessively rely on people of one political shed, religion or 'tribe' earning disparaging remarks regarding "sectarianism" and "tribalism."

Funny though, they say you can tell the company a man keeps by the way he behaves. If some cattle keeping politicians often make lousy democrats, blame it on the cows.

Source