Several years ago, I had an already somewhat problematic employee wave a piece of fruit as a faux handgun, while mimicking the sound of gunshots. While this wasn’t directed at anyone or anything, I found this somewhat disturbing and, after a discussion with “HR” had to counsel this employee about “workplace violence”. 

I was referred to our workplace mental health professionals who advised me that “workplace violence”, didn’t require an act, or a threat, or to be specific or directed. It merely required an attempt to appear threatening or hostile. 

The employee, of course, objected that fruit is clearly benign and observers shouldn’t feel threatened by what was clearly a joke. Reflecting that that episode, I began thinking of the President.

In June 2008, while campaigning for President in Philadelphia, Obama said : “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and added ”Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

In June 2010, while discussing the Gulf Oil Spill, President Obama indicated he was looking for “whose ass to kick”.

 http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-07/politics/gulf.oil.obama_1_rig-oil-company-bp-offshore-oil?_s=PM:POLITICS

 Now, with the prospects appearing that the electorate has decided that the would-be kicker should be the kickee, Obama reflected on the possibility of opposition control in Congress while appearing on Michael Baisden’s radio show as promising the prospects of ‘hand-to-hand combat’

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/07/news/la-pn-obama-base-20101008

The question beckons: Does Obama need counseling for workplace violence?  There certainly seems to be a pattern of resorting to violent euphemisms when he’s unnerved enough to drop the veneer of cool.   To be sure politicians routinely use the language of conflict in describing their efforts to attain office or some policy goal, but it’s usually the language of war. Obama’s rhetoric is different. His metaphors are often those of crime or personal animus, not warfare.  

Its not like this President has never expressed conciliarity as a virtue.  He bowed before a Saudi Prince and promised to meet with Iran’s President without precondition.  Indeed, an implicit, but central premise of his candidacy was that his predecessor lacked the placidity necessary to engage the rest of the world effectively and that he would abandon martial rhetoric for dulcet diplomacy.  

Perhaps his bellicosity betrays his feelings of enmity to political opponents at home-while presenting comity with (some, certainly he has shown contempt for Britain and Israel) foreign heads of state and other officials.    

By the way, the employee mentioned in the opening paragraph was, and I presume is, an Obama supporter.

With Wall Street being not exactly among America’s most trusted institutions, a measure of its public reputation would be that Michael Douglas is planning on reprising the role of arch villain “Gordon Gekko” (minus the bigger-than-a-brick cell phone).  Given that, it would seem odd that a real life money mercenary, Daniel S. Loeb, would be seeking more publicity. Unlike fellow investor (and Obama supporter) Warren Buffett, Loeb is rather famous for using his pen to launch brutally direct screeds that seem like they were written to be more invidious than effective.

Of course like any good investment guru, Loeb merely tells you what you already know, in this case that the federal  government is out of control and causing economic destruction-(of course whether he’s actually planning on withdrawing from investments or shorting them is another story).  Yes, Mr. Loeb’s most recent missive was trained on President Obama:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/hedge-fund-manager-dan-loeb-%22the-whole-system-is-rigged%22-535382.html?tickers=xlf,skf,ihf,wlp,gs&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

The only problem is that this is the same Daniel S. Loeb that is being profiled in the New York Times as having been a BIG supporter of “hope and change”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31sorkin.html?_r=1&ref=business

I have a more direct explanation of why Wall Street was so willing to ante up big bucks for Obama and it had NOTHING to do with ego.  When he ran for President, the Wall Street types thought he’s be like any other big money Democrat (think Frank, Dodd, Raines). He’d run on a leftist platform, with all the redistributionist drivel, all the while cloaking plutocrat-favoring policy in populist rhetoric. Unfortunately, the Wall Street types that supported Obama, thinking he’d be a surgeon with a scalpel performing a little liposuction have found out he’s a madman with a machete.

Of course, the ONE still has a cadre of dedicated intellectual whores and mercenaries and the most reliable Phd prostitute, Paul Krugman, (so reliable in fact, one has to speculate as to whether he’s under some sort of hypnosis) has fired back:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/the-unbearable-pettiness-of-being-rich/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Now say what you will about the pot calling the kettle black (Krugman certainly isn’t the patron saint of impecunity with all his various gigs), but the lesson is clear: Obamazombies know apostasy cannot be tolerated, no matter who commits it-something Obama learned in his youth, no doubt.

The captains of crony capitalism that thought they could control the weapons of mass economic destruction have found out they aren’t controllable-and will be pointed back at them as soon as they engage in blasphemy.

The only questions are, will Loeb ever have to deal with SIEU thugs on his doorstep and will he learn from this mistake?