“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.”
-Eleanor Roosevelt
This is probably my all time favorite quote by anyone. It’s a valuable tool that I privately try to evoke while engaging in discussions. When I remember to use it (which is not nearly enough), I usually find that by it's measures, I am either discussing in a small minded way or an average minded way.
I don’t beat myself up over this. I’m just glad that someone strung together so few words, in such a powerful way -- A way that without judgment or condescension compels me to be a better person; to be something more than just another drain on the resources of this world. It at least encourages me toward an effort to elevate my conversations to something more meaningful and constructive -- and sometimes to strive to actually be a great mind.
And if nothing else…
It reminds me that nobody likes a shit talker.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The De-evolution of America
Irony of the day: The blind race to de-evolve is being won by those who don't believe that their species is a product of evolution.
It shocks me to see how many people are so blind to the fact of this happening. I guess the blindness is one of the results of the fact that it’s happening.
Many years ago, a man from Ireland said to me – America has less culture than a glass of milk. At that moment in history he was absolutely right. And since then, the validity of his statement has been expanding like the universe. This year, the full scope of his point was punctuated or should I say crowned by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ decision to award an Emmy to “Dick in a Box”. I think I even heard something about a Grammy nomination.
In contrast, you can look at a place like the Netherlands. The percentage of their federal budget which is earmarked for the arts is about equivalent to the percentage our federal budget that is dedicated to war.
So, there is the matter of cultural de-evolution. And then there is the matter of the physical size of our brains actually shrinking. It’s the only way I can explain this pandemic of point blank rejection of reality. It has yet to happen on the national level, but on a State by State level the right wing is proudly wiping there ass with the constitution. They are actually teaching Non-science (creationism) as a science in public school science classes.
I live in a society that is actively, willingly and rapidly de-evolving. And it's kinda freaking me out.
Ron Paul recently quoted someone. I forget who he was quoting but the quote went something like:
When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Well, it’s all ready here. And that is exactly how it arrived.
It shocks me to see how many people are so blind to the fact of this happening. I guess the blindness is one of the results of the fact that it’s happening.
Many years ago, a man from Ireland said to me – America has less culture than a glass of milk. At that moment in history he was absolutely right. And since then, the validity of his statement has been expanding like the universe. This year, the full scope of his point was punctuated or should I say crowned by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ decision to award an Emmy to “Dick in a Box”. I think I even heard something about a Grammy nomination.
In contrast, you can look at a place like the Netherlands. The percentage of their federal budget which is earmarked for the arts is about equivalent to the percentage our federal budget that is dedicated to war.
So, there is the matter of cultural de-evolution. And then there is the matter of the physical size of our brains actually shrinking. It’s the only way I can explain this pandemic of point blank rejection of reality. It has yet to happen on the national level, but on a State by State level the right wing is proudly wiping there ass with the constitution. They are actually teaching Non-science (creationism) as a science in public school science classes.
I live in a society that is actively, willingly and rapidly de-evolving. And it's kinda freaking me out.
Ron Paul recently quoted someone. I forget who he was quoting but the quote went something like:
When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Well, it’s all ready here. And that is exactly how it arrived.
Loose Change
As with many matters, I see three sides to this one.
So check it out... and think.
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%202E%201of3.wmv
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Think
Think
Think
- There are the compulsive conspiracy theorists, who take this as hands down indisputable fact, without giving it a bit of thought.
- There are the tunnel vision blind faith right wingers would see it as absolute fabricated propaganda without a shred of possible merit.
- In between, there are those of us who think.
So check it out... and think.
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%202E%201of3.wmv
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Think
Think
Think
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
...on a lighter note
A question to the United Kingdom.
What exactly are the varying degrees of skill by which a person can combine a teabag with a container of hot water?
I make tea several times a day. And what has made me curious about this, is the fact that over the years I've encountered more than a few English people, whom have emphatically boasted about their superior tea making abilities.
Can anyone tell me what veiled techniques are being conjured by these sorcerers of the cup and saucer, which apparently have set them apart from us mediocre tea brewers?
Is it in the wrist?
but seriously...
Do these superior water boiling skills actually exist? Or is bragging about not being an invalid just some odd little British tradition?
What exactly are the varying degrees of skill by which a person can combine a teabag with a container of hot water?
I make tea several times a day. And what has made me curious about this, is the fact that over the years I've encountered more than a few English people, whom have emphatically boasted about their superior tea making abilities.
Can anyone tell me what veiled techniques are being conjured by these sorcerers of the cup and saucer, which apparently have set them apart from us mediocre tea brewers?
Is it in the wrist?
but seriously...
Do these superior water boiling skills actually exist? Or is bragging about not being an invalid just some odd little British tradition?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A cut 'n' paste from AP
Associated Press
National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute
By TOM RAUM 12.03.07, 2:37 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day - or nearly $1 million a minute.
What's that mean to you?
It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.
And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt - now at relatively low interest rates - rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.
So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending - leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.
A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.
The national debt - the total accumulation of annual budget deficits - is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.
That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.
It only gets worse.
Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.
These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.
Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade
Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today. By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II - when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.
"The problem is going forward," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poors, a major credit-rating agency.
"Our estimate is that the national debt will hit 350 percent of the GDP by 2050 under unchanged policy. Something has to change, because if you look at what's going to happen to expenditures for entitlement programs after us baby boomers start to retire, at the current tax rates, it doesn't work," Wyss said.
With national elections approaching, candidates of both parties are talking about fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit and accusing the other of irresponsible spending. But the national debt itself - a legacy of overspending dating back to the American Revolution - receives only occasional mention.
Who is loaning Washington all this money?
Ordinary investors who buy Treasury bills, notes and U.S. savings bonds, for one. Also it is banks, pension funds, mutual fund companies and state, local and increasingly foreign governments. This accounts for about $5.1 trillion of the total and is called the "publicly held" debt. The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts, according to the Treasury Department, which keeps figures on the national debt down to the penny on its Web site.
Some economists liken the government's plight to consumers who spent like there was no tomorrow - only to find themselves maxed out on credit cards and having a hard time keeping up with rising interest payments.
"The government is in the same predicament as the average homeowner who took out an adjustable mortgage," said Stanley (nyse: SXE - news - people ) Collender, a former congressional budget analyst and now managing director at Qorvis Communications, a business consulting firm.
Much of the recent borrowing has been accomplished through the selling of shorter-term Treasury bills. If these loans roll over to higher rates, interest payments on the national debt could soar. Furthermore, the decline of the dollar against other major currencies is making Treasury securities less attractive to foreigners - even if they remain one of the world's safest investments.
For now, large U.S. trade deficits with much of the rest of the world work in favor of continued foreign investment in Treasuries and dollar-denominated securities. After all, the vast sums Americans pay - in dollars - for imported goods has to go somewhere. But that dynamic could change.
"The first day the Chinese or the Japanese or the Saudis say, `we've bought enough of your paper,' then the debt - whatever level it is at that point - becomes unmanageable," said Collender.
A recent comment by a Chinese lawmaker suggesting the country should buy more euros instead of dollars helped send the Dow Jones plunging more than 300 points.
The dollar is down about 35 percent since the end of 2001 against a basket of major currencies.
Foreign governments and investors now hold some $2.23 trillion - or about 44 percent - of all publicly held U.S. debt. That's up 9.5 percent from a year earlier.
Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury.
"Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican budget hawk.
Of all federal budget categories, interest on the national debt is the one the president and Congress have the least control over. Cutting payments would amount to default, something Washington has never done.
Congress must from time to time raise the debt limit - sort of like a credit card maximum - or the government would be unable to borrow any further to keep it operating and to pay additional debt obligations.
The Democratic-led Congress recently did just that, raising the ceiling to $9.82 trillion as the former $8.97 trillion maximum was about to be exceeded. It was the fifth debt-ceiling increase since Bush became president in 2001.
Democrats are blaming the runup in deficit spending on Bush and his Republican allies who controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. They criticize him for resisting improvements in health care, education and other vital areas while seeking nearly $200 billion in new Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.
"We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "That's fiscal irresponsibility."
Republicans insist congressional Democrats are the irresponsible ones. Bush has reinforced his call for deficit reduction with vetoes and veto threats and cites a looming "train wreck" if entitlement programs are not reined in.
Yet his efforts two years ago to overhaul Social Security had little support, even among fellow Republicans.
The deficit only reflects the gap between government spending and tax revenues for one year. Not exactly how a family or a business keeps its books.
Even during the four most recent years when there was a budget surplus, 1998-2001, the national debt ranged between $5.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion.
As in trying to pay off a large credit-card balance by only making minimum payments, the overall debt might be next to impossible to chisel down appreciably, regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls Congress, without major spending cuts, tax increases or both.
"The basic facts are a matter of arithmetic, not ideology," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates eliminating federal deficits.
There's little dispute that current fiscal policies are unsustainable, he said. "Yet too few of our elected leaders in Washington are willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the long-term fiscal problem and even fewer are willing to put it on the political agenda."
Polls show people don't like the idea of saddling future generations with debt, but proposing to pay down the national debt itself doesn't move the needle much.
"People have a tendency to put some of these longer term problems out of their minds because they're so pressed with more imminent worries, such as wages and jobs and income inequality," said pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
Texas billionaire Ross Perot made paying down the national debt a central element of his quixotic third-party presidential bid in 1992. The national debt then stood at $4 trillion and Perot displayed charts showing it would soar to $8 trillion by 2007 if left unchecked. He was about a trillion low.
Not long ago, it actually looked like the national debt could be paid off - in full. In the late 1990s, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of a $5.6 trillion over ten years - and calculated the debt would be paid off as early as 2006.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently wrote that he was "stunned" and even troubled by such a prospect. Among other things, he worried about where the government would park its surplus if Treasury bonds went out of existence because they were no longer needed.
Not to worry. That surplus quickly evaporated.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's (nyse: MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, said he's more concerned that interest on the national debt will become unsustainable than he is that foreign countries will dump their dollar holdings - something that would undermine the value of their own vast holdings. "We're going to have to shell out a lot of resources to make those interest payments. There's a very strong argument as to why it's vital that we address our budget issues before they get measurably worse," Zandi said.
"Of course, that's not going to happen until after the next president is in the White House," he added.
National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute
By TOM RAUM 12.03.07, 2:37 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day - or nearly $1 million a minute.
What's that mean to you?
It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.
And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt - now at relatively low interest rates - rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.
So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending - leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.
A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.
The national debt - the total accumulation of annual budget deficits - is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.
That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.
It only gets worse.
Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.
These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.
Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade
Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today. By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II - when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.
"The problem is going forward," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poors, a major credit-rating agency.
"Our estimate is that the national debt will hit 350 percent of the GDP by 2050 under unchanged policy. Something has to change, because if you look at what's going to happen to expenditures for entitlement programs after us baby boomers start to retire, at the current tax rates, it doesn't work," Wyss said.
With national elections approaching, candidates of both parties are talking about fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit and accusing the other of irresponsible spending. But the national debt itself - a legacy of overspending dating back to the American Revolution - receives only occasional mention.
Who is loaning Washington all this money?
Ordinary investors who buy Treasury bills, notes and U.S. savings bonds, for one. Also it is banks, pension funds, mutual fund companies and state, local and increasingly foreign governments. This accounts for about $5.1 trillion of the total and is called the "publicly held" debt. The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts, according to the Treasury Department, which keeps figures on the national debt down to the penny on its Web site.
Some economists liken the government's plight to consumers who spent like there was no tomorrow - only to find themselves maxed out on credit cards and having a hard time keeping up with rising interest payments.
"The government is in the same predicament as the average homeowner who took out an adjustable mortgage," said Stanley (nyse: SXE - news - people ) Collender, a former congressional budget analyst and now managing director at Qorvis Communications, a business consulting firm.
Much of the recent borrowing has been accomplished through the selling of shorter-term Treasury bills. If these loans roll over to higher rates, interest payments on the national debt could soar. Furthermore, the decline of the dollar against other major currencies is making Treasury securities less attractive to foreigners - even if they remain one of the world's safest investments.
For now, large U.S. trade deficits with much of the rest of the world work in favor of continued foreign investment in Treasuries and dollar-denominated securities. After all, the vast sums Americans pay - in dollars - for imported goods has to go somewhere. But that dynamic could change.
"The first day the Chinese or the Japanese or the Saudis say, `we've bought enough of your paper,' then the debt - whatever level it is at that point - becomes unmanageable," said Collender.
A recent comment by a Chinese lawmaker suggesting the country should buy more euros instead of dollars helped send the Dow Jones plunging more than 300 points.
The dollar is down about 35 percent since the end of 2001 against a basket of major currencies.
Foreign governments and investors now hold some $2.23 trillion - or about 44 percent - of all publicly held U.S. debt. That's up 9.5 percent from a year earlier.
Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury.
"Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican budget hawk.
Of all federal budget categories, interest on the national debt is the one the president and Congress have the least control over. Cutting payments would amount to default, something Washington has never done.
Congress must from time to time raise the debt limit - sort of like a credit card maximum - or the government would be unable to borrow any further to keep it operating and to pay additional debt obligations.
The Democratic-led Congress recently did just that, raising the ceiling to $9.82 trillion as the former $8.97 trillion maximum was about to be exceeded. It was the fifth debt-ceiling increase since Bush became president in 2001.
Democrats are blaming the runup in deficit spending on Bush and his Republican allies who controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. They criticize him for resisting improvements in health care, education and other vital areas while seeking nearly $200 billion in new Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.
"We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "That's fiscal irresponsibility."
Republicans insist congressional Democrats are the irresponsible ones. Bush has reinforced his call for deficit reduction with vetoes and veto threats and cites a looming "train wreck" if entitlement programs are not reined in.
Yet his efforts two years ago to overhaul Social Security had little support, even among fellow Republicans.
The deficit only reflects the gap between government spending and tax revenues for one year. Not exactly how a family or a business keeps its books.
Even during the four most recent years when there was a budget surplus, 1998-2001, the national debt ranged between $5.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion.
As in trying to pay off a large credit-card balance by only making minimum payments, the overall debt might be next to impossible to chisel down appreciably, regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls Congress, without major spending cuts, tax increases or both.
"The basic facts are a matter of arithmetic, not ideology," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates eliminating federal deficits.
There's little dispute that current fiscal policies are unsustainable, he said. "Yet too few of our elected leaders in Washington are willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the long-term fiscal problem and even fewer are willing to put it on the political agenda."
Polls show people don't like the idea of saddling future generations with debt, but proposing to pay down the national debt itself doesn't move the needle much.
"People have a tendency to put some of these longer term problems out of their minds because they're so pressed with more imminent worries, such as wages and jobs and income inequality," said pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
Texas billionaire Ross Perot made paying down the national debt a central element of his quixotic third-party presidential bid in 1992. The national debt then stood at $4 trillion and Perot displayed charts showing it would soar to $8 trillion by 2007 if left unchecked. He was about a trillion low.
Not long ago, it actually looked like the national debt could be paid off - in full. In the late 1990s, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of a $5.6 trillion over ten years - and calculated the debt would be paid off as early as 2006.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently wrote that he was "stunned" and even troubled by such a prospect. Among other things, he worried about where the government would park its surplus if Treasury bonds went out of existence because they were no longer needed.
Not to worry. That surplus quickly evaporated.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's (nyse: MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, said he's more concerned that interest on the national debt will become unsustainable than he is that foreign countries will dump their dollar holdings - something that would undermine the value of their own vast holdings. "We're going to have to shell out a lot of resources to make those interest payments. There's a very strong argument as to why it's vital that we address our budget issues before they get measurably worse," Zandi said.
"Of course, that's not going to happen until after the next president is in the White House," he added.
Monday, November 19, 2007
the solution 3.0
So what am I driving at with all this?
Yeah, I’m a big fat lefty. And I know in my bones — that if all of us big fat lefties and all of them big fat righties could stop fearing the extreme ideals of the other side long enough to find a real meeting place in the middle, we could radically improve this country and the world on more levels than any of us could imagine.
So really what I’m saying is — the problem is the division. Divided we fall. And not enough people are trying to unite us — so that we may truly stand as a nation. I’m getting sick of being pissed at the right wing, while I’m getting more pissed at the division it’s self. I wish more people were. I wish people were saying “Hey! We are divided and it sucks! This fucking division is the first thing that we have to fix.”
Or at least start throwing some unifying ideas on the table. How about a rule for congress? Pass two bills that unite us for every one that we’re divided on. Or how about changing the structure of The White House?
Basically, the outcome of any presidential election satisfies the will of roughly half of the nation. Only about half of the country approves of any given president. When you think about it that way, it doesn’t seem right. Does it? It could even be called un-American. However, we are not likely to see it change, because the average 50/50”ish” Left /Right division in this country is not likely to change for such a long time.
We could change how we structure The White House…
How about no running mate? Whoever loses the election get’s to be Vice President. Sure, not an entirely original thought. In fact we’v seen versions of it on film and television. And by no means would it be a perfect solution to anything.
But it would, with no doubt, bring the executive branch of the federal government vastly closer to being a more complete reflection of the will of the American people as a whole. And to at least try to accomplish that… the will of the American people as a whole — That effort alone may be the most American accomplishment in the history of this nation.
But it may be that nothing so positive and unifying could ever happen here. Maybe we’v grown too comfortable with the division. Perhaps this civil cold war of ideologies has become too ingrained in our culture. The cynic in me thinks that this hatred has irreparably infected the heart our society. But my optimistic side tells me that if we were able to stop hating the Russians, we should be able to stop hating each other.
Yeah, I’m a big fat lefty. And I know in my bones — that if all of us big fat lefties and all of them big fat righties could stop fearing the extreme ideals of the other side long enough to find a real meeting place in the middle, we could radically improve this country and the world on more levels than any of us could imagine.
So really what I’m saying is — the problem is the division. Divided we fall. And not enough people are trying to unite us — so that we may truly stand as a nation. I’m getting sick of being pissed at the right wing, while I’m getting more pissed at the division it’s self. I wish more people were. I wish people were saying “Hey! We are divided and it sucks! This fucking division is the first thing that we have to fix.”
Or at least start throwing some unifying ideas on the table. How about a rule for congress? Pass two bills that unite us for every one that we’re divided on. Or how about changing the structure of The White House?
Basically, the outcome of any presidential election satisfies the will of roughly half of the nation. Only about half of the country approves of any given president. When you think about it that way, it doesn’t seem right. Does it? It could even be called un-American. However, we are not likely to see it change, because the average 50/50”ish” Left /Right division in this country is not likely to change for such a long time.
We could change how we structure The White House…
How about no running mate? Whoever loses the election get’s to be Vice President. Sure, not an entirely original thought. In fact we’v seen versions of it on film and television. And by no means would it be a perfect solution to anything.
But it would, with no doubt, bring the executive branch of the federal government vastly closer to being a more complete reflection of the will of the American people as a whole. And to at least try to accomplish that… the will of the American people as a whole — That effort alone may be the most American accomplishment in the history of this nation.
But it may be that nothing so positive and unifying could ever happen here. Maybe we’v grown too comfortable with the division. Perhaps this civil cold war of ideologies has become too ingrained in our culture. The cynic in me thinks that this hatred has irreparably infected the heart our society. But my optimistic side tells me that if we were able to stop hating the Russians, we should be able to stop hating each other.
Friday, November 16, 2007
fun links
I ran across this site, cafepress.com.
This site has loads of clever stuff --
This site has loads of clever stuff --
for all perspectives.
...Here are some items that amused me.
Blind Faith in Bad Leadership is Not Patriotism
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.11572568/pNo_11572568/id_4595062/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Proud Member of the Religious Left
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/pg_3/p_storeid.13764396/pNo_13764396/id_5354440/opt_/fpt_/c_666/
One Nation Under Surveillance
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.24997293/pNo_24997293/id_7759216/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Jesus was a liberal
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.14648973/pNo_14648973/id_5716589/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Mark Twain on Patriotism
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_12832491/opt_/fpt_/c_666/
FOX SKews
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=37979146&colorNo=0&pr=F
...Here are some items that amused me.
Blind Faith in Bad Leadership is Not Patriotism
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.11572568/pNo_11572568/id_4595062/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Proud Member of the Religious Left
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/pg_3/p_storeid.13764396/pNo_13764396/id_5354440/opt_/fpt_/c_666/
One Nation Under Surveillance
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.24997293/pNo_24997293/id_7759216/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Jesus was a liberal
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.14648973/pNo_14648973/id_5716589/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
Mark Twain on Patriotism
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_12832491/opt_/fpt_/c_666/
FOX SKews
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=37979146&colorNo=0&pr=F
Thursday, November 15, 2007
You are not an island
If you have a problem with that, move to one.
Accepting and responsibly reacting to the fact that you live in a society does not make you a communist. It just makes you a realist. I'd say that it's what separates us from the animals -- If it were not for the fact that many animals happen to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than most conservatives.
Just as ignoring your bills won’t make them conveniently go away; ignoring the less convenient elements of society won’t make them go away. It just makes them multiply faster.
A society is like an organism. What if your white blood cells were like you? This is what they’d sound like: “Yeah, I know there’s an infection over there. But how is that my fault? I’m just gunna stay over here and take care of the other white blood cells.” The long term result would be your immune system failure and death. Am I being dramatic to suggest that conservatives are killing our society? I don’t know. But, the more that you think about it, the more you realize just how organic a society truly is. And for any of you white blood cells who weren’t paying close enough attention, that body that you just let die, was your host. So you’re dead too. Get it?
Simply turning your back on the dredges of society will not make them go away - nor will it make them any less of a burden on society. Burying your head in the sand only exposes your most vulnerable side to the worst of them.
Not only are you creating your own problems, but you really are making them worse. You are driving them to a point of insolvability. Measured by the practical rule of logic and reality, the right wing mentality, in regard to how to deal with a society of people, is an absolute anti-solution.
Thankfully, this attitude of “I’m gunna sit on my porch with my shotgun and take care of mine” is on the endangered list. Growing out of that attitude is just a natural step in the evolution of our species. So while you continue to fight so hard to turn back the clock on social and mental evolution, us reality based progressives get to watch each new generation become more realistic and more progressive. Y’all had yer shot at draggin’ us back to the days of burning witches at the stake. But enough of us woke up to get us looking forward again. Because that’s where the solution is.
Accepting and responsibly reacting to the fact that you live in a society does not make you a communist. It just makes you a realist. I'd say that it's what separates us from the animals -- If it were not for the fact that many animals happen to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than most conservatives.
Just as ignoring your bills won’t make them conveniently go away; ignoring the less convenient elements of society won’t make them go away. It just makes them multiply faster.
A society is like an organism. What if your white blood cells were like you? This is what they’d sound like: “Yeah, I know there’s an infection over there. But how is that my fault? I’m just gunna stay over here and take care of the other white blood cells.” The long term result would be your immune system failure and death. Am I being dramatic to suggest that conservatives are killing our society? I don’t know. But, the more that you think about it, the more you realize just how organic a society truly is. And for any of you white blood cells who weren’t paying close enough attention, that body that you just let die, was your host. So you’re dead too. Get it?
Simply turning your back on the dredges of society will not make them go away - nor will it make them any less of a burden on society. Burying your head in the sand only exposes your most vulnerable side to the worst of them.
Not only are you creating your own problems, but you really are making them worse. You are driving them to a point of insolvability. Measured by the practical rule of logic and reality, the right wing mentality, in regard to how to deal with a society of people, is an absolute anti-solution.
Thankfully, this attitude of “I’m gunna sit on my porch with my shotgun and take care of mine” is on the endangered list. Growing out of that attitude is just a natural step in the evolution of our species. So while you continue to fight so hard to turn back the clock on social and mental evolution, us reality based progressives get to watch each new generation become more realistic and more progressive. Y’all had yer shot at draggin’ us back to the days of burning witches at the stake. But enough of us woke up to get us looking forward again. Because that’s where the solution is.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
No lead or GHB please.
Although most of the content of proamericacompanies.com makes you feel like you just sat through an infomercial for the Minutemen, it is at least one source of lead-free and GHB-free toys. And in addition to child safety, the obvious bonus is that buying American Made is good for our economy.
http://www.proamericacompanies.com/toys.html
Speaking of China...
It's all fine and dandy to to say: Screw you, China. You're a bunch of bastards for poisoning our children! But that makes no difference if American fiscal policy keeps making China stronger.
Tax cuts make politicians look good. But the bills still need to get paid. So we just keep increasing our national deficit -- putting us in huge debt to countries like China. As of March of this year, China held over 321 billion dollars worth of U.S. Treasuries. It's too tragic to call it poetic justice so I'll just point it out as an interesting irony, that the politicians elected by people like the minutemen are going to be the direct cause of The American Flag having a tag in the corner of it which reads MADE IN CHINA.
http://www.proamericacompanies.com/toys.html
Speaking of China...
It's all fine and dandy to to say: Screw you, China. You're a bunch of bastards for poisoning our children! But that makes no difference if American fiscal policy keeps making China stronger.
Tax cuts make politicians look good. But the bills still need to get paid. So we just keep increasing our national deficit -- putting us in huge debt to countries like China. As of March of this year, China held over 321 billion dollars worth of U.S. Treasuries. It's too tragic to call it poetic justice so I'll just point it out as an interesting irony, that the politicians elected by people like the minutemen are going to be the direct cause of The American Flag having a tag in the corner of it which reads MADE IN CHINA.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Resolve or Reuse
If you privately prevent the break from healing, then you know that the crutch it’s self is somehow relieving a much bigger hurt than the broken bone is causing.
Why is abortion still legal? My beliefs on the issue of abortion put aside…
My belief in the Law of Cause and Effect tells me that abortion should have been outlawed a few years ago.
Remember? It wasn’t that long ago, that the Grand Old Party controlled every major branch of the Federal Government. They had the White House, the House and the Senate – In addition to appointing some extra right wing talent to an already ultraconservative Supreme Court. They practically had absolute power, and were in no way humble about it. Particularly when it came to any issue that would ultimately increased the wealth of people and corporations who were already wealthy.
It almost seemed to be a sidebar flaunting of this power, when they found time to rub salt in our children’s wounds, by actually appointing an oil company lobbyist to the post of chief White House advisor on environmental policies.
But what about those social issues that are so important to the religious right??? The super wealthy individuals and the big corporations got there’s… Why didn’t the grass roots heart and soul of the right wing get their pay off? That wealthy 3% of Americans who raked in the benefits of the great Republican heyday are just that… 3%. There’s no way that 3% of the vote can get anyone elected into office. That’s why they need the social conservative vote. Without it, how could enough of them get into power to spoon feed the big corporations and the nation’s wealthiest individuals?
So they’ve kept conservative social issues at the core their agenda – Often talking about these issues with preeminent expressions of utmost concern. For years and years, these debates and speeches were so passionately and sincerely delivered that we just knew it would only take a little more power. If only we could get enough Republicans in office… And then one day, PRAISE THE ALL MIGHTY! It happened!!! With a Republican in the White House, the GOP took control of both bodies of Congress.
That was a very important time in American history, because of how revealing it was. Since they had total power, they had the ability and certainly the will to make the exact changes to this Country that they thought were necessary. You see, not all issues have the same type of objective. With some issues the object is to achieve the obvious goal of the matter. But other issues serve a much larger and far more, long term purpose. For those issues it is much more important that they exist. And that they continue to exist. In fact the longevity of those issues is so important that privately, the politicians don’t really intend to achieve their stated goal on the matter. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself again…
Why didn't they do it when they had the chance?
Think about it! Really... Take a moment and THINK about it. How often does one political party have that much control?
Think about it! Really... Take a moment and THINK about it. How often does one political party have that much control?
...The answer is once in a blue moon. Right? So when that blue moon rises, you’d better believe that they’ll accomplish everything that is most important to them, while they have the chance. And now that the time of total Republican domination has come and gone, we know what they wanted most. And it had nothing to do with the conservative social issues.
They need abortion to remain legal as much as they need to be seen trying to get it outlawed. They need the Constitutional Separation of Church and State to stand strong, as much as they need to be seen trying to tear it down. They need gays to continue fighting for equal human rights as much as they need to be seen fighting against equal rights. They desperately need these issues to live and flourish. Because if abortion were outlawed, and the doctrine of evangelical Christianity became the next Amendment to the Constitution, and Homosexuality was declared to be a felony punishable according to The Book of Leviticus - If these things happened, then those issues would be solved. And if they were solved they would no longer be issues. And without those issues this party would lose so much of its base that it would cease to be a viable party.
Was it an oversight???
Did they simply forget to overturn Roe v Wade while they had the chance?
...just slipped their minds?
Not likely.
Politicians are very smart people. They are aware of what an opportunistic playing field they are on. They know exactly what they want. And they get as much of it as they can, while they can get it. And they want your vote much more than they want your social issue to be resolved. It’s like the pharmaceutical companies. They invest in the development of treatments not cures. Because cures are bad for business.
But don’t feel forgotten… They’ll keep talking about abortion.
Politicians are very smart people. They are aware of what an opportunistic playing field they are on. They know exactly what they want. And they get as much of it as they can, while they can get it. And they want your vote much more than they want your social issue to be resolved. It’s like the pharmaceutical companies. They invest in the development of treatments not cures. Because cures are bad for business.
But don’t feel forgotten… They’ll keep talking about abortion.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Convenience Sells
No matter what product you are selling. What you can count on above all else, is our addiction to convenience. Price and Quality are very important to most people. But you'd be surprised at how often those considerations get trumped by Convenience.
As a Left Center Right visual aid scale, imagine a linear spectrum…
For simplicity of reference let’s make it numeric, with "0", the lowest value single digit number, in the center
and "9"s, the highest value single digit number, on the outer ends.
9876543210123456789
Let’s say that this spectrum represents a specific situation in our society. A situation that most people will agree needs a solution.
And each individual digit represents a possible choice, as a coarse of action that can be taken.
Generally, most national issues (aka situations in need of solution) share some basic characteristics. If someone is willing to do some selfless, objective work looking for it, they will find a mutually beneficial solution somewhere in the middle –
987654[3210123]456789.
Sometimes the most viable, realistic and mutually beneficial solution will happen to slightly favor the right –
987654321012[3]456789
sometimes it will slightly favor the left –
987654[3]210123456789.
Simple enough? Reasonable enough? And logical too. But not so convenient if you are so focused on your specific agenda that you become blindly determined to manipulate the policy of an entire complex society to serve only your self centered perspective on the matter.
Hypothetically, here’s how that tends to play out… You scan over an issue like Health Care Reform. You have no interest in finding a mutually beneficial solution, because you lack the vision to see how helping someone else now can actually benefit YOU in the long term. Usually in ten fold. Meaning that, by being unwilling to responsibly participate as a real member of a complex society and incur a $10- expense now you could be setting yourself up for an unavoidable expense of $100- over the long term. A society is a very complex organic thing. If you're living in one, ignoring it won't make it go away. Choosing not to responsibly react to it will never prevent it from affecting you. On the contrary, the less that you participate, the more it will affect you negatively. This concept is simply outside the current scope of your comprehension.
So, you go down the list, making every possible solution out to be an evil Socialist plot, designed to do nothing but let dead-beat welfare recipients leach off the people who are willing to work. (It would be very convenient if it were just that simple... Sorry Righty! Reality ain't simple.) Through this manipulative process of elimination, your self-serving ideological number [7] conveniently winds up being the last man standing. This creates the political illusion that your non-solution is the only solution.
Unfortunately for our society, many of you actually are quite successful at selling this illusion to a lot of people. Not because people are stupid. But because it is sales! And most people can be sold on more things than they would expect -- particularly when the salesman has been so skillfully sold on what he is selling. And he's armed with the product feature of CONVENIENCE!
I’m no genius. But I do have the sense to defend myself against the smoke and mirrors of political salesmen by reminding myself that if someone's pitch seems to be a little bit too convenient, it's probably coming from a part of the spectrum that's pretty far from the solution.
As a Left Center Right visual aid scale, imagine a linear spectrum…
For simplicity of reference let’s make it numeric, with "0", the lowest value single digit number, in the center
and "9"s, the highest value single digit number, on the outer ends.
9876543210123456789
Let’s say that this spectrum represents a specific situation in our society. A situation that most people will agree needs a solution.
And each individual digit represents a possible choice, as a coarse of action that can be taken.
Generally, most national issues (aka situations in need of solution) share some basic characteristics. If someone is willing to do some selfless, objective work looking for it, they will find a mutually beneficial solution somewhere in the middle –
987654[3210123]456789.
Sometimes the most viable, realistic and mutually beneficial solution will happen to slightly favor the right –
987654321012[3]456789
sometimes it will slightly favor the left –
987654[3]210123456789.
Simple enough? Reasonable enough? And logical too. But not so convenient if you are so focused on your specific agenda that you become blindly determined to manipulate the policy of an entire complex society to serve only your self centered perspective on the matter.
Hypothetically, here’s how that tends to play out… You scan over an issue like Health Care Reform. You have no interest in finding a mutually beneficial solution, because you lack the vision to see how helping someone else now can actually benefit YOU in the long term. Usually in ten fold. Meaning that, by being unwilling to responsibly participate as a real member of a complex society and incur a $10- expense now you could be setting yourself up for an unavoidable expense of $100- over the long term. A society is a very complex organic thing. If you're living in one, ignoring it won't make it go away. Choosing not to responsibly react to it will never prevent it from affecting you. On the contrary, the less that you participate, the more it will affect you negatively. This concept is simply outside the current scope of your comprehension.
So you scan over this issue, only looking for the choice that will most clearly align with your narrow perspective on the matter. You find your choice of actions, far to the Right of any possible mutually beneficial option –
9876543210123456[7]89.
Your arguments for your position will not include any actual solutions. You will just systematically highlight problems, obstacle and erroneous reason why potential solutions could not possibly work. Any time that someone tries to direct your attention to a place where mutually beneficial solutions actually exist –
987654[3210123]456789
– you will, with an arrogant level of confidence, categorize everything which is to the Left of your ideology –
[9876543210123456]789
– to be nothing but far Left extremism –
[9]876543210123456789.
Rush Limpdick has conditioned you to believe that if it’s not purely Capitalistic, then it must be purely Socialistic, which of course is practically Communistic! “Heathen Liberals!”
So, you go down the list, making every possible solution out to be an evil Socialist plot, designed to do nothing but let dead-beat welfare recipients leach off the people who are willing to work. (It would be very convenient if it were just that simple... Sorry Righty! Reality ain't simple.) Through this manipulative process of elimination, your self-serving ideological number [7] conveniently winds up being the last man standing. This creates the political illusion that your non-solution is the only solution.
Unfortunately for our society, many of you actually are quite successful at selling this illusion to a lot of people. Not because people are stupid. But because it is sales! And most people can be sold on more things than they would expect -- particularly when the salesman has been so skillfully sold on what he is selling. And he's armed with the product feature of CONVENIENCE!
I’m no genius. But I do have the sense to defend myself against the smoke and mirrors of political salesmen by reminding myself that if someone's pitch seems to be a little bit too convenient, it's probably coming from a part of the spectrum that's pretty far from the solution.
Years ago, I was debating a political issue with a Republican friend of mine. He said: "If you want to work, you're a Republican. If you don't want to work, you're a Democrat."
My response was: "If you oversimplify serious, complex issues, with arrogant partisan catch phrases, you're a Republican. If you can accept the complexity of issues and at least try to step back and have an objective look at the big picture, you're a realist."
The convenient oversimplification of difficult complex matters is like Kryptonite that the Right Wing keeps using against our society.
They will keep using it, until it stops working.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
No matter how much you believe that it's God's will... [1.0]
It's really not okay.
One Saturday morning, the Jehovahs came to my door. A man and his son.
Whenever the Jehovahs come knocking, I deal with them as politely and respectfully as time will allow. Because despite the fact that absolute disrespect of my spiritual beliefs is one of the core fundamentals of their spiritual beliefs, I still respect what they are doing. While it is inconvenient to deal with them, it seems that without causing any real harm to others, they are simply practicing the traditions of their faith. They are doing what they believe is necessary to save their souls. And they believe that they are trying to help me. I don't really like it. But in ways, I truly do respect their campaign of disrespect. I have the same respect for Mormon missionaries. Because, just as the idea of going around trying to convert people to my faith would be in sharp contrast to my beliefs; failing to respect the spiritual traditions of others would be an even more pronounced contradiction to my spiritual philosophy.
So, the man and his son...
The young boy was standing in front of his father, holding a copy of The Watchtower. He looked up at me and as a salutation he articulately delivered a clearly rehearsed question: "Do you know what is causing the wars in the world?"
The irony of this moment was so startling that I must have blacked out. I really can't remember what happened next. I can just look back on it and know what my immediate, honest answer would have been. I would have crouched down to meet his eye level and told him that most wars start with religious conflict. I would as plainly as possible, explain that from the dawn of civilization up to the present day, the majority of violent conflicts in the world have been at the hands of the religious and waged against opposing religions. I may have said that to him. And I may have just stood there silent until they walked away. I really don't know.
I'm talking about this stuff to illustrate the fact that I have mixed feelings about this issue. One thing that I'm sure of is this...
If you think that God wants you to hurt someone, you are seriously fucked up.
I saw a news cast about a 6 year old boy being brought to America to be treated for horrible burns. Men invaded his home, doused him with gasoline and set him on fire. In general, our species is not mentally or emotionally built for committing such acts of absolute sadistic horror. Sure: there is no shortage of mentally unstable sadistic fucks out there, who do some equally horrible things. But in this case - considering the circumstances of the attack, and where and when it took place... I doubt that this was a random act of unimaginable horror. It's more likely that these guys were on a mission. It's likely that these were loving, faithful men, perhaps with children of their own. Men who were only capable of dehumanizing their perception of that boy-- thoroughly enough to attack him so cruelly-- because of their core belief that this act was part of God's plan. You don't do shit like that because there was nothing to watch on TV that day. You do it because you have a chronic chemical imbalance and you're off your meds. Or you do it because of your absolute basic belief that the hand of God has led you down that path and to that end.
Now here's the thing. No matter how much you believe that it's God's will... It's really not okay to hurt children. In any circumstance, directly or indirectly, ever.
As a global society, we should establish a world police specifically for capturing people who hurt children. It should be the world's priority to man such an agency with the very best detectives and marshalls in the world. And for the captured and found guilty, a special torture chamber should be built. One which is designed, built and operated by the most disturbed, soulless and imaginative alchemists on Earth. People who make Hannibal Lector look like a nice date for your daughter. And this institution should have two very strict policies:
1- No one gets out alive.
2 - Everyone is kept alive and lucid for as long as possible.
Other than that...
Game on.
One Saturday morning, the Jehovahs came to my door. A man and his son.
Whenever the Jehovahs come knocking, I deal with them as politely and respectfully as time will allow. Because despite the fact that absolute disrespect of my spiritual beliefs is one of the core fundamentals of their spiritual beliefs, I still respect what they are doing. While it is inconvenient to deal with them, it seems that without causing any real harm to others, they are simply practicing the traditions of their faith. They are doing what they believe is necessary to save their souls. And they believe that they are trying to help me. I don't really like it. But in ways, I truly do respect their campaign of disrespect. I have the same respect for Mormon missionaries. Because, just as the idea of going around trying to convert people to my faith would be in sharp contrast to my beliefs; failing to respect the spiritual traditions of others would be an even more pronounced contradiction to my spiritual philosophy.
So, the man and his son...
The young boy was standing in front of his father, holding a copy of The Watchtower. He looked up at me and as a salutation he articulately delivered a clearly rehearsed question: "Do you know what is causing the wars in the world?"
The irony of this moment was so startling that I must have blacked out. I really can't remember what happened next. I can just look back on it and know what my immediate, honest answer would have been. I would have crouched down to meet his eye level and told him that most wars start with religious conflict. I would as plainly as possible, explain that from the dawn of civilization up to the present day, the majority of violent conflicts in the world have been at the hands of the religious and waged against opposing religions. I may have said that to him. And I may have just stood there silent until they walked away. I really don't know.
I'm talking about this stuff to illustrate the fact that I have mixed feelings about this issue. One thing that I'm sure of is this...
If you think that God wants you to hurt someone, you are seriously fucked up.
I saw a news cast about a 6 year old boy being brought to America to be treated for horrible burns. Men invaded his home, doused him with gasoline and set him on fire. In general, our species is not mentally or emotionally built for committing such acts of absolute sadistic horror. Sure: there is no shortage of mentally unstable sadistic fucks out there, who do some equally horrible things. But in this case - considering the circumstances of the attack, and where and when it took place... I doubt that this was a random act of unimaginable horror. It's more likely that these guys were on a mission. It's likely that these were loving, faithful men, perhaps with children of their own. Men who were only capable of dehumanizing their perception of that boy-- thoroughly enough to attack him so cruelly-- because of their core belief that this act was part of God's plan. You don't do shit like that because there was nothing to watch on TV that day. You do it because you have a chronic chemical imbalance and you're off your meds. Or you do it because of your absolute basic belief that the hand of God has led you down that path and to that end.
Now here's the thing. No matter how much you believe that it's God's will... It's really not okay to hurt children. In any circumstance, directly or indirectly, ever.
As a global society, we should establish a world police specifically for capturing people who hurt children. It should be the world's priority to man such an agency with the very best detectives and marshalls in the world. And for the captured and found guilty, a special torture chamber should be built. One which is designed, built and operated by the most disturbed, soulless and imaginative alchemists on Earth. People who make Hannibal Lector look like a nice date for your daughter. And this institution should have two very strict policies:
1- No one gets out alive.
2 - Everyone is kept alive and lucid for as long as possible.
Other than that...
Game on.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
the solution 2.0
Not enough toes to print I G N O R A N T B I G O T
I wish that the phrase “member of the global community” did not sound so…
Activist-ish or treehuggery or however it sounds, which seems to get it dismissed as too fringy to hold equal merit to a phrase like Patriotic American. I wish that, because I think it actually means something very important. I think that it is a very large part of the solution.
You grow up hearing so much about “the spirit of competition”, placed in such a positive light, as if it’s a value, in the same class as honesty, work ethic and kindness.
Competition between schools, departments, geographic areas, and everything else…
How valuable is competition? Without it, do you truly lack the drive to rise above mediocrity? Are we actually so shallow, that we feel it’s not worth bothering to move forward, unless we’re trampling over someone to get there?
Is my potential measured by what I can do, or what I can prove you can’t do?
And why the fuck am I so damn proud to be a part of a fraction of something, rather than just being at harmony with the whole thing.
Fuck that faggot-ass harmony shit! I’m proud to be a part of my fraction!!!
Proud to be an American!
Proud Christian
Muslim Pride
Armenian Pride
Mexican Pride
Gay Pride
Jewish Pride
Ford vs. Chevy
Mac vs. PC
Suni vs. Sheite
Icelandic Pride
Tasmanian Pride
Ethiopian Pride
Russian Pride
Irish Pride
Cardasian Pride!
And now, to help bring it home with a timeless classic, This little tidbit...
The young mother in front of me, with her daughter on her hip, in the check out line at Wal-Mart, did not have enough toes to print out ignorant bigot. So she had WHITE PRIDE tattooed across the tops of her toes.
She is raising a child. A child that could have been a member of the global community. But will more likely be apart of a fraction. A very proud fraction.
Has their not been enough evidence to the fact that the prouder a fraction is, the more it contributes to the problem?
I have no doubt that if this young mother votes, she votes strictly for Republicans. We have a Republican president whom has famously boasted that he wanted to be a “uniter not a divider”. We have a saying in this country: United We Stand Divided We Fall. Many people who voted for Mr. “I want to be a uniter” have bumper stickers on their cars which read: United We Stand. Some inspiring words from the President and the bumper sticker… But just words. Words of absolute hypocrisy. Under the “leadership” of this self proclaimed “uniter” our country has become more divided than it has been since the civil war. Could he stop there? No. He had to go on to isolate our country from the global community so thoroughly, that our nation has practically become the enemy of Planet Earth. The phrase that has so conveniently been left off of the bumper sticker is: Divided We Fall. As we have fallen.
Bill Clinton never touted his intent to be “a uniter”. Instead, he took actions of actual unification. Like appointing a Republican to the office of Secretary of Defense. He took real action to make significant strides toward uniting the political parties. And how did the Republican congress react? They spent the entire Clinton presidency conducting a witch-hunt against him. And don’t forget that while the Republican congress squandered millions of our tax dollars on this relentless political persecution, Bill still managed to not only balance the Federal budget, but he actually elevated our nation's revenue to the largest surplus in history.
Getting back to the point. I am not a proud Democrat or a proud American. If you held a gun to my head and said that I had to pledge my pride to something, I’d tell you that I am a proud member of the global community. And I would not limit that statement to the community of Humans. I believe that if I fail to respect all life and all elements, it would be a failure to respect God. And that's something that I try not to fail at.
But I do talk about the political parties. And I clearly do favor the politicians in the Democratic Party. It's just logical. The only politicians (of the realistically viable parties) in this country whom seem to make real efforts to unite us as nation, as a people, and as a truly responsible member of the global community, happen to be Democrats.
Hopefully, they will have enough success to eventually abolish all political parties.
Is John Lennon’s “Imagine” starting to play in the back of your mind, or is that just me?
I wish that the phrase “member of the global community” did not sound so…
Activist-ish or treehuggery or however it sounds, which seems to get it dismissed as too fringy to hold equal merit to a phrase like Patriotic American. I wish that, because I think it actually means something very important. I think that it is a very large part of the solution.
You grow up hearing so much about “the spirit of competition”, placed in such a positive light, as if it’s a value, in the same class as honesty, work ethic and kindness.
Competition between schools, departments, geographic areas, and everything else…
How valuable is competition? Without it, do you truly lack the drive to rise above mediocrity? Are we actually so shallow, that we feel it’s not worth bothering to move forward, unless we’re trampling over someone to get there?
Is my potential measured by what I can do, or what I can prove you can’t do?
And why the fuck am I so damn proud to be a part of a fraction of something, rather than just being at harmony with the whole thing.
Fuck that faggot-ass harmony shit! I’m proud to be a part of my fraction!!!
Proud to be an American!
Proud Christian
Muslim Pride
Armenian Pride
Mexican Pride
Gay Pride
Jewish Pride
Ford vs. Chevy
Mac vs. PC
Suni vs. Sheite
Icelandic Pride
Tasmanian Pride
Ethiopian Pride
Russian Pride
Irish Pride
Cardasian Pride!
And now, to help bring it home with a timeless classic, This little tidbit...
The young mother in front of me, with her daughter on her hip, in the check out line at Wal-Mart, did not have enough toes to print out ignorant bigot. So she had WHITE PRIDE tattooed across the tops of her toes.
She is raising a child. A child that could have been a member of the global community. But will more likely be apart of a fraction. A very proud fraction.
Has their not been enough evidence to the fact that the prouder a fraction is, the more it contributes to the problem?
I have no doubt that if this young mother votes, she votes strictly for Republicans. We have a Republican president whom has famously boasted that he wanted to be a “uniter not a divider”. We have a saying in this country: United We Stand Divided We Fall. Many people who voted for Mr. “I want to be a uniter” have bumper stickers on their cars which read: United We Stand. Some inspiring words from the President and the bumper sticker… But just words. Words of absolute hypocrisy. Under the “leadership” of this self proclaimed “uniter” our country has become more divided than it has been since the civil war. Could he stop there? No. He had to go on to isolate our country from the global community so thoroughly, that our nation has practically become the enemy of Planet Earth. The phrase that has so conveniently been left off of the bumper sticker is: Divided We Fall. As we have fallen.
Bill Clinton never touted his intent to be “a uniter”. Instead, he took actions of actual unification. Like appointing a Republican to the office of Secretary of Defense. He took real action to make significant strides toward uniting the political parties. And how did the Republican congress react? They spent the entire Clinton presidency conducting a witch-hunt against him. And don’t forget that while the Republican congress squandered millions of our tax dollars on this relentless political persecution, Bill still managed to not only balance the Federal budget, but he actually elevated our nation's revenue to the largest surplus in history.
Getting back to the point. I am not a proud Democrat or a proud American. If you held a gun to my head and said that I had to pledge my pride to something, I’d tell you that I am a proud member of the global community. And I would not limit that statement to the community of Humans. I believe that if I fail to respect all life and all elements, it would be a failure to respect God. And that's something that I try not to fail at.
But I do talk about the political parties. And I clearly do favor the politicians in the Democratic Party. It's just logical. The only politicians (of the realistically viable parties) in this country whom seem to make real efforts to unite us as nation, as a people, and as a truly responsible member of the global community, happen to be Democrats.
Hopefully, they will have enough success to eventually abolish all political parties.
Is John Lennon’s “Imagine” starting to play in the back of your mind, or is that just me?
Saturday, August 11, 2007
the solution 1.0
What makes me feel better, is my problem. But I keep treating it as the solution. So my problem keeps getting bigger.
As a worker, many situations have made it clear to me, that labor unions are necessary. As a manager, many situations have made it equally clear to me that as a body, the overall mechanism of organized labor is grossly exploitative of the system and basically missing the point, on a lot of levels.
In one of my sort of middle management positions, the hand of higher-ranking management sometimes forced me, to push my working (non-union) crews seven to ten hours into a shift without a meal break. I lost arguments with my bosses on this subject. And I was astonished by the inability of these “union haters”, to see that their own actions were creating even more of a need for labor unions. I would even explain it to them, plainly: “I’m as annoyed with the union as you are… So let’s stop being the reason that they need to exist!” They'd brush this kind of logic off the table with a roll of the eyes, and no more of a verbal response than a sarcastic: “So anyway…”
That type of attitude is out there, in full force. It’s not going away. Ever. Thus, neither will the need for labor unions ever go away.
See where I’m going here? We don’t just make our own problems. We make them worse. We make them permanent.
It’s like if we react to a fly problem in our home, by opening more windows and leaving food out to rot on the table. We wouldn’t do that, right?
It’s like if you find yourself on thin ice at work. So you start missing shifts, to make time to stalk your boss’ wife. Probably not gonna stabilize your position.
It’s like if some Muslims hated America enough to kill a whole bunch of our civilians, one day. And we reacted to that by invading an unrelated Muslim nation, launching an endless offensive crusade that would ultimately drive toward every Muslim on Earth wanting to kill all of us. We’d never do something that illogical.
Don’t get me wrong. Many union locals that I’ve worked with are shamefully missing the point. Union protocols and regulations exist to shield employees from unfair and unsafe work conditions. Business is business. Therefore business is brutal. So employees need this kind of protection. However, so many of their shields against abuse have been re-forged into weapons of laziness, that some labor unions have truly become synonymous with laziness.
But this is all sort of metaphoric. Just examples - leading to a point. I really don’t give a fuck, either away about labor unions. I’m just talking about finding the ability to step back out of your own bullshit, enough to see the big picture. And then see your self objectively in that big picture.
See things your way. But not just your way.
Get what’s yours… But only what’s rightfully yours.
Take advantage of what the system has to offer, without exploiting the system into a deliberately misinterpreted series of loopholes fashioned to accommodate laziness.
If you had the ethics to refrain from manipulating everything into your favor, and just keep your side of the street clean…
What would your place in the big picture look like?
It might look like you’re a part of the solution.
…and not the problem.
What if it were just that simple?
It just may be.
As a worker, many situations have made it clear to me, that labor unions are necessary. As a manager, many situations have made it equally clear to me that as a body, the overall mechanism of organized labor is grossly exploitative of the system and basically missing the point, on a lot of levels.
In one of my sort of middle management positions, the hand of higher-ranking management sometimes forced me, to push my working (non-union) crews seven to ten hours into a shift without a meal break. I lost arguments with my bosses on this subject. And I was astonished by the inability of these “union haters”, to see that their own actions were creating even more of a need for labor unions. I would even explain it to them, plainly: “I’m as annoyed with the union as you are… So let’s stop being the reason that they need to exist!” They'd brush this kind of logic off the table with a roll of the eyes, and no more of a verbal response than a sarcastic: “So anyway…”
That type of attitude is out there, in full force. It’s not going away. Ever. Thus, neither will the need for labor unions ever go away.
See where I’m going here? We don’t just make our own problems. We make them worse. We make them permanent.
It’s like if we react to a fly problem in our home, by opening more windows and leaving food out to rot on the table. We wouldn’t do that, right?
It’s like if you find yourself on thin ice at work. So you start missing shifts, to make time to stalk your boss’ wife. Probably not gonna stabilize your position.
It’s like if some Muslims hated America enough to kill a whole bunch of our civilians, one day. And we reacted to that by invading an unrelated Muslim nation, launching an endless offensive crusade that would ultimately drive toward every Muslim on Earth wanting to kill all of us. We’d never do something that illogical.
Don’t get me wrong. Many union locals that I’ve worked with are shamefully missing the point. Union protocols and regulations exist to shield employees from unfair and unsafe work conditions. Business is business. Therefore business is brutal. So employees need this kind of protection. However, so many of their shields against abuse have been re-forged into weapons of laziness, that some labor unions have truly become synonymous with laziness.
But this is all sort of metaphoric. Just examples - leading to a point. I really don’t give a fuck, either away about labor unions. I’m just talking about finding the ability to step back out of your own bullshit, enough to see the big picture. And then see your self objectively in that big picture.
See things your way. But not just your way.
Get what’s yours… But only what’s rightfully yours.
Take advantage of what the system has to offer, without exploiting the system into a deliberately misinterpreted series of loopholes fashioned to accommodate laziness.
If you had the ethics to refrain from manipulating everything into your favor, and just keep your side of the street clean…
What would your place in the big picture look like?
It might look like you’re a part of the solution.
…and not the problem.
What if it were just that simple?
It just may be.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fags
There is no argument of the fact that in general, the Republican Party is anti Labor Union, while the Democratic Party is pro Labor Union. So why are so many members of labor unions anti Democrat?
This is very simple. Most members of labor unions are “Blue Collar folk”. Most blue-collar folk hate fags.
Our national hatred of gay people is that powerful. So powerful that when many labor union members are faced with the choice: Do I vote for the party that is trying to help me to better provide for my family? Or do I vote for the party that hates fags as much as I do? They actually feel morally compelled to vote Republican. A moral compulsion to promote hatred… Twisted, ain’t it? But that is the reality of our nations dedication to bigotry. Socially accepted, organized bigotry. Bigotry that takes priority over how well a person can provide for their family. God bless America.
Speaking of God… I’m a big fan of God. I believe in a much bigger God than those self-righteous right-winger do. My God is bigger and Godder than theirs, because my God does not hate fags! My God has no hate. Hatred is a moral sickness. And if anyone is morally sick, it is certainly not God.
I was at work with some right-wing redneck types during a time when the issue of gay marriage was making a lot of headlines. These guys that I worked with were very macho. Contemporary “slap that bitch fuck that ho” macho. Before gay marriage was in the news, not one of these ignorant, bitch slappin’, ho fuckin’ simpletons would have ever been caught dead, uttering a pansy ass phrase like: “The sanctity of marriage” But what do know? There they were, spouting off “the sanctity of marriage” this and “the sanctity of marriage” that. Didn’t matter to them. They’d commit to putting on an apron and washing the dishes and vacuuming the house everyday for the rest of their lives if it meant that they got to actually write their hatred of fags into the constitution. They were drooling at the mouth. Giddy like schoolgirls. Because socially accepted bigotry is all fine and dandy. But now we have a chance to have Federal Law enforcing the hatred of an entire group people who we consider to be less human than us.
God Bless America! Have you heard the most popular statement against gay marriage? Not sure if it’s actually the most popular, but it’s the one that I’ve heard the most. They love to say that it somehow devalues traditional marriage because it’s the same as granting a legal marriage to a couple of animals. Hmm… That’s a pretty clear dehumanization of an entire group of people. A lot like the way that the Nazi’s dehumanized the German’s perception of Jewish people. That movement was very successful at convincing the masses, that the members of an entire group of people were actually not valid people, deserving of human rights. So what is the difference between that and what’s going on now? Is it that gay people actually are less than human? One thing that I’m sure of…Every gay person that I know is in every way morally superior to and more human than any asshole who would carry a sign that reads “God Hates Fags”.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Point
Many years ago, Chris Mortensen gave me a J. Krishnamurti book. As I recall, I only read bits of it at a time. Honestly, I can remember very little of what I read. But there is one bit of it which has always stood out in my mind. He wrote about the futility of ideologies. So clearly and logically, he presented and validated this concept, which he encapsulated with the statement that "all ideologies are idiotic". Since then, there have been many significant points in our recent history, at which that profound phrase has come into my mind.
We have reached an other one of those points.
As a global society, we have filled this world with problems. Most of the strives toward solutions have created more problems, because so many ideal solutions to the same problem are in such sharp contrast to one and other. This has gone on for so long that all of the original problems are forgotten. We now drift aimlessly, through the vast debris fields of problems that were spawned by the ideologies of the worlds most powerful idiots.
To get rid of both the ideologies and the idiots would solve most of the worlds problems, immediately. But of coarse, that scenario is idealistic. Not realistic. And my whole point is the historically proven fact that real solutions to real problems have to be about what is realistic. Because an idealistic attempt at solving the problem will not only fail to solve the problem, but also create a three fold of new problems. The more you think about it, the more you realize, that ideology is the great enemy of the global society.
So, if we can't get rid of the ideologies and the idiots, I guess we have to pick one to work on first. It's my thought, that the more we manage to reel in the ideologies, the more idiots will fall out of power. So let's attack the giant at the knees.
At this point I want to disclose the fact that politically, I am a "Lefty". It seems very difficult to logically dispute the fact that the greatest forces of conflict and destruction in the word have historically been and presently are at the hands of the idealists in far Right Wing of various nations. That said, I want to make it very clear that I find the Left Wing to be equally as guilty of idealistic idiocy as the Right. And have in too many cases, been as much of a hindrance to progress as those on the Right. The recently failed, so called "Bi-Partisan Immigration Bill" is a perfect example of both sides being guilty of putting idealism ahead of realism. Once again, both the Left and Right have allowed ideology to conquer progress.
My use of the word progress, brings us to the other end of the point. Real solutions are rarely arrived at in a single step. Just as a movie is built from a series of scenes. A solutions is often built from a series of progressive steps. And no. I'm not talking about Iraq. Not much of that mess is in any way progressive.
The sort of thing that I am talking about is the time that I saw Gay's protesting against Bill Clinton, after "Don't ask. Don't tell" happened. I saw a big picture of Bill, with the word LIAR in bold across it, marching down a Gay parade. Yes. "Don't ask. Don't tell" fell far far short of the level dignity that Bill Clinton had hoped to give to Gay's in the Armed Forces. But it was the most that the Republican congress would let him do. So he did something! He made progress on that issue. Yes. Only a baby step. But progress toward social evolution. He moved us an inch further away from our nation's core of socially accepted bigotry. Perhaps those who protested him would have preferred him to be an idealist rather than a realist. Perhaps they'd prefer that he had stuck to his guns with a measure that Congress would not have passed. Perhaps these idealists would have been happier to see him accomplish nothing. Fortunately for the realistic members of the progressive population, these idealists failed to shoot themselves in the foot.
This is one example of idiotic ideology on the Left. And I really don't need to get much into examples from the Right. The fact that most wars are fought over religious differences speaks enough to that.
We have reached an other one of those points.
As a global society, we have filled this world with problems. Most of the strives toward solutions have created more problems, because so many ideal solutions to the same problem are in such sharp contrast to one and other. This has gone on for so long that all of the original problems are forgotten. We now drift aimlessly, through the vast debris fields of problems that were spawned by the ideologies of the worlds most powerful idiots.
To get rid of both the ideologies and the idiots would solve most of the worlds problems, immediately. But of coarse, that scenario is idealistic. Not realistic. And my whole point is the historically proven fact that real solutions to real problems have to be about what is realistic. Because an idealistic attempt at solving the problem will not only fail to solve the problem, but also create a three fold of new problems. The more you think about it, the more you realize, that ideology is the great enemy of the global society.
So, if we can't get rid of the ideologies and the idiots, I guess we have to pick one to work on first. It's my thought, that the more we manage to reel in the ideologies, the more idiots will fall out of power. So let's attack the giant at the knees.
At this point I want to disclose the fact that politically, I am a "Lefty". It seems very difficult to logically dispute the fact that the greatest forces of conflict and destruction in the word have historically been and presently are at the hands of the idealists in far Right Wing of various nations. That said, I want to make it very clear that I find the Left Wing to be equally as guilty of idealistic idiocy as the Right. And have in too many cases, been as much of a hindrance to progress as those on the Right. The recently failed, so called "Bi-Partisan Immigration Bill" is a perfect example of both sides being guilty of putting idealism ahead of realism. Once again, both the Left and Right have allowed ideology to conquer progress.
My use of the word progress, brings us to the other end of the point. Real solutions are rarely arrived at in a single step. Just as a movie is built from a series of scenes. A solutions is often built from a series of progressive steps. And no. I'm not talking about Iraq. Not much of that mess is in any way progressive.
The sort of thing that I am talking about is the time that I saw Gay's protesting against Bill Clinton, after "Don't ask. Don't tell" happened. I saw a big picture of Bill, with the word LIAR in bold across it, marching down a Gay parade. Yes. "Don't ask. Don't tell" fell far far short of the level dignity that Bill Clinton had hoped to give to Gay's in the Armed Forces. But it was the most that the Republican congress would let him do. So he did something! He made progress on that issue. Yes. Only a baby step. But progress toward social evolution. He moved us an inch further away from our nation's core of socially accepted bigotry. Perhaps those who protested him would have preferred him to be an idealist rather than a realist. Perhaps they'd prefer that he had stuck to his guns with a measure that Congress would not have passed. Perhaps these idealists would have been happier to see him accomplish nothing. Fortunately for the realistic members of the progressive population, these idealists failed to shoot themselves in the foot.
This is one example of idiotic ideology on the Left. And I really don't need to get much into examples from the Right. The fact that most wars are fought over religious differences speaks enough to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)