...if only for a moment
Last night when Anderson Cooper asked Mitt Romney to respond to John McCain’s comments about Romney’s tendency to change positions on certain issues, Mitt gave the answer that I’ve been waiting so long to hear from any politician. He said (I paraphrase) that someone who can’t learn from their experience should be fired. That if you can’t assimilate new information and reevaluate your position on important matters that you are not qualified to lead.
Thank God, someone has finally said it. Too bad no one said it when everyone was calling John Kerry a “flip flopper”. And I hope that while Mitt Romney made that profound statement that at least a few Dubbaya fans out there realized the tragedy of the FULL STEAM AHEAD!!! NO MATTER WHAT!!! Bush arrogance.
For a number of reasons, I certainly do not endorse Romney. But I hope that whoever does get in the White House next will have the sense of logic to understand this very basic concept. The concept being that early assessments of complex situations are often proved to be the wrong course of action. And by failing to understand this and react to it is arrogant, reckless and incompetent.
Though it is redundant to mention, I'll say it: Those are the three words which best describe our sitting President.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Now, let’s talk about abortion.
I don’t think that there is any subject in which the conservatives are more egregiously missing and misrepresenting the point of their opposition. And it’s not just the “Pro-Life” crowd who’s missing the point. The media is equally guilty of drawing an inaccurate picture of what the argument actually is.
The argument is not whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Whether or not it’s acceptable in extreme cases is a separate matter of varying opinions. But generally speaking, no one who isn’t mentally and morally sick thinks that abortion is an acceptable means of casual birth control. As no one in their right mind thinks that abortion is in any way a casual matter — or feels that its generally okay to do. An equal amount of people on the left and the right basically believe that abortion is a tragic thing.
So the first thing we need to clear up is: what are we’re debating? It’s not a battle of people in favor of abortion vs. people against abortion. The reality is that on some level, we are all against abortion. That’s not the argument.
This argument is the flagship example of the conservatives' disconnection from reality. Again and again; up and down so many issues; their relentless denial of reality is only equaled by what appears to be the high level of personal offence that they take when faced with reality. This truly and simply is the argument against the right-wing's relentless rejections of reality — and the fact that their renunciation of reality is largely the original cause of so many of the problems we debate . The reality of prohibition was that it just created illegal activity and violence. People were going to get their booze, regardless of the law. So we had to face the fact that the subject of alcoholic beverages in America was a matter of realistic regulation, not prohibition.
Without regard to your impervious rejection of reality, it is possible, perhaps likely that your child will become sexually active during their high school years, if not earlier. And if by the recklessness of your will, your child has been convinced that abstinence is the only form of birth control, you very well may be the cause of an unwanted pregnancy.
I know you righties hate science, but here's an interesting fact of science for you. The physical development of a person's brain has not completed until the age of 22. This may in part explain the fact that young scared girls make decisions based on their fear — driven by their mental and emotional immaturity. It’s a reality of youth that you can't preach out of them. This is a large part of the reason that a law against abortion did not prevent abortion from happening during the time that it was outlawed in this country. Despite the law, abortions continued to happen — but without the presence of any sort of medial professional or proper equipment. Everyone has heard the coat hanger horrors — that would so often result not only in the death of the fetus but also in the death of the young pregnant woman.
Now it may be your position that if a girl chooses to perform a “bathroom or back alley abortion” that she deserves whatever physical complication may befall her. Okay. But that’s a different argument, isn’t it? This is my point. Let’s be clear and honest about what we are debating. It’s not “baby killers” vs. “baby savers”, as the conservatives would like everyone to believe. If you’re against abortion, that’s great. So am I. Borrow my ladder and shout it from the roof tops. Get active. Promote more education and positive realistic guidance. Choose from many things that can be done that accomplish so much more than creating a law that is sure to be tragically ignored. Do something. But please think thoroughly about the real life effect of laws in our society before you bring your conviction into the argument of whether or not to outlaw something that so many young women and girls will find a way to do regardless of the law.
This is the real debate:
Practical and fearless education, Realistic prevention, and Responsible safe regulation
vs.
An ideology that rejects the reality of the fact that preaching abstinence is not teaching birth control. An ideology which also rejects the reality; that under a law against abortion many young women would perform hazardous and lethal home abortions. It may also be the position of this ideology that any girl or woman willing to perform a home abortion deserves to die.
And if that final point is their position, I’m not judging them for it. I’m simply trying to present a more accurate picture of this argument. It’s an argument about a potential LAW and what the real life effect of that law would be. Everyone is to some degree against abortion. So the argument is not one of for or against abortion. The argument is for or against a law that would cause more pain and suffering than it would prevent.
The argument is not whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Whether or not it’s acceptable in extreme cases is a separate matter of varying opinions. But generally speaking, no one who isn’t mentally and morally sick thinks that abortion is an acceptable means of casual birth control. As no one in their right mind thinks that abortion is in any way a casual matter — or feels that its generally okay to do. An equal amount of people on the left and the right basically believe that abortion is a tragic thing.
So the first thing we need to clear up is: what are we’re debating? It’s not a battle of people in favor of abortion vs. people against abortion. The reality is that on some level, we are all against abortion. That’s not the argument.
This argument is the flagship example of the conservatives' disconnection from reality. Again and again; up and down so many issues; their relentless denial of reality is only equaled by what appears to be the high level of personal offence that they take when faced with reality. This truly and simply is the argument against the right-wing's relentless rejections of reality — and the fact that their renunciation of reality is largely the original cause of so many of the problems we debate . The reality of prohibition was that it just created illegal activity and violence. People were going to get their booze, regardless of the law. So we had to face the fact that the subject of alcoholic beverages in America was a matter of realistic regulation, not prohibition.
Without regard to your impervious rejection of reality, it is possible, perhaps likely that your child will become sexually active during their high school years, if not earlier. And if by the recklessness of your will, your child has been convinced that abstinence is the only form of birth control, you very well may be the cause of an unwanted pregnancy.
I know you righties hate science, but here's an interesting fact of science for you. The physical development of a person's brain has not completed until the age of 22. This may in part explain the fact that young scared girls make decisions based on their fear — driven by their mental and emotional immaturity. It’s a reality of youth that you can't preach out of them. This is a large part of the reason that a law against abortion did not prevent abortion from happening during the time that it was outlawed in this country. Despite the law, abortions continued to happen — but without the presence of any sort of medial professional or proper equipment. Everyone has heard the coat hanger horrors — that would so often result not only in the death of the fetus but also in the death of the young pregnant woman.
Now it may be your position that if a girl chooses to perform a “bathroom or back alley abortion” that she deserves whatever physical complication may befall her. Okay. But that’s a different argument, isn’t it? This is my point. Let’s be clear and honest about what we are debating. It’s not “baby killers” vs. “baby savers”, as the conservatives would like everyone to believe. If you’re against abortion, that’s great. So am I. Borrow my ladder and shout it from the roof tops. Get active. Promote more education and positive realistic guidance. Choose from many things that can be done that accomplish so much more than creating a law that is sure to be tragically ignored. Do something. But please think thoroughly about the real life effect of laws in our society before you bring your conviction into the argument of whether or not to outlaw something that so many young women and girls will find a way to do regardless of the law.
This is the real debate:
Practical and fearless education, Realistic prevention, and Responsible safe regulation
vs.
An ideology that rejects the reality of the fact that preaching abstinence is not teaching birth control. An ideology which also rejects the reality; that under a law against abortion many young women would perform hazardous and lethal home abortions. It may also be the position of this ideology that any girl or woman willing to perform a home abortion deserves to die.
And if that final point is their position, I’m not judging them for it. I’m simply trying to present a more accurate picture of this argument. It’s an argument about a potential LAW and what the real life effect of that law would be. Everyone is to some degree against abortion. So the argument is not one of for or against abortion. The argument is for or against a law that would cause more pain and suffering than it would prevent.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Let’s talk about “Small Government”
and "Big Government" for that matter.
When politicians talk about big government and small government, what are they really referring to? Think about this deeply. In the practical cause and effect sense of the matter, what is the negative impact of large government or the advantage of smaller government?
Money must be at the top of the list. New bureaus and larger more complex government agencies cost money to support, right? So that must be a big part of it.
And then there’s the matter of living in the land of the free, we don’t want the government telling us what to do. We’re grown-ups in a free society. We can make our own decisions.
There are probably a few more but I’m guessing that Money and Freedom are the two main points of the Size of the Government Issue.
Okay, so first let’s look at the matter of government spending. The Democrats believe that as the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth, we have a moral obligation to do something about our national poverty rate and things of that nature. This means social programs.
The Republicans believe that corporate and military might are the answers to all our problems so they say “privatize”. They say “we want smaller government. Replace government agencies with private companies.” Here’s where the republican delusion comes in. First, they put this idea in your head that Democrats want to “Socialize” everything. It’s like McCarthyism all over again. It truly is textbook Right-Wing Rule by Fear tactics. It hasn’t changed since the dark ages. Obviously because it still works (in favor of the rulers). Meanwhile, back in reality, the Democrats actually don’t want to “Socialize” everything. They are simply realistic about the facts of business. The purpose of business is profit. Business answers to profit first – morals later – much later and only if it is very convenient. This is not a judgment about business. It is simply a reality. Now the republicans say privatize everything. Well, the thing is that many very important issues in our society need services that are not necessarily so profitable. The organizations providing such services would need to have a mission based priority rather than a profit priority. So in a perfect republican world, these services would only exist if private businesses could afford to forgo profit. Therefore, they would simply not exist. Of course, rampant disease and a massive increase in crime would be the result of the republican’s perfect world – so we would have to spend billions more dollars on law enforcement, jails, prisons and hospitals. Wait a minute… turning our backs on nearly half of the nation was supposed to reduce the size of the government. Well, that’s the little hiccup in convenient republican plans. The positive effects only last long enough to get votes for republicans. And then reality happens. The fact is that investing in our nation is actually much cheaper than turning our backs on it.
Assuming that nightmare doesn’t happen, let’s look at things that the republicans spend money on now. Like the $8 Billion a month war. Even when that war ends – if republicans had their way they’d get us straight into another war. Ask yourself: How many democrat sponsored domestic social programs cost the American tax payers EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH? And it’s not just war. All of the republican tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals… Who pays for that? Yeah, the vast majority of American tax payers.
You see, when it comes to government agency spending, the republicans want BIGGER government than the democrats. The main difference is that the republicans think the money needs to go to corporations and wealthy individuals, while democrats want money spent to help the majority of people in this nation. Which would make us a collectively stronger nation as a whole. It’s just a matter of convenient labeling. When republicans spend money they scare you into believing that it’s just “the price of freedom”. When democrats spend less money, republicans cry “Big Government”.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s move on to that issue of the government encroaching on our personal liberties. You’ll notice that there are all kinds of activists who publicly demonstrate. Some on the left and some on the right. And if you look at the objectives of these demonstrations, you will notice distinctive consistencies. When left wing activists engage in a public demonstration, their objective is usually to gain personal liberties, rights or fair treatment for themselves or a group of people. You will also notice that when right wing activists demonstrate publicly, they are usually organized with the objective to restrict or revoke the personal liberties, rights or fair treatment of some person or group of people.
So, Big Government… Righty’s afraid that Big Government is trying to tell him what to do. Trying to stomp out the 2nd amendment. Tryin’ to take my guns. Well, that is very far from any possible reality. I challenge anyone to find any proposed form of legislation that is intended to deny law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. Some folks just think that it makes sense to prevent criminals from having more powerful weapons than police. Call me crazy… But that seems to make sense. So no one is trying to take your rights from you. They are just trying to give the nice policeman a slight advantage when he’s trying to save your child from a schoolyard shooting.
Meanwhile Righty wants the government to tap our phone lines and tell us who we’re allowed to love.
Overall, it appears that in realm of practical cause and effect reality, it is the republicans who are far guiltier of bringing about a “Big Government” economic impact on our nation as well as a “Big Government / Big Brother” encroachment on our personal liberties. As usual, when you look beyond the smokescreen of the Republican catch phrase you find that they are actually the hypocritical perpetrators of what they accuse the Democrats of.
When politicians talk about big government and small government, what are they really referring to? Think about this deeply. In the practical cause and effect sense of the matter, what is the negative impact of large government or the advantage of smaller government?
Money must be at the top of the list. New bureaus and larger more complex government agencies cost money to support, right? So that must be a big part of it.
And then there’s the matter of living in the land of the free, we don’t want the government telling us what to do. We’re grown-ups in a free society. We can make our own decisions.
There are probably a few more but I’m guessing that Money and Freedom are the two main points of the Size of the Government Issue.
Okay, so first let’s look at the matter of government spending. The Democrats believe that as the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth, we have a moral obligation to do something about our national poverty rate and things of that nature. This means social programs.
The Republicans believe that corporate and military might are the answers to all our problems so they say “privatize”. They say “we want smaller government. Replace government agencies with private companies.” Here’s where the republican delusion comes in. First, they put this idea in your head that Democrats want to “Socialize” everything. It’s like McCarthyism all over again. It truly is textbook Right-Wing Rule by Fear tactics. It hasn’t changed since the dark ages. Obviously because it still works (in favor of the rulers). Meanwhile, back in reality, the Democrats actually don’t want to “Socialize” everything. They are simply realistic about the facts of business. The purpose of business is profit. Business answers to profit first – morals later – much later and only if it is very convenient. This is not a judgment about business. It is simply a reality. Now the republicans say privatize everything. Well, the thing is that many very important issues in our society need services that are not necessarily so profitable. The organizations providing such services would need to have a mission based priority rather than a profit priority. So in a perfect republican world, these services would only exist if private businesses could afford to forgo profit. Therefore, they would simply not exist. Of course, rampant disease and a massive increase in crime would be the result of the republican’s perfect world – so we would have to spend billions more dollars on law enforcement, jails, prisons and hospitals. Wait a minute… turning our backs on nearly half of the nation was supposed to reduce the size of the government. Well, that’s the little hiccup in convenient republican plans. The positive effects only last long enough to get votes for republicans. And then reality happens. The fact is that investing in our nation is actually much cheaper than turning our backs on it.
Assuming that nightmare doesn’t happen, let’s look at things that the republicans spend money on now. Like the $8 Billion a month war. Even when that war ends – if republicans had their way they’d get us straight into another war. Ask yourself: How many democrat sponsored domestic social programs cost the American tax payers EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH? And it’s not just war. All of the republican tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals… Who pays for that? Yeah, the vast majority of American tax payers.
You see, when it comes to government agency spending, the republicans want BIGGER government than the democrats. The main difference is that the republicans think the money needs to go to corporations and wealthy individuals, while democrats want money spent to help the majority of people in this nation. Which would make us a collectively stronger nation as a whole. It’s just a matter of convenient labeling. When republicans spend money they scare you into believing that it’s just “the price of freedom”. When democrats spend less money, republicans cry “Big Government”.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s move on to that issue of the government encroaching on our personal liberties. You’ll notice that there are all kinds of activists who publicly demonstrate. Some on the left and some on the right. And if you look at the objectives of these demonstrations, you will notice distinctive consistencies. When left wing activists engage in a public demonstration, their objective is usually to gain personal liberties, rights or fair treatment for themselves or a group of people. You will also notice that when right wing activists demonstrate publicly, they are usually organized with the objective to restrict or revoke the personal liberties, rights or fair treatment of some person or group of people.
So, Big Government… Righty’s afraid that Big Government is trying to tell him what to do. Trying to stomp out the 2nd amendment. Tryin’ to take my guns. Well, that is very far from any possible reality. I challenge anyone to find any proposed form of legislation that is intended to deny law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. Some folks just think that it makes sense to prevent criminals from having more powerful weapons than police. Call me crazy… But that seems to make sense. So no one is trying to take your rights from you. They are just trying to give the nice policeman a slight advantage when he’s trying to save your child from a schoolyard shooting.
Meanwhile Righty wants the government to tap our phone lines and tell us who we’re allowed to love.
Overall, it appears that in realm of practical cause and effect reality, it is the republicans who are far guiltier of bringing about a “Big Government” economic impact on our nation as well as a “Big Government / Big Brother” encroachment on our personal liberties. As usual, when you look beyond the smokescreen of the Republican catch phrase you find that they are actually the hypocritical perpetrators of what they accuse the Democrats of.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Democrats want to give tax breaks
To the people! The majority of the people. As opposed to the republican philosophy that tax cuts are just for corporations and wealthy people.
Washington is largely in bipartisan agreement that some sort of tax relief should be a part of the solution to the current problems facing our economy. It’s great to see them mostly agree on something.
Of course, the devil’s in the details. So let’s look at the basics of the differences.The democrats propose plans that would provide tax relief for middle to lower income Americans. Meaning most Americans. Some republicans are in favor of this as well. But naturally, the more conservative republicans in congress (meaning a lot of them) believe that the economy would be better served by giving these tax breaks to corporations, rather than citizens.
Now, its one thing if that is simply their opinion based on sound advice from a diverse pool of independent expert economists. But I heard one of these congressmen on the radio the other day, and it sounds like it’s just another ill-advised republican maneuver that protects Corporate America at the expense of American Citizens.
You know how republicans like to wrap complex issues into little catch phrases that have nothing to do with the practical reality of the matter…
Well here’s how this congressman wrapped up this one. He said that he’d like to see that tax relief go into paychecks rather than welfare checks. Clever little catch phrase. Now let’s examine how disconnected from reality it is. First, he’s suggesting that out of the generosity of the corporate heart, tax breaks for corporations would result in more or larger paychecks for workers. That really is what he's suggesting. The second part of his handy little catch phrase labels tax relief for the non-wealthy as being nothing but welfare. His words… He actually called it welfare.
On the first point, let’s look at the history of corporate behavior during hard times. What is the first thing that corporations do when they get nervous? Do they examine the possibility that they may be top heavy at the executive level? Not so much. Do the highest paid executives bite the bullet and take a little pay cut for the greater good? Heavens no. Why get crazy, when you can just lay off a large part of the work force. Sure, all the families of the laid off workers suffer and middle management has to work a lot harder to keep the wheels turning, but they don’t need to see their families. Right? Not to mention the hits that local economies take when a bunch of people get laid off. And when you’re listening to financial news shows, and you hear about a big corporation having a profitable quarter — is it followed by news of how those profits were put into bigger or more paychecks for workers ? No. In fact news like that is often accompanied by reports about raises and massive bonuses for the top executive of the company. And that’s fine. The people making the big decisions should be compensated for good results.
But please! You republican congressmen really need to stop assuming that Americans are so stupid that they would actually believe that tax breaks for corporations will result in bigger or more paychecks for the working class. You're selling a fantasy to people who are not as delusional as you are. This idea that a company's surplus revenue will trickle down the corporate stream into the pockets of it's worker is quite unfortunately, a non-reality. It's simply not the nature of business. It's like the story of the fox and scorpion.
As for the point made in the second part of the congressman's cute little catch phrase — the part where he refers to tax breaks for working Americans as “welfare”… Well, that is such a flagrantly arrogant and condescending insult to the majority of Americans — that it really speaks for its self and I need not say more.
Washington is largely in bipartisan agreement that some sort of tax relief should be a part of the solution to the current problems facing our economy. It’s great to see them mostly agree on something.
Of course, the devil’s in the details. So let’s look at the basics of the differences.The democrats propose plans that would provide tax relief for middle to lower income Americans. Meaning most Americans. Some republicans are in favor of this as well. But naturally, the more conservative republicans in congress (meaning a lot of them) believe that the economy would be better served by giving these tax breaks to corporations, rather than citizens.
Now, its one thing if that is simply their opinion based on sound advice from a diverse pool of independent expert economists. But I heard one of these congressmen on the radio the other day, and it sounds like it’s just another ill-advised republican maneuver that protects Corporate America at the expense of American Citizens.
You know how republicans like to wrap complex issues into little catch phrases that have nothing to do with the practical reality of the matter…
Well here’s how this congressman wrapped up this one. He said that he’d like to see that tax relief go into paychecks rather than welfare checks. Clever little catch phrase. Now let’s examine how disconnected from reality it is. First, he’s suggesting that out of the generosity of the corporate heart, tax breaks for corporations would result in more or larger paychecks for workers. That really is what he's suggesting. The second part of his handy little catch phrase labels tax relief for the non-wealthy as being nothing but welfare. His words… He actually called it welfare.
On the first point, let’s look at the history of corporate behavior during hard times. What is the first thing that corporations do when they get nervous? Do they examine the possibility that they may be top heavy at the executive level? Not so much. Do the highest paid executives bite the bullet and take a little pay cut for the greater good? Heavens no. Why get crazy, when you can just lay off a large part of the work force. Sure, all the families of the laid off workers suffer and middle management has to work a lot harder to keep the wheels turning, but they don’t need to see their families. Right? Not to mention the hits that local economies take when a bunch of people get laid off. And when you’re listening to financial news shows, and you hear about a big corporation having a profitable quarter — is it followed by news of how those profits were put into bigger or more paychecks for workers ? No. In fact news like that is often accompanied by reports about raises and massive bonuses for the top executive of the company. And that’s fine. The people making the big decisions should be compensated for good results.
But please! You republican congressmen really need to stop assuming that Americans are so stupid that they would actually believe that tax breaks for corporations will result in bigger or more paychecks for the working class. You're selling a fantasy to people who are not as delusional as you are. This idea that a company's surplus revenue will trickle down the corporate stream into the pockets of it's worker is quite unfortunately, a non-reality. It's simply not the nature of business. It's like the story of the fox and scorpion.
As for the point made in the second part of the congressman's cute little catch phrase — the part where he refers to tax breaks for working Americans as “welfare”… Well, that is such a flagrantly arrogant and condescending insult to the majority of Americans — that it really speaks for its self and I need not say more.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
still optimistic... still wrong.
I just heard President Bush throwing around the word “optimistic” again. The republicans love wearing the badge of “Optimism”. It’s been a very convenient and effective method of selling their multi-issue rejection of reality.
When a progressive promotes the acceptance or implementation of reality, he is swiftly labeled “Pessimist”.
When an unrealistic (aka: “optimistic”) republican plan fails, they blame it on the pessimistic resistance of uncooperative lefties. While the reality of the matter is that their unrealistic plan slammed into the brick wall of REALITY.
To make sure you righties believe me about the empirical concrete nature of REALITY, I’ve pasted in the first paragraph of reality’s definition from Conservapedia:
Reality is something that is really true. Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.
So there you have it! Even the conservative web site that largely exists for the purpose of renouncing reality, admits that Reality is not a synonym for pessimism.
Think about that the next time that you’re about to cram your rejection of reality into the costume of “optimism”.
When a progressive promotes the acceptance or implementation of reality, he is swiftly labeled “Pessimist”.
When an unrealistic (aka: “optimistic”) republican plan fails, they blame it on the pessimistic resistance of uncooperative lefties. While the reality of the matter is that their unrealistic plan slammed into the brick wall of REALITY.
To make sure you righties believe me about the empirical concrete nature of REALITY, I’ve pasted in the first paragraph of reality’s definition from Conservapedia:
Reality is something that is really true. Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.
So there you have it! Even the conservative web site that largely exists for the purpose of renouncing reality, admits that Reality is not a synonym for pessimism.
Think about that the next time that you’re about to cram your rejection of reality into the costume of “optimism”.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Real Lies vs Real Skeletons
It seems that at least twice a week I hear someone make wise cracks about Barack Obama’s name. Yes very clever… Barack Osama. And it seems that just as often I hear news reports about the relentless fabrications about Obama’s supposed Muslim background. Every time someone tries to start one of these rumors, it is immediately revealed (by responsible members of the press) to be an absolute fabrication. But that doesn’t stop them. These people are in love with the idea of trying to get people to believe this lie. It's actually because of these people that everyone is now so aware of the fact that Barack Obama was baptized Protestant and never had any ties to radical Muslims. And despite the rampant global knowledge of the truth about Obama, these people remain relentless in there quest to spread the lie.
It would have been interesting if people had attacked George W in such a way, back when he was first running. At least they would have some legitimate ammunition. Considering the fact that the Grandfather of our sitting president was practically a member of the Nazi party. Not figuratively. Prescott Bush actually was an active partner and share holder in major companies that greatly aided and greatly profited from the Nazi war machine. It’s just one of the uglier skeletons in the Bush family closet. Dandy little gem in American history. I didn’t notice anyone use it against dubbaya during his campaign years. But if they had played that dirty, at least they would have been armed with truth.
It would have been interesting if people had attacked George W in such a way, back when he was first running. At least they would have some legitimate ammunition. Considering the fact that the Grandfather of our sitting president was practically a member of the Nazi party. Not figuratively. Prescott Bush actually was an active partner and share holder in major companies that greatly aided and greatly profited from the Nazi war machine. It’s just one of the uglier skeletons in the Bush family closet. Dandy little gem in American history. I didn’t notice anyone use it against dubbaya during his campaign years. But if they had played that dirty, at least they would have been armed with truth.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Coincidence and Convenience
“President” Pervez Musharraf is supposedly an ally to our nation against terrorism. That sounds nice but I wonder about what details of that relationship we’re not privy to. I wonder if the negative aspects of those details may radically outweigh this assumed Musharraf anti-terrorism prowess. It does seem to be an interesting coincidence that a couple of Presidents, whom have both achieved the office of Presidency by questionable means, have now become so chummy.
And then there is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is very real. They do really bad things. But it may have become just a bit too convenient for shady fuckers like Musharraf and Bush to blame Al-Qaeda for incidents which they’d prefer not to explain truthfully. You know… Things like the Bhutto Assassination. Or perhaps it was just a very convenient coincidence that Al-Qaeda came along to pull that Bhutto thorn out of Musharraf’s side. Not sure if Al-Qaeda likes him enough to do him that favor...Hmm. At any rate, Musharraf appears to have the resources to handle tasks like that for himself. But if he did need the favor, he’d probably go to someone he was more chummy with.
And then there is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is very real. They do really bad things. But it may have become just a bit too convenient for shady fuckers like Musharraf and Bush to blame Al-Qaeda for incidents which they’d prefer not to explain truthfully. You know… Things like the Bhutto Assassination. Or perhaps it was just a very convenient coincidence that Al-Qaeda came along to pull that Bhutto thorn out of Musharraf’s side. Not sure if Al-Qaeda likes him enough to do him that favor...Hmm. At any rate, Musharraf appears to have the resources to handle tasks like that for himself. But if he did need the favor, he’d probably go to someone he was more chummy with.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Today's Light Note
“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.
-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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)