The one guy on the GOP bench who could rightly be called a STATESMAN is Jon Huntsman, and few on either side have his international experience. He is living demonstration of what is right about Mormon social values, and yet is open-minded and tolerant, and not on a religious mission. The rest are politicians, flacks, and tent-show evangelists whose talent is playing the election TV reality show game, and who are chosen for their "electability" by voters who are sold candidates like brands of pizza, with slogans and single-issue mantras, not for their qualifications for actually holding the job. And the GOPs election strategy has long been to focus not on their own candidates beyond iconification, but upon the horrors they allege to Obama and why to not vote for him... and instead for the default Notobama. By me, that is low-class politics, however effective, and I am unfavorably impressed with candidates who employ it.
Though I think not a "leftist" I believe we have unfortunately lost our sense of America being a mutually-supporting community which creates what I call "collective wealth" ... which I think government has the potential to be the best way to obtain. Our new-deal dams and highways are a good example (and our schools should be). It is not in the direct interest of any individual or private company to create such things, yet all of both greatly profit by their existence. I believe a state medical system could be run like that most effectively and at a very small fraction of the current cost... a subject on which I've got several articles and videos.
Those most vocal these days about being "real Americans" seem mostly about defending a select group of "us" behind gated walls with rifles to keep the hordes of "them" out. The very idea that government should provide something to everyone without regard for their having done something to individually "deserve" it has itself become demonized as "socialism," the current horror word that explains and justifies everything.
Without getting into the issues, I have great admiration for President Obama. I have no trouble discerning the difference between what I hear him say, and what the rightnik pudnits tell me he is saying, and between what I see him do and what they say is wrong about it. His credentials are impeccable, unless you would discount the State of Hawaii, INS, State Dept, FBI, Electoral Commission, Electoral College, Supreme Court, etc etc, and reluctantly even both houses of Congress... and also impugn the integrity of the Board Of Regents of what is arguably the most prestigious school of law in the world. Though his detractors openly flaunt and even applaud their willingness to employ whatever dirty tactics they can to destroy him, he has behaved with grace and forbearance.
So, I find things I agree and disagree with on both the Left and the Right, and whatever might be said about the party machines or ideology they represent, I'd say Huntsman vs. Obama would be a win/win race for the people. Those are American good guys.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Whose Unborn Baby Is It?
I recently received this in correspondence on the subject with a friend, and I appreciate the chance to address it.
, eric writes:
.....a woman's right to abortion is legal. That is not my problem with it. My first problem is that taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions. My second problem is that I believe the law does a disservice to women. If women have a right to choose, what are they choosing?
If it is a disservice to give someone a choice to do something you think they should not, then you do them best service by taking such choices away from them, and ensuring they only choose what you know is right, right? If she has a right to a root canal, why should any health care program refuse to cover it? What makes the abortion procedure different, if not the moral judgment prohibitionists would presume the power to enforce? I think government should not pay for cosmetic procedures, nor for the pharmacopoeia of Dr.Feelgood drugs, but if abortion is called a medical right (and it is hundreds of times less expensive than the alternative, providing pre-natal, birth, and adoption services), then who should say it should be excluded from the services covered, particularly on moralist grounds?
Your question demonstrates the apriori presumption of authority to define what is so immoral as to warrant prohibition. "What are they choosing?" you ask. The answer implied is, "something too bad to permit." Whose business is it to judge her choices so as to take them from her by law? In a sense, she is choosing to call abortion a justifiable homicide, as homicide it unquestionably is. Those who admit an "incest rape" exclusion to permit the victim mother a merciful abortion are doing exactly that, claiming the right to declare that particular homicide to be justifiable, the right they will not give to her. Their issue is thus shown not to be the life of the unborn, but the moral circumstances of its conception, and their power to declare one homicide mercy, and another murder in accordance with their standards, and to employ the might of law enforcement to obtain conformance to their judgment.
However you define its physical, spiritual, or legal personhood, until you could take it from her and sustain its life yourself as in parturition, you have no rightful claim upon it at all, neither to protect, speak for, nor to vaccinate, assign an identity number, nor place into an institution of protective maternal custody for the unborn. Whoever you are, no matter how much you believe in your righteousness, no matter how devoted to God by any name, no matter how many of you vote, or if you use the guns and judges, that fetus is not yours to protect. It does not belong to you. It does not and certainly should not belong to the state as though a protected ward, and even its soul does not belong to the church.
Whatever I might personally feel about any woman's choice to submit herself to carrying a pregnancy or not, or whatever I think God thinks about it, I would consider it a self-righteous usurpation of her God-given right to the ownership of her own body for me to subject her to my decision and bend her to my control by using the power of law enforcement in God's name. As for morally judging her choice, that part is between her and God, and none of us has a right to intervene, least of all by force in God's name. Though it break our hearts, we ought bide.
, eric writes:
.....a woman's right to abortion is legal. That is not my problem with it. My first problem is that taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions. My second problem is that I believe the law does a disservice to women. If women have a right to choose, what are they choosing?
If it is a disservice to give someone a choice to do something you think they should not, then you do them best service by taking such choices away from them, and ensuring they only choose what you know is right, right? If she has a right to a root canal, why should any health care program refuse to cover it? What makes the abortion procedure different, if not the moral judgment prohibitionists would presume the power to enforce? I think government should not pay for cosmetic procedures, nor for the pharmacopoeia of Dr.Feelgood drugs, but if abortion is called a medical right (and it is hundreds of times less expensive than the alternative, providing pre-natal, birth, and adoption services), then who should say it should be excluded from the services covered, particularly on moralist grounds?
Your question demonstrates the apriori presumption of authority to define what is so immoral as to warrant prohibition. "What are they choosing?" you ask. The answer implied is, "something too bad to permit." Whose business is it to judge her choices so as to take them from her by law? In a sense, she is choosing to call abortion a justifiable homicide, as homicide it unquestionably is. Those who admit an "incest rape" exclusion to permit the victim mother a merciful abortion are doing exactly that, claiming the right to declare that particular homicide to be justifiable, the right they will not give to her. Their issue is thus shown not to be the life of the unborn, but the moral circumstances of its conception, and their power to declare one homicide mercy, and another murder in accordance with their standards, and to employ the might of law enforcement to obtain conformance to their judgment.
However you define its physical, spiritual, or legal personhood, until you could take it from her and sustain its life yourself as in parturition, you have no rightful claim upon it at all, neither to protect, speak for, nor to vaccinate, assign an identity number, nor place into an institution of protective maternal custody for the unborn. Whoever you are, no matter how much you believe in your righteousness, no matter how devoted to God by any name, no matter how many of you vote, or if you use the guns and judges, that fetus is not yours to protect. It does not belong to you. It does not and certainly should not belong to the state as though a protected ward, and even its soul does not belong to the church.
Whatever I might personally feel about any woman's choice to submit herself to carrying a pregnancy or not, or whatever I think God thinks about it, I would consider it a self-righteous usurpation of her God-given right to the ownership of her own body for me to subject her to my decision and bend her to my control by using the power of law enforcement in God's name. As for morally judging her choice, that part is between her and God, and none of us has a right to intervene, least of all by force in God's name. Though it break our hearts, we ought bide.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Mexicans Paying their Dues?
"Mexicans who come here contribute nothing...," I hear the Rightniks cry. That is not true, especially not true just because they aren't paying income taxes. I believe the working-man's term for it is "sweat equity" which they pay into our economy by working very hard for less than a citizen must be paid, which enables the employer to sell his produce at a profit without making it too expensive for the working American to buy. Those are some very hard dues those people are paying, harder than most Americans would rather have to pay than their taxes. We should open the border fully and marry Mexico, not keep her on her knees at gunpoint at the fence.
You think that is naïve? You are so right, of course. The real American way would be to clear away a DMZ (De-Mexicanized-Zone), build a Tortilla Curtain, guard it with State and Federal guns and robot military camera airplanes, and start shooting those invading criminal drug terrorists, and their family members they are so cowardly hiding behind. As we did with Japanese in WWII, we could then round up anyone suspected of likely being loyal to the Mexican insurgents, and put them in a chain of residence and evaluation camps. Call it "Sheriff Joe's Gulag," in honor of that law enforcement hero whose head was found on a bullfighter’s pike. Halliburton and Blackwater could be paid on a DOD contract to operate it all, which would provide jobsjobsjobs for thousands of good Christian boys in uniform, khaki, green, black, and blue.
Most Mexican immigrants, legal or not, work harder in a week for what little they get than the megabux desk-jockey works in six months of trading in other people's money. You make it illegal for them to work, then call them lowlife when they go into crime. They risk their lives to work as dirt-grubbers to feed their children and then you cram them ten deep into prison cells where they are forged into criminal cadres of extreme anti-American homicidal fanatics, seriously dangerous people, and rightly so. As "a free-country movement of charitable Christians" the high-horse knuckle-whackers of the Bible-Right, well-intentioned or not, are hypocrites, assholes, and fools.
You think that is naïve? You are so right, of course. The real American way would be to clear away a DMZ (De-Mexicanized-Zone), build a Tortilla Curtain, guard it with State and Federal guns and robot military camera airplanes, and start shooting those invading criminal drug terrorists, and their family members they are so cowardly hiding behind. As we did with Japanese in WWII, we could then round up anyone suspected of likely being loyal to the Mexican insurgents, and put them in a chain of residence and evaluation camps. Call it "Sheriff Joe's Gulag," in honor of that law enforcement hero whose head was found on a bullfighter’s pike. Halliburton and Blackwater could be paid on a DOD contract to operate it all, which would provide jobsjobsjobs for thousands of good Christian boys in uniform, khaki, green, black, and blue.
Most Mexican immigrants, legal or not, work harder in a week for what little they get than the megabux desk-jockey works in six months of trading in other people's money. You make it illegal for them to work, then call them lowlife when they go into crime. They risk their lives to work as dirt-grubbers to feed their children and then you cram them ten deep into prison cells where they are forged into criminal cadres of extreme anti-American homicidal fanatics, seriously dangerous people, and rightly so. As "a free-country movement of charitable Christians" the high-horse knuckle-whackers of the Bible-Right, well-intentioned or not, are hypocrites, assholes, and fools.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Why Not Vote Social Conservative?
“Social Conservatives” are good and sincere people, but they are the puritan crusaders, prohibitionists, finger-waggers, torch and pitchfork witch-hunters, censors of obscenity and of heresy, intolerant of perverts and false doctrines, each a self-justified moralist judge and ready executioner of the deserving sinner, likely motivated by a narrow but extreme religious viewpoint. Whatever you think personal liberty means, these are people who likely will religiously strive to prevent you from exercising yours, likely as not in the name of protecting your morality from self-abuse by license to sin, and protecting your children from the trauma of seeing you do it.
A century and a half ago, Lysander Spooner wrote eloquently about the folly of dealing with vice through enforced prohibition. In the 1930’s we recognized the folly of creating a huge and profitable criminal class by the prohibition of alcohol, and that was repealed. Later the pragmatic on both sides of the law recognized the profitability of maintaining prohibition of many other such highly desired substances and elements of various vices. The consumer suffers from the actions of both sides in the wars on sin, but the street money for it and the budget money against it both flows.
Therein lies the unforseen horror. The fact prohibition is profitable for both the suppliers of the desired commodity and those who enforce the laws against them does not change the folly of what is being done, but multiplies it. Both sides soon create in the other the thing they fear, and everyone suffers the terrible destructive effects of each trying to resist and destroy the other. The damage done far outweighs whatever could have been caused by the prohibited substance or practice.
If dancing is outlawed as something sinful, a vice, because it leads to fucking, soon only outlaws will be dancing, and the lawful who succumb to their sinful nature will kill to fuck. Even one such killing will be taken as proof the sins of dancing and fucking should be even more rigorously outlawed. The dance halls move underground and become more expensive, and more and more terpsichorian fornicators are hunted down, tried and appealed, imprisoned in huge new facilities, and hanged. The monster feeds upon itself, and grows.
Whatever you think of Barack Obama, the political ideology of the Republican Party, or the petty arguments of Congress over which of them gets all the money, it would be damaging to all of our personal and civil liberties to vote for any candidate who advertises himself or herself as a “Social Conservative.”
A century and a half ago, Lysander Spooner wrote eloquently about the folly of dealing with vice through enforced prohibition. In the 1930’s we recognized the folly of creating a huge and profitable criminal class by the prohibition of alcohol, and that was repealed. Later the pragmatic on both sides of the law recognized the profitability of maintaining prohibition of many other such highly desired substances and elements of various vices. The consumer suffers from the actions of both sides in the wars on sin, but the street money for it and the budget money against it both flows.
Therein lies the unforseen horror. The fact prohibition is profitable for both the suppliers of the desired commodity and those who enforce the laws against them does not change the folly of what is being done, but multiplies it. Both sides soon create in the other the thing they fear, and everyone suffers the terrible destructive effects of each trying to resist and destroy the other. The damage done far outweighs whatever could have been caused by the prohibited substance or practice.
If dancing is outlawed as something sinful, a vice, because it leads to fucking, soon only outlaws will be dancing, and the lawful who succumb to their sinful nature will kill to fuck. Even one such killing will be taken as proof the sins of dancing and fucking should be even more rigorously outlawed. The dance halls move underground and become more expensive, and more and more terpsichorian fornicators are hunted down, tried and appealed, imprisoned in huge new facilities, and hanged. The monster feeds upon itself, and grows.
Whatever you think of Barack Obama, the political ideology of the Republican Party, or the petty arguments of Congress over which of them gets all the money, it would be damaging to all of our personal and civil liberties to vote for any candidate who advertises himself or herself as a “Social Conservative.”
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Just What Do You Pledge?
This came by my email recently:
Aw, horse chester. What high-horse blowhardism. The right-wing extreme certainly does not support these premises, for all their applauding the iconifying of them, or their characterizing themselves as loyal patriots, honorable mutineers taking back The Ship Of State from a rogue Admiralty. In fact, their behavior is quite the opposite.
What do those words we children were taught to chant actually say?
A pledge is more than just a promise, it is an irreversable act of submission, as in formal marriage or joining a brotherhood of bikers. To “pledge allegiance” means to take one as your liege, that is your King, and so to faithfully serve – not to judge, not to obstruct or bring down, but to give fealty, obedience. “The Flag” is obviously not literal, but what it stands for does not mean a body of particular ideas you choose to agree with or not like an armchair barrister, it means the seat of authority. Especially in a Republic, that means the ones elected call the shots, and you obey whether you voted for him or not, whether he orders you to fight or to farm, and whether he wears your color hat or not. You do not follow command on ship, or refuse to, because of how you feel about the Admiral, or where he orders the ship to sail, but because his authority is what is represented by his Flag, and that you have pledged to serve. Personally, having been both a hippie and a Marine, I prefer a more libertine than authoritarian status quo, but that is what the words mean.
Next it says, “The United States Of America.” That means the “one nation indivisible” and not one particular State, or one particular Party. That national organization, that body of definitions and agreements, is the Republic for which the Flag stands, the legal corporate national entity which exists as defined by the Constitution and the Laws. It is that which we loosely refer to as “the government” or “Washington” including the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Treasury, all the other agencies and bureaus, the lands and properties it owns, its accounts and assets, its population of citizens, and the Presidency, which is the seat of the Flag. You pledge allegiance to that Flag of that Republic as an existing thing if you pledge in reality, and not to some fantasy ideal you would imagine to be better, or to some faction within it you presume to define it apart from all the rest of us.
“Under God” would seem universally redundant, if we presume all of the created universe is under whatever we mean by God. The obvious error of the Christian right or any religious group lies in presuming that means God as defined by their establishment of religion, and the government should therefore in some way be subject to the dogma, doctrine, scripture, or influence of persons of power in that religion, that is, “loyalty to the higher authority” of their own interpretation and enforcement of God’s Law. It is what the First Amendment was written to prevent, and what the Dominionists of the evangelical Christian faction of the hard right are deliberately and quite openly doing.
As for “liberty” it is abundantly clear the Social Conservatives of the right wing would define that to be liberty for all to walk freely within the lines they draw, and liberty for them to draw those lines where they will, in accordance with morality as they define it. Those who object they declare to be seeking not liberty to choose, but license to sin. For its connotations of promiscuity, the word liberal itself has become an unexamined label of wrongness among the rightniks, with a terrible dark stereotype presumed to all upon whom they stick it, like nigger or commie. What’s wrong with liberals? Duuuh, Pelosi!
Across the political spectrum from right to left, and from authoritarian to libertarian, good people all sincerely wish for “justice for all” but every one of us can easily point to injustice somewhere in that system of agreements to which we pledge our allegiance, and within which we all no doubt sincerely hope to accomplish some good. To suggest that right wing extremists somehow have the edge on any of these things is unfortunately benighted. As easily as they say others are not “real Christians” the right-wing extremists are able to say others are not “real Americans” – and somehow they believe only themselves are either of those, and therefore only themselves qualified to make the decisions and laws of a Christian America, and by God, they will defend that with their 2nd Amendment rights.
I am not saying I support fundamentalist obedience to elected leaders, or there should not be an active confrontational dialectic in the democratic process, but only pointing out that supporting the decisions of the elected officials of our government, whether that’s how you’d have it done or not, is what Allegiance to the Flag literally means. It is what those words mean that the right-wing extremists are most objecting to under this administration, and most openly refusing to actually do, for all their touted oaths of allegiance, patriotism, and duty.
Americans who do not knowingly and wholeheartedly support the agenda of their blatantly sectarian coup de etad are advised to be prudently wary before voting for one of them, no matter whom they oppose, or how they wave Old Glory.
James Nathan Post
Aw, horse chester. What high-horse blowhardism. The right-wing extreme certainly does not support these premises, for all their applauding the iconifying of them, or their characterizing themselves as loyal patriots, honorable mutineers taking back The Ship Of State from a rogue Admiralty. In fact, their behavior is quite the opposite.
What do those words we children were taught to chant actually say?
A pledge is more than just a promise, it is an irreversable act of submission, as in formal marriage or joining a brotherhood of bikers. To “pledge allegiance” means to take one as your liege, that is your King, and so to faithfully serve – not to judge, not to obstruct or bring down, but to give fealty, obedience. “The Flag” is obviously not literal, but what it stands for does not mean a body of particular ideas you choose to agree with or not like an armchair barrister, it means the seat of authority. Especially in a Republic, that means the ones elected call the shots, and you obey whether you voted for him or not, whether he orders you to fight or to farm, and whether he wears your color hat or not. You do not follow command on ship, or refuse to, because of how you feel about the Admiral, or where he orders the ship to sail, but because his authority is what is represented by his Flag, and that you have pledged to serve. Personally, having been both a hippie and a Marine, I prefer a more libertine than authoritarian status quo, but that is what the words mean.
Next it says, “The United States Of America.” That means the “one nation indivisible” and not one particular State, or one particular Party. That national organization, that body of definitions and agreements, is the Republic for which the Flag stands, the legal corporate national entity which exists as defined by the Constitution and the Laws. It is that which we loosely refer to as “the government” or “Washington” including the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Treasury, all the other agencies and bureaus, the lands and properties it owns, its accounts and assets, its population of citizens, and the Presidency, which is the seat of the Flag. You pledge allegiance to that Flag of that Republic as an existing thing if you pledge in reality, and not to some fantasy ideal you would imagine to be better, or to some faction within it you presume to define it apart from all the rest of us.
“Under God” would seem universally redundant, if we presume all of the created universe is under whatever we mean by God. The obvious error of the Christian right or any religious group lies in presuming that means God as defined by their establishment of religion, and the government should therefore in some way be subject to the dogma, doctrine, scripture, or influence of persons of power in that religion, that is, “loyalty to the higher authority” of their own interpretation and enforcement of God’s Law. It is what the First Amendment was written to prevent, and what the Dominionists of the evangelical Christian faction of the hard right are deliberately and quite openly doing.
As for “liberty” it is abundantly clear the Social Conservatives of the right wing would define that to be liberty for all to walk freely within the lines they draw, and liberty for them to draw those lines where they will, in accordance with morality as they define it. Those who object they declare to be seeking not liberty to choose, but license to sin. For its connotations of promiscuity, the word liberal itself has become an unexamined label of wrongness among the rightniks, with a terrible dark stereotype presumed to all upon whom they stick it, like nigger or commie. What’s wrong with liberals? Duuuh, Pelosi!
Across the political spectrum from right to left, and from authoritarian to libertarian, good people all sincerely wish for “justice for all” but every one of us can easily point to injustice somewhere in that system of agreements to which we pledge our allegiance, and within which we all no doubt sincerely hope to accomplish some good. To suggest that right wing extremists somehow have the edge on any of these things is unfortunately benighted. As easily as they say others are not “real Christians” the right-wing extremists are able to say others are not “real Americans” – and somehow they believe only themselves are either of those, and therefore only themselves qualified to make the decisions and laws of a Christian America, and by God, they will defend that with their 2nd Amendment rights.
I am not saying I support fundamentalist obedience to elected leaders, or there should not be an active confrontational dialectic in the democratic process, but only pointing out that supporting the decisions of the elected officials of our government, whether that’s how you’d have it done or not, is what Allegiance to the Flag literally means. It is what those words mean that the right-wing extremists are most objecting to under this administration, and most openly refusing to actually do, for all their touted oaths of allegiance, patriotism, and duty.
Americans who do not knowingly and wholeheartedly support the agenda of their blatantly sectarian coup de etad are advised to be prudently wary before voting for one of them, no matter whom they oppose, or how they wave Old Glory.
James Nathan Post
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Power To License Sex By Law.
The “pro-life” issue is not just about abortion, but more fundamentally about power given to one establishment of religion to legally define and to license what is permitted with respect to sex, and to your right to own and use your own body. Likewise the marriage definition by law means the church is given the arbitrary power to issue sex licenses to its own standards, without which license and ceremony you are a fornicator, adulterer, or a pervert, a criminal without the rights given to a citizen of good standing. Their abortion exception for rape or incest is clear indication their agenda is not about the life of the innocent incestuous-rape-baby, but is about the posture they would take regarding the moral circumstances of its conception, and their authority to grant thereby which pregnancies should be called justifiable homicide and not the murder they would accuse others of committing. It is a knowing and deliberate Dominionist coup de etat, an attempt by a religious sect to take command of the legislatures and the machine of State, exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent.
FUNDAMENTAL BLASPHEMY
FUNDAMENTAL BLASPHEMY
"We Only Hate Their Sins."
“Christians love saying they do not hate the sinner, only the sin, but it is the sinner whom they burn at the stake (to save his soul, the ultimate “tough love”). We progressives do not hate the Republican Crusaders, we only hate their hard-hearted pride, their greed, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobic racism, arrogant jingoism, blatantly flaunted hypocrisy, and their anti-science, anti-history, anti-medicine, anti-education, anti-intellectual, and anti-social attitude. Politically, we believe these characteristics are not beneficial in holders of high office in this diverse nation of open-minded, well-educated, and socially conscious people, no matter how sincerely they believe in their moral superiority, or the authority they believe that entitles them to take.”
James Nathan Post
James Nathan Post
Thursday, September 22, 2011
What About This $2 Billion Cut?
It is the policy of our government to pay every person who holds or has ever held the office of President or Congressmember for any length of time at all, their full salary for life. To my knowledge, there is no other company or institution which offers such a pension to every former employee. For the vast majority of Americans, if you no longer work for a company, you are no longer paid at all.
The current salary paid to incumbent and retired Presidents and members of Congress averages about $180,000 each, forever after. If the number of them is 535 plus the two in the White House at any given time, and the number on the list of retired former members still alive and receiving that pension was found on a wikipedia entry to be just over ten thousand of them, then the total which would be paid to them annually is just over $1,896,660,000.00. The round-off figure is $2Billion. Dollars. Billion. Annual. That is being paid, presumably from now on, earmarked as a lifetime entitlement, to everybody who has ever been in Congress.
Many in Congress these days are calling for budget cuts, for trimming off the suet, the wasteful, and the undeserving. How about they start this “shared sacrifice” business by putting that up? After all, you have to be a millionaire to begin with just to get that job, don’t you? Many of those in and out of office now receiving that aforementioned $2Billion bucks are people who would let the air out of their own Granny’s wheelchair tires to score a cut that big in the other guy’s budget, or who already have. No? Well, they would sure as hell let the air out of YOUR Granny’s tires, wouldn’t they.
Now to be fair, I know they are only talking about cutting off that fat border-jumping bean-bandit Mammy-granny in her Medibux electric wheelchair going to the Food Stamp office with her five grubby little half-brother booger-biter anchor-babies to get her monthly lobster-fest and whine up some more Oba-Meds to give her worthless dog-pack of deadbeat dads to knock her up again. They are only out to get greedy greasy grannies like her, not YOUR Granny. And they’re doing it to save you taxes, don’t you get it?
The current salary paid to incumbent and retired Presidents and members of Congress averages about $180,000 each, forever after. If the number of them is 535 plus the two in the White House at any given time, and the number on the list of retired former members still alive and receiving that pension was found on a wikipedia entry to be just over ten thousand of them, then the total which would be paid to them annually is just over $1,896,660,000.00. The round-off figure is $2Billion. Dollars. Billion. Annual. That is being paid, presumably from now on, earmarked as a lifetime entitlement, to everybody who has ever been in Congress.
Many in Congress these days are calling for budget cuts, for trimming off the suet, the wasteful, and the undeserving. How about they start this “shared sacrifice” business by putting that up? After all, you have to be a millionaire to begin with just to get that job, don’t you? Many of those in and out of office now receiving that aforementioned $2Billion bucks are people who would let the air out of their own Granny’s wheelchair tires to score a cut that big in the other guy’s budget, or who already have. No? Well, they would sure as hell let the air out of YOUR Granny’s tires, wouldn’t they.
Now to be fair, I know they are only talking about cutting off that fat border-jumping bean-bandit Mammy-granny in her Medibux electric wheelchair going to the Food Stamp office with her five grubby little half-brother booger-biter anchor-babies to get her monthly lobster-fest and whine up some more Oba-Meds to give her worthless dog-pack of deadbeat dads to knock her up again. They are only out to get greedy greasy grannies like her, not YOUR Granny. And they’re doing it to save you taxes, don’t you get it?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Is There A Higher Law Of Physics?
Does nobody get it? The First Amendment clearly, wisely, and generously states that anybody can practice any kind of religion they want, but NO law can be made just because it says so in any establishment of religion’s book of dogma or doctrine, including the Bible, and therefore no religion can be respected in public school as being even hypothetically equal to empirical science or evidentiary history as representing the truth. Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and the other TV political evangelists blatantly promise to disregard and disobey that First Amendment because they believe they are obeying "A Higher Law" than the mere secular Constitution they would swear to uphold.
In making their case that science is only theories, and therefore no more "true" than any other speculation, and so trying to semantically end-run the Constitution, Creationists have a strange notion of "proof." Science does not begin with the "faith" that you have the answer, then you look for evidence that supports it (and reject that which does not), but the other way round. They are as quick as the OJ jury were to declare that the mathematical possibility somebody else could have the same DNA signature was one in one-hundred-seventy-nine million was good enough for "reasonable doubt" to declare that because the archaeologists found a place called Jericho and the walls have fallen down that means science thus proves every word in the Bible is true.
Creationism does not agree with science, it is the antithesis of science, the denial of evidence, and the abandonment of reason. There ain't nothing much stupider than "faith-based science"... or more dangerous and less democratic than Faith-Based Government. Particularly if you are Christian, or an old-school Republican, be very careful about voting for candidates on the basis of the brand-name they are advertising themselves to represent.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Freedom Is Really Only For A Few.
The rich and powerful of every political and religious stripe hate and fear nothing more than an informed and empowered populace. When reality is defined by what TV news-mongers and evangelists say, and your idea of "freedom" is a mortgage serviced by a rigorously demanding job, and the right to vote every four years for which of Massa Washington's boys gets to wear the Big Hat next, then the number of informed and empowered people is pretty small.
Most working-class Americans look to me like livestock on a treadmill with a feedbag and a virtual-reality hat over their eyes. Should we freedomists then strive to awaken and so liberate the sheep (like in the Matrix)? If you free sheep, they wander until led. They are still sheep, free or not. Most Americans have no idea what day-to-day freedom from their social and professional roles and responsibilities might really be like, and there is little they would do differently if offered unlimited freedom. We who exercise what we think should be freedom, outlawed or not, just learn to do it, living as outlaws among the lawfully ordered. It seems clear to me for that few who desire to exercise maximum freedom to still live in an affluent society, most of the people must prefer the ordered life, and must have that life. Whatever we revolutionaries do, it must not upset or disrupt the lives of the fat, dumb, and happy working middle class.
When a group of people are called "alternative" or "radical" or "fringe" that means most people are not that way, given freedom of choice or not. Obtaining a law by the vote of the majority which includes all of the fringe element is always going to be unlikely. It seems clear therefore that some of us are always going to be an "outlaw class" for exercising one freedom or other, and it is also clear that the form of order which best enables us outlaws to live among them as we wish is not the intolerant witch-hunting hangin-judge Conservative, but the more diverse and inclusive Liberal.
If what you want is to live a very free personal life, perhaps doing things others might not do, with a minimum of government intervention in your life, then it is clear to me you should vote for the most progressive Liberals, and then responsibly live your life, rather than submitting yourself to loyally following and enforcing a severe code of honor, duty, and accountability, and living the life of a slave at arms, as good soldiers do. If you want that kind of life, don’t vote Republican and start shooting at Senators, just go join the Marines. Really, I mean that. It is there such a self-sacrificing life of service is most valuable to our society, and most honorable, precisely because it enables the rest of us to live relatively libertarian and even libertine lives. To attempt to impose such a dutiful and puritan lifestyle on everyone, and to declare the freedoms being fought for should not be exercised, is a betrayal of those rights themselves.
A Marine says, “I give up my freedoms in order to give you freedom to do what I do not. I get up before the light so you can sleep till noon. I take orders and obey without question, so you can do nothing and serve no one. I am sober and straight, but I will kill for your right to suck a joint, whether that is somebody’s reefer or somebody’s cock. I will give my life to pay for the Food Stamps that keep your babies alive, even if they are all illegitimate. Though I may weep when my Flag touches the ground, I will stand for your right to….. aw, horsechester, I just can’t do it! There is a line I can’t cross, and that is it, bud. I won’t have no pinko, faggo, dope-smoking, butt-poking, baby pumping, border-jumping, freeloading Food Stamp fatsos and Medicaid junkies making a pack of glutted-out Wall Street billionaires even fatter on my ticket, and then burning my Flag bitching about it! Goddammit, there’s a point I just got to shoot somebody!”
Having been a Marine (and yes, you never recover), and also a libertine libertarian, I understand how being a Christian social conservative defending the Constitutional freedoms of a libertarian society is a bit like a monk who guards a whorehouse, and I also understand how unpleasant and unfree life can be when the Marine decides to impose his martial lifestyle and morality upon the house he guards. Be a Marine if you love that lifestyle, but vote Progressive for those whose freedom you defend.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
You Sure You Want A Revolution?
The American Revolution was possible because we were an isolated and well-organized colony with vast natural resources, and we didn't have to destroy the terrible taxing Empire, just separate ourselves from it. We also had foreign help that wanted to bring down the government we were revolting against. To what foreign countries today might American freedomists turn for help to bring down Washington? Which of those do you want to see become more powerful than we are?
The French "people's" Revolution resulted in Napoleon. Russian "people's" Revolution resulted in Stalin. Chinese "people's" Revolution resulted in Mao. Spain's failed and they got Vichy. Germany did it with an internal Uber-Party coup... and got Hitler.
Looks to me like a new US Revolution would result in not an affluent Libertarian community, but rule by militant religious fanatics under a real take-charge authoritarian Ordained Leader who would brook no dissent from liberals, perverts, perps or suspects, protesters complaining about their rights or rations, or the Godless... no? Tell me, after we have guillotined Pelosi and torched the Tar Baby on a cross in his front yard, then what? Will we all become Deputies, open a gas station or a Bible school, and buy new cars? And what about Aunt Bea's apple pie? Is that to kill for, or what?
The French "people's" Revolution resulted in Napoleon. Russian "people's" Revolution resulted in Stalin. Chinese "people's" Revolution resulted in Mao. Spain's failed and they got Vichy. Germany did it with an internal Uber-Party coup... and got Hitler.
Looks to me like a new US Revolution would result in not an affluent Libertarian community, but rule by militant religious fanatics under a real take-charge authoritarian Ordained Leader who would brook no dissent from liberals, perverts, perps or suspects, protesters complaining about their rights or rations, or the Godless... no? Tell me, after we have guillotined Pelosi and torched the Tar Baby on a cross in his front yard, then what? Will we all become Deputies, open a gas station or a Bible school, and buy new cars? And what about Aunt Bea's apple pie? Is that to kill for, or what?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Is The Internet Divine Vision?
“The computer is a mirror in which I can see through the eyes of Thoth.”
Alex St. Luc, Enosar Emeritus
The Scribes Of Osiris
We take it for granted already. To know everything, anything, anywhere, now. That was only for God to know. There was a time only a few years ago in my own lifetime when most of the information in the world was printed on paper and available in catalogued libraries. That might sound like a terrible restriction today, but in its time it was a revolution. Before Gutenberg, there were few books, and only a few had access to read them. Most of what everyone knew of the world, they had only heard. After Gutenberg, all of the established institutions began to change as larger numbers of people knew more and more about the world. The changes were not predictable at the time. It was only after a generation had grown up with that information that they developed not just new ways of doing things, but new ways of organizing themselves and relating to each other.
If the invention of writing is the First Literary Revolution, and the Printing Press the Second, then the Third Literary Revolution is the Internet, the great commonly-shared data cloud of access to all of the information in the world, instantly. I can “invoke” the content of every book in thousands of libraries, in every language, and thousands of films, and daily newspapers across the world. I have access to cameras, maps, and even pictures from outer space, anywhere on earth, right now. All the information anyone knows, or has ever known, is now available instantly, to everyone, anywhere. Only a few years ago, such access to knowledge could only belong to God. Only Thoth, the Ibis-headed scribe who represents the Egyptian “intellect of God” could know all things at all times. Now we all have that. We are become as Gods. Though some of our science fiction writers have been exploring the idea for a century or so, this is going to change the nature of being human in ways we cannot yet predict.
The generations of people raised on the Internet and its Siamese-cousin the TV, living in that omnipresent data cloud (it knows who we are and where), and all connected to each other by social networks of varying exclusivity, will not think and feel much like the more individualized lives we live today. The Latterday-19th Century Teaparty type still trying to remember the Alamo for Jesus on election day would look to those people like a blind old fool who wandered in from the desert, and has never even seen an encephalo-metagram projection. “He wants to disband the Terran Sodality and the National Consensus and let everybody vote for two guys who will make all the rules… and they get to decide how much we pay them! Haw haw haw! When did you find your way out of the cave, Gramps?”
James Nathan Post
The Scribes Of Osiris
“The computer is a mirror in which I can see through the eyes of Thoth.”
Alex St. Luc, Enosar Emeritus
The Scribes Of Osiris
We take it for granted already. To know everything, anything, anywhere, now. That was only for God to know. There was a time only a few years ago in my own lifetime when most of the information in the world was printed on paper and available in catalogued libraries. That might sound like a terrible restriction today, but in its time it was a revolution. Before Gutenberg, there were few books, and only a few had access to read them. Most of what everyone knew of the world, they had only heard. After Gutenberg, all of the established institutions began to change as larger numbers of people knew more and more about the world. The changes were not predictable at the time. It was only after a generation had grown up with that information that they developed not just new ways of doing things, but new ways of organizing themselves and relating to each other.
If the invention of writing is the First Literary Revolution, and the Printing Press the Second, then the Third Literary Revolution is the Internet, the great commonly-shared data cloud of access to all of the information in the world, instantly. I can “invoke” the content of every book in thousands of libraries, in every language, and thousands of films, and daily newspapers across the world. I have access to cameras, maps, and even pictures from outer space, anywhere on earth, right now. All the information anyone knows, or has ever known, is now available instantly, to everyone, anywhere. Only a few years ago, such access to knowledge could only belong to God. Only Thoth, the Ibis-headed scribe who represents the Egyptian “intellect of God” could know all things at all times. Now we all have that. We are become as Gods. Though some of our science fiction writers have been exploring the idea for a century or so, this is going to change the nature of being human in ways we cannot yet predict.
The generations of people raised on the Internet and its Siamese-cousin the TV, living in that omnipresent data cloud (it knows who we are and where), and all connected to each other by social networks of varying exclusivity, will not think and feel much like the more individualized lives we live today. The Latterday-19th Century Teaparty type still trying to remember the Alamo for Jesus on election day would look to those people like a blind old fool who wandered in from the desert, and has never even seen an encephalo-metagram projection. “He wants to disband the Terran Sodality and the National Consensus and let everybody vote for two guys who will make all the rules… and they get to decide how much we pay them! Haw haw haw! When did you find your way out of the cave, Gramps?”
James Nathan Post
The Scribes Of Osiris
Wikileaks And Anonymous
Can Speaking The Truth Be Blasphemy?
When I see the Wikileaks guy being chased across the planet with the Agents all pointing at his penis, and not a word about the truth of what he revealed, and the Anonymous "1000 Points Of Leak" participants being called cyber-terrorists and traitors, I am reminded of that iconic scene in The Wizard Of Oz. There pulling the levers behind the curtain and putting words into the mouth of the Great and Powerful stands a guy wearing an expensive suit and an Uncle Sam hat. While Dorothy and her trio of stooges stand gaping, he calls for his loyal guards. "This dirty little dog is trying to tarnish the reputation of The Great OZ," he informs them. "Take it out and kill it."
When I see the Wikileaks guy being chased across the planet with the Agents all pointing at his penis, and not a word about the truth of what he revealed, and the Anonymous "1000 Points Of Leak" participants being called cyber-terrorists and traitors, I am reminded of that iconic scene in The Wizard Of Oz. There pulling the levers behind the curtain and putting words into the mouth of the Great and Powerful stands a guy wearing an expensive suit and an Uncle Sam hat. While Dorothy and her trio of stooges stand gaping, he calls for his loyal guards. "This dirty little dog is trying to tarnish the reputation of The Great OZ," he informs them. "Take it out and kill it."
Saturday, August 6, 2011
AFGHANISTAN UPDATE
"Insurgent" used to mean somebody from outside a country who comes in to organize arms against the legitimate government. "Partisan" used to mean civilians in a country who organize arms against an occupying foreign-empowered regime. "Red State" used to mean Communism, where everybody gets a job, a government check, and health care. Today, insurgent means anyone who stands up against America's guns, God, and credit cards. Partisan is a dirty word freeloading liberals call loyal Republicans, and folks in Red states vote to kick the sick old beggars and demand to see their papers. Ever read Orwell? "He who writes the dictionary defines the truth."
The people of Afghanistan are in the same position as political Independents in America who say voting for a GOP or DEM candidate is picking “the lesser of two evils” – or the new con deciding which cellmate to let fuck him to protect him from the other (even knowing he’s going to get fucked by both). The Afghan must choose between the mad executioners of the puritan authoritarian Islamic Taliban or the ultimate-armed robots and evangelists of the Christian American equivalent. Both are clearly evil by any reasonable standard. Those who try to do something to help themselves -- Allah beheads, and Jesus bombs from heaven.
Unfortunately, the war in Afghanistan is not about them at all. Without a war, our economy would collapse. Troops are cheap, and sending even a few thousand of them, withdrawing them, honoring them, and burying them are politically visible actions, but if we ever quit sending the bombers burning 40,000 gallons of fuel every mission, and the USAF quit buying all that gas, EXXON would go broke! Likewise, if we quit bombing the opium and hashish fields to protect the US big pharmo corporations from superior third-world agricultural produce’s competition... our so-called health care industry would go broke! If we quit sending our civilian armed security troops, and quit paying our Afghan regime to hire them, we would have 30,000 unemployed perp-shooting Jesus-fanatic killer-cops-for-hire looking for work back in the inner city hoods of home. If we quit making war on the reed fields of Araby (like Caligula)... our economy would go down like a pom-pom boy in the shower.
Much as he might like to, The President cannot get us out of that war, at least not without starting another. You know the scene: the men in black suits take Barack Obama into the underground projection room, and they show him The Film. He turns white (gulp!), and quickly comes to a specuguine conclusion… “I ‘spec you gwine do what you has to… Mr. President.” ("Ya shoulda seen the last boy was in here... heehee, ol Dub like to shat his shorts!")
The people of Afghanistan are in the same position as political Independents in America who say voting for a GOP or DEM candidate is picking “the lesser of two evils” – or the new con deciding which cellmate to let fuck him to protect him from the other (even knowing he’s going to get fucked by both). The Afghan must choose between the mad executioners of the puritan authoritarian Islamic Taliban or the ultimate-armed robots and evangelists of the Christian American equivalent. Both are clearly evil by any reasonable standard. Those who try to do something to help themselves -- Allah beheads, and Jesus bombs from heaven.
Unfortunately, the war in Afghanistan is not about them at all. Without a war, our economy would collapse. Troops are cheap, and sending even a few thousand of them, withdrawing them, honoring them, and burying them are politically visible actions, but if we ever quit sending the bombers burning 40,000 gallons of fuel every mission, and the USAF quit buying all that gas, EXXON would go broke! Likewise, if we quit bombing the opium and hashish fields to protect the US big pharmo corporations from superior third-world agricultural produce’s competition... our so-called health care industry would go broke! If we quit sending our civilian armed security troops, and quit paying our Afghan regime to hire them, we would have 30,000 unemployed perp-shooting Jesus-fanatic killer-cops-for-hire looking for work back in the inner city hoods of home. If we quit making war on the reed fields of Araby (like Caligula)... our economy would go down like a pom-pom boy in the shower.
Much as he might like to, The President cannot get us out of that war, at least not without starting another. You know the scene: the men in black suits take Barack Obama into the underground projection room, and they show him The Film. He turns white (gulp!), and quickly comes to a specuguine conclusion… “I ‘spec you gwine do what you has to… Mr. President.” ("Ya shoulda seen the last boy was in here... heehee, ol Dub like to shat his shorts!")
Monday, August 1, 2011
The 1st Amendment Means Jesus Too.
From Day 1, 1776, we have violated the 1st Amendment prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion in several ways. One of them is freedom from the taxation other establishments must pay, even if doing the same thing, like publishing and broadcasting to generate revenue. A mistake then, worse now, as one extremist religious sect's marketers have created an industry rich enough to play the game of Senators and Presidents, in the hope of waging world war on the unsaved.
Another is the power to issue sex licenses... that is, legal marriage as defined by that establishment of religion's dogma, where all sex without that license is not just sin, but statutory crime.
Also the "blue laws" which regulate business and property use to conform to religious practice, when and what you can buy and sell vs Holy Day schedule, when you can drink, where you can put your business with respect to that church's premises, what books are not in your public libraries, what you can't teach in your schools, etcetc...
The Neo-Conservative Christian American Taliban (NEOCATs) believe their monopoly on the blessing of The One And Only Real God whose image is graven in occult symbols in their ancient scrolls like a mummified idol wrapped in papyrus entitles them to exemption from that Constitutional restriction, as they believe they serve "A Higher Authority" than the mere secular Constitution they would be sworn to defend... ergo, caveat.
Another is the power to issue sex licenses... that is, legal marriage as defined by that establishment of religion's dogma, where all sex without that license is not just sin, but statutory crime.
Also the "blue laws" which regulate business and property use to conform to religious practice, when and what you can buy and sell vs Holy Day schedule, when you can drink, where you can put your business with respect to that church's premises, what books are not in your public libraries, what you can't teach in your schools, etcetc...
The Neo-Conservative Christian American Taliban (NEOCATs) believe their monopoly on the blessing of The One And Only Real God whose image is graven in occult symbols in their ancient scrolls like a mummified idol wrapped in papyrus entitles them to exemption from that Constitutional restriction, as they believe they serve "A Higher Authority" than the mere secular Constitution they would be sworn to defend... ergo, caveat.
Friday, July 29, 2011
What If We Did Make Gold Dollars?
If we ever again issued money with real Constitutional value, what would we do about the fact we are $11T in FRN debt to a private bank with global power? We smartly say, "Tell them to write it off," but can we actually do that? Can any debtor "repeal" the bank to which he is indebted? What would we tell the world when they come to cash in the trillions of FRNs they are holding as oil reserve accounts, bonds, investments in US corporations, and other such instruments of the arcane world of global finance? What would the Treasury tell them, and what would the Fed say?
What about all of us non-corporate non-capitalized just regular ol' peckerwoods? Apart from a few coin-collection curiosities worth many times more FRNs than their face value, who among us has any real Constitutional dollars? Nobody. Mostly, we don't even have FRNs, we only have numbers in some bank's computerized account somewhere, and most of us are upside-down mortgaged, credit-card maxed, and have no real property of any value whatsoever. If we take our digital FRNs to the new treasury, how many will we need to buy one real gold dollar? 2000/1? 20,000? How many Euros will it take to buy one gold dollar, when a million old FRNs won't buy one Euro?
Just who actually owns America's gold now, the Treasury?... or the Fed which issued trillions more in FRNs than the Constitutional value of the "reserves" on which our gold-certificate money was first printed, and replaced by fiat trade paper? Can the Fed "repossess" that gold collateral for non-payment of FRN debt... or has it done that already?
Would we spend our new real money to buy the rare-earth metals and other non-US natural resources we need to defend ourselves if we shook our pretty high-tech sabres (using Japanese chips made in China) and told the rest of the world to eat their losses?
Do you suppose at some point the world-ignorant, provincial-minded, isolationist, bigoted, consumer-obese, doctor-addicted, mortgaged, and nationally indebted American people will have to be taught that our country, like all the rest, is simply a big self-defined club with rules and dues, in legal fact just a corporation with a bank account and an (overdue) credit line, and not the uniquely-blessed, exceptional, and immeasurably-superior ordained and entitled National Creation of Abraham's God Himself we have let the teachers, preachers, politicians, and pundits tell us it is?
What about all of us non-corporate non-capitalized just regular ol' peckerwoods? Apart from a few coin-collection curiosities worth many times more FRNs than their face value, who among us has any real Constitutional dollars? Nobody. Mostly, we don't even have FRNs, we only have numbers in some bank's computerized account somewhere, and most of us are upside-down mortgaged, credit-card maxed, and have no real property of any value whatsoever. If we take our digital FRNs to the new treasury, how many will we need to buy one real gold dollar? 2000/1? 20,000? How many Euros will it take to buy one gold dollar, when a million old FRNs won't buy one Euro?
Just who actually owns America's gold now, the Treasury?... or the Fed which issued trillions more in FRNs than the Constitutional value of the "reserves" on which our gold-certificate money was first printed, and replaced by fiat trade paper? Can the Fed "repossess" that gold collateral for non-payment of FRN debt... or has it done that already?
Would we spend our new real money to buy the rare-earth metals and other non-US natural resources we need to defend ourselves if we shook our pretty high-tech sabres (using Japanese chips made in China) and told the rest of the world to eat their losses?
Do you suppose at some point the world-ignorant, provincial-minded, isolationist, bigoted, consumer-obese, doctor-addicted, mortgaged, and nationally indebted American people will have to be taught that our country, like all the rest, is simply a big self-defined club with rules and dues, in legal fact just a corporation with a bank account and an (overdue) credit line, and not the uniquely-blessed, exceptional, and immeasurably-superior ordained and entitled National Creation of Abraham's God Himself we have let the teachers, preachers, politicians, and pundits tell us it is?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Self-Evident Tax Facts?
I am no economist. I have always been a low-income person, unsuccessfully self-employed, and have never had savings or owned a share of stock. I did have credit cards once, and I learned some things that seem obvious, but which appear to elude the economists and most Americans.
#1. It is not possible to reduce debt merely by reducing the rate at which one goes deeper into debt. That is what “reducing the deficit” means. To reduce the debt, at some point someone must actually pay it.
#2. Unlike business, government sells neither product nor service, and earns no profits. Government has only two sources of revenue: borrow from the bank on the people’s credit card, or collect taxes. Borrowing does not reduce the debt, it increases it. Only by taxing somebody can government pay down the debt.
#3. Those who have nothing cannot be taxed. There are only two groups of Americans who can be taxed: the capitalists who own the money, and the workers they pay for their labor. If the voters can be persuaded to free the capitalists from taxes, then clearly the only way to pay the debt is to tax the workers.
To propagate the illusion that neither the capitalist nor the worker gets taxed, the Repos claim to ease the debt by taking away the little bit the government gives to those who already have the least, and the Demos “reluctantly” let them. Then the government borrows more money from the banks, gives it to the capitalists who (we hope) employ more workers, who can then be taxed to pay the debt. The capitalist gets the money, and charges interest you must pay, and gets the hours of your life and the fruits of your labor… and you pay for it with tax on your income. Why?
The answer is tragic. The Repubs cater openly to the capitalists, in ideology and action; the Demos to the “middle class” -- that is, the well-employed and well-mortgaged workers. Neither will mention, or even give a name to that huge stratum of us below the middle class. There are two groups of these: the working poor, less-than-$10/hr folks, and those who have no working income at all, and live on government support or petty crime. The Repos get the workers to vote against their own interest by inciting fear that the Demos will tax away their jobs and give the money to that lowest stratum, often as not by pointing out they no speakee English, are not real Christians, and have more children than white people do. It is a shame they do it, and it is a shame that it so often works.
Is it true that if government provides a service to all of its people, that is “socialism” and should be avoided? If democratic government does not actually provide some real and tangible service to the people, all the people, then of what good is it? Do we really believe the best government should be a propaganda machine of power and law enforcement by which the capitalists are enabled to control, indebt, and exploit the people as a worker- soldier- consumer- taxpayer mass? If enough of the anthro-livestock are living fat, dumb, and happy lives, and the rest of us varmints are kept under tight enough control, is that really the American dream come true?
James Post
Mr. President, Have You Lied To Get My Money?
#1. It is not possible to reduce debt merely by reducing the rate at which one goes deeper into debt. That is what “reducing the deficit” means. To reduce the debt, at some point someone must actually pay it.
#2. Unlike business, government sells neither product nor service, and earns no profits. Government has only two sources of revenue: borrow from the bank on the people’s credit card, or collect taxes. Borrowing does not reduce the debt, it increases it. Only by taxing somebody can government pay down the debt.
#3. Those who have nothing cannot be taxed. There are only two groups of Americans who can be taxed: the capitalists who own the money, and the workers they pay for their labor. If the voters can be persuaded to free the capitalists from taxes, then clearly the only way to pay the debt is to tax the workers.
To propagate the illusion that neither the capitalist nor the worker gets taxed, the Repos claim to ease the debt by taking away the little bit the government gives to those who already have the least, and the Demos “reluctantly” let them. Then the government borrows more money from the banks, gives it to the capitalists who (we hope) employ more workers, who can then be taxed to pay the debt. The capitalist gets the money, and charges interest you must pay, and gets the hours of your life and the fruits of your labor… and you pay for it with tax on your income. Why?
The answer is tragic. The Repubs cater openly to the capitalists, in ideology and action; the Demos to the “middle class” -- that is, the well-employed and well-mortgaged workers. Neither will mention, or even give a name to that huge stratum of us below the middle class. There are two groups of these: the working poor, less-than-$10/hr folks, and those who have no working income at all, and live on government support or petty crime. The Repos get the workers to vote against their own interest by inciting fear that the Demos will tax away their jobs and give the money to that lowest stratum, often as not by pointing out they no speakee English, are not real Christians, and have more children than white people do. It is a shame they do it, and it is a shame that it so often works.
Is it true that if government provides a service to all of its people, that is “socialism” and should be avoided? If democratic government does not actually provide some real and tangible service to the people, all the people, then of what good is it? Do we really believe the best government should be a propaganda machine of power and law enforcement by which the capitalists are enabled to control, indebt, and exploit the people as a worker- soldier- consumer- taxpayer mass? If enough of the anthro-livestock are living fat, dumb, and happy lives, and the rest of us varmints are kept under tight enough control, is that really the American dream come true?
James Post
Mr. President, Have You Lied To Get My Money?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Who Do You Expect To Have To Shoot?
For the problem of deciding just what “arms” we ought to take steps to obtain for ourselves, whether covered by the 2nd Amendment or not, I’d say the answer depends on first getting a clear picture of just whom you expect to have to shoot.
1. Government troops. Fuggittaboutit! When we talk about our legal right to "arms" we are at the level of a semi-automatic rifle and a sidearm. As a gunship jock in the days before the stand-off satellite-aimed stuff, I have some sense of how small groups of men armed with rifles stand up against US military tech, even if they are well organized, and indomitably motivated to resist the power of Washington. As we proved in a few days in Iraq, even 100,000 men marching with rifles or dug in with 1000 tanks are only an inconvenience to modern US warfare and law enforcement. Resisting a Federal badge with your AR-15 is at best a suicidal gesture in which you might kill a few good American heroes in uniform, and do some collateral damage too. You'll make the News, and Tommy Lee Jones will play you in the movie.
As for discussing arms technology that might effectively resist US SEALs or SWATs (which discussion could arguably be considered an act of terrorist conspiracy), you should ask an Afghan vet... I mean, you know, one of them. Given a credit card at Home Depot and the weekend to do it, could you build an IED that will stop a tank... or even a Subaru?
2. Gangs. This one is tough too. When bourgeois order breaks down, especially under a militant security regime, the structure which survives best is gangism. Mexico is a perfect example. The pot-smuggling industry on which northern Mexico's sub-middle-class economy depended was well ordered, large old families with acreage, connections, a living for the peasant farmer, etc. We armed the Mexican DEA and turned them against that structure. Now the only structure ruthless enough to deal with the armed DEA and still serve the market is the gangs. They dropped most of the pot, abandoned the farmers, and switched to meth and guns. We pack them into prison and turn them into tightly organized utterly ruthless cadres of homicidal raiders... who hate you a lot more than you think you hate Borax Obonga or the Bible Nazis. Belonging to a tougher gang is your only hope, and you'd better have access to black market arms a LOT more powerful than the sports plinkers Massa Washington will give you permission to own, whether you vote Red Hat or Blue Hat.
3. Your neighbors. This is the most likely, and the easiest to take care of. You start now with a purse pistol, and classes to know how to use it. Learn. You recognize that it doesn't matter what armament the law says you may own, it only matters what you do own. You tell no one what you own. You keep it clean and out of sight. If you live in a place where you truly expect you are going to need it for self defense, you might consider the wisdom of a pre-emptive cleansing of your neighborhood before waiting to be placed in an untenable defensive position... and get away with it.
[Plug: I get into this idea pretty deep in my book KALISNACHT.
1. Government troops. Fuggittaboutit! When we talk about our legal right to "arms" we are at the level of a semi-automatic rifle and a sidearm. As a gunship jock in the days before the stand-off satellite-aimed stuff, I have some sense of how small groups of men armed with rifles stand up against US military tech, even if they are well organized, and indomitably motivated to resist the power of Washington. As we proved in a few days in Iraq, even 100,000 men marching with rifles or dug in with 1000 tanks are only an inconvenience to modern US warfare and law enforcement. Resisting a Federal badge with your AR-15 is at best a suicidal gesture in which you might kill a few good American heroes in uniform, and do some collateral damage too. You'll make the News, and Tommy Lee Jones will play you in the movie.
As for discussing arms technology that might effectively resist US SEALs or SWATs (which discussion could arguably be considered an act of terrorist conspiracy), you should ask an Afghan vet... I mean, you know, one of them. Given a credit card at Home Depot and the weekend to do it, could you build an IED that will stop a tank... or even a Subaru?
2. Gangs. This one is tough too. When bourgeois order breaks down, especially under a militant security regime, the structure which survives best is gangism. Mexico is a perfect example. The pot-smuggling industry on which northern Mexico's sub-middle-class economy depended was well ordered, large old families with acreage, connections, a living for the peasant farmer, etc. We armed the Mexican DEA and turned them against that structure. Now the only structure ruthless enough to deal with the armed DEA and still serve the market is the gangs. They dropped most of the pot, abandoned the farmers, and switched to meth and guns. We pack them into prison and turn them into tightly organized utterly ruthless cadres of homicidal raiders... who hate you a lot more than you think you hate Borax Obonga or the Bible Nazis. Belonging to a tougher gang is your only hope, and you'd better have access to black market arms a LOT more powerful than the sports plinkers Massa Washington will give you permission to own, whether you vote Red Hat or Blue Hat.
3. Your neighbors. This is the most likely, and the easiest to take care of. You start now with a purse pistol, and classes to know how to use it. Learn. You recognize that it doesn't matter what armament the law says you may own, it only matters what you do own. You tell no one what you own. You keep it clean and out of sight. If you live in a place where you truly expect you are going to need it for self defense, you might consider the wisdom of a pre-emptive cleansing of your neighborhood before waiting to be placed in an untenable defensive position... and get away with it.
[Plug: I get into this idea pretty deep in my book KALISNACHT.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Why Not The FEDMED Hospital System?
CLEAN THE PARASITES OUT OF MEDICARE!
Some things, like national defense, are best done by a disciplined and highly motivated agency of state, that is, by socialism. The correct way to solve Medicare is simple: socialize it, and remove the parasites. I do not mean those who need medical care, I mean the INSURANCE INDUSTRY which profits on every stitch and pill by what is in fact a rigged form of gambling, and for whom actually providing medical care is not the objective. No, providing medical care is on the expense side of their ledger, something they want to minimize. (This is basic MBA duuh stuff, like creating jobs. Companies do not want to create jobs, which are labor costs they don’t want if they don't have to. Given money to expand, they prefer to cut labor and invest in more profitable alternatives, not hire a bunch of pedal-pumpers as some sort of political gesture. “Tax breaks create jobs,” is a pathetic lie to get workers to vote conservative in fear of losing their jobs, and the unemployed to vote red in the hope of being hired.)
As with the care provided to wounded soldiers by the Army Medical Corps, government could pay directly for the actual care, at the lowest possible wholesale cost. ZERO to insurance premiums, and no fat commissions for commissioners and contractors. Should this be the only way then, and replace what we have now? NO. Keep the private sector business exactly as it is, and if you want to buy their insurance and receive their services, you go right ahead. The Federal Medical Corps would operate in coincidental competition with the private sector hospital system, but not as a controlling entity or sub-contracting agency. It would not impose standards on the AMA hospitals and staff, and it would not take its standards from those, but could operate as its Flag Officers and Cabinet Secretary determined best for its mission.
If you were willing to go into the FEDMED hospital, or a VA hospital, or an Army field hospital and take what you get there.... would that be bad? NO. Our military Medical Corps are the excellent example: they work for the same salaries as other officers and troops, with the same gung-ho attitude that means giving the most medical care (not making the most money) to those they serve (the sick and wounded, not boards of employers), from a sense of pride and true service to America, exactly like the grunts on the line and jet jocks and rotorheads feel. Ask the troops how they feel about trusting their medics to save their lives. What soldiers do every day is heroic, and what their medics do every day is miraculous. I believe such a uniformed domestic US Medical Corps, just like the Coast Guard or the Air Force, would have the same esprit de corps, professionalism and top-only standards as the Marines, and would eagerly strive to best serve every human being who came into the place with the best they have, regardless of that patient’s gender, race, rank, religion, registration, or insurance coverage.
This would provide real medical care (not bullslick insurance coupons) to the deep class of Americans who are below even the working poor stratum, many of whom have never had insurance in their lives, though seniors now. It would really create good living wage jobs for thousands of people with medical skills, and for construction and maintenance jobs too. It would cost bupkis compared to collecting profitable insurance premiums with the IRS and the courts, and paying the profitable medical industry the gluttonously inflated costs of providing that same medical care. The socialist FEDMED system would be much less expensive than what we are paying now, and would provide better day-to-day "old country doctor" type common health care to all of us except the rich, who presumably will still choose to patronize the insurance companies and hospitals they have now, and good for them, as those hospitals are truly awesome and a blessing for those who can afford them. It is a win/win situation for both the best of a socialist system and the best of the free market too. Well, it will be a little rough on big capitalist medbiz and the insurance guys, but hey, a big racket is still a racket, right? If real care and real economy are the objectives, then you either take the rackets down, or you end-run them as I have suggested here.
James Post www.postpubco.com/anticyclops.htm
Some things, like national defense, are best done by a disciplined and highly motivated agency of state, that is, by socialism. The correct way to solve Medicare is simple: socialize it, and remove the parasites. I do not mean those who need medical care, I mean the INSURANCE INDUSTRY which profits on every stitch and pill by what is in fact a rigged form of gambling, and for whom actually providing medical care is not the objective. No, providing medical care is on the expense side of their ledger, something they want to minimize. (This is basic MBA duuh stuff, like creating jobs. Companies do not want to create jobs, which are labor costs they don’t want if they don't have to. Given money to expand, they prefer to cut labor and invest in more profitable alternatives, not hire a bunch of pedal-pumpers as some sort of political gesture. “Tax breaks create jobs,” is a pathetic lie to get workers to vote conservative in fear of losing their jobs, and the unemployed to vote red in the hope of being hired.)
As with the care provided to wounded soldiers by the Army Medical Corps, government could pay directly for the actual care, at the lowest possible wholesale cost. ZERO to insurance premiums, and no fat commissions for commissioners and contractors. Should this be the only way then, and replace what we have now? NO. Keep the private sector business exactly as it is, and if you want to buy their insurance and receive their services, you go right ahead. The Federal Medical Corps would operate in coincidental competition with the private sector hospital system, but not as a controlling entity or sub-contracting agency. It would not impose standards on the AMA hospitals and staff, and it would not take its standards from those, but could operate as its Flag Officers and Cabinet Secretary determined best for its mission.
If you were willing to go into the FEDMED hospital, or a VA hospital, or an Army field hospital and take what you get there.... would that be bad? NO. Our military Medical Corps are the excellent example: they work for the same salaries as other officers and troops, with the same gung-ho attitude that means giving the most medical care (not making the most money) to those they serve (the sick and wounded, not boards of employers), from a sense of pride and true service to America, exactly like the grunts on the line and jet jocks and rotorheads feel. Ask the troops how they feel about trusting their medics to save their lives. What soldiers do every day is heroic, and what their medics do every day is miraculous. I believe such a uniformed domestic US Medical Corps, just like the Coast Guard or the Air Force, would have the same esprit de corps, professionalism and top-only standards as the Marines, and would eagerly strive to best serve every human being who came into the place with the best they have, regardless of that patient’s gender, race, rank, religion, registration, or insurance coverage.
This would provide real medical care (not bullslick insurance coupons) to the deep class of Americans who are below even the working poor stratum, many of whom have never had insurance in their lives, though seniors now. It would really create good living wage jobs for thousands of people with medical skills, and for construction and maintenance jobs too. It would cost bupkis compared to collecting profitable insurance premiums with the IRS and the courts, and paying the profitable medical industry the gluttonously inflated costs of providing that same medical care. The socialist FEDMED system would be much less expensive than what we are paying now, and would provide better day-to-day "old country doctor" type common health care to all of us except the rich, who presumably will still choose to patronize the insurance companies and hospitals they have now, and good for them, as those hospitals are truly awesome and a blessing for those who can afford them. It is a win/win situation for both the best of a socialist system and the best of the free market too. Well, it will be a little rough on big capitalist medbiz and the insurance guys, but hey, a big racket is still a racket, right? If real care and real economy are the objectives, then you either take the rackets down, or you end-run them as I have suggested here.
James Post www.postpubco.com/anticyclops.htm
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Assassins: Inspired Or Insane?
On July 2, 1881, a failed radical political candidate named Charles Guiteau, convinced that President James Garfield would be the ruin of the Republican Party and so bring an end to freedom and prosperity in America ...shot him in the back. As a result of the "health care" available to Americans then, Garfield died a few weeks later of infection he contracted in hospital. Guiteau said God told him removing the traitor from the White House was a "political necessity" -- and then he pled insanity. He was hanged on June 30, 1882, after having made several trial lawyers wealthy arguing on the public dime about the difference between prophecy and psychosis...
The issue is still not resolvable in the American court, every session of which begins with giving respect to The Bible, 1st Amendment or no. If a man crucified his son (or someone else's son) to death because he believes God said he must do so as propitiatary sacrifice, could he be exempted from prosecution because of his faith? Could he instead be declared insane? Is not agreeing to participate (even after the fact) in exactly that sacrifice the most fundamental precept and requirement of being Christian? Without the blood of that crucifixion on your hands, you're still a G-d damned Jew on your way to Adam's hell. Right?
Did God really tell Billy Graham to tell George Bush it was His Holy Will to bomb Iraq? Or was it Osama who received the Divine fatwa he faithfully obeyed on 9/11, thereby revealing the infidel Bush to be the idol-deluded mass-murdering psychopath? Or was Bush proved to be the saint and not the psycho after all because we were blessed by God with more bombs than Allah?
This is not just theological seminary chit-chat. It matters. A President who believes in these religious fantasies and holy wars has the atom bombs, real secular and empirical bombs, and the power to use them. If she were willing to kill us all because she and her ordained Jedi cabinet all believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, wouldn't you say it matters that their belief be exposed as epic fiction, and their faith however sincere has been usurped by a nuclear-armed chimera, a demon out to lead us to bring about our own real Hell on Earth? Hear, oh Israel. Burn the Books, and repent of the Sacrifice.
James Post www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
The issue is still not resolvable in the American court, every session of which begins with giving respect to The Bible, 1st Amendment or no. If a man crucified his son (or someone else's son) to death because he believes God said he must do so as propitiatary sacrifice, could he be exempted from prosecution because of his faith? Could he instead be declared insane? Is not agreeing to participate (even after the fact) in exactly that sacrifice the most fundamental precept and requirement of being Christian? Without the blood of that crucifixion on your hands, you're still a G-d damned Jew on your way to Adam's hell. Right?
Did God really tell Billy Graham to tell George Bush it was His Holy Will to bomb Iraq? Or was it Osama who received the Divine fatwa he faithfully obeyed on 9/11, thereby revealing the infidel Bush to be the idol-deluded mass-murdering psychopath? Or was Bush proved to be the saint and not the psycho after all because we were blessed by God with more bombs than Allah?
This is not just theological seminary chit-chat. It matters. A President who believes in these religious fantasies and holy wars has the atom bombs, real secular and empirical bombs, and the power to use them. If she were willing to kill us all because she and her ordained Jedi cabinet all believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, wouldn't you say it matters that their belief be exposed as epic fiction, and their faith however sincere has been usurped by a nuclear-armed chimera, a demon out to lead us to bring about our own real Hell on Earth? Hear, oh Israel. Burn the Books, and repent of the Sacrifice.
James Post www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Palin and Bachmann
Palin and Bachmann
They look alike, and represent the same values, which are after all very good American values, of family, community, business, and church -- as long as they are not taken to be exclusively correct. All the positive spin and juice the charismatic cheerleading political sophomore Sarah Palin has generated with her Lady GopGod act can now be transferred to Bachmann, who does not suffer from Palin's negative counterpoints in education and intellect.
Sister Sarah thought she was the Chosen One, but she's just Jane The Baptist, whipping up a ballyhoo in front of the big voting tent, preparing the way for GOP (God's Own President) Bachmann, to make her the most powerful woman in the world since Cleopatra and the most highly annointed since The Virgin Mary. (And to keep Sarah Jane from stealing the show, at some point someone will cut off her head, and throw it to the crowd at the Convention in Bachmann's name.) To those who value any freedom beyond Sunday-school rules imposed by the power of irresistible enforced law, Bachmann is a true horror, as she is "Palin with brains" educated in arguing the law on behalf of her indoctrination in the powerful right-wing American extremist Christian Dominionist sect (Oral Roberts grad, I believe). Like Mr. Gingrich, she is well aware the 1st Amendment prohibits the use of the law to respect the dogma or doctrine of any establishment of religion, but she believes her Christian allegiance is to "a Higher Law" than the Constitution, and to "a Higher Truth" than science or history, so her religion's establishment is exempt from that restriction.
Bachmann is precisely the icon of what is wrong with the GOP today, for all its tradition of good Conservative principles, and for all her obvious qualifications -- clearly she is a competent and intelligent person, but she leads in a deliberately orchestrated religious coup de etat, intended to usurp the secular power of the police state to enforce the "social conservative" values of her sect. Her sect's brand of Christianity, and their politics, is not to feed the hungry and comfort the widow, but to favor the wealthy as being most blessed, and to wield the deadly sword of God's Justice to scourge the land of liberal corruption, and to reap the golden harvests that have been fertilized so many years with the seed-blood-money of martyrs in freedom's cause. They would raise the cross and flag as though following Jane The Arc, and wage The Final War On Sin, God help us all.
James Post www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
They look alike, and represent the same values, which are after all very good American values, of family, community, business, and church -- as long as they are not taken to be exclusively correct. All the positive spin and juice the charismatic cheerleading political sophomore Sarah Palin has generated with her Lady GopGod act can now be transferred to Bachmann, who does not suffer from Palin's negative counterpoints in education and intellect.
Sister Sarah thought she was the Chosen One, but she's just Jane The Baptist, whipping up a ballyhoo in front of the big voting tent, preparing the way for GOP (God's Own President) Bachmann, to make her the most powerful woman in the world since Cleopatra and the most highly annointed since The Virgin Mary. (And to keep Sarah Jane from stealing the show, at some point someone will cut off her head, and throw it to the crowd at the Convention in Bachmann's name.) To those who value any freedom beyond Sunday-school rules imposed by the power of irresistible enforced law, Bachmann is a true horror, as she is "Palin with brains" educated in arguing the law on behalf of her indoctrination in the powerful right-wing American extremist Christian Dominionist sect (Oral Roberts grad, I believe). Like Mr. Gingrich, she is well aware the 1st Amendment prohibits the use of the law to respect the dogma or doctrine of any establishment of religion, but she believes her Christian allegiance is to "a Higher Law" than the Constitution, and to "a Higher Truth" than science or history, so her religion's establishment is exempt from that restriction.
Bachmann is precisely the icon of what is wrong with the GOP today, for all its tradition of good Conservative principles, and for all her obvious qualifications -- clearly she is a competent and intelligent person, but she leads in a deliberately orchestrated religious coup de etat, intended to usurp the secular power of the police state to enforce the "social conservative" values of her sect. Her sect's brand of Christianity, and their politics, is not to feed the hungry and comfort the widow, but to favor the wealthy as being most blessed, and to wield the deadly sword of God's Justice to scourge the land of liberal corruption, and to reap the golden harvests that have been fertilized so many years with the seed-blood-money of martyrs in freedom's cause. They would raise the cross and flag as though following Jane The Arc, and wage The Final War On Sin, God help us all.
James Post www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
Friday, June 24, 2011
Obama Kicked The Can...Again.
Obama Kicks The Can, the headline reads. "I don't personally agree with gay (or any other alternative) marriage," he says, "but I wouldn't veto it. QUACK QUACK QUACK!" So he behaves like a DC Duck and kicks the can down the road another block. What a disappointment.
He kicked the can on Afghanistan... the progressives who elected him wanted the US out of that sordid money-pit, not just a few "troops" but also the jets and bombers (and their DEA target-identifiers) and the thousands of our Blackwater-type mercenary "security officers" (and evangelical missionaries) employed by the cacique Afghan regime using money we give them. He sent in 30,000 grunts, and now says he'll pull them back out during the rest of his term... which means he will not bring out any of what we had in there when he began. Kick....
He kicked the can on Marijuana decriminalization... it's moving along only because the government is giving the medical industry the exclusive right to sell it. It is only about selling permission to sell it, not about the value of the substance itself, nor about our right to decide for ourselves. With Dr. Doctor's magnanimous letter of blessing, "medical marijuana" is now the new miracle drug. Without those papers to get you past the piss test and the prosecution, you are still a degenerate criminal addicted to the Devil's weed. Obama says law enforcement should look the other way on the personal use of marijuana, but keep it illegal except under circumstances of tax and license controlled by the individual states. Kick....
Same with the sex... given the right papers from Church and State, sex is a heavenly sacrament, family values, bride price and dowry in itself, blabla... Without that permission, sex is a lurid demonic sin that will get you jailed, sued, stoned to death, and damned to Hell. The Church is demanding the State issue sex permits only in accordance with its own standards, and Obama is kicking that one down the road too. Kick...
Too bad, we had hoped for (or feared) so much more from him. So, what could be WORSE? What is unfortunately much worse is that the other party is running only the Bible-driven jingoists of the oil-patch Right, self-deceived to believe Jesus wants them to reap the benefits of sowing campaign seed money by joining the class of powerful billionaires they serve in the legislatures, and to take Dominion of the world in His name. Fifty million good Americans, sincere and hard-working people, patriotic with Purple Hearts to prove it, pious and hopeful believers in Christian utopia are cheering them on. Beware my friends, you Good Sheep of His flock, for these are wolves in chasuble, and they would lead you not because they love sheep, but because they know the price of wool, and the taste of mutton. Think the War On Drugs has been bad, and the War On Terror is worse? You just vote to give those people the power to wage War On Sin.
James Post
www.postpubco.com/anticyclops.htm
www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
He kicked the can on Afghanistan... the progressives who elected him wanted the US out of that sordid money-pit, not just a few "troops" but also the jets and bombers (and their DEA target-identifiers) and the thousands of our Blackwater-type mercenary "security officers" (and evangelical missionaries) employed by the cacique Afghan regime using money we give them. He sent in 30,000 grunts, and now says he'll pull them back out during the rest of his term... which means he will not bring out any of what we had in there when he began. Kick....
He kicked the can on Marijuana decriminalization... it's moving along only because the government is giving the medical industry the exclusive right to sell it. It is only about selling permission to sell it, not about the value of the substance itself, nor about our right to decide for ourselves. With Dr. Doctor's magnanimous letter of blessing, "medical marijuana" is now the new miracle drug. Without those papers to get you past the piss test and the prosecution, you are still a degenerate criminal addicted to the Devil's weed. Obama says law enforcement should look the other way on the personal use of marijuana, but keep it illegal except under circumstances of tax and license controlled by the individual states. Kick....
Same with the sex... given the right papers from Church and State, sex is a heavenly sacrament, family values, bride price and dowry in itself, blabla... Without that permission, sex is a lurid demonic sin that will get you jailed, sued, stoned to death, and damned to Hell. The Church is demanding the State issue sex permits only in accordance with its own standards, and Obama is kicking that one down the road too. Kick...
Too bad, we had hoped for (or feared) so much more from him. So, what could be WORSE? What is unfortunately much worse is that the other party is running only the Bible-driven jingoists of the oil-patch Right, self-deceived to believe Jesus wants them to reap the benefits of sowing campaign seed money by joining the class of powerful billionaires they serve in the legislatures, and to take Dominion of the world in His name. Fifty million good Americans, sincere and hard-working people, patriotic with Purple Hearts to prove it, pious and hopeful believers in Christian utopia are cheering them on. Beware my friends, you Good Sheep of His flock, for these are wolves in chasuble, and they would lead you not because they love sheep, but because they know the price of wool, and the taste of mutton. Think the War On Drugs has been bad, and the War On Terror is worse? You just vote to give those people the power to wage War On Sin.
James Post
www.postpubco.com/anticyclops.htm
www.postpubco.com/blasphemy.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)