Three Roses

2006-12-13T21:51:00.000-06:00

Senator McCain,

Before I get started I want to inform you that I too was a volunteer combat veteran of the Vietnam war. I joined because I thought the United States was worth defending. I have since been deeply disappointed in discovering that the Vietnamese presented no threat to the United States and discovering that we were in no way interested in allowing the Vietnamese to determine their own destiny as a nation. I had hope that one thing would come from that criminal endeavor that we as a nation would not repeat that mistake again. Then came the present war and the again criminal behavior of the government I was once sworn to defend. I’m angry about these things and I’m not sure if you can figure out why. I’m only telling you these things because the tone of this letter will perhaps show you a bit of disrespect in spite of your high office.

I’m not a constituent of yours, but I once admired you as a conservative. There was a time when I would have voted for you for President, and I suppose even now that you would have made a better one then the fool we have now. I’m just a little bit miffed that I fell for your PR. I suppose that I should be grateful that events since 2000 have revealed you as a neo-con butt licker rather than a standup Republican maverick. At least I’ll know not to vote for you should you get a nomination. Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother to tell you this, since you won’t pay attention a backwoods hick like myself anyway. However, a couple of recent things have gotten me stirred up a bit more than usual, and therefore I’m writing so as to get it out of my head for a better nights sleep.

During the hearing of Robert Gates you asked the Doctor, “What do we say to the families of those young people who died in the first and second battle of Fallujah when we abandon it to terrorist organizations again?” To me this question reveals the intense dishonesty of this government, dishonesty in which you yourself have participated in. The proper answer is these young people died over the criminal lies, arrogance and stupidity of the present administration aided and abetted by an congress full of ass kissing Republicans and cowardly Democrats. I don’t really expect you to tell the truth of the matter, but I just wanted you to know that at least one old soldier sees though the façade of caring for the troops that your question implies. If you did care you would be leading the effort to bring Bush and Company before Senate to be tried for their high crimes and misdemeanors to be removed from office and sent before ICC for their war crimes. Maybe you could tell the families of these dead and of the maimed that you will seek justice for them not to mention justice for the Iraqis themselves. Nothing less than this can any longer be construed as “support for the troops” at least by this troop.

The next matter concerns your drafting of the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act". I don’t know if Senators really believe their own BS or not. I suspect not, but in case you do, I wish to inform you that you are only fooling yourself with this latest bit of bogus concern for children. If you were concerned with the health and safety of children you would be drafting a bill providing all of them with health care as children in any other civilized nation and even Cuba have. This bill is just another smoke screen designed to win a few family values hearts, while getting another angle on shushing the internet to protect government’s and politician’s shameful secrets. I just want you to know that quite a few Americans see through your smoke – not that you care.

Because I pretty sure you won’t bother to respond I’m going to make this an open letter. At least that will get some response even if only hate mail from the 30% of Americans that still don’t get it.

Well here’s hoping that Diebold is unable to win your next election for you.

Sustainablity

2006-03-26T10:59:00.000-06:00

The whole idea that we can consciously manage the environment in some sustainable fashion is ludicrous in the first place. Our intellect and the resulting science -- as much as we admire them -- are not up to the task.

Both intellect and science act on the principle of ignorance, i.e. both accomplish what they accomplish by ignoring most, or as much of the noise as possible. Take for example the idea of sustainable fish farming. A woodland pond formed by a family of beaver is already a sustainable fish farm. However, that is not acceptable to our collective intellect in part because our intellect cannot handle all the variables of a woodland pond, and in part because we are sure that our intellects are somehow supposed to be in charge. So we reduce all the variables possible and end up with a polluting monoculture trout pond. In the end we get more trout for gallon of water in the short run instead of unlimited trout over the long run. The former requires a great deal of human energy and fossil energy to operate. The latter works on solar power and needs no human input, except for holding a pole with string, hook, and worm attached. The trout pond will cease to produce trout almost as soon as it is neglected by humans. The woodland pond will continue to produce trout whether any humans participate or not. Mother Culture tells us that the trout pond is better than the woodland pond. Mother Culture does not like Mother Nature. Though clearly Mother Nature is more skilled at raising fish than is Mother Culture, we Takers side with Mother Culture. This means that the secret to raising fish sustainably resides in the noise that our intellect cannot handle.

Some 10,000 years ago a small culture in Mesopotamia discovered that if people worked hard to eliminate the noise of the environment they could force the land to make more human food than the land did when left alone. Unfortunately, within a generation or two the population of humans grew to match the capacity of the land to produce and the land itself started to decline in its forced food capacity. Fortunately some bright young Turk noticed that they now had a surplus of people that could be used to take more land away from the tribe next door. He told the tribe that if they let him be in charge of food distribution so that he could support an army of non-workers he could get them some more land and they could have more food. In exchange the people only had to sacrifice some of their extra food and some of their extra boys. Voila, a King was born soon to be supported by a Priest, and an Overseer. 10,000 years later give or take that culture found itself on the shores of what they would call North America with the Manifest Destiny to quite the noise of Mother Nature's food production in favor of the quiet of Mother Culture’s food production, which by this time everyone knew that God preferred -- except of course for those heathen Indians that tried to live (shudder) sustainably in the bosom of Mother Nature. We couldn't be having that, and now we don't. But there is the rub. For all practical purposes there is no more land to take.

The Enviro Nazis and the Just Get it All Now Nazis are competing groups of Takers. The Enviro Nazis might slow the pace of noise reduction, but they will not be able to stop it, because they are still living in the bosom of Mother Culture who tells them over and over that they can just think their way out of this trouble. The Just Get it All Now Nazis are told by Mother Culture that Jesus will come back soon and give them a new heaven and earth to quite down.

The odd thing is that we already know what is sustainable and know that it doesn't require any human effort to sustain. We just won't let it happen. Mother Culture tells us that every human that could be born and mature should be born and mature no matter how miserable the ensuing life might be. Mother Nature tells us that not all babies get to grow up, because life is sustained by life. However, Mother Culture tells us that the only life that has a right to exist is us, our food, and the food of our food. All the rest is noise. No one likes to disobey their Mother.

2006-03-07T15:09:00.000-06:00

Who whould have guessed?

You are a
Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(10% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Embodied Morals

2006-03-04T18:10:00.000-06:00

Do not say, “this is a stone and not God.” God forbid! Rather all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity. (The Kabbalah)

Evolution.

Evolution as the source of the body is the source of morality, but not in the way commonly perceived.  Evolution itself is amoral that is it doesn’t choose its path in a moral fashion.  This is important to recognize because it is a natural thing for humans to judge everything in a moral way.  To say that evolution is about the survival of the fittest is correct on one level.  However, it is not correct on a moral level.  The human tendency is to pick up on the moral metaphor of being fit and then suppose that evolutionary process is about being better, the winner, superior, more advanced, finer, and/or etc.  This is the major mistake of social Darwinism.  It is also the mistake of those that say that Evolution cannot be the source of morals.

Evolution is the source of moral behavior, but not in a directional on purpose manner.  Evolution is not the source of morals in the sense that Frank Lloyd Wright was the source of Falling Water.  It is only the source in the sense that the process produced social animals.  The process in no way had to produce social animals in general or humans in particular.  That means the process in no way had to produce moral behavior.

One objection that the religionist will raise is that the greater cannot arise from the lesser. This in itself is a moral judgment:  Being moral is better than being amoral.  This is true, but only for a social being.  For the universe as a whole morality is unnecessary.

Only a moral being can be immoral.  An amoral being or process cannot be either moral or immoral.

It is difficult (maybe impossible) for a human to move its mind outside of its moral parameters.  Because of this moral judgment on a process is a default mental operation in a human, religionist or not.  For the most part moral judgment operates in the unconscious mind like most of what we do.

(The outline of the following is from Lakoff and Johnson’s Philosophy in the Flesh starting on page 555.)

“A human is a body” is closer to what is real than “a human has a body.”

Embodied Reason

Conception is grounded in a physical body.  That is human conceptual systems must use the physical senses acquire information that is consequentially shaped by the way the senses operate and the way they are placed in the world.  If for example we could see nearly 360 degrees of the world like a horse does, then our concept of the world would be different, because our visual metaphors would be different.

Conceptualization can only take place through the body.  Humans have no contact with what is outside of their selves except through their physical systems of contact and interpretation. Therefore concepts are framed and shaped by the physical construction of the human body.

Embodied Reason makes use of basic concepts shaped by the functions of the senses and the functions of motor skills as the body learns to move and actually does move in its environment.  This is the mode in which humans have the most contact with what is real.

Sensual and motor information inform rational inferences.  For example we assume that which is best is upright, because we feel best and physically function best in an upright position. If we happened to be rational worms, horizontal metaphors would perhaps predominate instead of vertical metaphors in describing the good.

Since our concepts of the world are inferred from our largely unconscious physical contact and interaction with what is out there truth and knowledge are embodied.

Because what we know of the physical universe comes from the physical nature of our bodies, the mind cannot be elsewhere then the body.  The mind cannot be independent of the body, just as is shown by modern cognitive science. This does not mean that there is no mind, only that there is mind only with a sufficiently functioning body.
Metaphoric Reason

Human reason is grounded in primary metaphor like: Affection is warmth, “she gave me a chilly greeting.”  Important is big, “Howard is Mr. Big now.” Happy is up. “I feel on top of the world today.” Intimacy is closeness. “Sally and I are beginning to drift apart.”  Bad is stinky.  “This deal doesn’t smell right.”  Difficulties are burdens, “Jeff was given a crushing amount of paper work in hopes he would quit.” More is up, “That screaming is over the top.”  Categories are containers, “Blue is in the electromagnetic spectrum.” Similarity is closeness. “That isn’t the right part, but it is near enough to work.”  Linear scales are paths. “Sue’s understanding of our network has gone beyond John’s.” Organization is physical structure, “How does the substance of your argument fit our model?” Help is support, “support the troops.” Time is motion. “Time in prison drags by.” States are locations, “Go to your happy place more often.”  Change is motion, “I’m heading towards the poor house.”  Personal actions are self-propelled motion, “I think I can swing the new mortgage.”  --- and so on. (see Lakoff and Johnson pp.50-54)

All of these metaphors can be shown to originate in physical being. Two examples from Lakoff and Johnson:

Causes are physical forces
Subjective Judgment: achieving a results
Sensorimotor Domain: Exertion of force
Example: “They pushed the bill through congress.”
Primary Experience: Achieving results by exerting forces with one’s physical body on physical objects to move or change them.

Control is up
Subjective Judgment: Being in control
Sensorimotor Domain: Vertical orientation
Example: “Don’t worry; I’m on top of the situation.”
Primary Experience: Finding that it is easier to control another person or exert force on an object from above, where you have gravity working with you.

The human is able to project these base physically derived metaphors beyond basic level experiences into more abstract areas of life: science, philosophy, religion and so on.  Nevertheless the abstract understanding is always grounded in the mundane.

Because this embodied conceptual system is dependant on the subjective experience of individuals and on a range of biological differences in sensorimotor construction between individuals no exact agreement on the description of reality between individuals is possible.  The differences in perception will increase as the experience of individuals diverge, however it will diverge only within certain parameters set by the similarities of physical construction of being members of the same species.

For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves.  In addition for the same reasons no externally provided morality will bring uniform behavior between individuals or peoples that would have to relate to that externally provided morality with differing embodied constructs.  Neither objectivists nor religionists will be able to supply the “one right way to live.”  No objective morality is possible because people are always subjects.

Limited Freedom
Most of human thought takes place below the level of consciousness.  Typing this paper is an example for me.  I am consciously aware of the words I want to write while my finger/brain motor system takes care of finding the right letters without any conscious thought needed for the actual typing process.  In addition the words I want to write are only appearing to my conscious attention a few at a time giving the impression that they are streaming out of nowhere – or elsewhere, when what is happening is that the words are being delivered to the conscious attention by the subconscious.

Consciousness is not capable of managing the whole of this task.  If I try to pay attention to where my fingers are going the words I want to write come to me at a much slower pace, and my typing slows down to almost hunt and peck speed. If I try to attend to too many things the whole process will collapse.

The neural construct of my brain is relatively set by past experiences and practices.  I can change it to some degree with new experience and practices by using conscious deliberate acts until the new thing is programmed into my unconscious.  But I cannot make sweeping changes merely by consciously thinking I will.  For example: I cannot become an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim by deciding consciously, “I will now be an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim.”  My free will is limited by how my past experience has shaped me and my present physical limitations including brain/mental functions.  I can decide that I will read the Koran if my copy is in English.  If it is in Arabic then my will to read the Koran must wait on my learning Arabic.  No matter how much will I may exert I will never read the Koran as one that was shaped by Muslim Arab culture.

For these reason we don’t have much conscious control of thought processes and subsequent behaviors as we would like to think.  My will is embodied and therefore will not transcend the constraints of my body.

This constrains what people know as spiritual experience to the body.  Spirituality is real but it takes place in the physical world via physical processes.

Who Has the Best Plan of Salvation: Ezekiel or Paul?

2006-02-26T20:23:00.000-06:00

Sunday, an excellent day on which to consider salvation.  I’m going to assume here that the reader and I both pretty much agree on what the plan of salvation is according to Paul. I’m thinking of the one coming from the likes of those great bible scholars, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, and Jack Chick:  1. Admit that you are a sinner because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.  2. Be willing to turn from sin because in times past God winked at ignorance, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. 3. Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried, and rose from the dead so that if you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.  4.  Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal Savior, because anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Some churches, which are bit closer in thought with the “whore of Babylon” like the Lutheran, Episcopal, Church of Christ will add 5. Be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for he that believes and is baptized will be saved.  I only add this because you, dear reader, may be from such a church.  Much to the annoyance of my old Church of Christ, Paul didn’t put as much emphasis on baptism as could be hoped for.  The short coming is troublesome because Church of Christ theologists interpret Christ, Peter, John, James, and the OT via Paul like most Christians do.

The salient points of Paul’s salvation thinking are: 1. A person is a worthless pile of crap which naturally God wouldn’t want on his living room carpet. 2. Once a pile of crap, always a pile of crap unless, 3. Someone not a worthless pile of crap has his nose rubbed in it, and 4. I, a self acknowledged worthless pile of crap, believe that this someone did have his nose rubbed in it, then 5. I’m no longer a pile of crap.  So, as long as I can hold this picture in my mind as a logical and loving certainty and necessity I get to live for ever.

I put the above paragraph in such rude terms on purpose in order that you may more easily see that Ezekiel’s plan of salvation, supported by Matthew’s Jesus, allows one to maintain human dignity and still have a relationship with God.

[A quick note on context: Just because the writings found in the Christian Bible were arbitrarily chosen and pasted together by the early Roman Church does not mean that they are in actual context with one another.  That means that Paul and Ezekiel do actually disagree with one another, and that there is no contextual reason to suppose Paul superior to Ezekiel in understanding God.]

Dear Reader, Ezekiel’s plan of salvation is not well known so you may want to refresh you memory of it by reading through it a couple of times.  Ezekiel 18

Ezekiel writes that what he has to say came right from Yahweh.  Since Zeke made the bible compiling cut, religious folks have to give him some authority.  Paul is somewhat less assertive about the source of his musings.  Paul got his information from the Christ, rather then directly from the head God.  Since Paul also made the cut, how should one judge between them?  As an outsider, I would say go with the guy that reported to the head man especially since he is supported by at least one version of the Son of God and Son Inc.  – More on that later.

You will notice from the beginning God’s description of a righteous man is given.  The righteous man does not eat at mountain shrines, does not look at idols, does not mess with his neighbor’s wife, does not have sex with menstruating women, does not oppress anyone, does not rob, does not take interest on loans (the American Standard is a poor translation here as are most modern translations that dare not speak against capitalism), and in general does not do wrong. A righteous man does return collateral for a loan.  A righteous man does feed the hungry.  A righteous man does cloth the naked. A righteous man judges fairly between man and man.  A righteous man does keep God’s laws.

Since God can describe a righteous man, one might be given to ponder the possibility that there could be such people born of Eve.  At this point the average Christian will be tempted to guess that God is describing Christ.  However, that is not clear.  “The righteous man will live,” says Ezekiel, but we know that, according to Paul, the righteous Christ must die.  In addition we find that God is disputing Israel’s belief that they, or anyone, dies for someone else’s sin. (Vs. 3&4)  One might even get the crazy idea that Yahweh doesn’t have much sympathy for St. Augustine’s idea of original sin either. Vs.20 “… the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

And then Yahweh says, “The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him,” [!!]  Ezekiel’s Yahweh doesn’t support the idea that your righteousness is useless being only filthy rags.

It is about here that the Pauline apologist will be tempted to claim that the life and death being spoken of is temporal.  However, there is little evidence that temporal authorities ever put men to death for oppressing the powerless, the poor, the widow, or the orphan.  There is little evidence of men being put to death for charging interest on loans except by medieval kings and lords that didn’t want to make good on their debt.   There is even less evidence of people being put to death by temporal authorities for not being charitable.  Indeed these are the sorts of behavior that often lead to wealth and power. Vs.21 puts an end to the idea that Ezekiel’s Yahweh is talking about temporal life and death.  It is impossible for a dead wicked guy to turn his life around by acting righteously.

Not only does the wicked man save himself by repenting and practicing righteousness, but he gets his sins forgiven and taken off the books: vs.22 “none of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.”  This is repeated with more power in vs. 28: “Because [the wicked man] considers all the offenses [the wicked man] has committed and turns away from them, [the wicked man] will surely live; [the wicked man] will not die.
And it is re-emphasized again in vs.30: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.”

Warning, Jack Chick wannabes might want to skip over this next bit of vs. 22.  Ezekiel’s Yahweh says “Because of the righteous things he [that’s the wicked man] has done, he [that’s the wicked man] will live.  Hmmm!  According to Paul this can’t happen.  Vs. 24 is a spoiler for those readers who might be of the “once saved, always saved” stripe.  If you are invested in that belief you may want to skip vs.24.

What does this mean if Ezekiel is writing the Word of Yahweh?  Well of course it means that you don’t need a savior.  It means that you can be righteous in the sight of Yahweh by your own efforts to be righteous.  To say otherwise makes Ezekiel’s Yahweh out to be flip flopper at best and a liar at worst.  However, I think that the notion that Yahweh is the same yesterday, today, and always kind of does away with the possibility of Yahweh being a flip flopper.  So either Yahweh is a liar or Paul is.  As an atheist I would say that the problem is just another illustration that shows that religion is what ever the latest James Dobson type says it is.  However, if I were still religious I would lean towards Ezekiel, because doing so solves a number of problems.

The most serious problem it solves is that of being condemned for something you have no control over.  The Pauline idea of condemnation is rather like condemning a dog for not being able to fly.  “Not fair,” I’d say.  But old Zeke said, “don’t whine about not fair!  Of course it’s fair.  You do what you’re told and you’re in.  And, even though you are a measly human, you can do what you are told.”  I like that if only because it prevents Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk from getting into heaven at the last second via a quick sinner’s prayer.

Since I’m still an admirer of Jesus as a good teacher, sorry Clive, I’m amused and gratified to know that at least one version of him agrees with old Zeke.  Matthew 25: 31-46.

Upon close reading now that you are familiar with Ezekiel 18 you will notice how much Jesus’ picture of the “last judgment” echoes Zeke. To me what is more telling is what Jesus doesn’t mention as being important when standing before God for the last time.

Nothing about what you believe is mentioned.  No troublesome beliefs are required. You don’t have to believe that Noah crammed two or seven of all the animals in the world in a wood boat for a year with no place to put the poop.  You don’t have to believe in a Virgin Mary.  You don’t have to believe blood is better than Tide for whitening.  You don’t have to believe that you are a worthless piece of crap. By means of silence Jesus clears up all the theological bickering and killing over crap like baptism, communion, trinity, Popes, tongues, etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera.  Heck, believing in God himself is not even required.  Just were you as good to people as you could be given your resources and abilities?  Even I can do that.

My Mama vs Bush's Mama

2006-01-17T20:40:00.000-06:00

A Constitutional Crisis: "The former vice president warns us what can happen without congressional oversight over a defiant White House."

The White House spin on Mr. Gore’s charges against Bush’s felony spying on Americans is that Clinton’s FBI raided Aldrich Ames’ house without a warrant. When my mama stopped me from doing a bad thing, I would sometimes say, “well Billy did it”! Mama would say, “if Billy jumped off the bridge would you?” My mama is smarter than the nitwits in the White house. If Clinton did a bad thing, how does that excuse Bush for the same bad thing x 1010 ? Since John Dillinger robbed banks, I can too? What kind of basic sense does that make? I guess maybe Bush’s mama was too busy doing some society thing to tell George about Billy and the bridge.

I have 2 questions: Do you suppose that one of these days we could have a grownup in the White House? Why is it illegal to slap that cute chimp smirk off Bush’s face like his mama should have done 50 years back.

Commentary on Happiness and Wonder

2006-01-17T12:39:00.000-06:00

The following is commentary on quote sent by a friend.

The test of all happiness is gratitude," Chesterton wrote, and many of us have flunked that test. "Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their stockings gifts of toys or sweets. Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings the gift of two miraculous legs?"

It is not coincidence that makes the root of happy is hap. The test of happiness is what happens. It is true that we can fake ourselves into an emotion for a time, but happiness is one emotion that does not stick for long, like say hate. I would find it difficult to believe that the sex slave is unhappy because she is ungrateful. Would anyone in his right mind expect her to be grateful for what is happening? And so it is with billions of people that are not as blessed as Chesterton. That happiness is elusive is not strange. Happiness represents the condition of being in equilibrium. Since equilibrium is a fragile condition for a biological being, so too is happinesss. Without continued equilibrium, continued happiness is a danger to life. Unhappiness is compulsion to action. Unhappiness is continual when action does not bring one closer to equalibrium

We feel no wonder at ordinary things; it is no wonder that ordinary things disappoint us. Chesterton could be made happy by the sudden yellowness of a dandelion, but we do not find dandelions delightful if we are constantly comparing them to orchids. "It is not familiarity but comparison that breeds contempt.

We feel no wonder at ordinary things because they are ordinary. As far as the relationship to things out there, the brain is largely a difference detector. Its attention focuses on that which is different in the background of experience. It is not that I don't feel wonder about my legs it is that I don't notice them at all unless they don't walk, hurt, itch, etc. I don't say to myself, "oh poo, just legs, how ordinary!" I just get up and walk without thinking of legs at all. I don't notice them unless they do something (extra)ordinary. Attention is limited and gets assigned to what is new -- wonder. There is no wonder for things already known. Children have more wonder than adults because more things are new for them. I don't find things to be contemptible merely because I am familiar with them. On the other hand, it would be impossible to hold in contempt something I don't have any familiarity with. I would first have to wonder about something before I dispise it. I'm not sure if the author is condemning comparison; if he is, then he is talking nonsense. I delight in the yellow of dandilions in the spring, but by the third time I've mowed them, they are not so delightful. Orchids, on the other hand, do not mess up my lawn. Is the author implying that unhappiness lies in having a favorite flower?

And all such captious comparisons are ultimately based on the strange and staggering heresy that a human being has a right to dandelions; that in some extraordinary fashion we can demand the very pick of all the dandelions in the garden of Paradise; that we owe no thanks for them at all and need feel no wonder at them at all."

There is something in this, though I find it misses the mark. (I just love using those old concepts in new ways.) Certainly we have a right to Dandelions. The heresy is not recognizing that other beings have the same right to the dandelion, including dandelions. The heresy is, "these are my dandelions," or "dandelions may be used only in this fashion and no other," or "this land is mine and dandelions have no right to it." We do owe thanks to the dandelions, but not wonder.

The twin brother of this presumptive attitude is despair, and the two make us sick and tired. "Pessimism is not in being tired of evil but in being tired of good. Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. It is when for some reason or other the good things in a society no longer work that the society begins to decline; when its food does not feed, when its cures do not cure, when its blessings refuse to bless."

Pure balony. Don't tell me the sex slave is weary of joy. How could she be?

Shall We be Like all the Nations?

2006-01-15T16:15:00.000-06:00

I’m sorry it’s Sunday and I feel a sermon coming on.  Our text for today:

1 Samuel 8: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.  6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.  7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.  9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.  10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.  11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.  12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.  13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.  14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.  16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.  17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.  18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. 19Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

My nation is this the place you have come to because you are afraid of a few terrorists?  Is fear why you are happy and even egar to have a King rule over you? Are you really willing to give yourself to a King?  Before you decide to tread further along the path of tyranny, remember that your fathers said unto you:“

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Back in the olden days when women were just getting liberated, Virginia Slim told them that they had come far enough to kill themselves with their own cigs.  No longer did they have to rely on the Marlboro man.  “You’ve come a long way baby,” is supposed to be a sign of progress.  I’ve come far enough in life to have noticed that not all going and coming is actual progress.  There are plenty of times that you just have gone the wrong way and going back is the way of progress.

The United States has come a long way since Tom Jefferson and friends argued over just how to word the declaration of independence. But much of the way we’ve come isn’t necessarily progress.  The Right Impeachable George W. Bush and his pirate crew have come to a place where they laugh at the idea that they derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed”.  They derive their just powers from military force, in the same way that the original King George, who inspired these words of our fathers, did.  The new King George makes law by fiat, like the original.  And by simply making a statement at the signing of a bill of law, indicates that he the King does not have to abide by that law.

This leads me to believe that the time has come to dust off the declaration of Independence.  I know that is going back down the trail a piece, but when the trail you are on is leading to tyranny there is no point in going on. We have long been under the illusion that the government is the country, and now we are adding to that that the King is the Country.  Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury I submit to you that you are by right citizens and not subjects as the pirates on the poop deck would have you believe.  Do not say to yourselves, “but we are at war”.  The war is the instrument of these tyrants.  The instrument by which they hide the way back to liberty.  You were either born with these words in your bosom, or you took them unto your heart.  Subjecting yourselves to the fiat of a King is not for you.

The Chef says "Feh" to Religion

2006-01-10T20:37:00.000-06:00

In a Readers Write report at Alternet a reader responded to Jews say, “Feh” to Darwin with this:

"Your question, 'Who knows were we might be today but for the stultifying effect off religion???' implies that it is religion that has been the root of all evil. Indeed, much evil has come from that quarter. But removal of the influence of organized religion did not make for particularly free or progressive societies in the USSR under Stalin, in the PRC under Mao or in DPRK under Kim Il Sung & Kim Jong Il. Notwithstanding removal of religion's 'stultifying effects' under these regimes, 'ignorance,' along with other evils, managed nevertheless to 'proliferate.'"

People should know that the communists in these countries were not TrueAtheists™. It is unfortunate that TrueAtheists™, such as myself, tend to be painted with the evil communist brush even by non-members of the fundamental Fire Baptized Church of the Gory Death Guided by the Unerring King James Bible with Schofield Notes Baptist Central Southern Convention. Even Islamists think that TrueAtheists™ have to be extra evil people. After all, people that don’t have some heavenly thug to scare the shit out of them will probably torture people, unlike TrueChristians™ like ummm… oh like George Bush.

Well it is true that evil communists like the Kims will torture people unlike the TrueChristian™ George Bush. It is not true that they are TrueAtheists™. While it is true they profess not to have a god, communists are not without religion. You don’t really need to have a God to have a religion. All that is needed is a TrueDoctrine™. Communism is/was distilled religion, everything boiled away leaving only TrueDoctrine™. And just like religion anywhere Communism protected TrueDoctrine™ by being mean to people. Communists just noticed that you don’t really need a god to be mean to people. What The Reader didn’t notice was that Communism didn’t get rid of organized religion, it only got rid of a God to go with the religion.* That means that at least within recorded history, no society has yet tried to live without organized religion.

I agree the Reader’s implication that religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is only the medium in which the roots of evil grow best. The notion that humans are on the top of the heap of life, accompanied by the notion that some particular humans are on the top of the heap of humans is the root of evil. Religion is fertile soil in which the root of evil grows. A TrueAtheist™ is not just godless, but also religionless in hopes that evil will die from lack of nourishment.

*Let’s note here that while Communism did get rid of gods it didn’t get rid of Saints.

Ah Nuts!

2006-01-07T14:18:00.000-06:00

Some people think that I’m a gun control nut because A. I don’t keep any guns, except for a couple of antique shot guns which I haven’t had out of the case in decades except to see if they are rusting. B. I don’t agree with much that is said about reasons to keep guns. C. I’m a bleeding heart liberal.

For reasons I won’t go into, I feel that it is best that I don’t keep any effective guns in my house.  However, I think that most people should have an assault rifle and a hand gun with ammo per educated gun user in the closet, but not for the reasons frequently given by the average gun nut.  The reason to have these on hand is not your neighbor, it is your government.  You read right.  The entity that threatens your freedom is your government, and it has always been so.  As recent events in America have shown, constitutional checks and balances are not sufficient to keep the government from running amuck. The check of an armed populace is needed to keep the government group-thinking “oops”.  Any gun control that there may be should be directed at the government, not the citizen.

My good gun nut internet friend sent me a blog from Anna Benson entitled Dear Gun Haters.  I shall of course comment.

Anna says, “I think that one of the most important aspects of gun ownership is gun education.”

     That’s right.  In fact it is so important that it ought to be taught in high school along side or inside a course called “Government for the People and By the People”. (Text book to be written by Howard Zinn.)  It should be a hands on course including gun handling, fire and maneuver, militia management, memorization of one’s state and the federal constitution, voting, lobbying, congress person letter writing with the fine art of indignant rant, and understanding propaganda.  In other words getting educated about what the government does not really want you to know.  Now for the “Gun Nut” stuff.

Anna says, “I have many guns (strategically placed) in my home to be used in the event of a home invasion—a crime which frequently occurs in my city.”

     I don’t know what city Anna lives in.  I myself live in a small metro area of 243,000 and have never read of this crime on the police blotter.  None of my friends have reported having trouble with this.  None of my relatives have been invaded including a brother in Minneapolis and one in Boston.  Home invasions do occur in NY City, at the rate of about 100 per year.  On the surface that gives the average New Yorker a 1 in 81,000 chance of being invaded vs. a 1 in 17,712 chance of dieing from a fall. Which means that you’d get more bang for your defense buck by making sure the kids don’t keep their skates and balls on the stairs.  But that is not the whole story.  Apparently home invasions take place between drug dealers.

I’m going to take a guess that Anna Benson Enterprises doesn’t include crack sales.  I would make sense that the NY invadees do have guns around the house.  I’m mean they are drug dealers! Come on!  Yet they are invaded successfully anyway.  Anyway, I have the feeling that any invader, outside of complete morons, will start the process by getting the drop on you.  Unless you are the Ringo Kid with your big iron on your hip, you maybe shouldn’t try to beat the drop if on the off chance you are mistaken for a drug dealer?  Just go ahead and give them your crack stash!  The point is, keeping a gun to prevent house invasion is a moronic excuse.

Anna says, “Fight fire with more firepower! In Atlanta, I can have as many guns as I want and I can even carry the weapon, in plain view, on the front seat of my car”

     If carrying fire arms is to prevent random muggings and car-jackings, why the hell aren’t they carried where everyone can see them?  What good are they in your purse, or in your arm pit?  Why doesn’t your average uniformed cop carry his gun in a purse?  I don’t want a concealed gun permit.  I want a revealed gun permit!  Besides just think what a fashion statement gun belts designed by gay guys could make.

Anna says, “Don’t get me wrong, I AM worried about criminals with guns, and I AM worried about guns on the streets. But, this is why I believe that each and every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a gun and the legal means to obtain a gun in order to protect their family. I’d bet that even an anti-gun activist would really wish they had a gun if someone broke into their home.”

     But why Anna why?  Out of the approximately 12,000 deaths by firearm per year in the US only about 200 are justified homicides by citizens.  That means that the opportunity to stop crime with a gun is rather rare even in the crime ridden US of A.  A bald man could carry a comb on the off chance his hair will come back -- I suppose it happens?  This is just another boogey man under the bed reason for a gun.  If you are really interested in stopping crime, vote those lying bastard thieves in the government out of office, and have a gun in your closet in case they refuse to leave.

43% of murdered people are murdered by someone they know or are related to. 14% of murdered people are victims of strangers.  Another 43% are murdered by someone with an unknown relationship with the victim. Women need a gun more to protect themselves from their lovers, than from the greasy guy waiting behind a tree for them to walk by.

Look at it like this: you don’t need a reason to have a gun.  It is your right to have a gun.  I think that it is even your duty to have a gun, unless you are unfit for the duty.  Just stop with the lame excuses!  It drives me nuts, and that is a short trip.

Let's Get Organized.

2006-01-06T21:39:00.000-06:00

In a 747 - none of the individual parts fly - (but TOGETHER they do) - how does this relate to "Evolution" / Creation debates ?

  True. However, individually the parts do other things. Computers don't need to be in an airplane to compute. Wheels don't need to be on an airplane to roll. Windows don't need to be on an air plane to be seen through. Hydraulic rams don't need to be on an airplane to move, and so on and on.

    What a creationist forgets or overlooks is that the parts of a living organism used to or still do something simpler then they do now. All living things are made up of the simplest parts (cells) that used get along by themselves. All cells can at least sense what is food and what is not food. The ability to sense things are based on this simple thing. Cones and rod cells in the eye are just light sensitive cells working in concert. Some of the simplest animals have light sensitive cells. Just like an airplane is made of simpler components that do or did something else first, so it is with cells in a body.

   Once you have a cell you have life that can and will organize and change to meet conditions. You can still argue that something has to create a cell first, because no one has yet found the mechanism for abiogenesis. Even so there is plenty of evidence that matter self organizes in myriad ways. Chemistry has 1000s of examples.

   Creationists like to give the example of a tornado making a 747 by sending a tornado through a junk yard. True enough that a tornado won't blow junk into a 747. That is not the process of getting a 747. What the creationist overlooks or doesn't mention is that tornado itself is a self organized entity. Air molecules just minding their own business a few minutes ago are organized into a spinning wind by heat and gravity. George Carlin has a line that Mother Nature wanted some plastic so she evolved man. That is, plastic is a self organizing property of the universe, and so is a 747. Once the process is understood, that is quite clear.

   I think that the universe is a self organizing entity. As Alan Watts used to say, "the universe peoples in the same way a tree leaves." Even a human is a self organizing entity. It starts as a single cell zygote and organizes resources into a fetus/baby/kid/teenager/parent/old fart. Where would you put God into that process? Did he make the 2 bits that made the zygote? No, the parents did that. Even if you want to say, "Adam* and Eve", people have been self organizing entities since then. If you want to say that God knits (organizes) everyone together in the womb, then you have the problem of birth defects showing God to be an imperfect knitter. However, the process of gestation is quite well known, and there is no knitter detected.

  The electromagnetic properties of matter assisted by gravity is the force/means/engine that causes it to self organize. The desire of oxygen to share electrons with 2 atoms (adams?) of hydrogen or of carbon is an example of what gets things going. Two or more things get together to make another thing. Two or more "another things" get together to make another thing and so on. It is what happens.

*By the way, it is the case the female is the default sex, not the male. That is why men have nipples. So if you want to stick to creation story, it needs to be revised to "Eve and Adam".

Get Your News Here

2006-01-04T23:34:00.000-06:00

I’m not one that likes advertising.  So this is not advertising.  Just advice.

Last night on the Duke Skorich radio show folks were complaining about not having time to read real news online.  I used to work as a Chef and I know about the time issue in keeping informed.  Radio news is gone, except for NPR and the Right Wing Whack Jobs, the RWWJ, are doing their best to make that go away.  TV news pretty much ignores real news and gives you Michael Jackson clone news.  So you are left with News Papers if you still have one, and the net.  But if you don’t have the time to read for a couple of hours you are out of luck.

TextAloud is a solution.  You can use this program to turn online text news into mp3s and listen to it on your ipod device as you do your daily business.  Make sure you get the version with the AT&T voices though, or it will drive you nuts.

Believe It!

2006-01-01T20:10:00.000-06:00

I “believe” Steve Salerno has a point.

EVER SINCE the United States began weaning itself off the sociological junk food of victimization and its culture of blame, the pop-psychology menu increasingly has been flavored by an antithetical concept — empowerment — that can be summarized as: Believe it, achieve it. (Opinion from the LA Times)

I got caught up in this “fake it till you make it” culture way back in the late 70’s. Thrashing around trying to make a decent living with unresolved war issues buried in the back of my head, I just wasn’t getting anywhere. Then along came Amway! My parents tried to debase me of my delusions of mansions and caddies if I only believed, but to no avail. I may as well have joined up with Jim Jones or Harry Christna. I carried around my well thumbed copy of Believe! Figuring that it would save me from poverty in the same way a person thinks the Bible will save them from hell.

Believing yourself into riches is like believing yourself into a NFL contract as a star quarterback. There are only just twenty six slots. A good Jehovah’s Witness can’t believe herself into heaven because there are only 144,000 slots. I don’t know how many slots there are for Rich Guys, but there aren’t enough that you can believe your way in. Just like it takes a lot of fans to make a quarter back, and it takes a lot of sinners to make a saint, it takes a lot of poor people to make a Rich Guy. If you want to make it to the top in this taker world, theft and scamming skills will work better than believing skills.

In truth, the overselling of personal empowerment — the hyping of hope — may be the great unsung irony of modern American life, destined to disappoint as surely as the pity party that it was meant to replace.

In any society in which there is such a disparity of access to wealth and power, there has to be some magical way to make things better for the oppressed. The magic has to be believed by the masses to protect the fortunate from the wrath of the masses. “I’m not rich, beautiful, strong, smart, well employed, etc. because I don’t/didn’t believe enough.” Works just as well as any other bit of magic “it must be somehow my fault”.

Salerno goes on to complain that schools have degenerated into teaching this believe pap. For all his insight, Salerno’s assumption that public schools used to have some other function is off the mark. Public schools have always been designed to turn the masses into non-thinking drones willing to believe that their plight is their fault.

H.H. Goddard, said in his book Human Efficiency (1920) that government schooling was about "the perfect organization of the hive." He said standardized testing was a way to make lower classes recognize their own inferiority. Like wearing a dunce cap, it would discourage them from breeding and having ambition. Goddard was head of the Psychology Department at Princeton, so imagine the effect he had on the minds of the doctoral candidates he coached, and there were hundreds.

What Salerno decries as the self help movement is just a different version of making the masses stupid. Returning to the good old days of feeling inferior won’t help. It is only nostalgia for a different form of mind control.

Call Me Fat

2005-12-31T15:18:00.000-06:00

Ok, I’m fat. I know that!

I don’t care, except for putting on my shoes. Call me fat and I won’t be offended, because I am. I have this theory that people ought not to be offended by the truth about themselves.

I hate when I’m told that I’m addicted to food! Look, damn it, I’m not addicted to food – ok! What a damn fool idea! You may as well tell me I’m addicted to air. I tried to give up air once. It didn’t take very long before I was having intense withdrawal symptoms.

I don’t even like eating all that much. Eating requires getting up from my computer and doing stuff that I’m not much interested in anymore. After 20 years of cooking for a living it is sort of a been there done that thing. The same thing goes for taking a piss. Breathing I can do sitting right here, so I do it over and over again. Yet no one says, “hey you must be addicted to breathing!”

So go ahead and call me fat, but you better not tell me I’m addicted!

But Wait There's More!

2005-12-29T14:16:00.000-06:00

The TV assures me that the nice lady will sell me this wonderful new dooflicky that I simply must have because without it her actors are just clumsy oafs unable to get the hang of using ma’s old whatchamajigger that she used for years. What a nice lady! She spent gobs of money on a commercial in order to sell me her dooflicky that will cure my inability to move my work closer to the outlet. I’m stupid that way. (I always do my work 1 inch away from the cord’s longest reach, don’t you?) But wait there’s more!

The nice lady is going to sell me her dooflicky, a $60 value, for a mere $19.95 plus shipping and handling, which if I squint hard enough I can make out to be $7.95. So for $27.90 I can have this valuable dooflicky for less then half price. Yep, the nice lady is willing to loose money so that I can flip my pancake without tossing it into the garbage by mistake. But wait there’s more

For just eleven cents a day I can protect my baby with the Gerber Life Grow Up plan. Protect my baby from what? Does eleven cents a day buy my kid a guardian angel, or perhaps a secret service agent willing to take a childhood disease for the little tyke?

Derrick Jensen calls our culture “the culture of make believe”. He is right. We can pretend that paying an insurance company to give us five grand if little Sally runs into traffic should we get temporarily distracted by the tenth wedgie of the day, is protecting the kid. I know we so pretend because I never hear anyone exclaim at any of these commercials, “hey that’s pretty stupid”. More telling still is that Gerber Life has been running this ad for quite awhile. That means that people are buying it – literally buying it. Only a few nut cases like my self are offended by the ad. As I watch the pretty mother cuddle her beautiful baby and talk about "protection", I just have to wonder, does Gerber sell this “protection” in Baghdad? No? Imagine that! Baghdad babies need more protection than American babies right now. But wait there’s more…

Hacking the Tree of Liberty

2005-12-27T12:39:00.000-06:00

“In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed,” says Junaid M. Afeef. Afeef is an associate of the institute of social Policy and Understanding. Afeef assures us that it is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. No longer safe? When the hell was it safe for the public to carry guns? The right to bear arms isn’t about being safe. It is about being dangerous enough to keep the government in check.

I hate this assumption that being a Citizen of the United States is about being safe. No, no, no it is not about being safe it is about being freeeeeeeeeeee! “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both,” said Benjamin Franklin. Let us pause for a question from Francis Scott Key.

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.O say, does that star-spangled banner yet waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I guess not, eh? Perhaps we ought to change the National Anthem to something like Mary Had a Little Lamb. I think that it was Jefferson that said that the tree of liberty needs to be watered by blood from time to time. I hear this all the time, “freedom is not free.” I think by this we mean that freedom costs $300 billion Dollars +++ for blowing up foreign peoples in hopes of stepping on a terrorist or two. Oh, and freedom means the blood and limbs of economically oppressed young people in exchange for a shot at opportunity. Let their blood water the tree of liberty in a far far place, while we hack off a few branches and spend time shopping for a softer brand of toilet paper.

[Afeef]Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

I used to agree with this, not as a reason for abolishing the 2nd amendment, but because the right to bear arms has been whittled back enough that the government enjoys a superiority of fire power. But Afeef and I forget the principles of asymmetric warfare if it came to the necessity of citizens rising up against the government. One way to avoid the necessity of an uprising is to stop hacking off branches of liberty’s tree. Just because this particular liberty has become a little shaky (OK a lot shaky) is no reason to do away with it all together. Afeef stands ready to deliver the last hatchet blow to this particular limb of liberty.

Afeef complains of wanton violence in connection with guns as if somehow wanton violence will disappear if guns disappear. Well we do average about 12,000 gun related homicides/year vs. 300 legal self/other defense killings. So it may seem as if he has a point. About 16,000/year of us die from falls. By Afeef’s logic we ought to ban the right to bear and climb ladders. Wanton violence is part of our culture. We don’t like to admit it, but we didn’t just ask Native Americans nicely, “hey, can we have your land?” No, we mugged them for it, and we are proud of it. Giving up guns would make wanton violence more difficult, but won’t make it go away.

[Afeef] The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

Ok here is a hell of an argument, freedom should be given up because freddom is being given up. While rights are being eroded in the name of safety, lets just do away with this (eroded) right all together. Hell, lets just tell Bush he’s dictator. His word is law. Piss on this constitution thing, maybe it is “just a goddamned piece of paper”. Screw rights. Screw the constitution. Screw everything. Just don’t let the big bad terrorist huff and puff and blow my house down.

Well folks – not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.

2000 miles

2005-12-25T18:15:00.000-06:00

2000 miles
Originally uploaded by Mikimba.

I'm just testing how to blog from flicker. As a veteran these things touch me deeply. The graves of war go on to infinity, and yet we are no smarter.

Outrageous Statements

2005-12-24T21:41:00.000-06:00

I thought it might be fun to answer Media Matters Most Outrageous Statements of 2005 with some more outrageous statements of my own.

Former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." [Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America, 9/28/05]

You could have all people making more than $100,000 steralized and your resources would eventually be more equally distributed.

Pat Robertson: "If [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." [Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, 8/22/05]

I don’t know what everybody is upset about. Assassination and torture are fine old Christian traditions. That is, what do you expect from someone that believes in going back to the basics?

Bill O'Reilly to San Francisco: "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. ... You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 12/8/05]

I’m with Bill on this one. We haven’t done anything about the last time Al Qaeda blew up a tower or two. No reason to suspect that we would in the future either.

Bill O'Reilly, agreeing with caller that illegal immigrants are "biological weapon[s]": "I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/15/05]

I’m not sure about this. But rest assured that when American biological units invade another country illegally there will be a hell of a lot more dead then 3,000.

Rush Limbaugh: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/05]

Then Rush should join now so that he can have access to the mainstream of society.

Rush Limbaugh on the kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/29/05]

I understand Rush. There is a part of me that would like to see you skinned alive with a dull knife and a pair vice grips. Of course this would have to take place after your illegal drugs have worn off.

Ann Coulter: Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"; "I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties"; "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning." [New York Observer, 1/10/05]

I think Osama had something like this in mind. Ann and Osama must have gone to the same schools. I wonder if they dated.

Ann Coulter: "Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?" [Syndicated column, 2/3/05]

I’m sorry, what slaughter is she referring to?

Radio host Glenn Beck: "[Y]ou know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 9/9/05]

Wow, something I’m better at! It only took me 15 minutes to start hating Glen Beck.

Tucker Carlson: "Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice, but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada." [MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, 12/15/05]

Tucker is right, Canada is sweet. And we don’t take any country seriously.

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon: Liberals "don't have the kind of family responsibilities most people have, and certainly not church responsibilities." [American Family Radio's Today's Issues, 5/11/05]

Gosh, I’m type tied. But I see that Wildmon is just as much of a pin head as he ever was. “Tim did you commission this study or did the voices tell you?”

David Horowitz on Cindy Sheehan: "It's very hard to have respect for a woman who exploits the death of her own son and doesn't respect her own son's life. ... She portrays him as an idiot." [MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, 8/16/05]

I hope that David’s mom doesn’t wait ‘til he’s dead before she tells him he’s an idiot. But then we wouldn’t find Dave in a war would we?

Pat Buchanan: "Our guys" in Iraq "have got every right to have good news put into the media and get to the people of Iraq, even if it's got to be planted or bought." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 12/1/05]

That’s right Pat! The people of Iraq have just as much right to be lied to by our leaders as we do! It’s what our boys and girls die for!

National Review editor Rich Lowry: Given EPA-mandated "small-flush" toilets, "[h]ow is it possible to flush a Quran down the toilet?" [Young America's Foundation speech, 8/5/05]

They did studies using Gideon Bibles looted from Motel 8s. The toilets are designed to flush the holy with the lest amount of water.

Neal Boortz, suggesting that a victim of Hurricane Katrina housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution: "I dare say she could walk out of that hotel and walk 100 yards in either direction on Fulton Industrial Boulevard here in Atlanta and have a job. What's that? Well, no, no, no. ... Well, you know what? [laughing] Now that you mention it ... [i]f that's the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers." [Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show, 10/24/05]

Of course that means that her customers would have to be from the insanely rich, cause otherwise she’d be sucking off taxpayers.

Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson: Same-sex marriage would lead to "marriage between daddies and little girls ... between a man and his donkey." [Focus on the Family radio program, 10/6/05]

I always suspect that Dobson didn’t the difference between boys and girls.

Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid: "Have you noticed that many news organizations, in honor of former ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings, have embarked on a quit smoking campaign? So why don't our media launch a campaign advising people to quit engaging in the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle? ... It appears that the homosexual lifestyle is as addictive as smoking." [Accuracy in Media column, 12/14/05]

I’m shocked, I didn’t know that Peter was gay!
blog

Is it Clear Now?

2005-12-24T12:17:00.000-06:00

The Presidents Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Our Christian President upon being advised that parts of the [un]Patriot Act could be unconstitutional if challenged, had the following exchange with an Aid.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Given these facts and given the fact that George W. Bush has confessed that he violated the 4th amendment by breaking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it should be clear to anyone, even a mind clouded right wing lawyer, that George W. Bush should be impeached.

Long Live the King

2005-12-22T22:28:00.000-06:00

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 114081 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 85%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 9% (image placeholder)

I don't know. 2% (image placeholder)

George said way back when that he would like to be dictator. We all thought he was joking at the time. But it is becoming increasingly clear that he meant what he said. He has violated numerous international laws that we have agreed to via treaty, which makes those laws the law of the land.* George has openly admitted to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In addition he has probably violated many other laws as well given his attitude as is shown by his statements when faced with the expiration of the Patriot act.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

He may as well have said, “I am the State.” Given his Oath ("I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.") I would contend that his words are enough to constitute treason. Obviously George has no intention to protect the constitution.

I know the MSNBC poll presented above is unscientific, but nevertheless it gives me a little hope that the people have had enough of this tyrant.

*This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I'm a Scum Sucking Godless Liberal

2005-12-22T14:46:00.000-06:00

Well poke me in the eye with a sharp stick!  A recent study done in the polisci department of UCLA, by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo

…show[s] a strong liberal bias: all of the news
outlets we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN’s Newsnight, and ABC’s Good Morning America; among print outlets, USAToday was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

From my point of view, the media are all right wing wackos.  Well ok only Fox has actual wackos.  It is kind of a shock to find out that I must be so left wing that the Liberal Media look like Rush Limbaugh’s lap dogs to me.  I can’t figure out if this is good news or not.

On one hand, it turns out that the government is letting Corporate kings out of their obligations to pay the pensions that they promised their employees, while at the same time make sure that you have to pay off your Christmas shopping  spree next summer even if some catastrophic illness in your family makes you extremely short of funds.  You can just go ahead and sell your house and car to pay for it.  Don’t bitch walk to work, if you still have a job. At least congressmen will have a pension to supplement their meager bribe income, and they only have to work one term to get it.  So you see the way to have a pension is to get elected.

You would think that this little disparity would be big time news in a left wing media.  This is left wing media hay.

On the other hand it is said the Media sell the news that people want to hear.  Does that mean that the silent majority is liberal and ready to break out in rebellion against the thieves in Washington?

Letter to Harry Reid

2005-12-20T15:27:00.000-06:00

I received a fund raising letter from Senator Harry Reid. I have the feeling that nothing will be fixed when the Democrats win back power.

Dear Senator Reid,
Let me thank you for calling the closed session to get some answers about the Plame affair. Better late than never as me old granny used to say.

I got your fund raising letter day before yesterday for the DSCC. I was tempted just to pitch it. However, that would mean that you wouldn't get the chance to hear what I had to say on the matter to explain why I'm not going to send you any money.

It is true enough that the present administration is into corruption up to its eyeballs, but that has been the case since the beginning with barely a mummer from the Democrats that I was ever able to pick out. Most of you guys voted to give Mr. Bush and company war powers without any significant debate or even checking of the facts. The excuse that the administration gave you misleading information doesn't cut bait with me. I, a backwoods country cook with no highfalutin education, was able to determine that there were no WMDs in Iraq just from what was available on the net and in the news. But even if there had been stockpiles of WMDs it would not be sufficient justification for the illegal war eagerly launched by Bush and company. Even so we had democrats falling all over themselves to support such criminal non-sense. This made no sense to me at the time, since Mr. Bush had no mandate. Indeed he wasn't even elected – another thing that democrats just caved to.

I haven't seen the Democrats make any significant moves against the injustice perpetrated against the people being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. These people need to be tried, or let go immediately and reparations made for the destruction of their lives. And as soon as possible those involved with this criminal detention need to be tried as well, even if all the prisoners turn out to be guilty of something besides fighting for what they believed in. In Northwood's lingo, "this is enough of this bullshit."

Yes, I agree with you that the American people deserve better than this present administration. So do the rest of the people in the world, especially at this time the Iraqis. I'm not convinced that the Democrats are the answer to that problem. I would be a bit more comfortable if guys like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were at the top of your policy making heap. Nevertheless, the Democrats have always been up to their necks in political shenanigans themselves, which is the main reason y'all don't point fingers at GOP corruption until even Fox news can't help but see it. I'm a combat veteran of Vietnam, another war plunged into on the basis of lies and nonsense policy, but that timelies and policies of the Democrats. Lying America into war is pretty much business as usual with the Federal Government. I'm pretty sick of it myself.

I certainly sympathize with your throw out the bums letter, but I worry that if successful, your campaign would displace "in your face bums" with more "circumspect bums", if you take my meaning. So if you really want my money and support you have to say something about what you are going to replace them with. Here are some things that need to be done:

Complete elimination of any form of gerrymandering. Congressional districts need to be formed as randomly as possible.

Stop Republican and Democratic collusion against new parties.

A national open meeting law along the lines of Wisconsin's open meeting law. The Federal Government has way too many secrets! Most government secrecy is about hiding Government corruption and stupidity, not national security.

Election reform that includes instant run off voting and absolutely no private funding, gifts or what ever! If a law maker takes so much as a pencil from a private party s/he should be considered guilty of corruption!

Laws that remove the status of personhood from corporations. Corporations are not people and do not deserve the rights of people. They certainly don't deserve the right to determine the course of government as they do.

Military reform that makes the military a citizen defense force for the defense of the physical homeland only, and cannot be used as diplomacy by other means.

Real participation in the United Nations.

Taxation according to means only.

Elimination of the bogus "War on Terror". Terror is real but no more dangerous to Americans than lightening. It certainly isn't dangerous enough to be worth the $100's of billions being spent on it that primarily go towards pissing more people off at Americans.

The list is by no means exhaustive, in my opinion at least, but if it was clear that the Democrats stood for these sorts of policies I would be more inclined to send you "the $50 or $75 or even more" as you asked.
Sincerely,Randen Pederson

Poison a Baby for Christmas

2005-12-18T19:27:00.000-06:00

Ok Christians, what in the name of your “all good” God is going on?

Y’all* wanted a man of God like George W. Bush in power so that you could make abortion illegal for those unfortunate women that can’t afford to go to some foreign and enlightened country to exercise their right to privacy.

Yet this same man of God is having his EPA ok testing pesticides on children as long as they are:

Neglected or abused. No adult consent needed.

Mentally handicapped or orphaned

Belong to some other country

So why haven’t we heard any of this from the pulpit? Why isn’t O’Reilly making a stink about this instead of Happy Holiday’s? How about Farwell, Robertson, and Dobson; where are they? What about your own preacher? Do you really want to make sure the poor have babies so that they can be poisoned – slowly? You can’t find any scripture that prohibits abortion, yet you can find plenty of scripture that tell you to take care of the already born or else. (Mathew 25:31-46) I’m telling you that if this God is real you’re in trouble. Y’all seem to be worried about God getting mad, so I don’t understand why y’all aren’t hopping mad about this or about babies getting bombed in Iraq.

*Yes I know this isn’t entirely fair I know plenty of Christians that would throw Bush’s ass in the slammer where belongs if they had the chance. I’m talking to those who actually think/thought Bush is a Godly man.

Fool Me As Often as You Like

2005-12-17T11:54:00.000-06:00

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again." George W Bush

The President who, according to Dick Cheney, knew exactly where the WMDs were hidden is now pretending that he was fooled by the intelligence same as the Congressional idiots. Of course he’s not going to show you his intelligence, because stupid intelligence would injure National Security if it were known. Maybe those people that gave us the stupid intelligence wouldn’t give us more stupid intelligence in the future, if it was known who they are (Ahmed Chalabi, Judith Miller, Cheney’s manicurist, and tortured guys). National Security depends deeply on stupid intelligence so it wouldn’t do just to throw bath water out, even though the baby died long ago.

I know you’re thinking “stupid intelligence?!” What other kind of intelligence does Bush have? Well, you’ve got a point. He’s basically just admitted that he is an idiot.

"[I]t's a myth to think I don't know what's going on… I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I—concerned." Philadelphia, Pa

Sure Saddam was a threat to the guy that burned his toast in the morning. Notice the Idiot in Chief, was fooled by Chalabi into believing that Saddam did 9/11, admits that he was fooled, and then says (I think, sometimes it only sounds like Bush is talking English.) that 9/11 shows that Saddam was a threat. We spend uncounted billions on the CIA, which said “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet, Bush chooses info by Chalabi. Brownie you’re doing a great job Bush used to be Chalabi you’re doing a great job Bush. Anyway now we know that Bush is not the Liar in Chief, because, thank God, he is the Idiot in Chief. Isn’t that comforting? God chose an idiot to govern us. God must be pointing and giggling even as I type.

Nevertheless, even if he knew that he was being fooled in spite of his highly trained and paid intelligence guys, Bush would have invaded anyway. In other words, if the Pres doesn’t like you, we invade your country is our foreign policy. Let’s hope that Hu Jintao doesn’t piss George off any time soon.

Bumper Sticker Needed

2005-12-15T15:19:00.000-06:00

I didn't know that the fellows over at the Pentagon were such pussies. I thought we hired these guys because they were at the head of the tough class. But alas no. According to a secret document obtained by MSNBC the Pentagon Goons consider knitting grandmothers at Quaker meetings a threat.

It is a bit disconcerting that money we gave to the Pentagon to find Osama is being spent to monitor Quakers, but you never know! Maybe Osama got converted, and now he is a peace loving Quaker. Oh, wait! I get it! “Peace loving” would be a threat to the War Department. If knitting grandmothers manage to start a peace, the war guys could find themselves downsized and in advanced burger flipper training. Well at least they would still get to wear a uniform.

Now that Christmas is near the War guys would do well too keep an eye out for the Prince of Peace! Better to slaughter a few babes then let that let that fella grow up! Knitting grandma’s beware! The War guys know who you are.

Where can I get a bumper sticker that says this car stops at peace rallies! I want to support the troops by making it easy for them to write down my license plate number and put it in a secret document. That will give them more time to watch them grannies.

Your Tax cut at Work.

2005-12-15T13:27:00.000-06:00

Our dead “heroes” are being shipped home as freight. Ya, I know that sounds bad, but hey they are dead. Everyone must sacrifice for the good of the tax cuts. Sure, families and friends of the “heroes” might feel bad, but they will get over it. The important thing is not to spend too much on the soldiers. If the families want their bodies to come home all fancy like, they can pay for it, just like they paid for little Johnny’s body armor. In fact that might be a good business opportunity for people getting out of the military: Military Escorts are Us or some such. Somebody will make a fortune out of it, and that is what war is for. Anyway families shouldn’t complain about their kids not getting wrapped in the flag. The flags are probably made in China with left over Communist Red Cloth.

I wish I had a Fanner 50

2005-12-13T12:57:00.000-06:00

Pale Rider

I’m not normally an anti-gun guy. Guns don’t kill people. Guns make it easier to kill people. Of course Guns also make it easier to kill animals and old soup cans. Guns can make a decent pry bar in a pinch too. But lets face it, guns were not invented for hunting or making holes in soup cans from a distance. Guns were used in war for quite a while before making holes in soup cans from a distance, became something more than a matter of chance. As the Constitution of the United States makes perfectly unclear, the right to bear arms has something to do with war. Soup cans aren’t mentioned.

As our illustrious President, Tricky Dick used to say, “I’m not against making holes in soup cans from a distance.” I just wanted to make that perfectly clear. I do object to gun worshipers like Gerard Valentino though. An internet friend sent me the link to Valentino’s article, which is a plea for a return to “Golden Days of Yesteryear.”

Valentino uses Pale Rider as an excuse er explanation of why everyone should pack a side arm. The movie would also make a case for packing dynamite too but Valentino fails to mention that part of the Preachers sermon.

On the surface it looks as if Valentino’s argument would hold some water. A gun in hand (all other things being equal like the ability to hit the soup can under stress instead of the old guy eating his Big Mack) is a the great equalizer! Or is it? Part of the movie myth is that when the good guy points his Peacemaker over in your direction there is no need to duck, unless you’re the bad guy. Bullets in the real world aren’t quite so selective. People under stress are not the cool markspersons, that the Preacher portrays. And, lets not forget the Preachers dynamite. I’m not going to say don’t arm yourself. However, if you do, keep in mind the term “arms-race” When you start packing a pointy stick to defend yourself, remember that it won’t be long before the other guy figures out that if his stick is longer than your stick… I guess I wouldn’t mind packing a cute little 32 in my purse, but when I have to start lugging around a .50 cal. Machine gun and its tripod, I’m going to object. Let’s open our eyes to the fact that Valentino is counting on gun control. That’s right. He is counting on the Government preventing you from using Rocket Propelled Grenades to rob his gas station, so that he can plug you with his nostalgic Peacemaker.

Let us pause here and give some thought to the reason people packed guns in the Olde West. What were people moving west doing? Oh, that’s right, they were taking land and resources away from the people that were already there. When you do that sort of thing you worry that maybe the rightful owner might decide to take his stuff back or that other robbers like yourself may turn their attention to you – no honor among thieves and all that. So you pack a gun to protect yourself from the bad guy that is out doing what you’ve already done. With that in mind, let’s consider Valentino’s closing statements.

The gun-control movement also uses their wild-west imagery to take the moral high ground in the debate over gun rights. Simply stated there is nothing moral about leaving honest people at the whim of predatory criminals. Instead, as the preacher in Pale Rider taught us it is moral and just to defend innocent people - even with a gun if necessary. Returning to such a time when innocent people could defend their own life without interference from the police or anti-gun do-gooders only concerned with filing some emotional compulsion to confiscate guns would be a step backwards for criminals and therefore a step forward for everyone else. A return to the so called wild-west should be welcomed by anyone not committed to furthering the safety and well being of robbers, rapists and murderers.

Aside from that fact that this article is an emotional appeal to gun packing, it assigns to us a morality that was sadly lacking in our ancestors. Valentino is right to a degree. Our culture does produce many predatory people. However, not very many of them use guns to achieve their ends. The good predators among us use the law. I think that you would be better off packing a lawyer.

Culture of Lies

2005-12-12T14:32:00.000-06:00

Culture of Lies

I suppose that we can’t blame The Thief in Chief for being such a liar.  After all the economy is pretty much based on lies.  I wouldn’t even begin to try to count all the TV ads that offer stuff for free, that will cost you at least $7.95 shipping and handling.

Sweetie showed me an ad yesterday offering purses from a local purse emporium with prices ranging from 3 to 7 and ½ grand.  Holy buckets of bullshit Batman!  You are going to tell me that a sane woman is going to shell out $7,500 for something to carry her old gum wrappers in?  That’s right they will, and they will stand in line to do it if they have to.  They fell for the lie that gum wrapper toting devices can be worth 3,750 days of labor from one of the bottom 3,000,000,000 wage earners on the earth.

Then there is that ad that shows the pretty woman being overwhelmed by the love of her honey because he delivered her three pieces of crystallized carbon via snowplow.  That’s a lie, but you can bet that guys and gals in TV land will fall for it.  And they have to fall for it, because if they don’t we will all be in the bread line.

Do you like having your living mostly based on lies?  I don’t. It makes me feel queasy. Something between .8 and 1 trillion dollars worth of business happens each and every day in the world. 20% of this business is about actual goods and services the rest is financial smoke and mirrors.*  But it is worse then that, cause much of the tangible business is about crap, like crystals of carbon to prove your love, or tickets to football games. (Yes, I already know that crap is in the eye of the beholder.)

You know how your Grandpappy always told you not to buy a bill of goods or take any wooden nickels?  Well we do it every day.  So it wouldn’t do to fault Mr. Bush for handing out wooden nickels as if they were the real McCoy.  Christ you know it ain’t easy, he’s only trying to get a piece of our stupidity.

* When Corporations Rule the World (p.181)

Government by Who

2005-12-11T21:09:00.000-06:00

Government by Who?

An editorial from the NY Times today opens by saying, “We are about to loose New Orleans.”  The cost of saving the city by building a good levee would cost $32 billion.  (If Halliburton gets the contract expect $64 billion.) Problem is we don’t have the money to fix a real problem like this.  Of course there is enough money to spend $225,826,900,313 and counting on fake problems like war on terror and finding WMDs.

I expect that it was around the end of WWII that Government for the People and by People gave its last gasp.  Roosevelt may have managed to return it to the people if it hadn’t been for that pesky war.  Doesn’t seem odd to you reader that for some reason we always manage to have a war just in the nick of time to prevent the People from making the Government of the People so that it might be for the people.  Vietnam saved the country from the civil rights reformers and Iraq is saving the country from doing nice things for the People like putting their town back, or letting them eat, or letting them go to school, or letting them see a doctor.

What was that Lincoln said at Gettysburg?  Something about Government for the People and by the People not perishing from the earth.  Well its gone from the earth folks.  It perished sure enough, even if it looks otherwise to you.  If you remember that cool sword fight movie, El Cid, you will understand what is going on.  El Cid died before the last battle.  The politicos had to tie him to his saddle so no one would panic as they went forth to battle the infidels.  Yep that’s right, Uncle Sam has been tied to his saddle for some time, and most of us have failed to notice.  There he is bones rattling around inside his shinny armor gaily (can I say gaily?) leading the charge while the politicos are busy empting the treasury.

The People of New Orleans need their Government to be for them, but it is not.  The insanely rich just got another $95 billion dollar tax cut, just about enough to build 3 levee systems for The Big Easy.  It is like this because the Government has not been by the People for some time.

Well Even Liars can

2005-12-11T16:25:00.000-06:00

Well Even Liars can Tell the Truth.
I got this article today from Robert Lee. Apparently this article is really by Rush. It’s hard to believe, but I could kiss him for it. Yes, on the ass too! Did Rush realize that this shows that his income is over the top? Supposedly big business guys deserve their big money because they risk a lot. Piss, all they risk is a stack of paper. Our boys and girls risk their lives folks – for practically nothing. But the lot of the soldier is to assure profits to the corporations. It has been all along.

By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?
However, our own U.S. Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month
I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.

The last paragraph is kind of silly coming from 4f Rush, but God bless him anyway!

2005-12-11T13:44:00.000-06:00

The Joke’s on us.

Okay, I'm listening to one of the left-wing Limbaughs on Air America and don't you just know but a right wing nut calls up with the sky is falling and only Bush can hold it up rant. If Bush goes down you can count on being shot by a foreign sniper when you go out to get your morning paper. What is worse, is that the day Bush is incarcerated for playing war president with real cluster bombs and nifty drone aircraft, the Chinese will be in Peoria changing the God-given Wal-Mart sign to a bunch of them squiggly things they call writing. Litigation, Terrorists, and Chinese -- oh my!

While it used to be worth a giggle or two, the war on terror is a joke that is starting to wear. Even liberals haven’t wised up about it yet. I've been pondering trying to figure the source of American ignorance in the matter. I have the notion that this ignorance starts with Americans thinking that they won't die unless someone else makes them die. That is why Joe and Jane American can sit and watch Fox news about the latest subway bombing and go, "oh my God -- let's give Halliburton another 50 billion bucks!" Here's the funny part: Joe and Jane American finish off their six-pack of Bud, flick off the TV with their remote, get off their Fox watching coach, light up a Marlboro and Virginia Slim and drive 10 miles to McDonald's for supper... Eh? What you mean you don't get it?!

Okay, I'll explain. Your chance of being killed by terrorists is something less than being killed by lightning. Now, when was the last time you were struck by lightning -- let alone killed? Ha! I thought so. Now don't you think it would be funny to spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war on lightning? Wouldn't you think someone was pulling your leg even if it was hyped on Fox news?

I don't get me wrong. I'm just as happy as the next guy to smart bomb and torture dangerous people, but I like to get my money's worth. Cost benefit wise we would come off better if we smart bomb fast food joints and liquor stores, and tortured tobacco and advertising executives. But, seriously folks, I know that America is still the home of the brave, because millions of us get up every day and face the things that really kill us without giving it a second thought, or maybe even a first thought. If you are worried about being shot look around you. Statistically speaking your chances of being shot by someone you know far outweigh an encounter with a terrorist. If you are worried about chemical attack look at the tailpipe of your car, or the stuff being sprayed on your neighbor's lawn in the spring. If you are worried about biological attack, ponder your next big Mac, or your next cigarette. In point of fact we are all much more likely to die by what we eat, drink, smoke, or drive, and yet we managed to live with that every day without getting hysterical. Why get hysterical over terrorists? Tell your politicians that the joke is over -- no more money for wars on terror!