You Say You're Confused?

Suppose somebody didn't fit your preconceived notions, would you try to figure out what they're about or just try to make them fit into your box? My lefty friends will think I've lost my mind, but I'd vote Ron Paul before I'd vote Hillary. Seems real strange, eh? It's a safe statement, the R's will not run somebody as principled as Paul and that is why I'd vote for him. He's libertarian neanderthal on domestic social policy, but he'd do no harm, by nature or political ability. Hillary is something else again.

I cannot think of a single reason that the rich need any help being rich. They already have an entire economic system geared to their wealth manufacturing. Exactly why anyone who is not rich buys into their argument evades me. It is true that there is a non-political balance to the depredations of the plutocrats, but the social disorder entailed in simply taking away the appurtunances of wealth by force seems less desirable than political intervention. I am entirely unconvinced that a paper fiction (corporation) deserves individual standing under the Constitution .


Maybe being for economic and social justice somehow equates to petting terrorists on the head, I don't see it; maybe the idea that a tyranny based in DC is no more attractive to me than any other tyranny, confuses. Or maybe some people are just so blinded by their propaganda that they cannot read or understand plain English.


Let's start out with some things I am not. I am not a pacifist, not even close, but I get to decide who needs killing by me. If I agree with the government we get along fine, if we don't - we are not going to get along. I have the right to say "hell no I won't go" and they have the right to put me in jail for not going (did when I was draft bait, anyhow). If you have the idea that means I'm not able to be seriously dangerous for my own reasons or wouldn't advocate this government be seriously dangerous for reasons I agree with, you cannot read. I also know that war is a nasty brutal wasteful business, to be engaged in only at last resort and then with utmost seriousness and a committed nation - and with real cost to the nation. Sometimes it just has to be done and then you crush your enemy, but it is far smarter to find a way to good results that doesn't involve war. Killing and injuring people and smashing things is poisonous to good aims and good people. Soldiers and nations don't get to walk away from doing it for free, there are long term costs to it. No, I'm not a pacifist; but stupid use of the military not only offends me, it makes me an ardent opponent.


I don't advocate coddling law breakers, but I also oppose stupid laws that create crimes where none need exist and I firmly believe that people can change/reform. Not that they will, that they can. Big pharma is the biggest pusher around, for the most part, illegal drugs are simply competition to be smashed by plutocratic government. Possession and sale of illegal drugs is just a fact of life, the dangerous and socially damaging aspects of drug use is against the law, driving while impaired is a crime, whether the drug is alcohol, pot, or Pharma's creation. Take you pick, it is against the law anyhow. Tax the stuff and regulate its production and take those folks out of the jails. Allow the system to let the people who wish to correct their criminal malfunction to correct it, draconian sentencing and one size fits all offenders is bound to fail and simply will produce a more antisocial criminal with better crime skills. State sanctioned murder - capital punishment fails 2 tests, one omnipotence isn't a human attribute and second the killing moves society to the level of the offender and spreads the responsibility so widely that it is not comprehended.

There are two parts to illegal immigration, one is the entirely understandable human desire to improve the lot of yourself and your family and be willing to take risks and work hard to do it; ignoring this aspect manufactures bigotry. Then there is the aspect of the creation of a criminal enterprise from smugglers to the illegals to the complicit employers and the crushing of wages. I could fill an entire blog page with the negative out comes of criminal enterprises, this is a tad different than 5 over in a 55. The social effects of a disenfranchised serf class are horrendous, from the wreckage of social services to the corrosive effects on the general population of having such a class existing in this country. The removal of the magnet is the first step, hiring and services beyond emergency lifesaving are not the province of those not here legally, two effects run hand in hand, the illegal residents leave and artificially low wages rise. If all farmers have to pay legal employee wages nobody goes broke, they're all in the same position, it is the tolerance of the cheats that bankrupts the legal employer. Sure the border needs controlled, but that becomes a heck of a lot easier when numbers are lower for lack of a draw. Birth citizenship is not something you allow the government to mess about in, but it need confer absolutely nothing on the parents, leave and take the child, leave and leave the child here, their problem to solve. Finally there is the matter of people who have been here for a long time and paid some dues, they need to be dealt with in a manner that recognizes that. I don't have a magic formula, but I would think a decade of residence without other crimes and a demonstrated willingness to repair their records and obligations would have some bearing along with a probationary period. The Bush/Kennedy mess was an affront, there should be some way to approach fairness without giving the store away. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time working out a policy and the nuts and bolts - I don't have the power to do anything about enacting one, so I'll offer concept for consideration.

The BOR, whoa lefties and righties, I'm in serious favor of the stringent limits the founders tried to put on the government's ability to interfere with the individual. The idea that the government gets to be the only armed entity isn't passing muster, but neither is the idea that those hambones get to have "extra" tools to prosecute and enforce. The 9/11 fear card is nonsense, they had everything they needed to stop it, except competence. Their inability to get out of their own way has no effect on my liberties or my insistence on them. The Second also says I get to insist if the system fails. Don't bother with "what are you going to do with an armored division?" nonsense, we have good evidence of how dangerous an angry and armed populous is. BushCo is more dangerous to this country than all the terrorists put together, they can't take a damned thing away from me but my life, his ilk gets us to take our way of life away.

I am not a political place saver, I work within DPO to help the Democratic Party but that does not mean I'll work for Democratic candidates or plans that I disagree with, rather I use whatever status I have to advance what I believe is correct. Sometimes a political favorite such as Hillary may come along and appeal to quite a few in the party, that does not mean that there is one thing I'd do to help her cause, I don't like her version of politics.

Take a deep breath folks, I ain't just exactly what you may expect, so deal with it. Read the words I write, not the ones you hear in your head; there may be quite a difference.

By the way, I am not running for any office and I will not run for any office.