The Professional Left, the second an article starts out with a quote like this without laugh emoticons or a Murdoch label you can only assume it will go downhill quickly. It does, and the comments section follows suit with like thinking regarding criticism of the President from his left. I don't have a problem with people thinking this President is great, hell - I agree that he's a standout in comparison to many but that has spit to do with things I regard as mistakes or just plain bad policy. I don't bother blaming the President for the Congress or the quality of the Democrats he's had to work with; and that particular situation would really suck for anyone.
That is a liberal blog and its readers consider themselves as liberal. Some of these people want you to know that criticizing the President makes it more likely that the GOPers will win (somehow left criticism will resonate with whom?) and that a GOP win would be a disaster because they are crazy. Now if the left criticizes the President and pushes for more leftist positions that would result in what exactly? It isn't reasonable to assume that criticism exactly gives the GOPers ammunition to use with their voters or likely voters to use on the President. Maybe the thinking is that the dissatisfied will stay home and ensure that Mitt and his ilk will win. There is a common myth going around that lefties sat out the '10 elections and ensured the GOP wins, despite all evidence. There are those few who think this country needs the lesson of having the GOP run it for awhile - I don't think it would work even though it would tear things up badly - but the left is not remotely in favor of screwing the populace beyond a few loose cannons. The left is unhappy because the President is doing too little to address the screwing of the populace. (Hang his Congresses with that in spades)
What these critics of left dissatisfaction don't want to address is just exactly why the GOP is so damned scary today. The GOPers didn't get there all on their own, they got there because it was allowed and became somehow acceptable in the national framework of politics. I'm not saying something here that is speculation, these people got elected and get treated as sane in media, virtually all media, despite where they are at politically. What has happened over decades is that the GOP's opposition, putatively the Democrats, has done very little that would qualify as opposition. Opposition entails clear differences in point of view with those you oppose. Actual legislation frequently means compromises are required, but compromise also involves having honest dealings and it doesn't mean appropriating those opposed point of view. There is no meaningful push back when one side is going batshit crazy and your poitical campaign is to take half-steps in their direction. The GOPers and plutocrats are not dissuaded when you assume some of their mantle, they are dissuaded when you make your case clearly and vigorously attack their craziness.
You may lose Primaries against GOP and plutocratic enablers, you may lose a General against the GOP version, or you may not. But you will at least have given the voting populace (and non-voters) something to measure against. When large portions of the populace that could vote consider there to be no meaningful difference between the Parties or are simply voting against GOPer craziness you have demonstrated a loss of direction and convictions.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Ayn, Under The Bus, Bitch!
Oh my, Ayn - you've gone and gotten known and now your acolytes will have to ditch you. Paul Ryan may want to make an urban myth out of his statement regarding Ayn:
*BTW, I'm no religious scholar but I'd bet Thomas Aquinas would kick Paul's ass for using him this way.
Chris Matthews is no hero of mine but he asked a question (paraphrased) that I'd like an answer to as well, 'How do you reconcile the idea that the way to get poor people to work harder is to cut their money and to get the rich to work harder is to let them have more money?'
( I used to be able to manage fonts - now?)
Since the Jesuits made a bit of a deal about Ayn's atheism and creed of greed and her link to Paul Ryan's budget ideas his outfit has been flailing around a bit. He informed those Jesuitical god-botherers that the Church's ideas about the poor had spit to do with government - unlike unmentionable lady-parts - and nothing to do with opposing big government. There was still that bit about Ayn floating around where the religious whacks he counts on might see it so:"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." ...At the Rand celebration he spoke at in 2005, Ryan invoked the central theme of Rand's writings when he told his audience that, "Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill ... is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict--individualism versus collectivism."
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand."So, I guess he'll no longer be handing out copies of her junk novels as Christmas gifts and requiring interns to read them. Do you suppose he's been watching Mitt deny ever having anything to do with anything he stood for when it became momentarily inconvenient and he also figures nobody'll notice?
*BTW, I'm no religious scholar but I'd bet Thomas Aquinas would kick Paul's ass for using him this way.
Chris Matthews is no hero of mine but he asked a question (paraphrased) that I'd like an answer to as well, 'How do you reconcile the idea that the way to get poor people to work harder is to cut their money and to get the rich to work harder is to let them have more money?'
( I used to be able to manage fonts - now?)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Why The Hell Am I Doing This Again?
For awhile I've been satisfied with using BalloonJuice and Charles Pierce for reading matter and commenting on politics. Over at Charles' place this is how that worked out with this comment regarding Mitt's address to the NRA and folks commenting who thought penis envy entered any discussion regarding firearms.
Maybe you're a bit surprised by that if you've been around here before or read anything I've ever written. It isn't as though there wasn't other work at the same blog to reflect on. Nope - it just shows that knee jerk stupid on some issues isn't just a GOP affliction.
The problem was trying to respond to this kind of crap and remain even sort of polite at somebody else house. Here I don't have that consideration, I can, if I choose, rip this person a brand spanking new butthole and have an entire body of work spanning about seven years to back myself. You're free to be as big a dumb-ass as pleases you here, I won't interfere minus links to crap like Stormfront or porn or completely out of hand (I have a fairly broad interpretation) but there's no promise you'll like my reaction. One other thing is that this little "vanity blog" has such a small audience and one that is familiar with my stuff that it is unlikely I'd get this crap other than from spamming trolls.
I make no promises to post regularly but "attaboys" to other people's work isn't all that satisfying so we'll see.
(oh yeah, I downloaded Chrome to be able to do this - pissed me off, too, and that's all it will do)
Well shit. I've spent most of my life shooting a variety of firearms, including competively and hunting and just plain fun/practice. Lots of guns, lots of loading equipment, lots of experience with how rounds perform. The NRA stopped speaking for me quite awhile ago other than their safety programs.Which gets me this kind of shit:
I do have to tell some of you that if you think my dick has something to do with my firearms, you have odd ideas of what a dick is for - one of those items is actually a weapon and should be regarded as such... I'd have thought out of respect and consideration of enjoyment of partners involving the other you'd think otherwise. In shorter terms: I regard you as big an asshole as Wayne LaPierre and just as stupid.
Yes, I have more than a couple firearms and every one of them is particularly good at one thing versus the others... and if you can't understand that you must think a VW Bug and Semi are the same thing because they're called motorvehicles.
Chuck Butcher Well, Chuckie you all come back when you learn some manners, okay? Chuckie you do so fit the stereotype of the r-wingnuts. Black, black, black vs, white, white, white
Maybe you're a bit surprised by that if you've been around here before or read anything I've ever written. It isn't as though there wasn't other work at the same blog to reflect on. Nope - it just shows that knee jerk stupid on some issues isn't just a GOP affliction.
The problem was trying to respond to this kind of crap and remain even sort of polite at somebody else house. Here I don't have that consideration, I can, if I choose, rip this person a brand spanking new butthole and have an entire body of work spanning about seven years to back myself. You're free to be as big a dumb-ass as pleases you here, I won't interfere minus links to crap like Stormfront or porn or completely out of hand (I have a fairly broad interpretation) but there's no promise you'll like my reaction. One other thing is that this little "vanity blog" has such a small audience and one that is familiar with my stuff that it is unlikely I'd get this crap other than from spamming trolls.
I make no promises to post regularly but "attaboys" to other people's work isn't all that satisfying so we'll see.
(oh yeah, I downloaded Chrome to be able to do this - pissed me off, too, and that's all it will do)
Mitt's Problem - Primaries Are Over
Multiple Choice Mitt has a real problem about right now, you see - he's wrapped up the GOPer Primary race and while they're still actually on he has to do something about how he's won the mess. He's got all these GOPerisms he's spouted to win haunting him. Well, haunting might be a bit strong since he's shown a facility for denying everything he's ever said that was inconvenient at that moment, but those ghosts reside all over the place in the spectral form of video and audio tapes.
If he tries to back off enough to quit scaring women and Hispanics and ... well non-nutcases... the Right is going to lose their minds - publicly - and if he doesn't, those scared folks are going to stay scared awhile longer. The longer such an emotional state exists the harder it will be to move them off it. I am thankful that I don't have to try to advise such a candidacy on how to deal with all this. All I have to do is point and laugh.
Watching the Multiple Multiple Choice Amniotronic Mittens Money Train run smack into the immutable and immovable object of its own words should be a great deal of fun as long as you're not ... well shoot, on their side.
If he tries to back off enough to quit scaring women and Hispanics and ... well non-nutcases... the Right is going to lose their minds - publicly - and if he doesn't, those scared folks are going to stay scared awhile longer. The longer such an emotional state exists the harder it will be to move them off it. I am thankful that I don't have to try to advise such a candidacy on how to deal with all this. All I have to do is point and laugh.
Watching the Multiple Multiple Choice Amniotronic Mittens Money Train run smack into the immutable and immovable object of its own words should be a great deal of fun as long as you're not ... well shoot, on their side.
GOP...Student Loans...Truth Optional
Student loan interest rates are set to go up July 1st and the President seems to be trying to make enough of an issue of it to keep that from happening. So, the GOP response would be:
Mitt confused until someone tells him if the reichwing, moderates, or whomever is most important this week and on what side.
Roy Blunt (R) tell a complete and entire lie, ie:
Who you might have noticed preceded Pres BH Obama by, well, an entire term.
Now what the House GOPers have in mind now is to yank money from ACA to pay for it. Well, hell ...
I suppose it would be impolite to remind anybody that this is the same Party that was happy to run TWO wars off the books while running the BushCo Taxcutsforthewealthy thingy - the one they insisted on - um a year and change ago...
Mitt confused until someone tells him if the reichwing, moderates, or whomever is most important this week and on what side.
Roy Blunt (R) tell a complete and entire lie, ie:
BLUNT: Why is that rate as high as it is? Because it was one of the pay-fors in the president’s health care plan. If the health care plan goes away, as the court very well might decide, there is no longer an argument about this loan rate, because it was used to take money from students, and pay for health care. … The wrapping up of that student loan thing into the Obama health care deal is the real problem here.Um, signed in 2007 by GOPer Pres GW Bush...
Who you might have noticed preceded Pres BH Obama by, well, an entire term.
Now what the House GOPers have in mind now is to yank money from ACA to pay for it. Well, hell ...
I suppose it would be impolite to remind anybody that this is the same Party that was happy to run TWO wars off the books while running the BushCo Taxcutsforthewealthy thingy - the one they insisted on - um a year and change ago...
Blogging Chrome
Blogger has now forced me to use Chrome in order to post to this blog. I'm not very happy to find out that my latest MS browser "is no longer supported" as though the thing is an antique.
In fact, I'm annoyed.
In fact, I'm annoyed.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Chuck Dead?
The previous post probably makes the point moot, but my absence has to do with something other than death or illness or other catastrophe. Well most personal catastrophes anyhow. The politics of that last months is the catastrophe that's done it. Charles Pierce over at Esquire handles it with a delightful mix of mockery and sarcasm and facts. I can't manage that kind of writing and it is about my only refuge from the idiocy that's going on. I can do what I've done over the years and sing to the choir about things we all agree are somewhere beyond stupid or I can just let somebody like Pierce do it for me in a more amusing manner with a lot less effort on my part.
I don't know that the choices for voters will even begin to address what ails this nation. I'm real sure that one side is really a bad choice - but it is pretty hard to work up enthusiasm for writing about "not as bad as." The Democrats managed to do a couple things like Lilly Ledbetter and the DADT Repeal that weren't GOP policy. They did manage a stimulus that was hamstrung from the beginning by being written for GOP votes or sensibilities that weren't ever there. Otherwise it has been GOP policy dressed up. Sure, the ACA is better than nothing, but considering what it is in opposition to that is extremely faint praise - and that isn't because the GOP hung it; Democrats did that all on their own.
You can make a case that this President and the last two Congresses have faced unprecedented obstruction from the GOP. The problem with that case is that for the first two years Democrats could do what Democrats wanted to do and what they managed was essentially rewarmed GOP policy. In the face of the wreckage brought about by GOP economics the Democrats managed to pass GOP bills that the current GOP hates with a passion. I didn't expect a left agenda, but I expected something more than putting on the brakes - like pointing in another direction. Maybe it is my leftist viewpoint that makes just slowing the damage not seem in the least adequate or a generator of enthusiasm. How many times can I write that one side is crazy and our side is bought and owned to the extent that they'll do spit?
Just blaming the politicians is stupid, they do have to get themselves elected. Getting elected means that the voters are the folks sending them there to do this half-assed job and it appears that the voters don't know what it is they're trying to get done. If the voters don't know what the hell is going on; one would have to ask what reason there is for the media to have access to us? Radio and television use public space to spread their crap and when it pretends to be news or information and is nothing but corporate owned propaganda that space is being misused by those with no inherent right to use it at all. Print is another issue and its slow demise seems to make the case that it is not meeting the market's desires.
The real shame is that there are Democrats in office that understand what it is that I'm getting at and wouldn't need a hell of big push to go for some kind of change but the scared little corporate rabbits that make up the rest of the Party will make sure it is pointless just as they've done for decades. They have achieved real power with the advent of complete obstructionism from the crazy Party - so there you are. And here we all are.
I don't know that the choices for voters will even begin to address what ails this nation. I'm real sure that one side is really a bad choice - but it is pretty hard to work up enthusiasm for writing about "not as bad as." The Democrats managed to do a couple things like Lilly Ledbetter and the DADT Repeal that weren't GOP policy. They did manage a stimulus that was hamstrung from the beginning by being written for GOP votes or sensibilities that weren't ever there. Otherwise it has been GOP policy dressed up. Sure, the ACA is better than nothing, but considering what it is in opposition to that is extremely faint praise - and that isn't because the GOP hung it; Democrats did that all on their own.
You can make a case that this President and the last two Congresses have faced unprecedented obstruction from the GOP. The problem with that case is that for the first two years Democrats could do what Democrats wanted to do and what they managed was essentially rewarmed GOP policy. In the face of the wreckage brought about by GOP economics the Democrats managed to pass GOP bills that the current GOP hates with a passion. I didn't expect a left agenda, but I expected something more than putting on the brakes - like pointing in another direction. Maybe it is my leftist viewpoint that makes just slowing the damage not seem in the least adequate or a generator of enthusiasm. How many times can I write that one side is crazy and our side is bought and owned to the extent that they'll do spit?
Just blaming the politicians is stupid, they do have to get themselves elected. Getting elected means that the voters are the folks sending them there to do this half-assed job and it appears that the voters don't know what it is they're trying to get done. If the voters don't know what the hell is going on; one would have to ask what reason there is for the media to have access to us? Radio and television use public space to spread their crap and when it pretends to be news or information and is nothing but corporate owned propaganda that space is being misused by those with no inherent right to use it at all. Print is another issue and its slow demise seems to make the case that it is not meeting the market's desires.
The real shame is that there are Democrats in office that understand what it is that I'm getting at and wouldn't need a hell of big push to go for some kind of change but the scared little corporate rabbits that make up the rest of the Party will make sure it is pointless just as they've done for decades. They have achieved real power with the advent of complete obstructionism from the crazy Party - so there you are. And here we all are.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Trayvon Martin And Guns
There has been a lot of talk about guns since the Martin shooting, a lot. Anybody who has ever followed this blog know that it takes a pro-2nd Amendment stance - and that firearms are not toys. This is also a place that has no tolerance for bigotry.
There seems to be an idea that the ability to carry a gun brought on this shooting or that standing your ground caused it. As far as I can tell an idiot stalked a black youth while armed and caused a confrontation that he resolved with a shooting. If there is a question, it ought to have to do with conduct that whether it was bigotted or not was entirely reckless in its stupidity. It is real sure that if Zimmerman had been armed with a lollipop the outcome would have been different, but making every gun owner a Zimmerman is stupid.
I've read a bit about Florida's manslaughter law and it seems to completely trump the stand your ground statute in such a situation. I do not understand the lack of detention of Zimmerman in the face of what was obvious - a dead unarmed teenager engaged in lawful behavior. In the absence of what would appear to be reasonable behavior by law-enforcement one gets pushed into thinking bigotry.
I'll support right to carry and right to carry concealed, but while doing so I want to state unequivocably that there are outcomes to behavior. If you play goddam cowboy with a gun and kill somebody who shouldn't have been you're in a serious jam, really serious jam. If law isn't real clear about this, and I'm not sure isn't in contrast to manslaughter and stand your ground, it should be. It should be very clear to anyone carrying that use of force at that level involves real responsibilities. This is what is lacking in the Martin case and has so inflamed people - aside from what looks an awful lot like blatant race based... bullshit.
I find it pointless to talk about any bigotry on Zimmerman's part, if it is there - he's one of very many people. There isn't spit I can do about bigots beyond mock and condemn them. Bigots or anyone else who kill or harm people need to understand that the law is going to stomp a mudhole in them if they do so without real justification. What Zimmerman's treatment seems to suggest is that this isn't so, that law-enforcement hands out free passes to some in such a case and that encourages the kind of behavior that led to this pass.
I like firearms but I never mistake them for toys, they are dangerous in all cases and need to be treated in such a way. There is a reason that the first law of gun handling is that all guns are loaded until proven otherwise - it can kill someone in the blink of an eye and you don't get do-overs. Everything follows from that and legal responsibilies also should.
There seems to be an idea that the ability to carry a gun brought on this shooting or that standing your ground caused it. As far as I can tell an idiot stalked a black youth while armed and caused a confrontation that he resolved with a shooting. If there is a question, it ought to have to do with conduct that whether it was bigotted or not was entirely reckless in its stupidity. It is real sure that if Zimmerman had been armed with a lollipop the outcome would have been different, but making every gun owner a Zimmerman is stupid.
I've read a bit about Florida's manslaughter law and it seems to completely trump the stand your ground statute in such a situation. I do not understand the lack of detention of Zimmerman in the face of what was obvious - a dead unarmed teenager engaged in lawful behavior. In the absence of what would appear to be reasonable behavior by law-enforcement one gets pushed into thinking bigotry.
I'll support right to carry and right to carry concealed, but while doing so I want to state unequivocably that there are outcomes to behavior. If you play goddam cowboy with a gun and kill somebody who shouldn't have been you're in a serious jam, really serious jam. If law isn't real clear about this, and I'm not sure isn't in contrast to manslaughter and stand your ground, it should be. It should be very clear to anyone carrying that use of force at that level involves real responsibilities. This is what is lacking in the Martin case and has so inflamed people - aside from what looks an awful lot like blatant race based... bullshit.
I find it pointless to talk about any bigotry on Zimmerman's part, if it is there - he's one of very many people. There isn't spit I can do about bigots beyond mock and condemn them. Bigots or anyone else who kill or harm people need to understand that the law is going to stomp a mudhole in them if they do so without real justification. What Zimmerman's treatment seems to suggest is that this isn't so, that law-enforcement hands out free passes to some in such a case and that encourages the kind of behavior that led to this pass.
I like firearms but I never mistake them for toys, they are dangerous in all cases and need to be treated in such a way. There is a reason that the first law of gun handling is that all guns are loaded until proven otherwise - it can kill someone in the blink of an eye and you don't get do-overs. Everything follows from that and legal responsibilies also should.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Glad I'm Not A GOPer
Not that I ever would be and I do recognize that I'd have to be a serious one and that would involve being extinct, BUT..., I do have an interest in politics. Despite some horseshit opinions, the 2010 election results were not about the Left staying home and were about the "middle" swapping Parties. As a GOPer that re-alignment after the BushCo disaster (he who is never named) would have been extremely heartening - especially in the face of the '08 election.
If I'd been a GOPer I'd have seen that as my moment to feed that economic dis-satisfaction that got us into a position of power. I would have gone out of my way by considerable distance to work on economic issues and paint Democratic resistance as ideological sabotage. Think tanks would've been churning out policy proposals and the media could have played stenographer to my economic arguments. Not how that was done.
In a position where unemployment officially stands at 8.3% and really stands a hell of a lot higher it would have been nearly impossible to knock me off that message. The sitting President has problems, real ones and some that can be massaged into something. Discontent with ACA is real, though its crummy polling happens from both sides, but turning ACA into a position to slam women from isn't where I'd go. Talking about small government works with quite a few people - right up until they see themselves getting caught in that drain, so you re-assure them. The number of illegal immigrants in this country strikes a nerve, but stupidity on the issue alienates Hispanics who have a constituency that would align, broadly speaking, with GOPer stances. I would want that part of the group to be my friends, not horrified because they know Jan Brewer junk will mean they'll get pulled over and harassed.
I would pay attention to national demographics and especially the part that says my cadre is dying off and not being replaced. I'm real sure I'd pay attention to the largest voting bloc in the US, women, and make sure I'm not actively trying to piss them off. I'd make sure that Party leaders paid attention to State legislative actions and pushed really hard to keep them from being stupid and offensive.
If I wrote about GOP politics from a real platform as a GOPer I sure wouldn't have waited 40 years to complain about the train going off the track. I'd have spent that time dissuading stupidity and warning about the lunatic fringe rather than encouraging it. You can't play at being David Brooks or George Will for decades and then do a big turnabout and suddenly call the situation stupid. People who read you will just ask,"WTF?"
Since I'm well left of Democratic policies my prescriptions wouldn't work, but one thing is sure - I would not be going out of my way to alienate large voting blocs. A stupid person might think a Blount Amendment is a clever way to gut "Obamacare," but because it is a gutting mechanism it is open to mockery. Instead of being half-clever they could have put themselves firmly in the corner of the godbotherers by sticking to religious institutions without facing absolute mockery. Culture is a tricky thing, the backlash from the 60s continues this half century later - just witness the "Hippies" term still in currency. But culture does shift, people lose homophobia, people of another color become normative, people get tired of war and those trends aren't stopped by standing athwart the ideological fence and screaming, "STOP!!@*^*^%!!" You find a way to deal with it and still appeal to your... damn... whatever they are and still include the non-crazed. For over half a century nobody on that side seemed to mind the whispers of "nigger" or "wet-back" or "fag" since they were short-term winners - there is a cost to be paid.
I'm also real glad I don't have to stand there with my furry face hanging out and tell my wife and 'theoretical' daughter that they're "sluts." I like my skin where it is.
If I'd been a GOPer I'd have seen that as my moment to feed that economic dis-satisfaction that got us into a position of power. I would have gone out of my way by considerable distance to work on economic issues and paint Democratic resistance as ideological sabotage. Think tanks would've been churning out policy proposals and the media could have played stenographer to my economic arguments. Not how that was done.
In a position where unemployment officially stands at 8.3% and really stands a hell of a lot higher it would have been nearly impossible to knock me off that message. The sitting President has problems, real ones and some that can be massaged into something. Discontent with ACA is real, though its crummy polling happens from both sides, but turning ACA into a position to slam women from isn't where I'd go. Talking about small government works with quite a few people - right up until they see themselves getting caught in that drain, so you re-assure them. The number of illegal immigrants in this country strikes a nerve, but stupidity on the issue alienates Hispanics who have a constituency that would align, broadly speaking, with GOPer stances. I would want that part of the group to be my friends, not horrified because they know Jan Brewer junk will mean they'll get pulled over and harassed.
I would pay attention to national demographics and especially the part that says my cadre is dying off and not being replaced. I'm real sure I'd pay attention to the largest voting bloc in the US, women, and make sure I'm not actively trying to piss them off. I'd make sure that Party leaders paid attention to State legislative actions and pushed really hard to keep them from being stupid and offensive.
If I wrote about GOP politics from a real platform as a GOPer I sure wouldn't have waited 40 years to complain about the train going off the track. I'd have spent that time dissuading stupidity and warning about the lunatic fringe rather than encouraging it. You can't play at being David Brooks or George Will for decades and then do a big turnabout and suddenly call the situation stupid. People who read you will just ask,"WTF?"
Since I'm well left of Democratic policies my prescriptions wouldn't work, but one thing is sure - I would not be going out of my way to alienate large voting blocs. A stupid person might think a Blount Amendment is a clever way to gut "Obamacare," but because it is a gutting mechanism it is open to mockery. Instead of being half-clever they could have put themselves firmly in the corner of the godbotherers by sticking to religious institutions without facing absolute mockery. Culture is a tricky thing, the backlash from the 60s continues this half century later - just witness the "Hippies" term still in currency. But culture does shift, people lose homophobia, people of another color become normative, people get tired of war and those trends aren't stopped by standing athwart the ideological fence and screaming, "STOP!!@*^*^%!!" You find a way to deal with it and still appeal to your... damn... whatever they are and still include the non-crazed. For over half a century nobody on that side seemed to mind the whispers of "nigger" or "wet-back" or "fag" since they were short-term winners - there is a cost to be paid.
I'm also real glad I don't have to stand there with my furry face hanging out and tell my wife and 'theoretical' daughter that they're "sluts." I like my skin where it is.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Pantie Sniffers
Mormonism isn't supposed to be an issue and neither is Catholicism or any other Christian-ism. (careful about the other -isms) It might not be minus all the pantie sniffing the GOP has gotten up to. Now I'm not under-emphasizing the "Evangelic" distaste for the Mormons but that is only a slice of the electorate. The problem the candidates for President have is that the GOP has ignored the economy other than to plump for the 0.1% I know the current theme is the one percenters but the GOP is really about that one tenth. What the GOP in States and in the Congress have concentrated on is cultural warfare which in the end boils down to GOD.
Santorum is, of course, way out ahead of the rest of his pack on the god thing and strident religiosity, ie Catholicism. Our favorite salamander, Newt, isn't far behind. But you have to leave it to Multiple Mitt to decide that Rush Limbaugh used the wrong words to slime most women in the US over sex. He stands on stage with his wife and his multiple Mitt clones glorying in his wealthy ability to provide all those kids with millions of dollars while ordinary folks sweat car insurance for one kid. He can afford to ignore birth control (I have no idea if his wife has enjoyed all that birthing) and stick to some cult like bullshit and decide Rush used the "wrong words."
Mitt may not be real comfortable in the cultural warrior armor but that sure isn't because he's some closeted liberal. Oh, he is those guys - he just doesn't enjoy trying to force it on the folks who've given Mormonism a miss (well, deceased baptisms to the side). Don't misunderstand, Mittens is all for the junk Rick and the rest are gleeful about, it is just beneath him to grin while shoving it down the rube's throats but he'd sign such bills in a heartbeat.
If you're thinking the President is in a walk away or that the down-ticket is assured, there was a character known as Pollyanna. You may already be real tired of this crap, I know I am - but it is just warming up. The GOP is not going away and they're not heading toward increased sanity. There is a difference between being disappointed by Democrats and being horrified by GOPers. Lesser of two evils doesn't exactly do that justice.
Santorum is, of course, way out ahead of the rest of his pack on the god thing and strident religiosity, ie Catholicism. Our favorite salamander, Newt, isn't far behind. But you have to leave it to Multiple Mitt to decide that Rush Limbaugh used the wrong words to slime most women in the US over sex. He stands on stage with his wife and his multiple Mitt clones glorying in his wealthy ability to provide all those kids with millions of dollars while ordinary folks sweat car insurance for one kid. He can afford to ignore birth control (I have no idea if his wife has enjoyed all that birthing) and stick to some cult like bullshit and decide Rush used the "wrong words."
Mitt may not be real comfortable in the cultural warrior armor but that sure isn't because he's some closeted liberal. Oh, he is those guys - he just doesn't enjoy trying to force it on the folks who've given Mormonism a miss (well, deceased baptisms to the side). Don't misunderstand, Mittens is all for the junk Rick and the rest are gleeful about, it is just beneath him to grin while shoving it down the rube's throats but he'd sign such bills in a heartbeat.
If you're thinking the President is in a walk away or that the down-ticket is assured, there was a character known as Pollyanna. You may already be real tired of this crap, I know I am - but it is just warming up. The GOP is not going away and they're not heading toward increased sanity. There is a difference between being disappointed by Democrats and being horrified by GOPers. Lesser of two evils doesn't exactly do that justice.
Who Apologizes?
There has been a lot of talk about the Non-Apology - the one about "two words." Other than the fact that it took a lot more than two words to demand sex tapes, to make references to frequency of sex, and to lie completely about Ms Fluke referring to her sex life at all, you might take it as complete horse manure, anyhow. But...
Since we seem to be talking about apologies, I'd like to remind everybody just exactly who it is that does the apologizing when it comes to Rush, and it ain't Rush. If you've got memory cells in operation, some anyhow, it will be stuck in there somewhere that it is Republicans who apologize to Rush. Repeatedly. Just in case you were wondering what the GOP is all about...
Update Edit:
A couple things occurred to me, one of which is that thinking Rush is going away soon is, well, an error. This won't have hurt him with his audience and radio advertising is a competitive advertising method. There will be those who will measure loss against gain by talking to that audience, but the audience will be there, anyhow.
This isn't about the audience at all. Forget the audience - they agree. Mitt Romney "wouldn't have chosen those words," is potent with people who haven't gone crazy and have daughters, wives, girlfriends, hell - in general see women as something other than chattel. Make it clear, Mitt agrees but he just doesn't like the "words." Mitt agrees she's a slut, just another word would be better. Mitt agrees she should make sex tapes for Rush and his ilk. Mitt agrees that Ms Fluke was all up in Congress' face about her sex life. That would make Mittens a softer spoken Rush... So somebody will ask Mitt about this?
These people (GOPers/candidates) and their apologists are pigs (sorry porcine mammals). No pissed off father is going to get up and slap Mittens silly but keep in mind that he just did "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
Since we seem to be talking about apologies, I'd like to remind everybody just exactly who it is that does the apologizing when it comes to Rush, and it ain't Rush. If you've got memory cells in operation, some anyhow, it will be stuck in there somewhere that it is Republicans who apologize to Rush. Repeatedly. Just in case you were wondering what the GOP is all about...
Update Edit:
A couple things occurred to me, one of which is that thinking Rush is going away soon is, well, an error. This won't have hurt him with his audience and radio advertising is a competitive advertising method. There will be those who will measure loss against gain by talking to that audience, but the audience will be there, anyhow.
This isn't about the audience at all. Forget the audience - they agree. Mitt Romney "wouldn't have chosen those words," is potent with people who haven't gone crazy and have daughters, wives, girlfriends, hell - in general see women as something other than chattel. Make it clear, Mitt agrees but he just doesn't like the "words." Mitt agrees she's a slut, just another word would be better. Mitt agrees she should make sex tapes for Rush and his ilk. Mitt agrees that Ms Fluke was all up in Congress' face about her sex life. That would make Mittens a softer spoken Rush... So somebody will ask Mitt about this?
These people (GOPers/candidates) and their apologists are pigs (sorry porcine mammals). No pissed off father is going to get up and slap Mittens silly but keep in mind that he just did "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Slut Solidarity
I guess it's time for me to out myself as a slut. I admit it, I've had sex for something other than procreation. There. I said it. I'm willing to cast myself into the pool of co-eds and all the others who've had sex for some reason other than procreation.
Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.
As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.
Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.
As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Rush Goes Where The GOP Is
It has been kind of funny to watch GOPers tripping over nasty impediments like the truth to get some distance from good ole boy Rush Limbaugh. The GOP has made not a single statement regarding male erection drugs and freedom of religion. This in the face of a hell of a lot of religious doctrine regarding adultery where there seems to be no requirements that those "ED" drugs be dispensed to only married faithful men. You might even get to an WTF sort of moment where there's no heterosexual requirement...
They really do mean "sluts" and yes, Rep "Bo(eh)ner" it really is about a War On Women. The "Ultrasound Bills" are part and parcel with that attitude. C'mon, what mentally capable woman has some kind of doubt what an abortion is about removing? There really exists some doubt as to whether a woman knows an abortion involves a baby and that baby means child? She's a slut and must be shamed.
What the GOPers are objecting to right now is that Rush has said exactly what they mean and getting people upset by the saying of it. Beat them and their fellow travelers over the head with this - repeatedly and forcefully.
Have I mentioned that "oh there's a middle way liberals" make me want to puke?
They really do mean "sluts" and yes, Rep "Bo(eh)ner" it really is about a War On Women. The "Ultrasound Bills" are part and parcel with that attitude. C'mon, what mentally capable woman has some kind of doubt what an abortion is about removing? There really exists some doubt as to whether a woman knows an abortion involves a baby and that baby means child? She's a slut and must be shamed.
What the GOPers are objecting to right now is that Rush has said exactly what they mean and getting people upset by the saying of it. Beat them and their fellow travelers over the head with this - repeatedly and forcefully.
Have I mentioned that "oh there's a middle way liberals" make me want to puke?
WaPo Both Sides Do It, cough, gag, choke
You'd have to read this entire piece of junk by the WaPo Editorial Board to understand how far that paper has fallen.
No shit, they actually published something containing this line. Drowning these idiots in their own sea of mediocrity and false equivalence would be doing the journalist world a giant favor. They can't go bust too quickly for me.
Do me a favor and don't add to their clicks, find abstracts elsewhere.
BalloonJuice will do.
Incivility is not a one-way street in America. Far from it: Mr. Limbaugh’s left-wing equivalents have trashed any number of conservatives over the years. Conservatives have a point when they protest that the “mainstream media” don’t always heed their legitimate grievances.
No shit, they actually published something containing this line. Drowning these idiots in their own sea of mediocrity and false equivalence would be doing the journalist world a giant favor. They can't go bust too quickly for me.
Do me a favor and don't add to their clicks, find abstracts elsewhere.
BalloonJuice will do.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Breitbart Is Dead...
I suppose this is an oportunity to be gracious. I guess I can try.
Good people also died today and I'm sorry for everyone's families.
Good people also died today and I'm sorry for everyone's families.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The GOP's Difficult Primary
I just got done listening to Dana Milbanks essentially apologizing for the GOP by blaming its Primary, paraphrasing, he said this primary has made things difficult for the GOP and blaming a handful of extremists for hijacking it. This almost in the same breath as saying David Brooks has spent decades as a "reasonable Republican." David goddamn Brooks, who has spent those decades justifying and rationalizing each step the GOPers have taken into lunacy. Up until right now, Our Mister Brooks hasn't found a damn thing to complain about. Rather than actually complain, he's blurred the lines and blunted the edges of craziness with sociological crap drooled into his column.
The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.
I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.
I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.
Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.
The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.
I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.
I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.
Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Law, Morality, and Relgion
It is frequently asserted that laws are moral and that religion has a hand in that. Sometimes this gets mixed up in the concept that without religion there is no morality. This idea is understandable, no religion will last that creates social conditions that end in disorder and chaos, which means that any lasting religion will set out codes of behavior that result in some sort of social comity.
Governments that aren't a religion have a similar goal, social comity and lack of disorder and chaos. Having common goals often results in similar restrictions and requirements. A religion that teaches that murder is against the teachings and rules of the deity is certainly increasing social comity and decreasing disorder and chaos and it calls that stricture morality (god-given morality). A government concerned with social comity and lack of disorder and chaos will also place restrictions on murder, it requires no deity to do so, nor even morality - it is simple self-interest and survival for it to do so.
Governments have a couple tools at hand to achieve the ends of order and comity, punishment and reward, generally monetary or physical. Because a government deals with the temporal and worldly it really can't count on a deity to take immediate care of those rewards and punishments. It will deal with malefactors in a temporal manner, taking their money, their freedom, or their lives and do so with force. The tools the government has are abjectly amoral, it will force you rather than appeal to your "better nature." Once a law is established you are not asked about it, you are told and that telling is backed up by force. Compelling is not about morality, it is not an appeal to morality, it is not backed by morality, it is plainly unconcerned with the entire concept.
You can certainly build a government around damn near any document the populace will bear, holy books or other concepts of order and comity but once that is done the whole affair becomes at best amoral. It is popular to call Nazi Germany evil and immoral and the behavior of individuals involved does offend most of us at a moral level. That government wasn't destroyed because it was amoral or immoral, it was destroyed because it failed the basic goals of order and comity. It failed them internally and more importantly, internationally. The wholesale slaughter of a citizenry is not order, it is force at ferocious levels and it has nothing to do with comity.
There certainly is a moral component to the idea of slavery, it offends a basic empathy. As a feature of government it fails on another level, it certainly has nothing to do with comity for the subjected group and fails as order in the face of the resistance of that group to subjugation and the need for extreme force to maintain it. It is easy to forget that order requires very broad agreement or extreme force and extreme force is in itself disorder if applied at all broadly. It is certainly extreme force when a police officer shoots an armed robber, but that level of force is applied individually and rarely.
Drug laws are frequently put forward as a moral issue dealt with by law. It is pretty easy to track the success of those laws. Drugs certainly do have effects on comity and order, getting run over by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver is real in terms of order as are deaths from overdoses or psychological consequences. These outcomes are entirely separate from the morality of drug usage and because drugs are treated differently than the issue demands for comity and order the laws fail. Tremendous amounts of enforcement result in huge incarceration figures and huge profits for avoiding the laws leading to disorder and enmity afflicting entire communities.
It is entirely reasonable to have a moral code that aligns with laws and to wish to conduct a life in accordance with or in excess of law, it another thing to think that those laws are moral or religious. Through out history there have been governments that operated under cover of morality or religion, enforcing dogma as law. In the shorter term when their populations are homogenous they tend to be pretty efficient at keeping themselves in power. Over time they become increasingly forceful with their populations which fails the goals of comity and order and finally results in failure. The time scales of failure have accelerated through out history progressing through millenia to centuries to decades. Minus the intervention of outside interests, Iran should prove an interesting test case.
Hell, the US may prove interesting in that regard.
Governments that aren't a religion have a similar goal, social comity and lack of disorder and chaos. Having common goals often results in similar restrictions and requirements. A religion that teaches that murder is against the teachings and rules of the deity is certainly increasing social comity and decreasing disorder and chaos and it calls that stricture morality (god-given morality). A government concerned with social comity and lack of disorder and chaos will also place restrictions on murder, it requires no deity to do so, nor even morality - it is simple self-interest and survival for it to do so.
Governments have a couple tools at hand to achieve the ends of order and comity, punishment and reward, generally monetary or physical. Because a government deals with the temporal and worldly it really can't count on a deity to take immediate care of those rewards and punishments. It will deal with malefactors in a temporal manner, taking their money, their freedom, or their lives and do so with force. The tools the government has are abjectly amoral, it will force you rather than appeal to your "better nature." Once a law is established you are not asked about it, you are told and that telling is backed up by force. Compelling is not about morality, it is not an appeal to morality, it is not backed by morality, it is plainly unconcerned with the entire concept.
You can certainly build a government around damn near any document the populace will bear, holy books or other concepts of order and comity but once that is done the whole affair becomes at best amoral. It is popular to call Nazi Germany evil and immoral and the behavior of individuals involved does offend most of us at a moral level. That government wasn't destroyed because it was amoral or immoral, it was destroyed because it failed the basic goals of order and comity. It failed them internally and more importantly, internationally. The wholesale slaughter of a citizenry is not order, it is force at ferocious levels and it has nothing to do with comity.
There certainly is a moral component to the idea of slavery, it offends a basic empathy. As a feature of government it fails on another level, it certainly has nothing to do with comity for the subjected group and fails as order in the face of the resistance of that group to subjugation and the need for extreme force to maintain it. It is easy to forget that order requires very broad agreement or extreme force and extreme force is in itself disorder if applied at all broadly. It is certainly extreme force when a police officer shoots an armed robber, but that level of force is applied individually and rarely.
Drug laws are frequently put forward as a moral issue dealt with by law. It is pretty easy to track the success of those laws. Drugs certainly do have effects on comity and order, getting run over by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver is real in terms of order as are deaths from overdoses or psychological consequences. These outcomes are entirely separate from the morality of drug usage and because drugs are treated differently than the issue demands for comity and order the laws fail. Tremendous amounts of enforcement result in huge incarceration figures and huge profits for avoiding the laws leading to disorder and enmity afflicting entire communities.
It is entirely reasonable to have a moral code that aligns with laws and to wish to conduct a life in accordance with or in excess of law, it another thing to think that those laws are moral or religious. Through out history there have been governments that operated under cover of morality or religion, enforcing dogma as law. In the shorter term when their populations are homogenous they tend to be pretty efficient at keeping themselves in power. Over time they become increasingly forceful with their populations which fails the goals of comity and order and finally results in failure. The time scales of failure have accelerated through out history progressing through millenia to centuries to decades. Minus the intervention of outside interests, Iran should prove an interesting test case.
Hell, the US may prove interesting in that regard.
Satanic Influences
You'd need a pretty large ruler to measure my incredulity that as a part of political dialogue in this country I'd be addressing this as any more than a remote historical reference. There are a couple things in religious mythos that I find real offensive and at the risk of offending sensitive sensibilities I'm going to name them.
Santa God - the granter of wishes with a list
The Exclusive Club God - gotta say the right words right omnipotent creator of universes
Satan
The King of Lies, Deceiver of Kings, the ultimate evil, that guy - Satan is my target... because that's the title.(I learned with "Harley Porn" not to kid with titles) It would seem that the US of A is being targeted by this character, really, somebody semi-important said so.(in front of god and everybody) This Satan personage is the flip cover of Santa God. He is an active malevolent actor in the world with a list. He has his favorites and those he'd destroy and he can be brought to play by wishes. If certain people are to be believed he's pretty good at his job.
Sorry, I just don't buy into this blame game, this personification of a concept like evil. If God is good he must have an opposite, like light and dark because... well because. Some of this follows from the "Exclusive Club God" concept because you cannot be good without the right God and the right Words, it just doesn't matter what you do or try - you're wrong if you do it otherwise. This puts an onus on God, he can't be the source of evil since he's the good so somebody else has to bear the burden. Never mind that means that either God created or tolerates (because of an oops) EVIL in person of Satan. I know there are all kinds of stories about how this came to be - that's the short version.
I get along with the idea of a Creator because it works for me, nothing fancy to be found there, just that. I don't mind metaphors about evil, about the impulses of us to be small, to be greedy, to be murderous, to be... Folks, if I talk about my "bad side" I assure you that I am nowhere schizophrenic to think that there's other little rat bastard residing in my consciousness. I'm talking about a desire to not do things the hard way, to not have to put myself out not some cartoon horned guy standing on my left shoulder whispering in my ear. Whatever I do requires some time, energy, and some kind of thought and I don't just want to increase that. After all, I started out as the ultimately selfish and self-concerned being there is - a baby. From that start I began to learn and that's the part, right there, that counts.
I learned that I wasn't the only one that was hungry and I already knew I didn't like being hungry - I had discovered that those other shapes were not there simply for my benefit, that they existed as separate humans - and they might not like being hungry either. That learning process applied across the board creates a moral set which is based most firmly on the recognition that I am not the center, that I share reality with others who are similarly constructed. That learning can get broken or shorted or a lot of things that result in behaviors that reflect something entirely different. What I'm doing is using a lot of words for one, empathy.
A society cannot allow a mental defect that results in bad outcomes to remain unchecked. A society won't work if indiscriminate killing is allowed, it simply won't hang together. That is an entirely different question than the one of a moral set that proposes killing is wrong and prohibited by that empathy thing. We teach soldiers to suspend that empathy in warfare where its degree interferes with the mission. There are consequences to this suspension, we seem to agree it is worth it.
Jesus (and others) put it pretty clearly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." More words meaning empathy. God and rituals are not required for empathy, it is a natural understanding of humans existing, but it does require work to keep it in effect and in actions. Because effort is tightly bound to survival we do not lightly increase it any more than a mountain lion goes looking for a fight to get dinner. Because we're not mountain lions we're capable of placing an abstract above some considerations and that varies wildly. It doesn't require a Satan to place empathy behind other considerations, all it takes is a lack of willingness or a mental defect.
Sometimes people are broken in ways we really don't understand and even when we understand something like a brain injury, we don't quite know how they get there. We know that brains can have their wiring scrambled or chemicals missing resulting in undesirable behaviors. Before we knew some of those things about outwardly human people it was assumed some spiritual, some invisible influence must be at work.
Religions would cease to exist without followers, Greek mythology is practically speaking extinct. The connection between the followers and hierarchy was broken, for a lot of reasons, but it was broken. Religions are hierarchical, there are the deities, then there are the books/words, then there are the interpreters, and then there are the faithful. The structure collapses if that hierarchy isn't maintained and there are methods for ensuring that it does. Fear is the most common because it is easiest. One of the first things we learned was that pain was to be avoided and the assertion that disobedience will lead to pain is real effective. Most of us learned that absences of pain didn't mean happiness, but not being happy beat the heck out of pain so the absence of "glory" won't quite do to keep the troops in line. The something more involves stuff like lakes of fire presided over by the natural deity of disobedience - evil personified, our guy Satan. It was a stroke of genius or maybe necessity to make the disciplinarian and source of disobedience or lack the same guy. Keep in mind that maintaining that hierarchy requires exclusivity, if something outside that club works, all those pieces are unnecessary. A whip hand is required and Satan wields it. My choices are join the right club or be whipped.
So it is that a nation's government that concerns itself with the worldly and temporal order of its citizens without religious strictures is in violation. It is under the sway of the guy with the whip.
Santa God - the granter of wishes with a list
The Exclusive Club God - gotta say the right words right omnipotent creator of universes
Satan
The King of Lies, Deceiver of Kings, the ultimate evil, that guy - Satan is my target... because that's the title.(I learned with "Harley Porn" not to kid with titles) It would seem that the US of A is being targeted by this character, really, somebody semi-important said so.(in front of god and everybody) This Satan personage is the flip cover of Santa God. He is an active malevolent actor in the world with a list. He has his favorites and those he'd destroy and he can be brought to play by wishes. If certain people are to be believed he's pretty good at his job.
Sorry, I just don't buy into this blame game, this personification of a concept like evil. If God is good he must have an opposite, like light and dark because... well because. Some of this follows from the "Exclusive Club God" concept because you cannot be good without the right God and the right Words, it just doesn't matter what you do or try - you're wrong if you do it otherwise. This puts an onus on God, he can't be the source of evil since he's the good so somebody else has to bear the burden. Never mind that means that either God created or tolerates (because of an oops) EVIL in person of Satan. I know there are all kinds of stories about how this came to be - that's the short version.
I get along with the idea of a Creator because it works for me, nothing fancy to be found there, just that. I don't mind metaphors about evil, about the impulses of us to be small, to be greedy, to be murderous, to be... Folks, if I talk about my "bad side" I assure you that I am nowhere schizophrenic to think that there's other little rat bastard residing in my consciousness. I'm talking about a desire to not do things the hard way, to not have to put myself out not some cartoon horned guy standing on my left shoulder whispering in my ear. Whatever I do requires some time, energy, and some kind of thought and I don't just want to increase that. After all, I started out as the ultimately selfish and self-concerned being there is - a baby. From that start I began to learn and that's the part, right there, that counts.
I learned that I wasn't the only one that was hungry and I already knew I didn't like being hungry - I had discovered that those other shapes were not there simply for my benefit, that they existed as separate humans - and they might not like being hungry either. That learning process applied across the board creates a moral set which is based most firmly on the recognition that I am not the center, that I share reality with others who are similarly constructed. That learning can get broken or shorted or a lot of things that result in behaviors that reflect something entirely different. What I'm doing is using a lot of words for one, empathy.
A society cannot allow a mental defect that results in bad outcomes to remain unchecked. A society won't work if indiscriminate killing is allowed, it simply won't hang together. That is an entirely different question than the one of a moral set that proposes killing is wrong and prohibited by that empathy thing. We teach soldiers to suspend that empathy in warfare where its degree interferes with the mission. There are consequences to this suspension, we seem to agree it is worth it.
Jesus (and others) put it pretty clearly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." More words meaning empathy. God and rituals are not required for empathy, it is a natural understanding of humans existing, but it does require work to keep it in effect and in actions. Because effort is tightly bound to survival we do not lightly increase it any more than a mountain lion goes looking for a fight to get dinner. Because we're not mountain lions we're capable of placing an abstract above some considerations and that varies wildly. It doesn't require a Satan to place empathy behind other considerations, all it takes is a lack of willingness or a mental defect.
Sometimes people are broken in ways we really don't understand and even when we understand something like a brain injury, we don't quite know how they get there. We know that brains can have their wiring scrambled or chemicals missing resulting in undesirable behaviors. Before we knew some of those things about outwardly human people it was assumed some spiritual, some invisible influence must be at work.
Religions would cease to exist without followers, Greek mythology is practically speaking extinct. The connection between the followers and hierarchy was broken, for a lot of reasons, but it was broken. Religions are hierarchical, there are the deities, then there are the books/words, then there are the interpreters, and then there are the faithful. The structure collapses if that hierarchy isn't maintained and there are methods for ensuring that it does. Fear is the most common because it is easiest. One of the first things we learned was that pain was to be avoided and the assertion that disobedience will lead to pain is real effective. Most of us learned that absences of pain didn't mean happiness, but not being happy beat the heck out of pain so the absence of "glory" won't quite do to keep the troops in line. The something more involves stuff like lakes of fire presided over by the natural deity of disobedience - evil personified, our guy Satan. It was a stroke of genius or maybe necessity to make the disciplinarian and source of disobedience or lack the same guy. Keep in mind that maintaining that hierarchy requires exclusivity, if something outside that club works, all those pieces are unnecessary. A whip hand is required and Satan wields it. My choices are join the right club or be whipped.
So it is that a nation's government that concerns itself with the worldly and temporal order of its citizens without religious strictures is in violation. It is under the sway of the guy with the whip.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Ron Paul's Latest Panty-sniffing
Let's set this stage a bit with Ron Paul's Campaign site and the "official" statement regarding abortion.
I don't know about your understanding of abortion but I will state that Libertarianism and the above two statements don't exactly line up - like at all.
In regard to that Paultard baiting headline, from the CNN "debate" Rep Paul:
Maybe you folks thinking no Federal War on Drugs means you get to smoke pot (hint - not a f***ing chance) ought to also give up on the idea that sexy-time without children as an outcome is on the Paul approved list. As for you married folks, pot or otherwise, you do that stuff and not have kids for it - well, you're immoral and a part of the decline of the US.
The guy tells you up front that he's not about your personal liberties, he's about the Fed not being involved. He's all for Government telling you what to do but just his Last Confederate Standing version. He tells you and you don't listen - your imagination just runs wild with your ideas and not what he means. Words for that run from "delusional" to "really damned stupid." Libertarian my ass - just another bigoted panty-sniffer.
Excuse the rest of us for pointing and laughing.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
I don't know about your understanding of abortion but I will state that Libertarianism and the above two statements don't exactly line up - like at all.
In regard to that Paultard baiting headline, from the CNN "debate" Rep Paul:
“But sort of along the line of the [contraception] pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills.”
Maybe you folks thinking no Federal War on Drugs means you get to smoke pot (hint - not a f***ing chance) ought to also give up on the idea that sexy-time without children as an outcome is on the Paul approved list. As for you married folks, pot or otherwise, you do that stuff and not have kids for it - well, you're immoral and a part of the decline of the US.
The guy tells you up front that he's not about your personal liberties, he's about the Fed not being involved. He's all for Government telling you what to do but just his Last Confederate Standing version. He tells you and you don't listen - your imagination just runs wild with your ideas and not what he means. Words for that run from "delusional" to "really damned stupid." Libertarian my ass - just another bigoted panty-sniffer.
Excuse the rest of us for pointing and laughing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)