I've been reading about the incredible debt the U.S. has been undertaking here of late. Things like, the debt in the last three years has increased by 60%. Things like, the amount of debt growth in the last four years is greater than all the debt the government ever undertook -- and paid off -- since the country was formed.
Young people are so screwed by this debt. Their entire productive future is at risk of having politicians pay federal debt out of their future. They have to pay off unconscionable student loans, and pay off the government's traitorous level of overspending, and have a life, too?
I've also been reading about the gun regulation controversy, and some have gone so far as to suggest that armed rebellion or even a break-up of the states, forming several smaller countries, could result from an attempt to take guns away. Probably not, but what if . . .
So, what happens if a few states decide to up and quit? Would there be a civil war, again? Nowadays, would Pennsylvania, for example, supply it's young men to fight in a war to prevent Texas, for example, from withdrawing? Would they go? At this point in our country's story, do we have enough currently serving military officers willing to go to war on the president's orders to prevent disintegration? Or would they resign their commissions? More importantly, are there enough riflemen willing to obey orders to shoot at Americans at home, and get shot at by them, in turn?
Maybe not. The American military is best equipped to fight "big" wars with massive force. Would the military leaders really order missles to be fired and bombs to be dropped on fellow Americans, in this day and age?
And here's my question. If some states were to withdraw and form a new government for themselves, leaving the union, would their citizens cease to be U.S. citizens? And if so, what's their responsibility for the national debt?
If the national debt gets worse, would or could a price be reached by a money hungry federal government to let citizens of a state "buy its way out" of the union, with a negotiated payment price and terms?
Win-win?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
A new year's fiscal cliffery . . .
It's now 2013, a new year, and righteous time for resolutions. The Republicans have resolved to continue being Republicans, and the Democrats have resolved to continue being Democrats, the proof of which proposition exists in the cliff avoidance plan adopted in the Senate, at the absolute last minute, when they've had literally years to figure out how to get this done. Gah!
What was the fiscal cliff? It was a silly scheme whereby if our political masters couldn't finally figure out how to reform our tax system and/or how to bring overspending under control, then the previous tax cuts would "automatically" expire having the effect of increasing the tax burden, and massive spending cuts would "automatically" happen, "across the board." The morons who passed this legislative kludge thought of it as so repulsive that surely they would have to figure out a good way of growing up to accomplish good government, so as to avoid going over the cliff that they had created for themselves.
Okay, we have two massive problems. The first problem is that we're broke. The government doesn't have enough money to do all the things it has committed itself to do. What should be done?
One thing would be to reduce spending, first, by eliminating all waste, and second, by eliminating all unauthorized spending, and third, by reneging on selected committments for impossibility. (Wait one. Unauthorized spending? There hasn't been a budget passed for three years; it's all unauthorized! And renege on what kind of committments? For example, do we have to give money to the Palestinians and the Egyptians, when we already give money to the United Nations, thereby funding international corruption?)
Another thing to do about being broke, which has been the strategy of choice, more or less, for the last ninety years or so, is just print up additional new money. That's called inflation and our government masters have decided a long time ago that a "little bit" of inflation is a good thing, somehow. This is absolutely going to continue happening. Oh, and "more than a little bit" is defined as when people start to pay attention.
I teach bankruptcy. One of the interesting features about bankruptcy is that debtors are nearly always able to keep increasing their debt during "pre-bankruptcy," which means that there's always somebody who expects to profit from somebody else's financial vulnerability by lending, despite the signs of financial insecurity.
That leads to the third response to being broke. Borrow money to keep living beyond one's means. It's kind of like, how can I be broke? People keep lending me money. How can I be broke? There's still blank checks in my checkbook.
And this is why Congress invented the fiscal cliff for itself. Basically, Congress said that if we hadn't done anything effective to control our spending and revenue, then, magically on January 1, 2013, we would be officially broke in our own estimation, even if there were people who were willing for one reason or another, to keep lending and funding our financial descent into harmless world-class international inconsequentiality. (Why, there might be world leaders who would welcome and encourage the collapse of the United States. Imagine that!)
So, what did the Senate do at the last effing gasp of December 31, 2012? It passed a law to twiddle with taxes and do nothing about spending, so as to claim that it saved us from the cliff. Basically, spending will be looked at in the future when we examined the so-called debt limit that we (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) impose on ourselves.
See, we aren't broke at all. We can keep the party going by a quick trip to the ATM. We can always borrow more; it's just money and other people's money at that.
And that leads us to our second massive problem. That is, that all of our political masters, legislative, judicial, and executive, are more or less but always too much, either stupid or evil. No other explanation will account.
I think our political class thinks that it can continue along the same path it set out on since President Wilson, because the American public at large is extremely reluctant and unlikely to pick up its guns and engage in an armed revolution against the present parasitical and tyrannical government. (But maybe all the guns better be seized, I mean controlled, for just in case.)
And I agree. It won't come to that, and that's why I don't own a gun.
But massive civil disobedience? That sounds more likely.
When you think about it, perhaps government has lost, or is about to lose the benefit of the public conviction that government can essentially be trusted to act for the greater good. If government ceases to be an advocate for justice, and becomes a mere change agent to redistribute wealth, then it loses it's moral justification for the use of overwhelming force even as it may continue to use overwhelming force. At that point, government becomes our adversary, which like any adversary might be outwitted, deceived, and finally beaten in that fashion.
And for this reason, I can say without a trace of cynicism, I wish us all a Happy New Year, and I resolve to continue to have faith in the foundational ideals that formed our unique American culture.
What was the fiscal cliff? It was a silly scheme whereby if our political masters couldn't finally figure out how to reform our tax system and/or how to bring overspending under control, then the previous tax cuts would "automatically" expire having the effect of increasing the tax burden, and massive spending cuts would "automatically" happen, "across the board." The morons who passed this legislative kludge thought of it as so repulsive that surely they would have to figure out a good way of growing up to accomplish good government, so as to avoid going over the cliff that they had created for themselves.
Okay, we have two massive problems. The first problem is that we're broke. The government doesn't have enough money to do all the things it has committed itself to do. What should be done?
One thing would be to reduce spending, first, by eliminating all waste, and second, by eliminating all unauthorized spending, and third, by reneging on selected committments for impossibility. (Wait one. Unauthorized spending? There hasn't been a budget passed for three years; it's all unauthorized! And renege on what kind of committments? For example, do we have to give money to the Palestinians and the Egyptians, when we already give money to the United Nations, thereby funding international corruption?)
Another thing to do about being broke, which has been the strategy of choice, more or less, for the last ninety years or so, is just print up additional new money. That's called inflation and our government masters have decided a long time ago that a "little bit" of inflation is a good thing, somehow. This is absolutely going to continue happening. Oh, and "more than a little bit" is defined as when people start to pay attention.
I teach bankruptcy. One of the interesting features about bankruptcy is that debtors are nearly always able to keep increasing their debt during "pre-bankruptcy," which means that there's always somebody who expects to profit from somebody else's financial vulnerability by lending, despite the signs of financial insecurity.
That leads to the third response to being broke. Borrow money to keep living beyond one's means. It's kind of like, how can I be broke? People keep lending me money. How can I be broke? There's still blank checks in my checkbook.
And this is why Congress invented the fiscal cliff for itself. Basically, Congress said that if we hadn't done anything effective to control our spending and revenue, then, magically on January 1, 2013, we would be officially broke in our own estimation, even if there were people who were willing for one reason or another, to keep lending and funding our financial descent into harmless world-class international inconsequentiality. (Why, there might be world leaders who would welcome and encourage the collapse of the United States. Imagine that!)
So, what did the Senate do at the last effing gasp of December 31, 2012? It passed a law to twiddle with taxes and do nothing about spending, so as to claim that it saved us from the cliff. Basically, spending will be looked at in the future when we examined the so-called debt limit that we (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) impose on ourselves.
See, we aren't broke at all. We can keep the party going by a quick trip to the ATM. We can always borrow more; it's just money and other people's money at that.
And that leads us to our second massive problem. That is, that all of our political masters, legislative, judicial, and executive, are more or less but always too much, either stupid or evil. No other explanation will account.
I think our political class thinks that it can continue along the same path it set out on since President Wilson, because the American public at large is extremely reluctant and unlikely to pick up its guns and engage in an armed revolution against the present parasitical and tyrannical government. (But maybe all the guns better be seized, I mean controlled, for just in case.)
And I agree. It won't come to that, and that's why I don't own a gun.
But massive civil disobedience? That sounds more likely.
When you think about it, perhaps government has lost, or is about to lose the benefit of the public conviction that government can essentially be trusted to act for the greater good. If government ceases to be an advocate for justice, and becomes a mere change agent to redistribute wealth, then it loses it's moral justification for the use of overwhelming force even as it may continue to use overwhelming force. At that point, government becomes our adversary, which like any adversary might be outwitted, deceived, and finally beaten in that fashion.
And for this reason, I can say without a trace of cynicism, I wish us all a Happy New Year, and I resolve to continue to have faith in the foundational ideals that formed our unique American culture.
Friday, December 21, 2012
The NRA misses the target . . .
Okay, so I expected silliness from the anti-gun side. They want more regulation in spite of the simple fact that all of the proposed regulations, as well as the considerable regulations that already exist, won't prevent a nut case who hates his mother enough to put four rounds into her face from blowing away little kids, if that's the plan. Nevertheless we have calls to ban automatic weapons, which have already been illegal since the 1930's, or to ban high capacity magazines, when all a crazy nut nonentity loser has to do is buy several regular magazines and stick them into his pocket on his way to the elementary school, or the theater, or the church, and on his way to momentary fame with his name and picture spread all over the news for a week or two.
And I also expected that the National Rifle Association would reject the notion that it is somehow complicit in mass murders.
But the recent press conference by the NRA is just as silly as the anti-gun dreamers. The motto is now, "Guns don't kill people. Violent video games and Hollywood slasher movies kill people." Give me a break. Those things are classless and repulsive, but that's about it. If anything, violent or pornographic movies and media might act as an outlet for twisted aggression rather than as an instigator of evil.
So what does the head of the NRA suggest? Armed guards in all schools. Right.
The government and the Cult of Homeland Security has done such a good job with the TSA and airport safety; let's create a government school security authority, armed, for safety sake.
Hey, it isn't that I don't care that our little kids, or big kids for that matter, are highly vulnerable. It's just that I don't trust government solutions to do anything, other than increase opportunities for graft and political patronage, to protect the kids.
But hey.
It occurs to me that there are lots of citizens at home, nowadays, having lost their jobs. and a whole lot of those jobs are never coming back. So what do we have? An untapped pool of home school instructors, that's what. If schools are so dangerous that we have to have armed guards permanently posted in the schools, well, keep the kids home, where they will be safer. And probably better educated in the long run.
And I also expected that the National Rifle Association would reject the notion that it is somehow complicit in mass murders.
But the recent press conference by the NRA is just as silly as the anti-gun dreamers. The motto is now, "Guns don't kill people. Violent video games and Hollywood slasher movies kill people." Give me a break. Those things are classless and repulsive, but that's about it. If anything, violent or pornographic movies and media might act as an outlet for twisted aggression rather than as an instigator of evil.
So what does the head of the NRA suggest? Armed guards in all schools. Right.
The government and the Cult of Homeland Security has done such a good job with the TSA and airport safety; let's create a government school security authority, armed, for safety sake.
Hey, it isn't that I don't care that our little kids, or big kids for that matter, are highly vulnerable. It's just that I don't trust government solutions to do anything, other than increase opportunities for graft and political patronage, to protect the kids.
But hey.
It occurs to me that there are lots of citizens at home, nowadays, having lost their jobs. and a whole lot of those jobs are never coming back. So what do we have? An untapped pool of home school instructors, that's what. If schools are so dangerous that we have to have armed guards permanently posted in the schools, well, keep the kids home, where they will be safer. And probably better educated in the long run.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
What serious people do . . .
An elementary school in Israel. Prepared to improve the odds. (Thanks) Have you ever noticed that all the crazies who want to go out in a blaze of bullets before the final round that ends their life, never, ever, choose to go to a police station and try to shoot all the cops?
Realistic response to a threat = teacher has a carbine. Idealistic response to a threat = lock the doors and call "first responders". Silly response to a threat = gun free zones.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The leading edge in men's fashion . . . .
Tights for men? They are are calling them "meggings," for men's leggings, I guess.
With all the cultural conditioning that goes on from birth about the proper distinctions between men and women, well, let's just say there's a name that's suitable for men who choose to wear meggings.
Give it a moment. It'll come to you.
With all the cultural conditioning that goes on from birth about the proper distinctions between men and women, well, let's just say there's a name that's suitable for men who choose to wear meggings.
Give it a moment. It'll come to you.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
How civilization ends, not with a bang, but a guffaw
Evidently, adult "onesies" are what all the seriously hip people in the UK are wearing.
Open the gates and let the barbarians in; this civilization's done for.
Open the gates and let the barbarians in; this civilization's done for.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Imperial City Council has decreed . . .
The Portland City Council went all in, declaring that no retailers can offer plastic bags, and all must offer paper bags. The mayor says that this is because the plastic bags get into the ocean, citing no evidence of any kind.
I don't know anybody who disposes of plastic grocery bags in a way that's gets the bags into the ocean -- unless the trash collection companies are sneaking trash containing plastic grocery bags into the ocean, and if that's the case it seems to me that the point of the solution is to deal with them. Not that I think that's what's happening.
I just wonder how it is that the grocery bags get to the ocean, as the mayor has noted. For that matter, I wonder what color the sky is in the mayor's world, and can he hear it when the butterflies blink.
Anyhow, paperbags are only somewhat recyclable and much of them end up turning into a nasty substance in permanent landfills. When they get recycled, you get paper stuff. Plastic bags are also recyclable, and require less energy to do so, and there's lots of high-value products made from the plastic. For that matter, the plastic bags could be, themselves, a product of recycling.
Anyhow, I, for one, think plastic grocery bags are superior to paper grocery bags, and I think that the Imperial City Council of Portland is populated by morons whose egos have sucked their brains dry.
But you know what?
I'd be perfectly okay with a ban on plastic bags in favor of paper bags, if the matter could be put to a vote, and the majority of us citizens voted in favor of a ban on plastic grocery bags.
In other words, the issue isn't just the relative merits of paper or plastic. The other, greater, issue, is who is the boss of you. And I've got a good idea how the city council thinks about that.
I don't know anybody who disposes of plastic grocery bags in a way that's gets the bags into the ocean -- unless the trash collection companies are sneaking trash containing plastic grocery bags into the ocean, and if that's the case it seems to me that the point of the solution is to deal with them. Not that I think that's what's happening.
I just wonder how it is that the grocery bags get to the ocean, as the mayor has noted. For that matter, I wonder what color the sky is in the mayor's world, and can he hear it when the butterflies blink.
Anyhow, paperbags are only somewhat recyclable and much of them end up turning into a nasty substance in permanent landfills. When they get recycled, you get paper stuff. Plastic bags are also recyclable, and require less energy to do so, and there's lots of high-value products made from the plastic. For that matter, the plastic bags could be, themselves, a product of recycling.
Anyhow, I, for one, think plastic grocery bags are superior to paper grocery bags, and I think that the Imperial City Council of Portland is populated by morons whose egos have sucked their brains dry.
But you know what?
I'd be perfectly okay with a ban on plastic bags in favor of paper bags, if the matter could be put to a vote, and the majority of us citizens voted in favor of a ban on plastic grocery bags.
In other words, the issue isn't just the relative merits of paper or plastic. The other, greater, issue, is who is the boss of you. And I've got a good idea how the city council thinks about that.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Always listen to the man with a badge and a taser, boys and girls, for he is your friend and will save and protect you . . .
A clear case of contempt of cop.
Here, cops ordered this guy to stop doing what any normal person would do in such an emergency -- he wasn't committing any crime. No crime, no special cop powers. But he ignored their orders. So he had to be tased. For his own safety. And this was probably an "obstruction of justice" according to the chief cop, because he wouldn't stop doing what he had a legal right to do, at the command of a cop, based on the cop's uninformed and untrained opinion -- backed up by a badge and a taser.
Pinellas Park, Florida -- Daniel Jensen wasn't running from the law, he was trying to protect his home from burning up. Yet, Pinellas Park Police tasered him in the process. Jensen and his attorney say it's an excessive use of force.The cops are supposed to be law enforcement. To you and me, and most cops, that means, they have special powers of arrest in aid of enforcing criminal laws and they have a duty to do so. But some cops . . .
Jensen was still shaken and visibly emotional as he retold what happened last Thursday evening. He said being tasered by police has not only impacted him, but it also impacted his children, who saw it all happen.
He described the Pinellas Park Police officers actions as "brutal." He said they showed "no compassion."
"All I remember is laying in water, being electrocuted for saving my home," said Jensen.
Four days later, burns on Daniel Jensen's body still mark where the stun gun's probes hit him. He says they tasered him for doing what any father and husband would do protect his family's home from an out-of-control grease fire.
The 42-year-old father of two recalls his wife waking him around 6 in the evening, saying there's a big fire at his neighbor's house.
"I could hear it, I could feel it," he explained.
He ran outside and grabbed a fire extinguisher. He sprayed it until it was empty.
"I was calling for my daughter and getting no response. I came out, grabbed the hose and sprayed her room until I heard she was out. I was always taught to help when you can; help is what I tried to do," said Jensen.
He continued to recount the events. He said he then took the garden hose and started watering down his fence and the back corner of his rooftop, trying to prevent the fire from spreading to his property. But with each attempt, Daniel said Pinellas Park Police kept pulling him back... even though firefighters were not in sight.
"They kept telling me, 'Let it go, that's what insurance is for.' That's not acceptable to me," said Jensen.
Captain Sanfield Forseth with the Pinellas Park Police Department said officers could have charged him with obstruction for not listening to an officer's orders.
"I wasn't doing that. What I was doing was what any home owner would do to protect a family and home," said Jensen.
Captain Forseth said the department will not be charging him.
When Jensen saw the fire jump on to his back roof, he again grabbed the hose. That's when he said -- unknown to him -- a police officer pulled out a taser and fired it at his back.
"As I went to grab the hose, I hear an officer on this side. There was a boat here; he was just behind it. He said, 'Hit him, hit him! Take him down, tase him!'" explained Jensen. "I didn't know they were talking to me, or about me. I was concerned about putting water on the fire, and the next thing you know I'm being tased."
Daniel said a Sergeant ordered an officer to tase him, but the officer never warned him as department policy requires.
According to Pinellas Park Police policy, an officer will use a taser when "other control techniques" would likely result in a "physical confrontation" that may cause injury to the officer or person. But the officer must first give a "verbal warning" that he is going to use a taser.
After tasing Daniel, he said several officers picked him up, carried him to the front yard, threw him on the ground and handcuffed him.
Daniel says he's very disappointed in the police department.
"They should have more tolerance with the public, to exhaust all options before firing electricity into somebody, handcuff them instead of tasering them."
Daniel said about the experience as he fights through tears, "It was horrible. I was laying in a puddle of water being electrocuted here by the people that are supposed to protect us. I'm trying to protect my family, my neighbor, and they bring harm to me. I don't understand."
Captain Forseth with the Pinellas Park Police Department said they exhausted all other options, and that their goal was to keep Daniel and the officers safe from the fire.
Here, cops ordered this guy to stop doing what any normal person would do in such an emergency -- he wasn't committing any crime. No crime, no special cop powers. But he ignored their orders. So he had to be tased. For his own safety. And this was probably an "obstruction of justice" according to the chief cop, because he wouldn't stop doing what he had a legal right to do, at the command of a cop, based on the cop's uninformed and untrained opinion -- backed up by a badge and a taser.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
What about the election . . .
I'm supposed to comment on the election? Okay.
It's about hand. The issue is, are you willing to dump devotion, reverence, reliability, and competence in order to get the upper hand?
You know the answer. The entire steady march of 19th century Marxism through the 20th century is all the proof you need.
It's about hand. The issue is, are you willing to dump devotion, reverence, reliability, and competence in order to get the upper hand?
You know the answer. The entire steady march of 19th century Marxism through the 20th century is all the proof you need.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
It's a mystery . . .
Since the first 9/11 Al Qaeda has been reported to have been in recession, as its various participants periodically blew themselves up, or got shot, or were vaporized by a drone.
The economy of the U.S. has likewise been receding.
Now, with the second 9/11, it seems that Al Qaeda has revived itself a lot more successfully than our economy.
And I say . . . hmm.
The economy of the U.S. has likewise been receding.
Now, with the second 9/11, it seems that Al Qaeda has revived itself a lot more successfully than our economy.
And I say . . . hmm.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
The regime abides . . .
The regime abides.
When Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS who died fighting in Benghazi, met with Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State assured him that, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And they got him, officially on charges of violating parole, unofficially on charges of violently offending violent Muslims.
The woman whose policy had overthrown the Libyan government and then placed a barely defended consulate in the middle of a city of Jihadists, did not promise the grieving father that his son's killers would pay. She promised him that the man who offended his son's killers would pay. Not only would his son be the first casualty of that appeasement policy, but the Constitution that his son had sworn to support and defend would be the second casualty.
Read the whole thing.
I remember being very, very troubled by Watergate. This is worse.
When Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS who died fighting in Benghazi, met with Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State assured him that, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And they got him, officially on charges of violating parole, unofficially on charges of violently offending violent Muslims.
The woman whose policy had overthrown the Libyan government and then placed a barely defended consulate in the middle of a city of Jihadists, did not promise the grieving father that his son's killers would pay. She promised him that the man who offended his son's killers would pay. Not only would his son be the first casualty of that appeasement policy, but the Constitution that his son had sworn to support and defend would be the second casualty.
Read the whole thing.
I remember being very, very troubled by Watergate. This is worse.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Paper or plastic, revisited . . .
Once again, I enjoyed carrying a paper bag full of groceries through the rain, as the bag dissolved in my arms. Once again I thought of our local Portland government masters who righteously decreed that plastic bags filled with groceries are hereby declared to be unsustainable, unmoral, unattractive, unpatriotic, ungreen, unhygienic, and ungood and anti-social, and are therefore not to be tolerated in the land of Port.
Buttholes!
There used to be a choice; the checkout people would say, "Paper or plastic?"
Progressive politicians just hate it when people can choose.
The other day, I was in a store when I heard, but did not see, a gentleman in the adjoining aisle loudly say, "Ah, Portland. Land of the Lost!" I don't have any idea what happened that made him speak those words, and I don't actually know what he meant by those words.
But I understand.
Buttholes!
There used to be a choice; the checkout people would say, "Paper or plastic?"
Progressive politicians just hate it when people can choose.
The other day, I was in a store when I heard, but did not see, a gentleman in the adjoining aisle loudly say, "Ah, Portland. Land of the Lost!" I don't have any idea what happened that made him speak those words, and I don't actually know what he meant by those words.
But I understand.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
French youth's declaration of war . . . .
This is an interesting event. I'm not sure what to make of it, but then, I'm not of the same culture nor the same age. By a bunch.
Nevertheless, I understand the frustration with the "hippie" values which have infected the political landscape. They got that rejection of responsibility thing right, I think.
Everything was "groovy" for the youth of the late 60's while the grownups were still in charge, even as the youth of the 60's aged into their forties and even fifties. But now, when the youth of the 60's have become the grownups in charge - not so much.
You still see self-congratulatory bumper stickers announcing, "War is not the Answer."
Well, maybe not. But the answer sure as hell isn't the "flower power," "love is all around," "if it feels good, do it," cheery optimism which rejected the values and life strategies which saved western civilization in the first half of the 20th century.
The message is that things aren't free just because you don't have to pay for them. Somebody else is getting stuck with the bill.
Nevertheless, I understand the frustration with the "hippie" values which have infected the political landscape. They got that rejection of responsibility thing right, I think.
Everything was "groovy" for the youth of the late 60's while the grownups were still in charge, even as the youth of the 60's aged into their forties and even fifties. But now, when the youth of the 60's have become the grownups in charge - not so much.
You still see self-congratulatory bumper stickers announcing, "War is not the Answer."
Well, maybe not. But the answer sure as hell isn't the "flower power," "love is all around," "if it feels good, do it," cheery optimism which rejected the values and life strategies which saved western civilization in the first half of the 20th century.
The message is that things aren't free just because you don't have to pay for them. Somebody else is getting stuck with the bill.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The bitter consequences of voter suppression . . .
So there's a report around that the NAACP has a delegation appearing before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, asking for an investigation into voting in the United States. It seems that the NAACP's constitutuency is being shut out of the election process.
There's some arithmetic involved in their complaint. You know that convicted felons are barred from voting. That's one of the consequences of committing a felony, the same as fines and incarceration.
About 20% of convicted felons are black, but blacks only amount to about 12% of the population. Thus, suppression of voting rights falls disproportionately on blacks. Got that?
Oh, the humanity! Convicted felons sobbing themselves to sleep in their cells over not being permitted to vote while locked up. And the horror continues even after release from the penitentiary, because even while the term of incarceration is completed, the individual remains a convicted felon who can't vote. Quite understandably, in consequence of the sense of loss and incompleteness that comes when a felon can't vote, felons turn to drugs and violence as a distraction from their bitter disappointment at having the ballot box slammed shut on their fingers. Metaphorically.
Oh, if only someone older and wiser had taken these young felons aside when they were but mere delinquints, and had explained that wandering from the path of righteousness leads to loss of the right to vote, why, the crime rate would surely have been reduced.
Just imagine. If only people had had "that talk" with the young delinquints, perhaps America would now be treated with the sight of younsters wearing Boy Scout neckerchiefs, where today you see them sporting a droop with their pants permanently around their knees and their ass in the breeze.
There's some arithmetic involved in their complaint. You know that convicted felons are barred from voting. That's one of the consequences of committing a felony, the same as fines and incarceration.
About 20% of convicted felons are black, but blacks only amount to about 12% of the population. Thus, suppression of voting rights falls disproportionately on blacks. Got that?
Oh, the humanity! Convicted felons sobbing themselves to sleep in their cells over not being permitted to vote while locked up. And the horror continues even after release from the penitentiary, because even while the term of incarceration is completed, the individual remains a convicted felon who can't vote. Quite understandably, in consequence of the sense of loss and incompleteness that comes when a felon can't vote, felons turn to drugs and violence as a distraction from their bitter disappointment at having the ballot box slammed shut on their fingers. Metaphorically.
Oh, if only someone older and wiser had taken these young felons aside when they were but mere delinquints, and had explained that wandering from the path of righteousness leads to loss of the right to vote, why, the crime rate would surely have been reduced.
Just imagine. If only people had had "that talk" with the young delinquints, perhaps America would now be treated with the sight of younsters wearing Boy Scout neckerchiefs, where today you see them sporting a droop with their pants permanently around their knees and their ass in the breeze.
Pay no attention to that pollster behind the ribbon, for I am the mighty Oz, comming atcha
It's one disaster followed by another, to the point where there is hardly any effect at all. None of the following disasters matter, if you monitor media reporting. What disasters?
The economy keeps getting worse, not better. They are talking about another round of "quantitative easing" of our money. This would be like the third dose of a big-ass shot of adrenalin directly into the heart of the patient. "Quantitative easing," is an extreme last-chance operation intended to blast a heart back to life. Or else. Note well, it didn't work the first two times.
By the way, "quantitative easing" is really some fancy-pants politician's deceptive use of language because he doesn't want us to know that what they are really doing is inflating the money supply radically, but just making it all up as they go along, printing notes and contracts and calling it money.
It isn't real value, folks. Oh, and by the way, if the price of goods goes up with inflation, and it does, if your income doesn't go up to match the inflation, and it doesn't, well, that's basically the government way of raising money at your expense. Another name for that is taxation.
More and more people are out of work, or working at some sort of survival job because that's all that's left, and the unemployment insurance ran out some time ago. The housing market sucks, despite experts saying it's getting better. Very many businessmen, you know, the ones who pay money to people for working, are just hanging on, if at all, to the point where half the businessmen say that they wouldn't even start the business they are presently in, if they had to start it fresh today -- not worth it.
The middle east, what can I say? It's kind of like the notion of voting took hold, there, but the majority invariably votes in favor of barbarism and bloodshed.
And there's a war on young women. The country is sticking young women with impossibly huge student loan debt to fund degrees in sociology, and dance movement, and women's studies, and journalism and communications, and aroma therapy, for shit's sake, with the promise that some crude and abusive businessman, somewhere, will be unable to prevent himself from hiring such independent and capable young women and paying them $85,000, plus benefits, a year, in return for their showing up and wearing suits and heels. (That's the businessman who, as a sole proprietor, must be rich, and so must be taxed. Eat the rich.)
And not only that, but the nation cruelly denies such women free birth control, a necessity in a society that highly values hooking up before names are exchanged, or perhaps only moments thereafter. It's an option. Or if women choose not to use birth control, it is only their natural function and right to be mothers, with or mostly without the committment of a father. Not only that, but there seems to be a grave shortage of drone-men who are so in awe of unmarried motherhood that they welcome the chance to support any women who bravely has another man's child without bothering to have the other man. Oh, the humanity!
But as I say, none of that matters. In place of things that make a difference, we have polls. We have local polls, phony polls, national polls, push polls, private polls, secret polls, and polls about polls. They call you at home, at work, they e-mail you. They will give you free stuff at the restaurant if you will just answer a few questions about the quality of your dining experience with them.
And the results of the polls are reported as if it is news. It isn't. Poll results are what lazy journalists do when they have to fill up broadcast time, or journalistic white space, and they don't actually have anything.
It's like, "Nothing happened today, as far as I know, but some guy telephoned some poll results, so here ya go. Based on a recent poll of some people in a park right here in Estacada, Oregon, 14% of all Americans ever born deny masturbating in the shower. Oh, and 12% of them who didn't indulge in such conduct volunteered to start if there was any money it in, and the rest of them were Republicans. Back to you in the studio."
I don't think you can trust polls. I think people tell lies to poll interrogation. And I know people mess with pollsters -- 'cause I!m pretty sure I'm not the only one.
And I'll do it again and I recommend you do the same. You already know the language of the interrogated man in the street. Use phrases and expressions like, "rich and robust," "sustainable," "naturally sweet," "people who care," "people like us," "dependable," "improved," "margin of error," etc.
It's just a poll.
The economy keeps getting worse, not better. They are talking about another round of "quantitative easing" of our money. This would be like the third dose of a big-ass shot of adrenalin directly into the heart of the patient. "Quantitative easing," is an extreme last-chance operation intended to blast a heart back to life. Or else. Note well, it didn't work the first two times.
By the way, "quantitative easing" is really some fancy-pants politician's deceptive use of language because he doesn't want us to know that what they are really doing is inflating the money supply radically, but just making it all up as they go along, printing notes and contracts and calling it money.
It isn't real value, folks. Oh, and by the way, if the price of goods goes up with inflation, and it does, if your income doesn't go up to match the inflation, and it doesn't, well, that's basically the government way of raising money at your expense. Another name for that is taxation.
More and more people are out of work, or working at some sort of survival job because that's all that's left, and the unemployment insurance ran out some time ago. The housing market sucks, despite experts saying it's getting better. Very many businessmen, you know, the ones who pay money to people for working, are just hanging on, if at all, to the point where half the businessmen say that they wouldn't even start the business they are presently in, if they had to start it fresh today -- not worth it.
The middle east, what can I say? It's kind of like the notion of voting took hold, there, but the majority invariably votes in favor of barbarism and bloodshed.
And there's a war on young women. The country is sticking young women with impossibly huge student loan debt to fund degrees in sociology, and dance movement, and women's studies, and journalism and communications, and aroma therapy, for shit's sake, with the promise that some crude and abusive businessman, somewhere, will be unable to prevent himself from hiring such independent and capable young women and paying them $85,000, plus benefits, a year, in return for their showing up and wearing suits and heels. (That's the businessman who, as a sole proprietor, must be rich, and so must be taxed. Eat the rich.)
And not only that, but the nation cruelly denies such women free birth control, a necessity in a society that highly values hooking up before names are exchanged, or perhaps only moments thereafter. It's an option. Or if women choose not to use birth control, it is only their natural function and right to be mothers, with or mostly without the committment of a father. Not only that, but there seems to be a grave shortage of drone-men who are so in awe of unmarried motherhood that they welcome the chance to support any women who bravely has another man's child without bothering to have the other man. Oh, the humanity!
But as I say, none of that matters. In place of things that make a difference, we have polls. We have local polls, phony polls, national polls, push polls, private polls, secret polls, and polls about polls. They call you at home, at work, they e-mail you. They will give you free stuff at the restaurant if you will just answer a few questions about the quality of your dining experience with them.
And the results of the polls are reported as if it is news. It isn't. Poll results are what lazy journalists do when they have to fill up broadcast time, or journalistic white space, and they don't actually have anything.
It's like, "Nothing happened today, as far as I know, but some guy telephoned some poll results, so here ya go. Based on a recent poll of some people in a park right here in Estacada, Oregon, 14% of all Americans ever born deny masturbating in the shower. Oh, and 12% of them who didn't indulge in such conduct volunteered to start if there was any money it in, and the rest of them were Republicans. Back to you in the studio."
I don't think you can trust polls. I think people tell lies to poll interrogation. And I know people mess with pollsters -- 'cause I!m pretty sure I'm not the only one.
And I'll do it again and I recommend you do the same. You already know the language of the interrogated man in the street. Use phrases and expressions like, "rich and robust," "sustainable," "naturally sweet," "people who care," "people like us," "dependable," "improved," "margin of error," etc.
It's just a poll.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
How can it be that intelligent women . . .
can ever be found crying their lonely selves to sleep? Maybe it's because . . .
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
It's a good thing the Democrats are united because . . .Well, just because.
So here's what happened. Always before, as far as I know, the Democratic Presidential Election platform has had some language in it saying something nice about God and Israel. Not this time.
People noticed and started yelping about the platform never even mentioning God. I suspect God is neither surprised nor hurt, because, as far as I know once again, He or She is not a clingy, needy sort of a deity. But still, even if any particular Democrat remained unaffected by notions of piety, would it have killed them to pander to those who believed?
The big problem was Israel, because the Democrats get a lot of campaign contributions and support from American Jews who by necessity feel kinship with Israel. And if we don't support Israel, there's a good chance Israel would be erased as a necessary first step to the establishment of the Caliphate. Not a good thing in my opinion.
Anyhow, many Democrats thought once again about the platform, and there was a motion to amend the platform, to restore God and Israel to the platform language. Evidently it takes a 2/3 vote to amend the platform at this point. So a voice vote was taken. All in favor, say aye; all opposed, no. It sounded evenly spread between the ayes and nos to me and I think it sounded even to the chair as well. But without blinking an eye or a blush of a cheek, the chair announced that the ayes were 2/3rds of the votes and the motion passed. (I'm pretty sure the motion didn't pass, even at a simple majority, because I don't think there was a majority. It sounded 50/50 to me.) Anyhow, all the no-sayers instantly turned to boo-sayers. Loudly.
But here's the thing. If I were wealthy, and Jewish, and believed in big cradle-to-grave government, I still would be disinclined to give the Democrats any money. Why? Because about half the assembled convention loudly voted against supporting Israel. If I were Jewish, I'd uncomfortable with that.
People noticed and started yelping about the platform never even mentioning God. I suspect God is neither surprised nor hurt, because, as far as I know once again, He or She is not a clingy, needy sort of a deity. But still, even if any particular Democrat remained unaffected by notions of piety, would it have killed them to pander to those who believed?
The big problem was Israel, because the Democrats get a lot of campaign contributions and support from American Jews who by necessity feel kinship with Israel. And if we don't support Israel, there's a good chance Israel would be erased as a necessary first step to the establishment of the Caliphate. Not a good thing in my opinion.
Anyhow, many Democrats thought once again about the platform, and there was a motion to amend the platform, to restore God and Israel to the platform language. Evidently it takes a 2/3 vote to amend the platform at this point. So a voice vote was taken. All in favor, say aye; all opposed, no. It sounded evenly spread between the ayes and nos to me and I think it sounded even to the chair as well. But without blinking an eye or a blush of a cheek, the chair announced that the ayes were 2/3rds of the votes and the motion passed. (I'm pretty sure the motion didn't pass, even at a simple majority, because I don't think there was a majority. It sounded 50/50 to me.) Anyhow, all the no-sayers instantly turned to boo-sayers. Loudly.
But here's the thing. If I were wealthy, and Jewish, and believed in big cradle-to-grave government, I still would be disinclined to give the Democrats any money. Why? Because about half the assembled convention loudly voted against supporting Israel. If I were Jewish, I'd uncomfortable with that.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Follow up . . . Social Security Administration, too?
The Social Security Administration wants to buy 174,000 rounds of .357 pistol ammunition.
This bears repeating. The Social Security Administration wants to buy 174,000 rounds of .357 pistol ammunition.
What, they want to get prepared for when us geezers, codgers and coots get unruly?
Wonder if it is possible to mount a rifle scabbard on an aluminum walker, kind of like they mount saddle rifles? Maybe crosswise, like in the back window of pickup trucks?
I don't, myself, own a gun. Sarcasm has always been my weapon of choice. But . . .
?
This bears repeating. The Social Security Administration wants to buy 174,000 rounds of .357 pistol ammunition.
What, they want to get prepared for when us geezers, codgers and coots get unruly?
Wonder if it is possible to mount a rifle scabbard on an aluminum walker, kind of like they mount saddle rifles? Maybe crosswise, like in the back window of pickup trucks?
I don't, myself, own a gun. Sarcasm has always been my weapon of choice. But . . .
?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Does hollow point ammunition expand upon striking paper targets . . . and other interesting questions.
Here's something interesting, and by interesting, I mean alarmingly peculiar.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wants to buy 46,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, the kind that expands when it hits somebody. Also, a thousand paper targets.
Originally, this was published as being for the National Weather Service part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and then people started wondering why those boys would need bullets, so a correction was issued, stating that there was a clerical mistake. It isn't for the weathermen at all; it's all for Fish and Wildlife.
Well, okay then. I guess that means that they plan on missing all the paper targets altogether up to 46 times before actually hitting one of 'em. And just how many Fish and Wildlife guys do they have, guns blazing away?
But hey. Aren't handguns all about shooting people? Nobody goes hunting for deer or elk or bears or just little varmints with handguns; they use rifles. Right?
And what people? Certainly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration isn't contemplating using all those rounds of ammunition just on a thousand paper targets, which would be absurd. And they certainly aren't going to use them on fellow government employees.
I think that means that some of us are anticipated to be the targets.
Oh, and relate Fish and Wildlife ammunition purchase to the recent riot control training given to some United States military personnel, and things are looking increasingly spooky.
At this point, leaping to conclusions would be paranoid, recognizing that all that ammunition could be intended either for offense or defense, or maybe just for sale to some fast and furious drug cartel, which, given recent history is not that far fetched.
Nevertheless, can you say Second Amendment, boys and girls?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wants to buy 46,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, the kind that expands when it hits somebody. Also, a thousand paper targets.
Originally, this was published as being for the National Weather Service part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and then people started wondering why those boys would need bullets, so a correction was issued, stating that there was a clerical mistake. It isn't for the weathermen at all; it's all for Fish and Wildlife.
Well, okay then. I guess that means that they plan on missing all the paper targets altogether up to 46 times before actually hitting one of 'em. And just how many Fish and Wildlife guys do they have, guns blazing away?
But hey. Aren't handguns all about shooting people? Nobody goes hunting for deer or elk or bears or just little varmints with handguns; they use rifles. Right?
And what people? Certainly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration isn't contemplating using all those rounds of ammunition just on a thousand paper targets, which would be absurd. And they certainly aren't going to use them on fellow government employees.
I think that means that some of us are anticipated to be the targets.
Oh, and relate Fish and Wildlife ammunition purchase to the recent riot control training given to some United States military personnel, and things are looking increasingly spooky.
At this point, leaping to conclusions would be paranoid, recognizing that all that ammunition could be intended either for offense or defense, or maybe just for sale to some fast and furious drug cartel, which, given recent history is not that far fetched.
Nevertheless, can you say Second Amendment, boys and girls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)