Thursday, December 23, 2010
by Burt Prelutsky
I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.
How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90% of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.
Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.
That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.
Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.
But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.
My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26% of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.
You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.
I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority.
I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.
I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons - Christian reasons - that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.
This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group - and one of the smaller ones at that - I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.
- Crucial means "of the cross". Francis Bacon coined the term instantia crucis, or a crucial instance, where a decision must be made which will change forever a course. This does not indicate a simple choice, but one of difficulty, weight, and merit.
- Crucify means "to make or become a cross". When the Romans used crucifixion to execute someone, they did so with specific intent. If they wished only to display the corpse of someone they executed, there are much more expedient methods. If crucifixion were meant to simiply kill, there are more efficient ways. To crucify someone was to kill a person, in public display, by a method which also tortured the victim. The cross was meant to be cruel and vicious.
- Excruciating means "causing intense suffering; torturing". A translation from the Latin means "Deriving from the cross". Our concept for torturous pain comes directly from crucifixion. To be crucified was, litterally, excruciating.
When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor. - Matthew 27:12-14
Friday, December 17, 2010
[Federal Reserve examiners] from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say "Merry Christmas, God With Us." were inappropriate.
[They] believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."
The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslin(sic) or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
(At CPAC 2010)
see below the three videos, each followed by some excerpted quotes from the associated video... enjoy!
- (quoting Samuel Johnson) 'People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.'
- In September 1933, with hunger stalking the land, [the New Deal] ordered the slaughter of 6 million pigs. We're smarter. We have Cash-For-Clunkers.
- Here we have an administration that can imagine a world without the internal combustion engine, but not a world without the Chrysler Corporation.
- No one washes a rental car. You take care of your own.
- If you confiscated all the profits of the American Pharmaceutical industry, you would lower the pharmaceutical portion of our healthcare bill from 10% all the way down to 8%. And in the process you would of course killed the industry's capacity for innovation, which it funds out of profits.
- If you confiscated all the profits of the Healthcare industry in our country, you could pay with those profits two days of American healthcare.
- [American sense of entitlement] is why, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you can buy a five-inch fishing lure that states, "Harmful if swallowed."
- If you work hard... and reach age 65 and say, "The hell with it, I'm going to Las Vegas and blow my money away," that's fine. It's a free country. But if you save it and try to give it to your children, the government will try to come in and take a bite out of it. What is wrong with that picture?
- Did you ever think that envy is the only one of the seven deadly sins that doesn't give the sinner even momentary pleasure? I know what you're doing. You're going down the list.
- By a show of hands, how many of you honestly know that by 2014 we begin outlawing incandescent light bulbs? [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007]
- We have two parties for a reason. We have different sensibilities, Liberal and Conservative... Now we are plied and belabored with the idea that American gridlock is a terrible problem. Ladies and gentlemen, American gridlock is an American achievement.
- When the founding fathers went to Philadelphia... they did not go to create an efficient government. The idea would have horrified them. They wanted a safe government.
- We have far more to fear from swift than torpid government.
- (quoting Winston Churchill) 'American people invariably do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives.'
Monday, December 13, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
often (actually, ALL the time) youth don't appreciate what has been done for them... and when they become an adult, they are surprised at all the dangers which "suddenly" face them on a daily basis... but it's not that the dangers are new... it's that the danger is new to them.
i just read an example of this... it's a "friend of a friend of a friend" situation, so there's no need for names.
this young man (i.e. new adult, 20-something) contracted a viral infection... being young, he just felt tired... he wore out more easily than he did the week before... so he drank more caffeine and moved on... shortly thereafter, he was exposed to (what he was told was) "black mold", which can be toxic and cause several health issues... to combat this, he used "Broncaid", which is a medicine to ease and relieve shortness of breath and coughing associated with bronchial asthma... he also moved from coffee and soda to energy drinks, like Red Bull... while all of this got him through the day, it didn't solve the problem... so, thinking if a little does a little good, then a lot must do a lot of good, he took a couple extra Broncaids, along with his Red Bulls... about five Red Bulls.
he woke up in the hospital, where apparently, he flatlined (i.e. died) at least once.
so, if an adult (i.e. parent, teacher, pastor, police officer, crossing guard, etc.) doesn't let a child do something that they want (i.e. stay up late, drink energy drinks, eat sweets, drive across state lines, see R-rated movies, etc.), it is generally for the good of the child.
when this young man has a child (thus, becoming the defacto adult), you can bet the experience gained will frustrate his child... his child will probably want to stay up late, drink energy drinks, and take cold medicine... and the adult will say, "No, no, and no".
and his child will mutter under its breath how stupid adults are... but maybe, just maybe, they won't end up in the hospital on a ventilator.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: November 29, 20101:00 am Eastern© 2010
With Thanksgiving behind us and Christmas before us, we are once again reminded of the integrated ways our Creator has a role in our culture from the beginning. But will it stay that way?
As far back as the Declaration of Independence, our founders affirmed together, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Now, 250 years later, however, some media caught how President Obama twice omitted the words "by their Creator" when reciting the Declaration in speeches over the past several weeks.
But I discovered actually seven presidential "Creator" omissions in just the past few months!
- On Oct. 21, 2010, at a rally for Sen. Murray in Seattle, Wash.:
"None of us would be here if it weren't for that extraordinary leap of faith that had been taken. Thirteen colonies deciding to start a revolution based on an idea that had never been tried before – a government of and by and for the people. A government based on the simple proposition that all men are created equal. That we're endowed with certain inalienable rights."
- On Oct. 18, 2010, at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dinner in Rockville, Md.:
"It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
- On Oct. 17, 2010 at a reception for Gov. Ted Strickland in Chagrin Fall, Ohio.:
"The idea of America has never been easy. The notion of 13 colonies coming together and overthrowing the greatest empire in the world, and then drafting a document that says, we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights – that's hard."
- On Sept. 22, 2010, at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dinner in New York, N.Y.:
"And what was sustaining us was that sense that – that North Star, that sense that, you know what, if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we're going to make those words live, and we're going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class,…"
- On Sept. 15, 2010, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd annual awards gala in Washington, D.C.:
"But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together – what made us all Americans – was not a matter of blood, it wasn't a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
- On Sept. 11, 2010, at the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Va.:
"For our cause is just. Our spirit is strong. Our resolve is unwavering. Like generations before us, let us come together today and all days to affirm certain inalienable rights, to affirm life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
- On Sept. 10, 2010, at the president's press conference at the White House:
"With respect to the mosque in New York, I think I've been pretty clear on my position here, and that is, is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal; that they have certain inalienable rights – one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."
Thank God that President Obama got it right on July 4, 2010, from the White House Blue Room balcony:
"And here in a still young century, let us renew our commitment to stand with those around the world who, like us, still believe in that simple yet revolutionary notion – that we are all endowed by our Creator 'with certain unalienable rights.'"
Les Kinsolving, WorldNetDaily's correspondent at the White House, asked Press Secretary's Robert Gibbs, "Why did he omit this part of the Declaration?" Gibbs' only explanation was, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester, but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence."
Is that a reasonable excuse and explanation? To you, is omitting "endowed by their Creator" from direct quotes of the Declaration in several speeches a permissible benign act of the president of the United States?
To me, it is not only what a man includes, but omits, that tells you everything about him. As Leo F. Buscaglia once said, "Things omitted are often more deadly than errors committed."
Even more apropos, the president might heed the words of American novelist William Faulkner, who said, "Tomorrow night is nothing but one long sleepless wrestle with yesterday's omissions and regrets."
[the above is copied from WorldNetDaily; formatting modified only where necessary for this blog's appearance; don't hurt me, Mr. Norris]
Monday, November 29, 2010
Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not.come on... that's funny... it's sensible to assume that you examine historical evidence to base your hypothesis for future outcomes... if you burn your hand on the stove, you shouldn't touch it again... if raising the tax rates of the highest income brackets has not produced additional income, maybe you shouldn't raise the tax rates.
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell from $14.369 trillion in 2008 down to $14.256 trillion in 2009... that's a $113,000,000,000 (that's billion) free-fall in one year... that doesn't necessarily mean we produced less quantity... but the value of what was produced has fallen... the net result is, businesses made less capital (e.g. money) for their investment... this equals less profit... less profit means these companies have less to reinvest in future gains (i.e. less research, less new hiring, less development).
however, China isn't having these problems... and if a business invests its excess capital (e.g. profit) into this foreign market, it will make a higher return on the investment (e.g. more money).
so, to keep companies from moving to China, we need to raise the GDP... to raise the GDP, we need to keep companies from moving to China... sounds circular?... you bet... but you can do things to keep companies from leaving other than raising the GDP... what do you think one of these things would be?
perhaps some sort of incentive could be used... i don't know... maybe tax incentives... or maybe, just maybe, you don't penalize people for being successful!
Monday, November 22, 2010
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.[emphasis, italics and otherwise, added]
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
DEAR Uncle Sam,
My mother told me to send thank-you notes promptly. I’ve been remiss.
though i loathe to post a corporate insider's self-serving opinions, i think we would be remiss in not hearing the truth from a billionaire's point of view... and this also serves as counterpoint to the bias against President G.W.Bush as the cause of all our current woes... you see, even Warren Buffett gives credit where credit is due.
And though I never voted for George W. Bush, I give him great credit for leading, even as Congress postured and squabbled.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
That the phrase 'under God' has some religious content … is not determinative of the New Hampshire Act's constitutionality. This is in part because the Constitution does not 'require complete separation of church and state.'
It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion. The New Hampshire School Patriot Act's primary effect is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
FDA estimates 14 million hours annually to be spent complying with Obamacare law... so THAT's where those "jobs created or saved" figures are coming from!!!
Federal Register (GPO) FDA estimates
that's just freaking great!... and those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer... now my Little Debbie snack cake is going to require financing!
i wonder if i can get a sub-prime loan for a Twinkie?
Monday, November 1, 2010
let the debunking begin:
- "Tax breaks for corporations" - we addressed this in another post, but corporations are the vehicles who create jobs, not the government... and President Clinton signed NAFTA.
- "Katrina / levee failures" - while Bush did cut funds to the Corp of Engineers (who build the levees), that project would not have been completed until 2015... Clinton, however, cut funds to ALL military, from 1992 through 2000... THOSE projects would have finished before 2005 and "might" have saved portions of New Orleans.
- "Needless war in Iraq" - well, if you count harboring terrorists (proven as early as 1999 in Al-Majallah, the London arabic language magazine; to Missouri's own Dick Gephardt (D) saying in a 2002 This Week interview, "There's lots of intelligence and it's additive as you go along, of meetings between Iraqi military and intelligence officials and members of al Qaeda.")... or the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that Iraq had and USED... if the gassing of 3000 Kurds wasn't enough proof (dead bodies don't lie), how about the uranium (a.k.a. Yellowcake) which CNN reported being found (July 7, 2008) in Iraq?... how about 500 TONS of it?... funny, they don't have those kind of reactors.
- "Record Deficit" - do we have to talk about record deficits?... Obama has you beat, buddy... and he's still passing spending bills (not to mention the Healthcare takeover).
- "Spending money on our nation is wasted money" - wait... what?... i guess you can make any spurious claim you want.
- "Wall Street Bailout" - if the Democrats hadn't placed lending rules which forced banks to give marginal loans to get FICA backing, causing banks to sell these loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government institutions), causing Wall Street traders to trade these loans with the expectation of them collapsing (betting against them)... i won't go on... a Ponzi scheme only can run for so long before it collapses and destroys the lowest tier... and you can't secure a loan when it is a no-credit, no-collateral, no-SIGNATURE contract... ridiculous.
- "State rights / narrow point of view" - right... so when the populous votes against [homosexual marriage][marijuanna legalization][insert other liberal agenda], then it's up to the liberal judges (often appointed) to overturn the will of the majority... wait, that's the Democrats... how about when a state votes to uphold federal immigration statutes?... it was the Democrats who took the state to court; imposing their "narrow point of view" on the sovereign state.
- "Blocked healthcare for 9/11 responders" - why did the Democrats suspend House rules in an attempt to pass this bill without debate or amendments?... by doing so (suspending rules) they caused the bill to require a 2/3 majority... NOW needing 291 votes, they got 255... had they not played rule-games, they would have needed 218 votes, well below what they got... maybe it's not the Republicans who blocked the bill... they just wanted a hand in it... the Dem's were hoist of their own petard.
- "Dismantled agencies which protect food supply" - yeah, cutting government waste causes salmonella... i wonder what dismantling the US Military does?... or the CIA, FBI, DHS, ICE and Border Patrol.
- "Wealthy" - again, they make the jobs and pay the majority of the taxes... figure out economics.
- "Social Sec / Medicare" - agreed... we should funnel more money into these bottomless pits of inefficiency and fraud... they're working so well... oh, and why did the Democrats refuse to increase Social Security payments in line with inflation this year?... did we not have inflation?
- "Civil Rights" - those damn Republicans... always against Civil Rights... especially those Republicans like these guys:
Booker T. Washington
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- "Civil Rights, continued" - how about these notable Democrats?
Nathan Bedford Forrest - KKK Grand Dragon
Robert Byrd - Senator
Harry S. Truman (joined the KKK in Kansas City to garner votes)
Hugo Black (FDR's first appointment to the Supreme Court and lifelong KKK member)
Albert Gore, Sr (Al's dad) opposed the '64 Civil Rights Act
AL Governor George Wallace (declared there would be segregation forever)
- "Less money = More money" - it's economics, guys!... learn the Laffer Curve... i just did an entire post on this... if you can't look that up, watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off... Ben Stein defines it well.
- "In power / Banking crisis" - yeah, arrest the paramedics at the scene of the accident... hang the janitor for cleaning up other people's messes.
- "Take our country back" - wasn't this the slogan of Obama?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
well, it's obvious that these pundits don't read history... and they've never understood the Laffer Curve (which was explained in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) by none other than Ben Stein...
- cutting taxes will cost money
- extending tax cuts will hurt the economy
- reducing the income tax will reduce federal program funding
for those of us who don't know of the Laffer Curve (and refuse to look it up), let me explain... imagine a bell-shaped curve; low on one end, rising sharply up, the curve leveling off like a high-thrown baseball, dropping sharply back down, and ending as low as it begun... what this describes, is that the amount of money generated for the federal government by means of income taxes (height of the curve at any one point) is relative to the percent of income taxed (distance left-to-right on the curve)... for example, if you have an income tax of 0%, or no income tax, then the money generated is $0... that's obvious... but if income tax is 100% of earned income, the money generated will ALSO be $0... this is because there is no reason for anyone to earn income if it is taken away... therefore, income drops to zero, and 100% of nothing is still nothing.
the typical Laffer Curve is shown as symmetrical, but in practice it isn't... however, in practice, this concept is absolutely true... when there is no incentive to work for income, especially if your income is taken from you, then there is no reason to work... some may say that socialist or communist financial systems, where income is pooled and distributed, solves the issue of incentive... but it hardly gives one incentive if you work a 40-hour week for the same benefits your neighbor gets for doing nothing... why not do nothing, also?
well, at some point, the government out-taxes itself... but no one is going to ever come NEAR to 100% taxation, right?... that would be idiotic?... beware the idiots of Congress.
in 1916, the top income bracket paid 15% in income taxes... the lowest; 2% income taxes... by 1918, the lowest wage earners had a shock when they paid 12% income taxes... imagine the riots if we asked today's lowest earners to pony up an additional 10%!... but the highest earners of 1918 paid an astounding 77% income tax, a jump of 62%!... for the rich, there was no relief... from 1919 through 1921, they paid 73% of their income to the federal government.
well, if you apply the Laffer Curve to this, you already know what happened... those who earned less than $10,000 paid in total $155million in taxes... those who earned over $100,000 paid in total $194million in taxes... in 1921, there was the dreaded tax-cuts-for-the-rich (down to a whole 58%), after which the first group paid only $32million in taxes and the latter group paid $361million...
tax cuts yield more from the wealthy because they will invest that money into income-generating opportunities... that means, the wealthy will hire more people and produce more goods with the extra income, from which they will earn more income and pay more taxes...
tax cuts for the poor (and often for the "middle-class") yield nothing but less income tax... a 10% tax cut for a $50,000 worker (estimating $5,000 in taxes) gets $500 in savings... they may use this to pay down debt or take a long weekend vacation... it doesn't generate ANYTHING.
tax cuts of this sort do nothing for the economy... maybe a short-term bump in sales-tax, but over all, it's meaningless... so the next time you hear someone claim they want tax cuts for the poor and middle-class, you should know immediately that they are lying to you... they're lying or woefully ignorant.
and neither a liar nor an ignoramus should be running our government.
Friday, October 29, 2010
huffpost shows their idiocy (again)... it's called historic reenactment... and to show the history, everyone cannot dress as US troops...
i can't believe how sheep-like some of the comments have been... the DCCC doesn't even think to ask "why" was he wearing this?... apparently, if you wear a costume, you must subscibe to those beliefs... if you wear a Michael Vick jersey, you must support dog fighting... whatever you do, don't dress like a witch this Halloween, or you'll have to start attending Wican ceremonies!... heaven forbid you dress like a ghost in a sheet!
ridiculous, narrow-minded idiots.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thursday, October 28, 2010
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4 Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:
a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;
b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;
c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The Common Good before the individual good.
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
Consider these examples:
- Illegal immigrants are only doing what they think is best for their families; yet, they are still breaking the law.
- A woman has the right to choose to not have a baby; abortion still ends a life.
- Those who do not have healthcare would benefit from having it; someone has to pay for it.
- The unemployed need capital to survive; someone has to work for it.
The woman has every right to choose what to do with her body. It is not anyone else's decision. Every individual has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When do we grant the same honor on the child which was conceived? A child, born one second ago, cannot be killed lest it be deemed murder. A child, waiting to be born in one second, is simply a late-term abortion. Some would still value this as murder, but terminate that life three months early, and it's no longer murder. It's a medical procedure. Removing an unwanted growth.
Healthcare and welfare are both zero-sum games. Someone benefits from the work of another. A single mother, whose sole income was her deceased husband who died without life insurance to cover even his own funeral, has few choices in healthcare and welfare. As a society, we make the judgement that she is in need and worthy of help. Our work goes to care for her and her children. Yet, if her children grow up and do not provide for themselves or their own children, when do we make the value judgement to cease assisting them? And when we do, aren't we "taking away" their subsistence and their homes?
Every one of these choices is a value judgement. If you believe one way greater than the other, that is your right. But never dismiss the other end of the spectrum. It is equally as valid.
Friday, October 8, 2010
$218,206,202,543 awardedis anyone doing the math on this?... they have awarded $218 BILLION and made 750 THOUSAND jobs... that is the US Government, your tax dollars, paying $290,924.15 PER PERSON to create or save their job... has this not sunk into your heads yet?... they are actually saying, even admitting, that they are paying an average of a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS to create a single job... and the government, our government, is okay with this!
$85,703,541,778 funds received
750,045 jobs created or saved reported
but... let's take a breath... step back and consider the bigger picture... some of that money goes to create the business which then hires the people... perhaps there's a market which needed capital to tap into, thus the created job provides a useful service, creates a product, and provides long-term employment, thus generating sales tax, income tax, Social Security, etc... you have to spend money to make money... i get that...
or... you could give $50,000 each to 4 million people and call it a day... they'll spend it.
or... you could buy a house (average of $200,000) for each of 1 million people and call it a day... they'll pay taxes on it.
the point is, the "Recovery" is just another way to take money from all of us and give it to some of us... if this were a capitalist system, the people who took a financial risk reaped the benefit (or suffered the loss)... good thing we don't live there! (for humor impared, that's sarcasm!)
just for fun, check out the Gross Domestic Product over the last couple years... call me stupid, but this fiasco has been during a Democrat controlled Congress... prior to that, things were pretty good...
and the manufactured growth appears to be failing, too... but that's just me being an optimist.
i'm sure i'll be thought less of for saying this, but do we really need a law passed rebranding mental retardation as "intellectual disability"?... really?... a LAW?
Merriam-Webster defines retardation as slowness of development or progress... disability is a restriction, disadvantage, or impairment... yet the offensive term is the most benign... if you have a retardation, you have a slowed progress... your progress hasn't stopped, just slowed... but if you have a disability, you are impaired and restricted... you're at a disadvantage... a disability often means you cannot succeed... retardation just means it may take longer to succeed...
but i'm not blind to the cause of this law... mean and hateful people have used the term "retard" as a pejorative... there are hundreds of examples of this... many of them, even i am hesitant to utter... or even write on the internet... normal, often technically correct, words are deemed offensive... mainly due to people, whom we would typically disdain anything they might say, using the words in an attempt to hurt other people...
now, so not to offend, the term "retarded" is off limits... to quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"... do we really need to make a law every time someone gets offended?... at what point do we make it official and deputize the Thought Police?...
i would say that practice is retarded, but that would imply progress... this law is intellectually disabled.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
today's topic is "gays in the military"... again, a sensitive subject for many on both sides... "straights" oppose it for various reasons, many of them of personal nature... gays support it for opposite reasons, but these reasons are also very personal... so, let's discuss one portion of the issue, without trying to get off into any quasi-moral or religious debates... let's discuss fraternization.
fraternization: fraternus - "brotherly"; to associate on friendly terms; mingle, consort, mixthe military has a severe dislike of fraternization... typically, it is meant to discourage favoritism or discord between officers and enlisted personnel... however, with the introduction of females into the military, fraternization has taken on a much broader meaning... members of equal rank, but opposite sexes, are segregated... while their MOS may be the same, and they may work hand-in-hand, they do not mingle, mix, or consort with one another (fraternize) outside their work scopes... in more plain terms, they don't bunk together...
this is not to say they don't date... members of equal rank may see one another socially... however, the military does not promote by social-group... if you are promoted to a rank above your significant other, you have placed yourself in a position where favoritism may be shown, one to another... this is natural between partners; this is illegal to the UCMJ... what yesterday was harmless, today is a court-marshaling offense...
fraternization between equals can still cause disorder and havoc in a military regiment... there is nothing wrong with well qualified women being in front-line positions... if they can do the job, let them do it... but how do you handle the known issue of fraternization?... by placing two (assuming heterosexual) people of the same gender in life-or-death situations, they naturally form a strong bond... what happens to that bond when they are opposite gender in the same situation?... that bond can easily progress to more... and then decisions of the two are compromised... they are no longer soldiers, but lovers... loyalties can get confused...
the simple solution to such a complex issue is to keep the genders separate... but what can the military do when gender is removed?... what do you do when your brigade has GBLT members?... at what point does the personal choices of some become greater than the good of the whole?... i'm not going to argue whether it's a personal choice or not... let's assume for this argument that it is a genetic/physical manifestation... fine... what do you do about having homosexuals serving in quarters?... working/fighting/bunking together?... do you attempt separation, like they do with male/female soldiers?... is there a "gay brigade"?... (a horrible term, but it keeps bouncing around in my head)...
separation doesn't solve the problem of fraternization... it actually compounds it... it places soldiers in a situation where fraternization is difficult to escape... where, at some point, it may become "normal"... the military unit is no longer fighting for God and Country, but for each other... it breeds dissension in the ranks of the unit... will a sargent send his/her lover out on point, or to charge a fortification, or first into a tunnel?... when does fraternization between individuals endanger others?...
and to touch on the "personal choice" issue for a moment, at what point does the Transgender get introduced?... i'm not talking those who have medically reconstructed themselves... but those who have decided that they prefer the garb of the opposite gender... do they get special treatment?... do we issue unisex uniforms?... and if we do, does that mean that the heterosexual females give up their right to their femininity?... or do we put the men in kilts and have a Scottish Brigade?...
the issue at hand is greater than even what i've discussed here... it's all well and good that homosexuals want to be treated equally and fairly, but what do the rest of us have to lose to give them this modicium of equality?...
and where do we stop?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."... i think he was close... first, try patriotism... at least attempt to gain favor by that common bond... but if that doesn't work, try vicious personal attacks.
i knew it was coming... when Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Party nomination for the Senate seat in Delaware over the Republican Party darling, Mike Castle, i knew the claws would come out... during the Republican race, it wasn't surprising to see some mud-slinging... Castle didn't want to lose, did he?... so it got a bit nasty between the two... while i didn't see the advertisements or the period leading up to the nomination, i imagine there was some nasty blows felled by both Castle and O'Donnell... she's a politician now, so it's to be expected (sad, isn't that?)... anyway, she won, and the Republican Party decided to be patriots and back her as "their" candidate... she ran on the Republican ticket, since she won, they might as well back her as best they can...
but WHOA!, when she won, the Democrats skipped right over Patriotism... they've gone straight to personal attacks on her character and ability... it's no wonder there are comparisons between O'Donnell and Sarah Palin... the Democrats hate her, too!...
i already noted (by twitter) how they had already begun attacking O'Donnell by referencing her in a 1996 video in which she references masturbation (oh, the horror)... according to the Democrats, her comments are those of an idiot who thinks masturbation is equivalent to adultery... the problem is that she was discussing the spread of AIDS, not the prevalence of adultery (or masturbation)... her commentary was about how the discussion of AIDS had been turned by liberals (read: Democrats) from the actual causes of the spread of the disease... you see, the liberals suggested that one method to prevent the spread of AIDS was to teach school children about masturbation... (i bet these same people are now required to register their domicile with the state, and can't live within 5-miles of a school, but i digress)... O'Donnell's revolutionary suggestion was this:
as for masturbation, O'Donnell dismissed that as not addressing the core issue of AIDS, which is promiscuity... and she's right... masturbation isn't abstinence... it's not even close... much of the time, it's meant to inflame the lusts which would lead to promiscuity...
- have one sexual parter (it's called monogamy, for those who haven't heard of it)
- have sexual relations only once you have committed yourself in marriage (and that's until death do you part)
but, in true scoundrel fashion, the Democrats want to turn this into "she's a crazy anti-masturbation religion-freak"... they want to turn it into personal attacks...
James Carville, a Democrat "strategist" (read: lead attack dog), went on to attack O'Donnell further... he called her a "fiscal conservative" (to him, that's an insult)... and to support this, he noted how she took several years to pay off her student loans! (the horror)... i ask you; just how many college age students are financially responsible?... damn few, that's how many (myself included)... for that matter, several of them will run up credit card debts which take them even longer to pay off (myself included, again)...
they've gone so far as to say that she defaulted on her home mortgage... i know that it is a shock, but maybe she defaulted because she couldn't afford it... you know; like all those sub-prime mortages that the Democrats forced Fannie-May and Freddie-Mac to subsidize... you remember; the ones that we had the bail-out for... maybe you should look up TARP, and i'm not talking canvas...
and now, they say she was $11,000 in arrears to the IRS, which she settled for an "undisclosed amount"... hmmm... who else has had IRS troubles?... Dom Daschle-$140,167... Timothy Geithner-$35,000... Kathleen Sebelius-$7,918... as a matter of fact (and of record) there is $9.3 million in overdue taxes on Capitol Hill... sounds like a case of pots and kettles, to me...
no... sounds like the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not a new problem...Natives Americans (some of my ancestors) use to call it WHITE PEOPLE.so, is what you're saying, everyone go home?... or is it that unchecked migration is okay?... if it's #1, then you're against illegal immigration, and you're for returning the Gaza back to the Israelites... if it's #2, then you're okay with people stealing goods and services from tax payers, without paying taxes, themselves...
if you're for #1, fine, but we "invaders" are taking our industry and agriculture back with us... your "ancestors" were perfectly fine the way they were with their 40 year life-span and 500 warring tribes...
and if you're for #2, you're the reason we pay for billions in healthcare for people who want to be nothing more than parasites... having LEGAL immigrants is what has made America the greatest country in the world; a country where people like you are able to espouse their point of view, no matter how foolish...
so, which is it?... do you want the Jewish people to return to their homes in Israel?... or do you want to send the rest of us into poverty paying for people who don't contribute to the greater good?
and this said on September 11th... a day when people should be patriots... this guy wants to either dissolve the country or destroy it.
Friday, September 10, 2010
As a general matter, immigration officers should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanori have a wild idea... how 'bout you keep them in custody for some other law they broke... like the Immigration laws?... just me thinkin' again.
if i don't have my driver's license, i'll get detained... heck, i didn't show up to traffic court once, and they issued a warrant for my arrest!... these guys enter our country illegally, and they get released?... if i didn't know better, i'd say there's racial profiling going on, and they singled out ME!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
a portion of his rant follows:
I consider myself conservative and responsible, but I have never seen so many ill-informed and downright selfish people in one place in my life as I found at Freedomworks. I find some of your views on unemployment particularly vile, as many of you want to blame high unemployment numbers on the unemployed and many of you want to take away unemployment benefits...my sole source of income at the moment.being the jerk that i am, i let him know how his response upset me...
Let me make it perfectly clear, I did not choose to become unemployed, I do not enjoy being unemployed. I and no other unemployed person chose to send all of our manufacturing to China. Unemployment insurance is paid by our former employers on our behalf, it is not welfare, it is there precisely to help working people who have lost their jobs. Anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my butt, go straight to you know where and tell the Devil I sent you. That is all.
i was recently laid off and went on unemployment... i couldn't find work in my field (architeture)... so i looked in related fields (marine arch., engineering, drafting)... no luck... i looked in similar fields (construction mgmt, etc.)... ...no dice... i looked in unrelated fields (store management, personnel, etc.)... some... i looked into menial fields (labor, manufacturing, fry cook)... lots... there's work out there... if you're willing.the part that many people seem to overlook when discussing unemployment, welfare, or any other social program is that these are intended to HELP people in need... they are not lifestyles... the complaint many have is not the existence of the government program, but the abuse of the government program... i am (temporarily) working for someone who is deeply involved in public housing... he has experience in public office... he works with, and for, people who are unemployed, on welfare, receive food stamps, etc... he is an advocate for those in need... and even he says the government throws away money on them... for example, in one housing area, the people living there receive free homes, utility stipends (which are not required to be used for utilities), food allowances, and a dozen other government assistance programs, not to mention the regular building maintenance and support at the government's expense... each year, it would be financially cheaper to buy each of them a house, give it to them, and walk away than it is to continue to provide them the constant support they demand... and we're not talking one-room shacks... we're talking 2BR, 1-1/2 bath, 1000 square feet, A/C, full kitchen, washer/dryer hookups, each with all the amenities... not the Taj Mahal, but we are talking free, here!...
i was unemployed for two whole weeks... i got one whole unemployment check... now, i recently got lucky and i got an offer in my field, which i start in two weeks... but, if able and willing, there is no reason to be unemployed for TWO YEARS... the people who are unwilling are the ones we complain about... and if that includes you, you can kiss mine right back... there's a ditch somewhere that needs digging... get a shovel.
another example he cites is an elderly lady he once met... in all probability, she needed the government assistance... her husband had passed, children moved out, no savings to speak of, no applicable skill, health issues... she needs the assistance... however, her children that moved out, moved across the street into public housing... her grand-daughter moved in right next door (in public housing)... and the grand-mother just couldn't be prouder of her family... every single one of them were using the system to get that monthly check for doing nothing other than saying "i want it"...
anecdotal evidence for and against are everywhere... while it would be heartless and unfair to put people out onto the streets, it is equally unfair to take working people's earnings to pay for those who refuse to earn their own way... at some point, by providing a lifestyle without accountability, you have removed the impetus to be self-reliant and self-sufficient...
this, good sir, is what we desperately do not need!
Monday, August 23, 2010
but i have begun to change my mind... these Ramblings i have are fairly incendiary... and often intentionally so... so why should i be the one who has all the fun?... what gives me the right to be selfish?... just because this is "my" blog, why does that give me any more right to say what i want then others?... granted, i'm not anonymous, so my comments are directly attributable to me... i don't have the cover of darkness and cloak of anonymity like others, but that's my choice by having this blog... shame on me... i can't hold everyone to that standard...
so, for now, i have opened this blog to the slings and arrows of anyone and everyone... and i welcome the comments, no matter how full of bile and hatred...
light the flamethrowers... bring on the trolls... let's get it on!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
they have a slideshow of examples of "intolerance" in America... but they don't directly address the issue they are implying... intolerance towards muslims/islam... but the link on every page is Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem?... so the implied connection is that anyone opposed to the proposed mosque in New York is equally racist/biased/ignorant as the people in the slide show...
included in the slide show are anti-semites, anti-Catholics, anti-Mormons, racists, Ku Klux Klan, Chinese-exlusionists, anti-native americans, anti-Japanese in WWII, and unbelievably they even throw in anti-Hare Krishna...
so are we to believe that anyone who disagrees with the choice of placement of a mosque near the place where muslims masacred thousands, that somehow these people are anti-muslim or racist in some fashion?... there is no other connection to be made... a:b::c:d...
at least TIME has preteded to be moderate on the subject in the article...
Islamophobia in the U.S. doesn't approach levels seen in other countries where Muslims are in a minority.
there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the riseso, let me get this straight... if we have an opinion, then we're racist and anti-muslim... we're being attacked around the world, from barracks in Beruit to suicide bombers in the sky... what's a little slap-in-the-face mosque?... why get bent out of shape about that?... how about we go really Christian on this and turn the other cheek?... that cheek has already been slapped.
they (mosque supporters) want us (outraged americans) to respect their rights... i'll stop being outraged when they show a little respect for those who were murdered... i'll respect their rights when they are outraged at those very same murders...
and if they were outraged at the atrocity that was 9/11, they wouldn't propose a mosque in that location... they're not outraged; i don't respect their rights... they are disrespectful; i'll remain outraged... QED
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
now, i don't LIKE Target, for many reasons... many of them are the same reasons i don't like MoveOn.org... call me old-fashioned or (horror!) conservative, but i disagree with just about everything they both do... as a matter of fact, the American Family Association (AFA) had once boycotted Target, and to this day i still do not shop at Target, even after the AFA boycott has ended... but i hold grudges, so that's just me... my family thinks i've lost my mind, i'm sure...
but now, MoveOn.org has lambasted Target for their political contributions to a conservative candidate in MN... that's the pot calling the kettle african-american (because MoveOn.org wouldn't dare call someone black)... on their own website FAQ they say:
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization. Contributions are not tax deductible because they will be used to influence legislation.(emphasis added)i guess corporations like Target cannot contribute to political campaigns... that is unless their names are MoveOn.org, Heinz, or are backed by someone named Soros... then it's fine...
doesn't anyone else see the hypocrisy of this?... i may START shopping at Target, just because they are being attacked by the likes of the MoveOn douche-bags...
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
on a side note, didn't MoveOn do a full-page add in the NYTimes calling General Petraeus as "General Betray Us"?... now there isn't a peep out of them when Obama (almighty and merciful) grants Petaeus control over the War in Afghanistan... bastards; all of them.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
really, MSNBC?... this is what you find "Sexist"?... yet, you don't have the balls, excuse me, the "courage" to defend her when she was attacked for being female... or when she was "accused" of having breast implants...
excuse me, your hypocrisy is showing...
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The pledge of nonviolence written by Martin Luther King Jr., and signed by his marchers, 1963:
1. As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus.here are my downfalls...
2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6. Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Perform regular service for others and the world.
8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.
#2 - i want victory... i know it's not about victory, but often justice isn't enough.
#6 - how to be courteous to your foes?... it's often more strength than i have.
#8 - oh, i won't hit you for what you do, but i may hate you.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
"Oh, woe is me."i'm sick and tired of your whining and crying...
- "no one understands me"
- "everyone hates me"
- "the world is against me"
- "i'm all alone in this world"
oh, shut up... just shut up!... guess what, we do understand you... and even though we do, we still don't hate you... and the world; it's completely indifferent to you... as for being alone, yeah, just like the rest of us... deal with it; we do. (and look how well adjusted we are!)
you're a unique little snowflake... in a blizzard... get used to it... no one promised life was easy... and if all you're going to do is sit around and complain about it, it won't get any easier...
but, if you insist on feeling sorry for yourself, write it down in your diary... write little haiku's about yourself... how you feel... pull it out on rainy afternoons and read it, as if it were someone else's journal, so you can feel like someone understands the complexity of "you" and how "special" you really are... but just keep it yourself... we've got our own problems... and they probably don't involve you at all! (oh, the horror!)
and if, while you're reading this, and you for even one second think this might be about you, you're right... it is...
"Thank you for calling the psychiatric help line.
For megalomania, press #1.
For paranoia, our agents are already on their way to where you are.
For obsessive compulsive disorder, press 333333333333333333333333333333..."
Thursday, June 24, 2010
It brings me no pleasure in writing this letter. Yet, I believe I must address a problem very succinctly. There must be no misunderstanding, especially between people who must cooperate.
On a number of occasions, I have been in the delicate possition of telling my direct superior "No." Whereas I do not wish to contradict anyone with more education, experience, seniority and general knowledge than I have, I also do not wish to exchange my dignity for the expression of agreement and civility between co-workers. I especially do not wish to alienate an employer, much less for an employer whom I respect. However, I will not compomise my own ethics in order to remain in the good graces of anyone who would ask me to compromise those same ethics. Given the choice of doing something for my employers' benefit or doing that which is according to my ethics, I will not hesitate to be ethical.
As an obtuse example, I will not misrepresent myself for the purpose of fulfilling the desires of an egotist. In simpler terms: "Just because you say so doesn't make it right." I realize that children everywhere would cheer hearing that sentiment. Also, "This is how we've always done it," is not acceptable. I don't particularly care how long it has been done wrong. I will not be a party to it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
most would consider me negative because of this... i'm not negative... tactless, maybe... but sugar-coating a poison pill doesn't make it less poison... it just masks the warning signs... if someone is going to bathe a baby in scalding water, you don't explain the thermal transfer characteristics of the infant epidermis... you snatch the baby away from the idiot!... if you hurt their "feelings", that's just too bad... maybe they're the one with the thin skin...
so, i don't know if i will write on this blog as often as i had first hoped... my honesty will probably force me to say something along the lines of "i'm still jobless because i was stabbed in the back by people i thought were friends, or at least should have appreciated what i did for them"... but i might be accused of being "negative"... bite me.
i will still go back through old journals and see what i feel is worth posting... there's a few really good ones... there's a lot of juvenile crap, too... much of these old writings, while deep and thoughtful, were written by a college student who knew everything... youth is wasted on the young...
and i may give my commentary on current events... and i know i'll be accused of being negative on that... but i might as well be Nero while Rome burns, for all the good it does... every day i see idiots doing stupid things, and i want to shout from the roof-tops and warn them... but i'm just called names... often by people i thought were friends...
but i'm the negative one...
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
[Note: This comes from an old journal of mine, about the year 2000-2001.]Meaningless.
Perhaps those of you who are persistently depressed or consistently morbid believe in your hearts that your life, despite your efforts, or perhaps because of them, is ultimately meaningless. Without form or purpose. To this sentiment, I have but one thing to say:
You're probably right.
There may, in fact, be no God or Allah or celestial judgement. No creator. No divine plan. No puzzle for you to be a part in. Not even a minor piece 3/4 from the center of the puzzle. Life may not be a grand play where you are only a spectator. This consciousness may be a biochemical accident in a long string of accidents and chemical coincidences. If this life has no purpose, plan, or meaning, does it matter?
God or no god, does that - should that change what we do?
And why does "meaning" always have to come from an exterior source?
The fact of the matter is, meaning must come from an interior source. "Meaning" only comes from an interior definition of purpose and act. A "meaningful act" which is derived from a "meaningful purpose" can only have "meaning" or definition on a purely personal level.
Simply put, if it has no meaning to you, then it will have little meaning to anyone else. I have a hard time seeing someone showing up to Heaven (or Valhalla; whatever) after a life which contained much personal meaning only to hear from God, "You have led a trite and meaningless life."
Psychosis aside, meaning is meaning. Devotion to the collection of stamps may even border on psycho, but if it is for the purpose of preserving our postal heritage for your grandchildren, I say that has meaning. God may privately make jokes about it with the angels, but deep down I think any god would respect that purpose as meaningful.
Basically, I mean to say the following:
Get off your ass and do something meaningful! Don't ask your neighbor if they think it is the noble, meaningful thing to do. Just find a thing, anything, which provides you purpose and meaning. Examine the purpose and define for yourself the meaning. Don't get caught up with who will notice. Don't worry about being recognized for your postal-preserving efforts. Don't let anyone stop you from living at the bottom of a lake. Give it meaning! Give it purpose! Give it definition!
Your life can only be meaningless if you allow it.
If you have a purpose but die too soon, then your (shortened) life's meaning is the sad incompletion of a worthwhile goal. And with any luck, your (shortened) life may inspire those who knew your goal to take up that purpose. To make it their own. To give their own pathetic life meaning.
But it starts with you. It starts inside.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
LETTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON TO WILLIAM SHORT, APRIL 13, 1820
"But while this Syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in it's true and high light, as no imposter himself but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it &c. &c. It is the innocence of his character, the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologias in which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes indeed needing indulgence to Eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies too may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and firm corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The Syllabus is therefore of his doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other antient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and disent."
why is it so unbelievable that Jesus was right?... how is it such a mystery that much of the christian Bible is well-intentioned errors?... even Thomas Jefferson understood that religion was important, possibly the MOST important thing to the health of people and society as a whole, but it was only to be understood through calm and logical reasoning...
the laity could only handle the most obvious and benign passages in their religious infancy... the fullness of the "word" is complex and difficult to master... the majority of Christians do not understand that they are simply a sect of Judaism... Jesus was a Rabbi who taught the Torah... it is his clear understanding of the meaning of the Jewish law that made him the savior of the people who follow him... when Jesus speaks in the "New Testament", he is only teaching from the "Old Testament"... it does not supersede the writings which came before... it is only guide to the "word" of God...
take, for instance, the "Gospels"... the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell reasonably the same tale of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth... but on a simple reading of them, it becomes evident that these four books were written by four people who either never witnessed the events, or have bizarrely different recollections of the events... even the language used is so different as to change the story on its most basic level...
for example, Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Jesus as referring to the "Son of Man" (presumably about himself)... John, however, insists on quoting him as "Son of God" (most definitely about himself)... but any good reading of the Torah (or Old Testament, if you wish) finds that applying the term Son of God to one's self would be heresy/blasphemy/downright-evil... Jesus, a rabbi and devout Jew, knows this... so, what did Jesus really say?...
consider the lynch-pin story of the Jesus story; his arrest and sentencing... when Jesus went before the Sanhedrin, each book has an important detail told differently... the chief priest asks point-blank if Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God... Matthew's Jesus replies, "You say it is so"... Mark's Jesus replies a definite, "I am"... Luke's Jesus plays coy; "If I tell you, you wouldn't believe" which could be taken either way (if he says yes, they disbelieve; no, they still disbelieve)... John's Jesus, though he claims title of Son of God throughout John's book, when asked says, "You say I am King [of the Jews]"...
if the four Gospels cannot tell the most important story the same, what makes anyone believe that the rest of the Bible is at all accurate?...
i know this may seem counter-intuitive, but the inaccuracies are proof of the validity of the story... maybe the details are wrong, but the story is true... was there a person known as Jesus who was convicted by the Sanhedrin of blaphemy?... of course... this can be verified even through non-biblical sources, but let's stay with the Bible... did this Jesus person have a following to whom he taught?... yes... did he teach from the Torah?... yes... did he teach his congregation through parable?... obviously...
and did those who wrote it down ever get it wrong?... let he who is without sin, cast the first stone...
but this is an audience of one, right now... for metaphor's sake, it's easier to hit a crowd of people with a single rock than it is to hit one person who sees it coming...
well, i guess i should start with the most fundamental of all things... religion... and let he who is without sin cast the first stone...