Does it really matter if the wealthy are wealthy, as long as the rest of us have a job, enough to eat, and a roof over our heads? One might think not. After all, money is paper, and can be manufactured and circulated endlessly, so long as it retains its value, at least to some degree. And besides, money isnt even paper, now its electronic signals. Money, in the abstract, is not a zero sum game.
But money won't, it can't, retain its value, if it is manufactured and circulated endlessly, and that's the point.This results in drastic inflation.
By economic definition, the amount of money in circulation is equal to the amount of goods and services extant.
It matters whether individuals own huge amounts of land, because there is only a limited amount of land.
It matters whether individuals own huge amounts of material wealth, because the resources required to produce matrerial wealth are finite, and utilization of said resources produces negative environmental impact,at least to some extent, if only in that said resources involve land use and human labor, both of which are limited.
Since material resources are inherently limited, so must the money supply be limited, in order to avoid drastic inflation. Money thus becomes a zero sum game, in that there can never be artifically large amounts of it circulated. It matters whether individuals are incredibly wealthy, because it places resources off limits to the rest of us, and it cheapens the money supply.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Socrates and Buddha
Socrates sat in his jail cell, condemned to die. He overheard the prisoner next door reciting a poem. Socrates, impressed with the beauty of the recitation, asked the other prisoner to teach it to him.
"You only have a few hours to live, replied the man. Why do you wish to learn a new poem?"
"Before I die, replied Socrates, I want to learn one more thing."
-----------------
Siddhartha Gautama was seeking enlightenment. The quest seemed never ending. His followers lost patience, and abandoned him. Shortly thereafter, seated beneath a Bodi tree, enlightenment came to the newly enlightened one, the Buddha.
He realized that his former followers deserved to know of his success. He found them, and said "you left one day too soon."
He began to speak, and taught them what had been revealed to him. They were amazed at what he said.
A follower asked: "Are you a God?" To which he replied "no".
"Then are you an angel?" Again he replied, "no, I am neither a god nor an angel."
The follower persisted. "Then what are you?'
To which the newly enlightened one replied "I am awake".
"You only have a few hours to live, replied the man. Why do you wish to learn a new poem?"
"Before I die, replied Socrates, I want to learn one more thing."
-----------------
Siddhartha Gautama was seeking enlightenment. The quest seemed never ending. His followers lost patience, and abandoned him. Shortly thereafter, seated beneath a Bodi tree, enlightenment came to the newly enlightened one, the Buddha.
He realized that his former followers deserved to know of his success. He found them, and said "you left one day too soon."
He began to speak, and taught them what had been revealed to him. They were amazed at what he said.
A follower asked: "Are you a God?" To which he replied "no".
"Then are you an angel?" Again he replied, "no, I am neither a god nor an angel."
The follower persisted. "Then what are you?'
To which the newly enlightened one replied "I am awake".
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Think Again
Now we hear that the United States intends to increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf after the American military, for the most part, leaves Iraq by the end of this year. How utterly surprising.
The new arrangement is being called a "bilateral milatary relationship" with the gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, and four other nations. What this means is that the American imperial forces of occupation are simply being moved from land to sea, and from one defeated country to other American dominated countries. The term "bilateral" means that the United States imposes its will on the region, and the region is incapable of offering opposition to the American empire.
The term "new security architecture" is in vogue, which means a slight adjustment to the forces of empire.
Thus, Obama fulfills his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq, but since he never mentioned anything about ending American addiction to oil, or American determination to control world politics, he can present himself as the president who made good on his campaign promises.
Anyone who thought that Obama would be any different from Bush, or Clinton, or any other corporate spokesperson, think again.
The new arrangement is being called a "bilateral milatary relationship" with the gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, and four other nations. What this means is that the American imperial forces of occupation are simply being moved from land to sea, and from one defeated country to other American dominated countries. The term "bilateral" means that the United States imposes its will on the region, and the region is incapable of offering opposition to the American empire.
The term "new security architecture" is in vogue, which means a slight adjustment to the forces of empire.
Thus, Obama fulfills his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq, but since he never mentioned anything about ending American addiction to oil, or American determination to control world politics, he can present himself as the president who made good on his campaign promises.
Anyone who thought that Obama would be any different from Bush, or Clinton, or any other corporate spokesperson, think again.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Justice, where?
In America, to be a celebrity is to be an entitled citizen, with privileges the rest of us do not enjoy. Being a celebrity means that you can abuse yourself and other people seemingly endlessly, and get yet another chance. To be extremely wealthy is, in essence, to be a celebrity, because wealth puts you above the crowd, and often, above the law. We the poor ordinary masses seem to put the wealthy on a level above ourselves. People of a certain age will never forget, for instance, that Senator Edward M. Kennedy got drunk and drove his car into a pond, which resulted in the death of a young attractive woman to whom he claimed he was innocently giving a ride home. After this incident he went straight ahead with his senatorial career, without missing a beat, and only eleven years later made an impressive run at the white house, even though his own democratic party already controlled it.
Guilt and innocence are strange things in America. If you are black, and deal drugs, and get caught, you go to prison. If you are white, you get probation. If you are white and wealthy, you get even less punishment, or none at all.
If you are a wealthy executive for a major financial institution, and have defrauded customers of billions of dollars, and your corporation is facing bankruptcy through mismanagement, you might get billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money without ever having to pay it back.
But heaven help you if you are black, live in an inner city ghetto, and resort to selling marijuana because there are no jobs available and you have a family to support. In that case, you go to jail, often for a very long time. It has been pointed out by more than one writer that the United States locks up young African-American males at an astonishing rate, in what almost appears to be a modern form of enslavement. Bernie Madoff made one huge mistake: he defrauded the very wealthy. Had he confined himself to stealing from the poor, he might very well be out and around today. The lesson: if you're gonna cheat people, cheat the poor, for they have nobody to represent them.
Guilt and innocence are strange things in America. If you are black, and deal drugs, and get caught, you go to prison. If you are white, you get probation. If you are white and wealthy, you get even less punishment, or none at all.
If you are a wealthy executive for a major financial institution, and have defrauded customers of billions of dollars, and your corporation is facing bankruptcy through mismanagement, you might get billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money without ever having to pay it back.
But heaven help you if you are black, live in an inner city ghetto, and resort to selling marijuana because there are no jobs available and you have a family to support. In that case, you go to jail, often for a very long time. It has been pointed out by more than one writer that the United States locks up young African-American males at an astonishing rate, in what almost appears to be a modern form of enslavement. Bernie Madoff made one huge mistake: he defrauded the very wealthy. Had he confined himself to stealing from the poor, he might very well be out and around today. The lesson: if you're gonna cheat people, cheat the poor, for they have nobody to represent them.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Celebrity Insanity
Recent posts on this blog have dealt with our celebrity culture, and its origins. The point is, celebrity culture is not only an amusing diversion for we the consumers of it; it is a deliberatly encouraged and nurtured corporate gimmick to distract us from our corporate enslavement, and to make more money for the already wealthy.We Americans create celebrities, partly because we want to, and partly because we are told to so so by our corporate masters.
A case in point is Michael Jackson, whose life, death, and doctor's murder trial were/are all exploited to the fullest by the corporate media which spoon feeds us the garbage we lap up like the lapdogs we are.
Jackson was deprived of his childhood by a father who worshipped at the alter of the almighty dollar. To compensate for this, he lived his adult life childishly, seeking to capture what he never had; a childhood. When he should have been going to grade school and playing after school with other kids, he was rehearsing and performing, endlessly.
Jackson was surrounded by vultures who encouraged him to feel that no matter what he did, he must do more. Evidenly he despised himself, instead of despising the despicable world that drove him to change his face into that of a white man, to work himself to death, and to escape his trap through excessive drug use.
American culture created Michael Jackson, and American corporate manufactured consumer celebrity culture destroyed him, with him as a willing accomplice. Now we sit in rapt attention to the murder trial of his doctor, as we are spoon fed its lurid details. We should have ingored Michael, just as we should ignore all the people we instead turn into bizarre godlike celebrities.
If American culture were a racehorse, it would be shot. We should put ourselves on trial for cultural insanity, and sit beside Jackson's doctor in the courtroom. But instead, we crave ever more, and are fed ever more, banality. Like Davy Crockett said: "that don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense".
A case in point is Michael Jackson, whose life, death, and doctor's murder trial were/are all exploited to the fullest by the corporate media which spoon feeds us the garbage we lap up like the lapdogs we are.
Jackson was deprived of his childhood by a father who worshipped at the alter of the almighty dollar. To compensate for this, he lived his adult life childishly, seeking to capture what he never had; a childhood. When he should have been going to grade school and playing after school with other kids, he was rehearsing and performing, endlessly.
Jackson was surrounded by vultures who encouraged him to feel that no matter what he did, he must do more. Evidenly he despised himself, instead of despising the despicable world that drove him to change his face into that of a white man, to work himself to death, and to escape his trap through excessive drug use.
American culture created Michael Jackson, and American corporate manufactured consumer celebrity culture destroyed him, with him as a willing accomplice. Now we sit in rapt attention to the murder trial of his doctor, as we are spoon fed its lurid details. We should have ingored Michael, just as we should ignore all the people we instead turn into bizarre godlike celebrities.
If American culture were a racehorse, it would be shot. We should put ourselves on trial for cultural insanity, and sit beside Jackson's doctor in the courtroom. But instead, we crave ever more, and are fed ever more, banality. Like Davy Crockett said: "that don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense".
Let's Do Both
The hourly compensation for fortune 500 board members averages $934. Many board members serve more than one corporation, in what can be considered an incestuous plutocratic oligarchy.Meanwhile, American conservatives, who seem to have cast their lot with the 1%, insist that the Occupy Wall Street movement should direct its ire at the American federal government for thwarting economic prosperity through excessive regulation.
Without regulation, one can scarcely imagine the extent to which our corporate masters would go to enhance their own wealth and power, and eliminate the ability of the working masses to oragnize into self protecting groups, called "labor unions".
Conservatives complain that labor unions require payment of dues, then use the money to support political candidates which union members might not necessarily support.
Perish the thought that this conservative concern for the welfare for labor union members is insincere. Doubtless, the compassionate conservatives truly believe that when workers organize to gain bargaining power they are in reality harming their own interests. A single worker, acting alone, would doubtless fare better when dealing with billionaire owners.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Perhaps the disempowered and unemployed should protest BOTH the corporate oligarchy AND the federal government; after all, they are the same thing.
Without regulation, one can scarcely imagine the extent to which our corporate masters would go to enhance their own wealth and power, and eliminate the ability of the working masses to oragnize into self protecting groups, called "labor unions".
Conservatives complain that labor unions require payment of dues, then use the money to support political candidates which union members might not necessarily support.
Perish the thought that this conservative concern for the welfare for labor union members is insincere. Doubtless, the compassionate conservatives truly believe that when workers organize to gain bargaining power they are in reality harming their own interests. A single worker, acting alone, would doubtless fare better when dealing with billionaire owners.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Perhaps the disempowered and unemployed should protest BOTH the corporate oligarchy AND the federal government; after all, they are the same thing.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Quick Question
OK, I get the point. Capitalism is freedom, socialism is government, and the free market should determine everything, because the free market is inherently all wise. So it turns out that during the past several decades wealth has been concentrating, steadily, to the current extent that the top one percent own more than the bottom 20%, or something like that. And because it is the free market, that is the way it should be.
Quick question: To what extent will the wealth ultimately concentrate? Will the trend ever stop, or even reverse a bit? And if the concentration of wealth continues, will the top 1% eventually own 99% of the wealth? And if that eventuates, will that be beneficial to the world? Will it be beneficial to the wealthy?
Quick question: To what extent will the wealth ultimately concentrate? Will the trend ever stop, or even reverse a bit? And if the concentration of wealth continues, will the top 1% eventually own 99% of the wealth? And if that eventuates, will that be beneficial to the world? Will it be beneficial to the wealthy?
Exploitation
Free enterprise is exploitation, exploitation of opportunity, resources, capital, and people. The word "exploitation" has assumed a negative connatation, but it needn't always be negative.
The lower the fruit, we know, the more readily exploited.
Young people are the most easily exploited, for they tend to have less power to resist it. Thus it is the young who are forced to die in our wars, and to do the jobs the more senior members of society reject.
There was a time when children were paid pennies to deliver newspapers.
Young adult athletes are given free tuition, room and board, and in return for this they earn universities millions of dollars. Meanwhile they walk around campus flat broke.
A football player at a major university is worth as much as one hundred thousand dollars a year to the institution, and a male basketball player as much as two hundred thousand.
Often, people are voluntarily exploited.
The lower the fruit, we know, the more readily exploited.
Young people are the most easily exploited, for they tend to have less power to resist it. Thus it is the young who are forced to die in our wars, and to do the jobs the more senior members of society reject.
There was a time when children were paid pennies to deliver newspapers.
Young adult athletes are given free tuition, room and board, and in return for this they earn universities millions of dollars. Meanwhile they walk around campus flat broke.
A football player at a major university is worth as much as one hundred thousand dollars a year to the institution, and a male basketball player as much as two hundred thousand.
Often, people are voluntarily exploited.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Celebrity
In America there is a thing called "celebrity", which is endlessly fascinating, psychologically and sociologically. Everywhere and always there are people who are known far and wide, but the Americans take it to a new level. Rather than making people famous who are powerful, wealthy, or great achievers, Americans celebrate folks just for the fun of it. The most notable current example is, of course, Paris Hilton, who is famous... for being famous.
In America celebrities make a living be being...celebrities. Perhaps the first American to do this was the legendary Davy Crockett, who was a celeb during his life, and an even greater one afterward.
Crockett first became widely known in Tennessee as a great pioneer, bear hunter, and Indian fighter, then his fame spread to the east coast when he was sent to congress, and entertained eastern society with his homespun humor and personality. In 1831 a broadway play opened called "The Lion of the West", whose central character, Nimrod P. Wildfire, was modeled after Crockett. Davy attended the play as a special guest, and when Nimrod bowed to him from the stage, Davy rose from his seat in the front row and bowed right back, to the great delight of the audience. Crockett had no idea why he was famous, but he ended up liking it, and encouraged it, Parisian Hiltonesque. We understand now that his iconic death at the Alamo was his own trap; he simply had to live up to his heroic image.
In the 1870s a play opened on Broadway about Buffalo Bill Cody. Bill decided to audition to play the part of himself, he got the part, and made a great deal more money ($500/week) portraying himself on stage than he ever had out west just being himself. That inspired him to create his "wild west show", which was enormously successful, and lasted well into the twentieth century.
Wild Bill Hickock lacked Crockett's sense of irony, and Buffalo Bill's business sense. When he saw himself being portrayed on stage, he jumped out of his seat and beat up the actor in mid play.
Why do we Americans do this? One possibility is that, since we lack any hereditary royalty or aristocracy, we create celebrities in their place, fulfilling our need for heros and gods.
A word of caution to Paris Hilton: never beat up anyone who is helping to make you famous.
In America celebrities make a living be being...celebrities. Perhaps the first American to do this was the legendary Davy Crockett, who was a celeb during his life, and an even greater one afterward.
Crockett first became widely known in Tennessee as a great pioneer, bear hunter, and Indian fighter, then his fame spread to the east coast when he was sent to congress, and entertained eastern society with his homespun humor and personality. In 1831 a broadway play opened called "The Lion of the West", whose central character, Nimrod P. Wildfire, was modeled after Crockett. Davy attended the play as a special guest, and when Nimrod bowed to him from the stage, Davy rose from his seat in the front row and bowed right back, to the great delight of the audience. Crockett had no idea why he was famous, but he ended up liking it, and encouraged it, Parisian Hiltonesque. We understand now that his iconic death at the Alamo was his own trap; he simply had to live up to his heroic image.
In the 1870s a play opened on Broadway about Buffalo Bill Cody. Bill decided to audition to play the part of himself, he got the part, and made a great deal more money ($500/week) portraying himself on stage than he ever had out west just being himself. That inspired him to create his "wild west show", which was enormously successful, and lasted well into the twentieth century.
Wild Bill Hickock lacked Crockett's sense of irony, and Buffalo Bill's business sense. When he saw himself being portrayed on stage, he jumped out of his seat and beat up the actor in mid play.
Why do we Americans do this? One possibility is that, since we lack any hereditary royalty or aristocracy, we create celebrities in their place, fulfilling our need for heros and gods.
A word of caution to Paris Hilton: never beat up anyone who is helping to make you famous.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Big Government
Rick Perry, governor of Texas and republican presidential candidate, does not like abortions. Neither does anyone else. The global population is now 7 billion, and soon enough abortions might become preferrable to the alternative, but for now, nobody likes abortions.
Those who believe that abortons should remain legal in the United States are often called "pro-abortion", which is ridiculous. Those who oppose legal abortions are often called "pro-life", which is meaningless, since everyone is pro life.
Perry called the pro life pro choice position a "liberal canard". Thus, the conservative canard becomes "pro life anti freedom."
These pro life anti freedom people therefore favor big government.
Those who believe that abortons should remain legal in the United States are often called "pro-abortion", which is ridiculous. Those who oppose legal abortions are often called "pro-life", which is meaningless, since everyone is pro life.
Perry called the pro life pro choice position a "liberal canard". Thus, the conservative canard becomes "pro life anti freedom."
These pro life anti freedom people therefore favor big government.
Lonely internet
In the year 2000, at the age of 45, I got my first computer. My excitement was tremendous. It was, what, a 15 gig hard drive, 64 megs of ram. I thought I had it all. I was on top of the world. In 1992, Bill Clinton referred to a coming "information superhighway", and I didn't know what he meant. Now, I was becoming part of it.
I ended up on aol, and jumped into the chat room scene, which was booming. Within a short time I had more friends and girlfriends than I had ever dreamed possible. I was excited.
But just how "real" was it? We traded pictures and conversation, with people all over the country.
Groups of people congregated in chatrooms, familiar people in familiar chatrooms, forming online cliques. At one point I was part of a chatroom group which called itself "the family."
Several women from the internet came to visit me, usually resulting in awkward, often truncated visits. Eleven years later, I can still vaguely remember some of the screen names and other things about a few of the people involved, but for the most part its all just a blurry memory. I understand that chatrooms ar a dying breed, as is aol. What happened? Did the comsumers simple get tired of it, and walk away, like I did?
I will always kinda wonder whatever happened to those folks. They probably went ahead with their lives, and eventually lost interest in the online social life. Many of them were looking for mates; I hope and trust they found what they were looking for.
Now, it seems to me that the internet is no less lonely than America in real space and time. Like being alone in a crowd. Could it be that the only answer to loneliness is small, stable communites which change little over time? Perhaps our ancestors had it right all along.
I ended up on aol, and jumped into the chat room scene, which was booming. Within a short time I had more friends and girlfriends than I had ever dreamed possible. I was excited.
But just how "real" was it? We traded pictures and conversation, with people all over the country.
Groups of people congregated in chatrooms, familiar people in familiar chatrooms, forming online cliques. At one point I was part of a chatroom group which called itself "the family."
Several women from the internet came to visit me, usually resulting in awkward, often truncated visits. Eleven years later, I can still vaguely remember some of the screen names and other things about a few of the people involved, but for the most part its all just a blurry memory. I understand that chatrooms ar a dying breed, as is aol. What happened? Did the comsumers simple get tired of it, and walk away, like I did?
I will always kinda wonder whatever happened to those folks. They probably went ahead with their lives, and eventually lost interest in the online social life. Many of them were looking for mates; I hope and trust they found what they were looking for.
Now, it seems to me that the internet is no less lonely than America in real space and time. Like being alone in a crowd. Could it be that the only answer to loneliness is small, stable communites which change little over time? Perhaps our ancestors had it right all along.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Lonely American
I met a man from Shanghai, China, we began talking, and became friends. One day he said to me: "you Americans are the loneliest people in the world. You care more about your dogs and cats than you do about each other."
I thought "you got that right."
My Chinese friend went on to explain that in China, people were always in groups, and lonliness was essentially unknown. They eat together, drink together, they do everything together. IN America, he was obviously quite lonely, and he ended up in Chicago, hoping to capture the feeling of community he had known in his home town of 15 million people.
It didn't work. In Chicago he was just as lonely as he had been in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he had first settled. The problem was not the lack of people, it was the American lifestyle.
The American lifestyle is lonely, by world standards. Many of us live alone, in big houses. We Americans all have our own agendas, we go our own way, and when we get together its is usually for some purpose other than comradship, some purpose which has nothing whatever to do with building community. Individualistic, atomized. Its what makes us great; individual initiative.
I'm a loner by nature. I have heard many of my countrymen say the same thing. I live all alone in a big house, with my hundreds of TV channels, and the internet and cell phone, and I love to stay home, alone, screening my phone calls. Thats the way I want it. I have many friends, but they live all over the country, and the contact we maintain is...minimal. I keep thinking about getting a dog.
On surveys one out of ten Americans claims to like dogs more than other humans. Count me in.
I sit at my computer, talking briefly to strangers who will never become my friends. Across town, my friends are doing....I know not what. Perhaps they do what I do. I'll never know.
I have no complaints. I love being a lonely American. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where people put peole first, and their dogs second. But I know, deep down, that I would never want to live in such a country.
I thought "you got that right."
My Chinese friend went on to explain that in China, people were always in groups, and lonliness was essentially unknown. They eat together, drink together, they do everything together. IN America, he was obviously quite lonely, and he ended up in Chicago, hoping to capture the feeling of community he had known in his home town of 15 million people.
It didn't work. In Chicago he was just as lonely as he had been in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he had first settled. The problem was not the lack of people, it was the American lifestyle.
The American lifestyle is lonely, by world standards. Many of us live alone, in big houses. We Americans all have our own agendas, we go our own way, and when we get together its is usually for some purpose other than comradship, some purpose which has nothing whatever to do with building community. Individualistic, atomized. Its what makes us great; individual initiative.
I'm a loner by nature. I have heard many of my countrymen say the same thing. I live all alone in a big house, with my hundreds of TV channels, and the internet and cell phone, and I love to stay home, alone, screening my phone calls. Thats the way I want it. I have many friends, but they live all over the country, and the contact we maintain is...minimal. I keep thinking about getting a dog.
On surveys one out of ten Americans claims to like dogs more than other humans. Count me in.
I sit at my computer, talking briefly to strangers who will never become my friends. Across town, my friends are doing....I know not what. Perhaps they do what I do. I'll never know.
I have no complaints. I love being a lonely American. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where people put peole first, and their dogs second. But I know, deep down, that I would never want to live in such a country.
Future Dreams
As a child growing up in the 1960s I, along with many others, was excited by the American space program, eager to get to the moon, enthralled by what I thought was a science fiction future in a high tech, high excitement world. I expected to have an opportunity to visit the moon myself, or even Mars, by the early twenty first century. And, like everyone else, I imagined that I would be driving a flying car. I could vaguely foresee personal computers, but cell phones and portable computers lay beyond my imagination...not even the top science fiction writers predicted cell phones and portable computers. In many science fiction novels written during the fifties and sixties, characters were flying around in spaceships and cars; but they still had to go find a telephone or computer installation, and all the computers did was cough up information, with no real communications applications.
The future vison that so animated my childhood never happened; instead a far different, yet interesting world emerged.
What sort of future to the children of 2011 imagine? Do they ever think of space exploration? Do they cling to the hope of flying cars? They have no idea what the world was like without personal computers, and for them, cell phones, still somewhat of a miracle to my generation, are commomplace and ho hum.
Do today's children see a bleak future of catastrophic climate change, and dreadful high tech terrorism? Are their hopeful visions high tech? Or are they jaded and complacent about technology?
After all the fuss, nobody has ever accurately predicted the future, and really, nobody has ever even roughly predicted it, verifiably. We are left to make guesses, and confront an unknown world.
Let us hope that today's children can find cause to dream of a happy future for humanity...
The future vison that so animated my childhood never happened; instead a far different, yet interesting world emerged.
What sort of future to the children of 2011 imagine? Do they ever think of space exploration? Do they cling to the hope of flying cars? They have no idea what the world was like without personal computers, and for them, cell phones, still somewhat of a miracle to my generation, are commomplace and ho hum.
Do today's children see a bleak future of catastrophic climate change, and dreadful high tech terrorism? Are their hopeful visions high tech? Or are they jaded and complacent about technology?
After all the fuss, nobody has ever accurately predicted the future, and really, nobody has ever even roughly predicted it, verifiably. We are left to make guesses, and confront an unknown world.
Let us hope that today's children can find cause to dream of a happy future for humanity...
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Openmindedness
The basic message that The Truthless Recociler wants to convey is: ideas which seem contradictory are in fact complimentary, because ultimate truth is far greater than all human ideas combined.
There are at least eleven thousand human religions. Does anyone really believe that any of them, or all of them together, reveals ultimate truth? What about extreaterrestrial religions?
Christianity, Islam, socialism, capitalism, demcracy, dictatorship - there's really room for all of it.
The human tendency is of course to choose a few basic ideas and beliefs, and and cling to them tenaciously, no matter what. The cosmos seems safer that way, simpler, more stable and easier to understand. WE narrow our minds to confort ourselves.
A reporter walked into the office of the great scientist, Neils Bohr, to interview the eminent inventor of quantum mechanics. On the wall was a horseshoe, dutifully pointed heavenward. Dumbfounded, the reporter said to Mr. Bohr: "you are the most respected scientist in the world, and you have a good luck charm hanging on your wall. Do you really believe in that?" "Of course not", said Bohr, "but that doesn't mean it isn't true".
Now that, dear friends, is OPENMINDEDNESS.
May we all be more like Neils Bohr
There are at least eleven thousand human religions. Does anyone really believe that any of them, or all of them together, reveals ultimate truth? What about extreaterrestrial religions?
Christianity, Islam, socialism, capitalism, demcracy, dictatorship - there's really room for all of it.
The human tendency is of course to choose a few basic ideas and beliefs, and and cling to them tenaciously, no matter what. The cosmos seems safer that way, simpler, more stable and easier to understand. WE narrow our minds to confort ourselves.
A reporter walked into the office of the great scientist, Neils Bohr, to interview the eminent inventor of quantum mechanics. On the wall was a horseshoe, dutifully pointed heavenward. Dumbfounded, the reporter said to Mr. Bohr: "you are the most respected scientist in the world, and you have a good luck charm hanging on your wall. Do you really believe in that?" "Of course not", said Bohr, "but that doesn't mean it isn't true".
Now that, dear friends, is OPENMINDEDNESS.
May we all be more like Neils Bohr
Consistency
A friend of mine made the following complaint: "Everytime a republican president takes military action against one of our enemies, the liberals all cry foul, but when Obama does it, you don't hear any complaining."
To which I replied: "would you be happier if all the liberals complained about Obama?"
His reply: "I just expect people to be consistent."
He does? Is that what he "expects?" Does he actually think people WILL be consistent, or does he simply hope they are?
I can assure my friend that whereas he is prefectly free to "expect" whatever he wants, he aint gonna get what he expects. People are not consistent, and will not so become an account of anyone's "expectations."
I for one have no interest or desire to be consistent. May I always have integrity, but not consistency.
Didn't someone once say "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" (maybe i dreamt that)
Is it possibe that a liberal might think a republican war is unjust, but that a democrat war is just, not because of bias, but because of the circumstances of the respective wars?
Anyone who judges a war based on the political party of the warrior is not really being inconsistent, so much as unreasonable.
To which I replied: "would you be happier if all the liberals complained about Obama?"
His reply: "I just expect people to be consistent."
He does? Is that what he "expects?" Does he actually think people WILL be consistent, or does he simply hope they are?
I can assure my friend that whereas he is prefectly free to "expect" whatever he wants, he aint gonna get what he expects. People are not consistent, and will not so become an account of anyone's "expectations."
I for one have no interest or desire to be consistent. May I always have integrity, but not consistency.
Didn't someone once say "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" (maybe i dreamt that)
Is it possibe that a liberal might think a republican war is unjust, but that a democrat war is just, not because of bias, but because of the circumstances of the respective wars?
Anyone who judges a war based on the political party of the warrior is not really being inconsistent, so much as unreasonable.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Responsibility
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said "If you're out of a job, poor, or lost your home to foreclosure, maybe you should blame yourself." Well, of course, the man has a point. After all, if we as free willed individuals cannot accept ultimate responsibilty for our lives, then who, or what, should? God? "Nature?". Your choice. But one thing's for certain. It is we who experience the consequences of our actions, and it is we who can make choices and take action which makes our lives better. So we might as well take credit for everything that we are and do as people.
At the same time, we are all born into a world over which we have no control, which was formed far before our arrival. We are, in a sense, victims of the world, and the world's systems. We grow and do what we can in the existing systems,but perhaps some of us don't think the existing systems are in the best interest of the human species, and should be changed or abolished. There's nothing wrong in doing this. And if you think the existing systems of the world have affected you, which they indeed have, you are not abdicating responsibility for yourself, you are simply asserting that the world effects you, and everybody else, negatively, in some of its systems, and that these should be changed.
So when candidate Cain says "your life is your fault", its not like he's saying anything original, or profound. But he is leaving out one important part: we all affect each other's lives.
At the same time, we are all born into a world over which we have no control, which was formed far before our arrival. We are, in a sense, victims of the world, and the world's systems. We grow and do what we can in the existing systems,but perhaps some of us don't think the existing systems are in the best interest of the human species, and should be changed or abolished. There's nothing wrong in doing this. And if you think the existing systems of the world have affected you, which they indeed have, you are not abdicating responsibility for yourself, you are simply asserting that the world effects you, and everybody else, negatively, in some of its systems, and that these should be changed.
So when candidate Cain says "your life is your fault", its not like he's saying anything original, or profound. But he is leaving out one important part: we all affect each other's lives.
Resources
After the May 22 tornado in Joplin, MO, I decided to spend my vacation helping remove rubble. After three weeks of standing in 95 degree heat and loading bricks into wheelbarrows, I was depressed and exhausted. During the summer of 2011 tens of thousands of Americans came to Joplin to help, an example of the good hearted American spirit. Strangely enough, the work, brutal and miserable, was also joyful. Particularly the comradship. Joplin looked like Hiroshima after the atomic bomb hit. Standing in rubble from horizon to horizon, hot, miserable, exhausted, with hundreds of other people scattered around nearby; this way joyful. The people were beautiful. My belief in humanity was rekindled.
One day I couldn't take it anymore, so I drove south to my home in northwest Arkansas. Anything to get away from the horrible devastation, the acres of rubble and death. On the highway I got three phone calls, three friends who had been worried about me, and were calling to inquire. When I put the phone down I noticed I was going 80 MPH in a 65 zone. I also noticed that I couldn't see the road. My God, was I having a stroke? I slowed and pulled off on to the shoulder of the highway, stopped the car, turned off the motor, and started sobbing like a baby. God it felt good.
Back in the rubble, a friend of mine was standing in what used to be someone's nice house, when a young lady and a ten year old boy approached. My friend could instantly tell that these people were the pre storm residents of the house. "We just came back to see if we could find anything" the lady sadly explained. My friend looked down at his feet, saw a football, picked it up and threw a pass to the boy. "What do you say to the nice man.?" said the lady. "You're a looter!" the boy yelled.
They all three laughed for five minutes.
The human spirit is indestructable.
We'll have to use future resources for natural disaster recovery, rather than warfare.
One day I couldn't take it anymore, so I drove south to my home in northwest Arkansas. Anything to get away from the horrible devastation, the acres of rubble and death. On the highway I got three phone calls, three friends who had been worried about me, and were calling to inquire. When I put the phone down I noticed I was going 80 MPH in a 65 zone. I also noticed that I couldn't see the road. My God, was I having a stroke? I slowed and pulled off on to the shoulder of the highway, stopped the car, turned off the motor, and started sobbing like a baby. God it felt good.
Back in the rubble, a friend of mine was standing in what used to be someone's nice house, when a young lady and a ten year old boy approached. My friend could instantly tell that these people were the pre storm residents of the house. "We just came back to see if we could find anything" the lady sadly explained. My friend looked down at his feet, saw a football, picked it up and threw a pass to the boy. "What do you say to the nice man.?" said the lady. "You're a looter!" the boy yelled.
They all three laughed for five minutes.
The human spirit is indestructable.
We'll have to use future resources for natural disaster recovery, rather than warfare.
Atrocities
After the confirmed death of Gadhafi, President Obama, apparently referring to America's participation in the air war of Lybia, said something to the effect: "Other countries may turn a blind eye to atrocities, but America is different."
Different? America? Different how? The main difference I see is that America creates more atrocities, turns a blind eye to more atrocities, and responds to more atrocities with military action than all the other kids on the block combined. America does it all.
The very creation of the United States was an atrocity, with the extermination of an existing civilization. Other American atrocities include slavery, the Mexican War, the Civil War, violence against labor unions, Viet Nam, and so on, and so forth. The United States commits atrocites by the bushelfull.
For several years before Pearl Harbor the American people and government did nothing while Hitler killed Jews and savaged Europe. Atrocities in Cambodia , Sudan, and numerous other places have largely escaped our attention. Obama himself had no interest in helping the rebels in Lybia, and was persuaded by the French and British. America often turns a blind eye because its in her best interest to do so.
America responds to atrocites in whatever way she perceives to be in her best economic and political interest. There are no lofty, rigid, inviolable principles guiding American foreign policy.
If the President is telling us that we the Americans respond to atrocities in a manner based upon the highest moral principles alone, and if he expects us to believe it, heaven only knows what he'll say next, but it might be even more humorous and entertaining.
Different? America? Different how? The main difference I see is that America creates more atrocities, turns a blind eye to more atrocities, and responds to more atrocities with military action than all the other kids on the block combined. America does it all.
The very creation of the United States was an atrocity, with the extermination of an existing civilization. Other American atrocities include slavery, the Mexican War, the Civil War, violence against labor unions, Viet Nam, and so on, and so forth. The United States commits atrocites by the bushelfull.
For several years before Pearl Harbor the American people and government did nothing while Hitler killed Jews and savaged Europe. Atrocities in Cambodia , Sudan, and numerous other places have largely escaped our attention. Obama himself had no interest in helping the rebels in Lybia, and was persuaded by the French and British. America often turns a blind eye because its in her best interest to do so.
America responds to atrocites in whatever way she perceives to be in her best economic and political interest. There are no lofty, rigid, inviolable principles guiding American foreign policy.
If the President is telling us that we the Americans respond to atrocities in a manner based upon the highest moral principles alone, and if he expects us to believe it, heaven only knows what he'll say next, but it might be even more humorous and entertaining.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Storms
Over the next few years it seems almost inevitable that the United States will be forced to spend a great deal of money on infrastructure repair, and cleanup and rebuilding of storm damage.
A great deal of money, its absolutely certain.
And where's that money gonna come from? Incredible economic growth by virtue of enormous tax reductions for the wealthy? Or, are we gonna have to try something else? And remember, we will be simultaneously trying to pay down a fifteen trillion dollar nationaol debt. And if we don't make a dent paying down this enormous debt, AND rebuild the infrastructure, we're in big trouble, economically.
Well, the obvious solution is to liquidate the empire, and to invest the peace dividend on the above priorities. By "the empire" I mean America's vast global system of military installations, and her gigantic offensive war machine. The military industrial complex.
Each year the empire becomes more expensive, the national debt grows, and the infrastructure crumbles.
And the storms become more numerous and more severe, with climate change, or at least, so it seems to me. On May 22 of 2011 I began my three week vacation in my home town Joplin, Missouri, U.S.A. The weather was sticky and windy. About five PM I went for a jog, and as I reached the twenty minute mark the wind bagan to howl and a huge black anvil shaped cloud appeared overhead. My thought was "how nice, a rain cloud. I could use a cool off".
Then the tornado sirens began to sound. I ignored them, and kept running, wanting badly to reach thirty minutes. Suddenly a golf ball landed at my feet, and I thought "terrible shot, nowhere near the course". Then another landed at my feet, and I realized they were ice balls.
I decided to curtail my run at twenty five minutes, and headed for a storm shelter. When I emerged, my hometown Joplin was in ruins, a field of rubble, hit by the biggest tornado in the history of the entire universe, so far as I know.
Walking among the rubble, I thought: "how much of this is going to happen in the furure?" The answer I arrived at frightened me.
A great deal of money, its absolutely certain.
And where's that money gonna come from? Incredible economic growth by virtue of enormous tax reductions for the wealthy? Or, are we gonna have to try something else? And remember, we will be simultaneously trying to pay down a fifteen trillion dollar nationaol debt. And if we don't make a dent paying down this enormous debt, AND rebuild the infrastructure, we're in big trouble, economically.
Well, the obvious solution is to liquidate the empire, and to invest the peace dividend on the above priorities. By "the empire" I mean America's vast global system of military installations, and her gigantic offensive war machine. The military industrial complex.
Each year the empire becomes more expensive, the national debt grows, and the infrastructure crumbles.
And the storms become more numerous and more severe, with climate change, or at least, so it seems to me. On May 22 of 2011 I began my three week vacation in my home town Joplin, Missouri, U.S.A. The weather was sticky and windy. About five PM I went for a jog, and as I reached the twenty minute mark the wind bagan to howl and a huge black anvil shaped cloud appeared overhead. My thought was "how nice, a rain cloud. I could use a cool off".
Then the tornado sirens began to sound. I ignored them, and kept running, wanting badly to reach thirty minutes. Suddenly a golf ball landed at my feet, and I thought "terrible shot, nowhere near the course". Then another landed at my feet, and I realized they were ice balls.
I decided to curtail my run at twenty five minutes, and headed for a storm shelter. When I emerged, my hometown Joplin was in ruins, a field of rubble, hit by the biggest tornado in the history of the entire universe, so far as I know.
Walking among the rubble, I thought: "how much of this is going to happen in the furure?" The answer I arrived at frightened me.
What Am I?
For most of my adult life I've called myself a "socialist". Now I call myself "socialistic".
I am rooting hard for the Occupy Wall Street movement to "be successful", whatever that means.
Is it over already?
When the big crash and big bailout happened a few years ago, I bought stock from Bank of America, AIG, Citigroup, and others, because the price was cheap, which it still is.
So my question is: what am I? Am I part of the OWS movement, or...am I a member of the elite wealthy illuminati? Maybe I need more stock to be a member of the latter, but the question is: how much more do I need? I think, in theory, if I'm not wrong, that I could attend any shareholders meeting of any of these corporations, and have a vote. So I have some power, right?
How much more wealth and power would I need to be a member of the ruling corporate elite?
Or maybe, just maybe, I'm a hybrid, a mongrel, if you will, part poor protestor, 99%er, and one percent corporate elite.
I am rooting hard for the Occupy Wall Street movement to "be successful", whatever that means.
Is it over already?
When the big crash and big bailout happened a few years ago, I bought stock from Bank of America, AIG, Citigroup, and others, because the price was cheap, which it still is.
So my question is: what am I? Am I part of the OWS movement, or...am I a member of the elite wealthy illuminati? Maybe I need more stock to be a member of the latter, but the question is: how much more do I need? I think, in theory, if I'm not wrong, that I could attend any shareholders meeting of any of these corporations, and have a vote. So I have some power, right?
How much more wealth and power would I need to be a member of the ruling corporate elite?
Or maybe, just maybe, I'm a hybrid, a mongrel, if you will, part poor protestor, 99%er, and one percent corporate elite.
Ron Paul
The republican presidential debates are becoming more exciting, more confrontational, as the stakes get higher. I was watching despairingly until suddenly, in a glorious unpredictable burst of candor, Ron Paul finally revealed the white elephant in the room.
Paul told us that we have an empire we don't really need, and that we are too bankrupt to continue to pay for it. We, the American people are already vaguely aware of that, but we seem to be in denial.
I'm rooting for Ron Paul to keep waking us up.
Paul told us that we have an empire we don't really need, and that we are too bankrupt to continue to pay for it. We, the American people are already vaguely aware of that, but we seem to be in denial.
I'm rooting for Ron Paul to keep waking us up.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Facts; whose side?
One of my best friends is a conservative with whom I've been having political "discussions" for decades. Recently I said to him: "Mark, you frustrate me. Even though I had ten years of college, and you had none, and you're always telling me how smart I am, you never seem to lose an argument with me. In fact, you seem to win most of them. He replied: "maybe that's because I have the facts on my side."
He's wrong, of course. Given any set of facts, an infinity of interpretations is possible. Facts are meaningless without interpretation. WE all seem to think we have the facts "on our side", and, for the most part, we do. When we learn to understand interpretations different than our own, we achieve open mindedness.
My conservative friend should simply have taken credit for being a good debator. The facts are no more or no less on his side than mine, or yours. I wish I had thought to say that to him, I might have won my first ever argument..but probably not..
He's wrong, of course. Given any set of facts, an infinity of interpretations is possible. Facts are meaningless without interpretation. WE all seem to think we have the facts "on our side", and, for the most part, we do. When we learn to understand interpretations different than our own, we achieve open mindedness.
My conservative friend should simply have taken credit for being a good debator. The facts are no more or no less on his side than mine, or yours. I wish I had thought to say that to him, I might have won my first ever argument..but probably not..
COWCRAPP II
And now its time for another edition of "COWCRAPP" , which is "A Conservative Outlook in Writing, Creatively Rendered, Albeit Presented by a Progressive". And, as you may recall, this is done as a substitute for genuine conservative scholarship, which this site is still seeking, and shall continue to so seek, so long as it remains absent. Openmindedness requires the presence of all viewpoints...
For a liberal to attempt for a few minutes to be conservative is quite mind opening...I recommend it...so here goes....
WE must keep taxes on the wealthy low, because the money that the wealthy save by not paying higher taxes they will most assuredly invest in job creation. Progressive taxation is actually class warfare, for it punishes people simply for being successful. The wealthy already bear an unfair burden of paying for our government. (how am I doing?)
Obamacare must be repealed, because it is too expensive, or, at least, it will be. It also limits a person's freedom of choice. Simply let the free market rule supreme, in all areas of human endeavor, and all will be well, because capital and real assests will quite naturally end up where they belong, and inequality in wealth and income is simply a reflection of inequality in ability, effort, and judgment, and is thus not only natural and normal, but appropiate as well.
YOu know, I think I'm getting pretty good at this. But I know I can improve, and what I really need is feedback from conservatives, if they're willing to give it to me. Maybe I'll even find one to
"write for dah site".
For a liberal to attempt for a few minutes to be conservative is quite mind opening...I recommend it...so here goes....
WE must keep taxes on the wealthy low, because the money that the wealthy save by not paying higher taxes they will most assuredly invest in job creation. Progressive taxation is actually class warfare, for it punishes people simply for being successful. The wealthy already bear an unfair burden of paying for our government. (how am I doing?)
Obamacare must be repealed, because it is too expensive, or, at least, it will be. It also limits a person's freedom of choice. Simply let the free market rule supreme, in all areas of human endeavor, and all will be well, because capital and real assests will quite naturally end up where they belong, and inequality in wealth and income is simply a reflection of inequality in ability, effort, and judgment, and is thus not only natural and normal, but appropiate as well.
YOu know, I think I'm getting pretty good at this. But I know I can improve, and what I really need is feedback from conservatives, if they're willing to give it to me. Maybe I'll even find one to
"write for dah site".
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Openminds
The intent of this website is to be neither liberal nor conservative, but both, to be neither Christian nor non Christian, but both...openmimdedness is always a good idea,because it does not prevent a person from holding strong convictions or definite beliefs. Openmindedness simply allows a brilliant creature (humans) to fully utilize that brilliance.
I don't remember ever meeting anyone who claimed to understand both conservatism and liberalism.Its always one or the other. Moderates have been described as people who believe in nothing; what moderates really do is embrace some liberalism, and some conservatism, usually. In that they might be more openminded than any extremist.
Extremism is risky, because it is narrow minded and more often leads to unreasonable behavior. May the Christian and the Moslem always respect each other, no matter how "strong" their convictions,
understanding that we all feel our personal beliefs are correct, but that none of us has the right to believe that other's beliefs are incorrect.
I don't remember ever meeting anyone who claimed to understand both conservatism and liberalism.Its always one or the other. Moderates have been described as people who believe in nothing; what moderates really do is embrace some liberalism, and some conservatism, usually. In that they might be more openminded than any extremist.
Extremism is risky, because it is narrow minded and more often leads to unreasonable behavior. May the Christian and the Moslem always respect each other, no matter how "strong" their convictions,
understanding that we all feel our personal beliefs are correct, but that none of us has the right to believe that other's beliefs are incorrect.
Openmindedness
Everybody has a different interpretation of the ongoing protest movements across the world. A good friend of mine (and of the world)insists that even extraterrestrial beings are involved, and will soon be involved much more. This to me is no more or less believable than anything anyone else says.
A few days ago I suggested that the TEA Party and the OWS protests should join forces in this country to form a unified front against the coming winter of our collective discontent. A movement, in essence, against ourselves, and what we have allowed ourselves to become.
We all want the same things, but the problem is, we disagree about how to achieve them.
That's where Openmindedness, the aspiration of this website, comes in. Its what we need, desperately.
We need to understand that those who disagree with us are not idiots, and that they have a legitimate point of view capable of anyone's understanding.
The TEA party wants lower taxes and less government regulation. Don't we all.
I may not agree with that, but at least I can understand it, and respect those who advocate it.
The Occupy people want equality in wealth, power, and opportunity. Any conservative who refuses to understand that is being not only narrow minded, but dishonest. Of course, everyone can understand that.
So let's take the first step,and quit pretending we think the other side, whichever side that is, are all idiots, because we know better.
A few days ago I suggested that the TEA Party and the OWS protests should join forces in this country to form a unified front against the coming winter of our collective discontent. A movement, in essence, against ourselves, and what we have allowed ourselves to become.
We all want the same things, but the problem is, we disagree about how to achieve them.
That's where Openmindedness, the aspiration of this website, comes in. Its what we need, desperately.
We need to understand that those who disagree with us are not idiots, and that they have a legitimate point of view capable of anyone's understanding.
The TEA party wants lower taxes and less government regulation. Don't we all.
I may not agree with that, but at least I can understand it, and respect those who advocate it.
The Occupy people want equality in wealth, power, and opportunity. Any conservative who refuses to understand that is being not only narrow minded, but dishonest. Of course, everyone can understand that.
So let's take the first step,and quit pretending we think the other side, whichever side that is, are all idiots, because we know better.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Change
By sheer coincidence, this website sprang into existence the same day that the Occupy Wall Street protests began, and I still say that this website is gonna outlive the protest movement, but maybe not.
It may be that the protest movement, which is spreading around the world, will precipitate fundamental change, worldwide.
Worldwide the economy is in a shambles, and worldwide about 1% of the population is doing very well, and the other 99% is not. Or it might be that many more than 1% is doing well, but that 99% is nonetheless angry. Whatever the case, it may soon become obvious that the number of people who side with the protests and what they stand for, far outnumbers those who oppose it. The world message seems to be redistribution of wealth, opportunity, and power.
The question arises: where does the protest movement go from here? I'll tell you where the one in this country oughta go, if it knows what's best for it. Straight into the arms of Barrack Hussein Obama, that's where. Of course, the republican presidential candidates are encouraging the movement to oppose Obama, understandable, but hilarious. As if these protesters are a bunch of republicans...
In fact, many people who are doing fairly well financially, like myself, are still angry, because we don't feel that we are doing financially well enough, or that we have an adequate voice in public affairs.
The people of the world should certainly join hands to oppose violence, warfare, poverty, and tyranny. Are we all agreed on that? Well, maybe, just maybe, its happening.
It may be that the protest movement, which is spreading around the world, will precipitate fundamental change, worldwide.
Worldwide the economy is in a shambles, and worldwide about 1% of the population is doing very well, and the other 99% is not. Or it might be that many more than 1% is doing well, but that 99% is nonetheless angry. Whatever the case, it may soon become obvious that the number of people who side with the protests and what they stand for, far outnumbers those who oppose it. The world message seems to be redistribution of wealth, opportunity, and power.
The question arises: where does the protest movement go from here? I'll tell you where the one in this country oughta go, if it knows what's best for it. Straight into the arms of Barrack Hussein Obama, that's where. Of course, the republican presidential candidates are encouraging the movement to oppose Obama, understandable, but hilarious. As if these protesters are a bunch of republicans...
In fact, many people who are doing fairly well financially, like myself, are still angry, because we don't feel that we are doing financially well enough, or that we have an adequate voice in public affairs.
The people of the world should certainly join hands to oppose violence, warfare, poverty, and tyranny. Are we all agreed on that? Well, maybe, just maybe, its happening.
Remember Joe?
Joe the Plumber is running for Congress. Are you shocked? You really shouldn't be. Do you even remember Joe? He became famous during the 2008 presidential election campaign when Obama was walking through a neighborhood in, wasn't it Toledo, Ohio? Joe was standing in his yard, and candidate Obama walked up to him, and shook hands.
Joe took advantage of the opportunity to complain to Obama that raising taxes on the wealthy would only hurt small businesses, such as his plumbing business. Turned out that he didn't even have a plumbing business (details, details).
Obama responded by saying something like "share the wealth, buddy". The republicans made much noise about this, alternately claiming that Obama had been unaware that his comment was caught on recorder, and that Obama had accidently shown himself to be a socialist.
If but for that moment, and the spectacle that the conservative media made of it, would Joe be running for congress now? One doubts it. Somehow, it seems quite natural in our soundbite fifteen minutes of fame culture that good ole Joe would be unable to resist the allure of celebrity.
Or perhaps Joe finally got his plumbing business started, more clearly sees Obama's devastating policies, and simply feels obligated to serve, and fight the liberal menace. The smart money is on the fame theory.
Joe took advantage of the opportunity to complain to Obama that raising taxes on the wealthy would only hurt small businesses, such as his plumbing business. Turned out that he didn't even have a plumbing business (details, details).
Obama responded by saying something like "share the wealth, buddy". The republicans made much noise about this, alternately claiming that Obama had been unaware that his comment was caught on recorder, and that Obama had accidently shown himself to be a socialist.
If but for that moment, and the spectacle that the conservative media made of it, would Joe be running for congress now? One doubts it. Somehow, it seems quite natural in our soundbite fifteen minutes of fame culture that good ole Joe would be unable to resist the allure of celebrity.
Or perhaps Joe finally got his plumbing business started, more clearly sees Obama's devastating policies, and simply feels obligated to serve, and fight the liberal menace. The smart money is on the fame theory.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
American Anger
It almost seems as if the U.S.A. is becoming a more aggressive, angry country. It could be argued that it has always been that way, but, whether or not it was in the past, America seems aggressive and angry right now. I offer five pieces of evidence.
1. Football has exploded in popularity, the most aggressive and violent sport surpassing all others.
2. WE evidently have a national epidemic of bullying in schools, far beyond anything previous.
3. Most Amerian drivers are insanely aggressive. If you go the speed limit anywhere, somebody is one
foot behind your rear bumper. Always. Everywhere.
4. The U.S.A. is currently engaged in at least two wars, and has been for years, with more
posssible wars looming all the time. We (the United States) seem angry at much of the world,
and much of the world seems angry at us (America)
5. People are in the streets protesting all over America.
Maybe all this proves nothing. But doesn't it all seem to kind of add up to an angry aggressive
culture?
1. Football has exploded in popularity, the most aggressive and violent sport surpassing all others.
2. WE evidently have a national epidemic of bullying in schools, far beyond anything previous.
3. Most Amerian drivers are insanely aggressive. If you go the speed limit anywhere, somebody is one
foot behind your rear bumper. Always. Everywhere.
4. The U.S.A. is currently engaged in at least two wars, and has been for years, with more
posssible wars looming all the time. We (the United States) seem angry at much of the world,
and much of the world seems angry at us (America)
5. People are in the streets protesting all over America.
Maybe all this proves nothing. But doesn't it all seem to kind of add up to an angry aggressive
culture?
C.O.W.C.R.A.P.P.
Welcome to the first edition of ;
Conservative Outlook Writings Creatively Rendered Albeit Presented by a Progressive", wherein, due to a lack of response by many conservatives who were invited to write for The Truthless Reconciler, the TTR nonetheless attempts to present a variety of viewpoints, including conservative. So here goes
...
...the pictures next to this article depict an exercise in meaninglessness by people who do not understand the true identity of their oppressor and enemy.
The so called Occupy Wall Street movement is an expression of sheer jealousy of the people who have worked hard, made good decisions, and succeeded financially in our society. These people should be admired and imitated, not mocked and scorned. They are our role models. If we all work hard and make good decisions we will all be extremely wealthy, and live in mansions. There will then be billions of mansions all over the world. Literally, billions.
The problem we should all be protesting against is the government, and Obama in particular. They created class warfare by rudely pointing out the gap between the rich and the poor, and by putting every possible roadblock in the way of good people getting rich.
Get rid of government interference, and the world would operate with a pure free enterprise system, wherein all who work hard and make good decisions will be prosperous. And if you're prosperous, what does it matter than a few people are a wee bit more prosperous than you?
Conservative Outlook Writings Creatively Rendered Albeit Presented by a Progressive", wherein, due to a lack of response by many conservatives who were invited to write for The Truthless Reconciler, the TTR nonetheless attempts to present a variety of viewpoints, including conservative. So here goes
...
...the pictures next to this article depict an exercise in meaninglessness by people who do not understand the true identity of their oppressor and enemy.
The so called Occupy Wall Street movement is an expression of sheer jealousy of the people who have worked hard, made good decisions, and succeeded financially in our society. These people should be admired and imitated, not mocked and scorned. They are our role models. If we all work hard and make good decisions we will all be extremely wealthy, and live in mansions. There will then be billions of mansions all over the world. Literally, billions.
The problem we should all be protesting against is the government, and Obama in particular. They created class warfare by rudely pointing out the gap between the rich and the poor, and by putting every possible roadblock in the way of good people getting rich.
Get rid of government interference, and the world would operate with a pure free enterprise system, wherein all who work hard and make good decisions will be prosperous. And if you're prosperous, what does it matter than a few people are a wee bit more prosperous than you?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Rallies
The adjoining photographs were taken at an Occupy Wall Street rally in Fayetteville, Arkansas, on a day whent he demonsrations were occuring all across the United States, and all over the world.
They all seemed to have a similar theme; anger at the global economic and political status quo, and a determination to force it to change.
The rally in Fayetteville, Arkansas was attended by a couple hundred cheerful people who spent their time together discussing solutions.
If common people all over the world are doing the same thing, perhaps intelligent ideas will emerge which will gain widespread support.
They all seemed to have a similar theme; anger at the global economic and political status quo, and a determination to force it to change.
The rally in Fayetteville, Arkansas was attended by a couple hundred cheerful people who spent their time together discussing solutions.
If common people all over the world are doing the same thing, perhaps intelligent ideas will emerge which will gain widespread support.
Momentum
By October 15, the Occupy Wall Street protests were spreading all over the word, nearly a thousand demonstrations in nearly a hundred different countries. It was becoming a global movement. But how long will it last? Are we entered into a new era of demonstrations sustained and nourished by communication on the internet? Will it eventuate that the internet is regarded as the supreme historical force which brought democracy and equality to the world?
The thought crossed my mind that the number of protests around the world is approximately equal to the number of U.S. military bases around the world. Serendipity!
The distribution of thte world's wealth and resources is extremely unequal, and it may be that this movement is of overpowering hisorical importance, and results in a fundamental reordering of humanity; the time when the many ganged up on the few, and brought change.
It still seems to me that the movement will soon fizzle out, but I fervently hope I'm wrong.
The thought crossed my mind that the number of protests around the world is approximately equal to the number of U.S. military bases around the world. Serendipity!
The distribution of thte world's wealth and resources is extremely unequal, and it may be that this movement is of overpowering hisorical importance, and results in a fundamental reordering of humanity; the time when the many ganged up on the few, and brought change.
It still seems to me that the movement will soon fizzle out, but I fervently hope I'm wrong.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Tea For Two
Why don't we try this; let's combine the Occupy Wall Street movement with the Tea Party movement, and have one big Party of Discontent (POD). That way, we can sort of "get it out of our system" all at once. Forward Harch!! Left right left!
The TEA party people are angry at government, and the Occupy Wall Street people are angry at corporate free enterprise. Seems like there oughta be enough anger to go around. Put the two groups together, and you pretty much have everything, every possible object of anger, covered. We should all be angry at big spending, reelection politicking government, and we should all be angry with big time corporate investment free enterprise, for both are as corrupt as the elephant's trunk or the donkey's tail is long.
For that matter, we should all be angry at ourselves, we the American people, for our own folly at permitting all this. We should all be protesting our own behavior, protesting ourselves.
Let us all proclaim the creation of the Organization of American People Angry at Ourselves (OAPAO)
Last American citizen in the streets is a rotten egg!
(and please turn out the lights on your way out)
The TEA party people are angry at government, and the Occupy Wall Street people are angry at corporate free enterprise. Seems like there oughta be enough anger to go around. Put the two groups together, and you pretty much have everything, every possible object of anger, covered. We should all be angry at big spending, reelection politicking government, and we should all be angry with big time corporate investment free enterprise, for both are as corrupt as the elephant's trunk or the donkey's tail is long.
For that matter, we should all be angry at ourselves, we the American people, for our own folly at permitting all this. We should all be protesting our own behavior, protesting ourselves.
Let us all proclaim the creation of the Organization of American People Angry at Ourselves (OAPAO)
Last American citizen in the streets is a rotten egg!
(and please turn out the lights on your way out)
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Spiritual Weaponry
Religion has again reared its ugly political head, this time in the republican presidential scramble where they're all so sure that Obama can be beaten they have their gloves off. A pastor working for Rick Perry referred to Mormonism as a cult, correct? Mitt Romney asked for an apology, in essence, and has not gotten one so far. He night not want to hold his breath.
Unless I'm mistaken, Mormons consider themselves Christians, do they not? Which again rasies the question; why does anyone ever bother to try to label and define somebody elses, anybody elses, religion? Why not simply let each person define his own religion?
No, that would be too easy, too reasonable. Heaven help us that we humans should ever succumb to reason, and stop trying to define and judge other people's religiosity. Far be it for us to ever lay down a weapon, even a spiritual one.
Unless I'm mistaken, Mormons consider themselves Christians, do they not? Which again rasies the question; why does anyone ever bother to try to label and define somebody elses, anybody elses, religion? Why not simply let each person define his own religion?
No, that would be too easy, too reasonable. Heaven help us that we humans should ever succumb to reason, and stop trying to define and judge other people's religiosity. Far be it for us to ever lay down a weapon, even a spiritual one.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Accusations and Pretexts
Oh, here we go again. Never a dull moment in America. Now it seems that the Iranians tried to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. It was to happen in a restaurant, right,with a hitman supplied by a Mexican drug cartel, right? But we (the Americans) foiled it, just in the nick o time.
Now commences the period of righteous indignation, the accusations, the threats, and of course the denials. Problem is, the Iranian denial sounds a lot more plausable than the American accusations, but then, what else is new?
Americans have a history of making accusations which lead to war. Maybe its a natural growth mechanism. Rome did this. So did England. All growing empires do; they find pretexts upon which to conquer and expand.
Perhaps the Iranians were indeed trying to kill the Saudi Arabian gentleman. Anything is possible, and the Iranians are obviously not angels. But the story behind it sure is a mite fishy.
The revolutionary war which began the USA was instigated against a relatively lenient government, by the standards of the times. Americans had bona fide complaints, but for the most part, the English rulers essentially let the colonies do as they please. The wars with Mexico and spain, which jump started our empire, were waged for trumped up (by the US) reasons. So were most of our recent wars, including Viet Nam, the first Persian Gulf War, and possibly even World War Two. Roosevelt may indeed have conducted his foreign policy in such a manner as to provoke the Japanese into war.
If there is a war against Iran, I might be a tad suspicious. But I sure hope America wins...
Now commences the period of righteous indignation, the accusations, the threats, and of course the denials. Problem is, the Iranian denial sounds a lot more plausable than the American accusations, but then, what else is new?
Americans have a history of making accusations which lead to war. Maybe its a natural growth mechanism. Rome did this. So did England. All growing empires do; they find pretexts upon which to conquer and expand.
Perhaps the Iranians were indeed trying to kill the Saudi Arabian gentleman. Anything is possible, and the Iranians are obviously not angels. But the story behind it sure is a mite fishy.
The revolutionary war which began the USA was instigated against a relatively lenient government, by the standards of the times. Americans had bona fide complaints, but for the most part, the English rulers essentially let the colonies do as they please. The wars with Mexico and spain, which jump started our empire, were waged for trumped up (by the US) reasons. So were most of our recent wars, including Viet Nam, the first Persian Gulf War, and possibly even World War Two. Roosevelt may indeed have conducted his foreign policy in such a manner as to provoke the Japanese into war.
If there is a war against Iran, I might be a tad suspicious. But I sure hope America wins...
Amero
The formation of the European Union, and the introduction of the "Euro" currency, seems, thus far, to have strengthened the European economic system. Maybe we should try something similar on the American side of the Atlantic. The "United States of North America" could include the U.S., Canada, and Mexcio, as well as Cuba, the Doninican, and Haiti, and the new currency could be called the "Amero".
This might strengthen the economy of the entire continent, facilitate the movement of labor and other resources, and stimulate new investment.
Cooperation and unity among humans can be productive or destructive, of course,depending on its aims.
The USA benefits from its ingenious balance between localism and centralism. Foreign policy is best decided by the central state, roads are best paved regionally, and schools are run best locally.
May we one day know a world with no foreign policy!
This might strengthen the economy of the entire continent, facilitate the movement of labor and other resources, and stimulate new investment.
Cooperation and unity among humans can be productive or destructive, of course,depending on its aims.
The USA benefits from its ingenious balance between localism and centralism. Foreign policy is best decided by the central state, roads are best paved regionally, and schools are run best locally.
May we one day know a world with no foreign policy!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Backwards Bachman
By now we all know that all the Republican candidates for president are bitterly opposed to the Occupy Wall Street movement spreading across the United States, and we know why. Conservatives just plain old don't like progressive change, which means doing things differently than ever before; they much prefer reactionary change, which means going back to the way things used to be.
Michelle Bachman, if you still remember her, is the rapidly sinking republican presidential candidate from Minnesota. She now appears to have no more chance at the nomination than Newt Gingrich. Therefore she is attacking hard, in desparation. She suggested that the Occupy Wall Street people should direct their anger agsinst President Obama, of all people. Well, why not? He aint a republican, and he is, after all, her ultimate enemy. Presumably, she also thinks that the protestors should side with the republicans, which is a hilarious thought.
Now, I ask you this: with whom do the protestors better fit, Obama, or Bachman? Well, let's see.
The protestors are angry at Wall Street, who to them symbolize America's wealthiest one per cent.
Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest one per cent, Bachman vigorously opposes doing that.
In fact, like all the other republican candidates, Bachman regards Obama's prososal "class warfare", or at least she says she does.
According to the protestors, the class war began long ago, before any of us were alive, when the corporate elite gained the absolute control over this country tha they maintain today. What the protestors really stand for is the elimination of class warfare.
The point is, the protest movement is essentially ideologically Obamian, in a broad sense. And it is diametrically opposed to everything Bachman and her fellow conservatives advocate, which is essentially a continuation of the current plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).
It would be far more appropiate for the protest to actively and openly support Obama, and aim their protest at Bachman and the others like her.
Michelle Bachman, if you still remember her, is the rapidly sinking republican presidential candidate from Minnesota. She now appears to have no more chance at the nomination than Newt Gingrich. Therefore she is attacking hard, in desparation. She suggested that the Occupy Wall Street people should direct their anger agsinst President Obama, of all people. Well, why not? He aint a republican, and he is, after all, her ultimate enemy. Presumably, she also thinks that the protestors should side with the republicans, which is a hilarious thought.
Now, I ask you this: with whom do the protestors better fit, Obama, or Bachman? Well, let's see.
The protestors are angry at Wall Street, who to them symbolize America's wealthiest one per cent.
Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest one per cent, Bachman vigorously opposes doing that.
In fact, like all the other republican candidates, Bachman regards Obama's prososal "class warfare", or at least she says she does.
According to the protestors, the class war began long ago, before any of us were alive, when the corporate elite gained the absolute control over this country tha they maintain today. What the protestors really stand for is the elimination of class warfare.
The point is, the protest movement is essentially ideologically Obamian, in a broad sense. And it is diametrically opposed to everything Bachman and her fellow conservatives advocate, which is essentially a continuation of the current plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).
It would be far more appropiate for the protest to actively and openly support Obama, and aim their protest at Bachman and the others like her.
Paradigm
So now, once again, let me see if I can get this straight. There exists a relatively small, secretive, but all powerful and all wealthy group of people who basically control everything, rule the world. They do it so cleverly that the rest of us don't even know they're doing it. They've been doing it for hundreds of years, and are called "the illuminati".
There also exists a large number of different extraterrestrial highly advanced species, who are engaged in various projects, among them, preparing the human species for liberation from the illuminati. Other projects include preparing the human species for their (the ETs) revealing themselves openly to humanity, and various alien plots and intrigues designed to harm humanity. Evidently not all the aliens are on board the "save humanity" bandwagon. Soon, the story goes, the illuminati will indeed be defeated, and the human race will commence a glorious new age of peaceful prosperity and extraterrestrial cultural exchange.
The more I keep going over this, the crazier it sounds. For some strange reason, I rather hope its all true. It very well may be. There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreampt of...
A coworker approached me today and asked "do you believe that we really landed on the moon?"
I nodded my head slightly and replied "yeah". Then I tried to explain that you can bounce radar signals off the moon, at a certain location, and they come back symmetrically, by hitting metallic targets placed there by astronauts for that very purpose.
I faintly got the impresson that my coworker wanted me to believe that all the alleged Apollo moon landings were fabricated, and I definitely got the impression that he himself believes it. Or at least wants to. But..does he really?
After nine one one it became evident that, to millions of people, the universe is filled with conspiracies and secret organizations and actions about which we the masses know next to nothing.
Its almost as if a new religion is being born before our very eyes. Either it is, or...or we live in the strangest damned universe I've ever seen or heard of. I have a friend who waits with great anticipation for the beings from the heavens to reveal themselves, nightly beseeching the skies, speaking to them.
There also exists a large number of different extraterrestrial highly advanced species, who are engaged in various projects, among them, preparing the human species for liberation from the illuminati. Other projects include preparing the human species for their (the ETs) revealing themselves openly to humanity, and various alien plots and intrigues designed to harm humanity. Evidently not all the aliens are on board the "save humanity" bandwagon. Soon, the story goes, the illuminati will indeed be defeated, and the human race will commence a glorious new age of peaceful prosperity and extraterrestrial cultural exchange.
The more I keep going over this, the crazier it sounds. For some strange reason, I rather hope its all true. It very well may be. There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreampt of...
A coworker approached me today and asked "do you believe that we really landed on the moon?"
I nodded my head slightly and replied "yeah". Then I tried to explain that you can bounce radar signals off the moon, at a certain location, and they come back symmetrically, by hitting metallic targets placed there by astronauts for that very purpose.
I faintly got the impresson that my coworker wanted me to believe that all the alleged Apollo moon landings were fabricated, and I definitely got the impression that he himself believes it. Or at least wants to. But..does he really?
After nine one one it became evident that, to millions of people, the universe is filled with conspiracies and secret organizations and actions about which we the masses know next to nothing.
Its almost as if a new religion is being born before our very eyes. Either it is, or...or we live in the strangest damned universe I've ever seen or heard of. I have a friend who waits with great anticipation for the beings from the heavens to reveal themselves, nightly beseeching the skies, speaking to them.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Prognosticators
One of my conservative friends told me he had read somewhere that liberalism seems to be dead or dying, that the future belongs to individualism rather than collectivism, and that the nation and the world are headed for a conservative future.
I replied that if conservatism ever gains a complete monopoly, the conservatives would split into two groups, the more conservative group, and the less conservative group, and thus liberalism would be reborn. The two philosophies simply need each other too much.
Sometimes our worst nightmares about the future come true. In my third grade, the teacher explained to us the difference between the words "to", "too", and "two". Then she said something shocking. She told us that there were people as old as 20 or 25, or even older, who misused those three words.
I refused to believe it. It couldn't be true. Adults were simply too intelligent, to old, and two good two do something like that. But now I see it every day on the internet. My third grade teacher was a prophet. Maybe liberalism will end. I wonder what my third grade teacher had to say about that...
I replied that if conservatism ever gains a complete monopoly, the conservatives would split into two groups, the more conservative group, and the less conservative group, and thus liberalism would be reborn. The two philosophies simply need each other too much.
Sometimes our worst nightmares about the future come true. In my third grade, the teacher explained to us the difference between the words "to", "too", and "two". Then she said something shocking. She told us that there were people as old as 20 or 25, or even older, who misused those three words.
I refused to believe it. It couldn't be true. Adults were simply too intelligent, to old, and two good two do something like that. But now I see it every day on the internet. My third grade teacher was a prophet. Maybe liberalism will end. I wonder what my third grade teacher had to say about that...
Protests
A friend asked me to predict how the Occupy Wall Street protest would turn out, and my guess was that it would all fade away soon enough. He was much more optimistic, screaming about a huge groundswell of momentum which would soon carry the movement to epic size. I hope he's right; I've made no secret of the fact that I want the protest to grow and spread, and attract attention. Yet I still think it will soon fade away...
The current crop of Republican Presidential candidates uniformly despises the protests, calling them "un-American", and heaven only knows what else.
Well, how surprising; conservatives uninterested in change. And that's what these protestors want: change.
The protestors, according to all the GOP candidates, should be directing their anger at President Obama, not Wall Street, not the political and economic system in general.
Its amazing that enyone could believe that, and deep down I doubt that anybody does.
Obama would have to be prehistorically ancient and all powerful to have created the greed and exploitation which underlies our societal mess. I think the Republicans find it convenient to blame Obama, but also, they seem to despise the thought that there might be anything fundamentally wrong with the status quo, with traditional institutions. That might give validity to liberalism and change.
People Against Protest (P.A.P.), particularly candidates for president, should bear in mind that the thousands of protestors have the agreement and empathy of millions more Americans. How and why?
Because milllions of Americans have recently lost their jobs and houses. Angry Americans is a large voting block.
The current crop of Republican Presidential candidates uniformly despises the protests, calling them "un-American", and heaven only knows what else.
Well, how surprising; conservatives uninterested in change. And that's what these protestors want: change.
The protestors, according to all the GOP candidates, should be directing their anger at President Obama, not Wall Street, not the political and economic system in general.
Its amazing that enyone could believe that, and deep down I doubt that anybody does.
Obama would have to be prehistorically ancient and all powerful to have created the greed and exploitation which underlies our societal mess. I think the Republicans find it convenient to blame Obama, but also, they seem to despise the thought that there might be anything fundamentally wrong with the status quo, with traditional institutions. That might give validity to liberalism and change.
People Against Protest (P.A.P.), particularly candidates for president, should bear in mind that the thousands of protestors have the agreement and empathy of millions more Americans. How and why?
Because milllions of Americans have recently lost their jobs and houses. Angry Americans is a large voting block.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Steve Jobs
The death of Steve Jobs shook me up, because he was the same age I am, and it made me think about how much more he accomplished in life than I have. But I musn't dwell on that.
Another aspect of his death that struck me is the reaction of the media and the public to it. Steve is being called Einstein, Edison, Henry Ford, and Ican't even remember who and what else. Appropiate respect for a great man.
But what did Steve Jobs actually do? Was he a great business man? Was he a great scientist? Did he have advanced eduation in electionics and computers, and use that knowledge to actually design and invent new technology? Or did he simply, as Apple CEO, lead people in developing new concepts for devices, then use his authority to oversee their construction and distribution?
Einstein and Henry Ford were totally different from ecah other; I doubt Steve Jobs was both of them at the same time. Maybe Steve was like noone else, and all these comparisons are meaningless and inappropiate. Steve was like nobody else ever was, or ever will be.And the same is true of the rest of us.
Another aspect of his death that struck me is the reaction of the media and the public to it. Steve is being called Einstein, Edison, Henry Ford, and Ican't even remember who and what else. Appropiate respect for a great man.
But what did Steve Jobs actually do? Was he a great business man? Was he a great scientist? Did he have advanced eduation in electionics and computers, and use that knowledge to actually design and invent new technology? Or did he simply, as Apple CEO, lead people in developing new concepts for devices, then use his authority to oversee their construction and distribution?
Einstein and Henry Ford were totally different from ecah other; I doubt Steve Jobs was both of them at the same time. Maybe Steve was like noone else, and all these comparisons are meaningless and inappropiate. Steve was like nobody else ever was, or ever will be.And the same is true of the rest of us.
UFOs
Around 1965 I became fascinated with the UFO thing, when I read the book "The Interrupted Journey", about the alleged abduction of Betty and Barney Hill by extraterrestrials in 1961. The world's interest in UFOs had been growing rapidly since the end of World War Two, and the emergence of roccketry and human space flight. Now, more than ever, the world remains interested, particularty with all the furor concerning the approaching December 21, 2012 galactic alignment.
But nothing else has chaged. The years go by, and the abundantly accumulating anecdotal evidence seems like nothing new or different, it remains inconclusive as always.
Somewhat different though, is the type of people who report seeing UFOs. People of the highest credibility, like airline pilots and police officers, seem more willing to give reports, people who would appear to have enhanced oppoptunity for sightings but who would also appear to be risking their careers by making reports.
Its flat out hard to imagine any police officer or airline pilot making up a UFO story merely to get attention.
Also different is the zealous devotion which the question is given by UFO researchers and alleged contactees. With an almost religious zeal people proclaim the inevitability of human and extraterrestrial interaction, many proclaiming that such interaction is already well underway. In the 1960s not many peoople were actually telling us that contact had already been made, it was simply a question of whether extraterrestrials existed at all, and if so, whether they would contact us.
Somewhow I envy those who claim personal experiences with ETs. Even more I envy anyone who has direct, ongong psychic or telepathic contact with alien beings, particularly the magnanimous alien beings. (who would want any other kind?)
I'm stuck in the same position I was as a child in 1965. I just keep wondering about it, hoping for...what?
I'm not quite sure I even KNOW what I want. do I really want my life, my worldview, changed dramatically forever by confirmed contact? I really don't know...
But I do know that my only real choice is to sit tight, and wait, just in case THEY appear, assuming that they will appear, if, when, and in whatever way they, and not I, choose.
But nothing else has chaged. The years go by, and the abundantly accumulating anecdotal evidence seems like nothing new or different, it remains inconclusive as always.
Somewhat different though, is the type of people who report seeing UFOs. People of the highest credibility, like airline pilots and police officers, seem more willing to give reports, people who would appear to have enhanced oppoptunity for sightings but who would also appear to be risking their careers by making reports.
Its flat out hard to imagine any police officer or airline pilot making up a UFO story merely to get attention.
Also different is the zealous devotion which the question is given by UFO researchers and alleged contactees. With an almost religious zeal people proclaim the inevitability of human and extraterrestrial interaction, many proclaiming that such interaction is already well underway. In the 1960s not many peoople were actually telling us that contact had already been made, it was simply a question of whether extraterrestrials existed at all, and if so, whether they would contact us.
Somewhow I envy those who claim personal experiences with ETs. Even more I envy anyone who has direct, ongong psychic or telepathic contact with alien beings, particularly the magnanimous alien beings. (who would want any other kind?)
I'm stuck in the same position I was as a child in 1965. I just keep wondering about it, hoping for...what?
I'm not quite sure I even KNOW what I want. do I really want my life, my worldview, changed dramatically forever by confirmed contact? I really don't know...
But I do know that my only real choice is to sit tight, and wait, just in case THEY appear, assuming that they will appear, if, when, and in whatever way they, and not I, choose.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Open Mindedness
The Truthless Reconciler is devoted to open mindedness, and the search for truth. Most certainly it is intended to be neither liberal nor conservative, Chrstian, nor...whatever...
Its intended to be thought provoking, intellectually stimulating, and intelligent.
Anyone who can be open minded in discussing current affairs is invited to participate.
At least one conservative reader has refusd to contribute his writing to the TR because he feels that the open mindedness requiremet is too limiting. Heaven forbid that anyone be required to write with an open minded attitude.
All closed minded people object to open mindedness. May we evolve beyond dogma, and may all of us achieve far greater open mindedness.
Its intended to be thought provoking, intellectually stimulating, and intelligent.
Anyone who can be open minded in discussing current affairs is invited to participate.
At least one conservative reader has refusd to contribute his writing to the TR because he feels that the open mindedness requiremet is too limiting. Heaven forbid that anyone be required to write with an open minded attitude.
All closed minded people object to open mindedness. May we evolve beyond dogma, and may all of us achieve far greater open mindedness.
Return
As of three PM Sat Oct 8 The Truthless Reconciler is active, after a 24 hour pause. Over the course of the next several weeks the TR will be publishing writing from an increasing variety of good, interesting writers, discussing current global issues in a creative writing format. The intent here is to be neither liberal nor conservative, but rather, open minded, intelligent, and humble in seeking truth and progress. All participation form all sources is welcome.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Announcement
The Truthless Reconciler will feature no new posts between noon, Friday October 7, and noon, Saturday October 8. Posting will resume Saturday afternoon, and proceed rapaciously from there on.
All are welcome to visit, and to leave comments, and a wide variety of writers is desired.
The purpose of the Truthless Reconciler is to provide an open minded forum of creative writing to present a wide variety of commentary on current global events and issues.
All opeminded participation is welcome.
All are welcome to visit, and to leave comments, and a wide variety of writers is desired.
The purpose of the Truthless Reconciler is to provide an open minded forum of creative writing to present a wide variety of commentary on current global events and issues.
All opeminded participation is welcome.
Uniqueness
Steve Jobs told a story about his college experience, in which he jettisoned the traditional curriculum, and replaced it with only classes which he himself found interesting. One of these classes was caligraphy. According to Jobs, his love of that class inspired him to later produce computers which provide all the good looking, artistic type styles and fonts we all know and love on computers today.
Jobs seemed to strongly believe that his spontaneous decision to follow his heart in class selection was ultimately extremely fortuitous, serendipitous for the world's computer development.
True enough, I suppose. However...
do you suppose that if Jobs hadn't had that caligraphy class, that nonetheless, eventually, somebody else would have installed caligraphic type on computers? Perhaps its even possible that everything he ever accomplished would have been accomplished by somebody else, if he hadn't done it.
Perhaps the same is true of most accomplishments of most of us.
Perhaps our value to others resides merely in our essential uniqueness as people, not in the uniqueness of anything we accomplish.
Mozart was necessary for Mozart's music to come into existence. But computer caligraphy? Who knows, maybe you or I would have eventually gotten tired of boring type styles, and done the same thing that Jobs did. Maybe somebody else would have formed a creative and successful computer company. Maybe somebody else would even have written Mozart's music...
Jobs seemed to strongly believe that his spontaneous decision to follow his heart in class selection was ultimately extremely fortuitous, serendipitous for the world's computer development.
True enough, I suppose. However...
do you suppose that if Jobs hadn't had that caligraphy class, that nonetheless, eventually, somebody else would have installed caligraphic type on computers? Perhaps its even possible that everything he ever accomplished would have been accomplished by somebody else, if he hadn't done it.
Perhaps the same is true of most accomplishments of most of us.
Perhaps our value to others resides merely in our essential uniqueness as people, not in the uniqueness of anything we accomplish.
Mozart was necessary for Mozart's music to come into existence. But computer caligraphy? Who knows, maybe you or I would have eventually gotten tired of boring type styles, and done the same thing that Jobs did. Maybe somebody else would have formed a creative and successful computer company. Maybe somebody else would even have written Mozart's music...
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Spiritual Revolution
So now we have protests and revolutions going on all over the word, including the United States, but we have more, much more, than political change and upheaval. We have the same thing in spiritual, scientific, and philosophical matters as well...a feeling of impending change, of upheaval.
All over the world strong evidence is being assembled for the existence of "extraterrestrials", intelligent, advanced beings in the universe other than human beings, if you can imagine such a thing. There may soon come a time when we laugh at ourselves for ever having doubted their existence. or when we laugh at ourselves for ever having thought we were "alone".
AS the evidence mounts, the human mind becomes a bit more open, gradually, which it will certainly have to do to accept our new reality.
It is quite possible that all eleven thousand of the world's current religions will be extinct within a hundred years, in light of the forthcoming relevations. We live in wondrous, revolutionary times, times so made by visionaries such as Steve Jobs. God Bless Steve Jobs, and may God bless the human species, as it surges forth into a far, far different future.
All over the world strong evidence is being assembled for the existence of "extraterrestrials", intelligent, advanced beings in the universe other than human beings, if you can imagine such a thing. There may soon come a time when we laugh at ourselves for ever having doubted their existence. or when we laugh at ourselves for ever having thought we were "alone".
AS the evidence mounts, the human mind becomes a bit more open, gradually, which it will certainly have to do to accept our new reality.
It is quite possible that all eleven thousand of the world's current religions will be extinct within a hundred years, in light of the forthcoming relevations. We live in wondrous, revolutionary times, times so made by visionaries such as Steve Jobs. God Bless Steve Jobs, and may God bless the human species, as it surges forth into a far, far different future.
Protesting is always right
American history, and for that matter, all of human history, is replete with protest and revolution. Often times it is the only recourse of the downtrodden, the last unavoidable resort of the desparate, as Thomas Jefferson knew all so well.
And so America was born in protest and revolution, and yes, violence.
People almost always protest against their own country, as America did in 1776 and is doing now in 2011.
As America grew and expanded westward, the protests continued, all the way to today.
With the U.S.A. tearing up one treaty after another, in 1830 Davy Crockett, in Congress, protested the "Indian Removal Act", insisting that America must not break her promises.
In 1846 Henry David Thoreau protested the Mexican War, claiming that the USA had deliberately started the war in order to steal half of Mexico (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California).
Did Crockett and Thoreau have good arguments?. History suggests that they did.
During the Civil War draft dodgers protested in New York.
In 1932 thousands of World War One veterans descended on Washington D.C., camped out all over town, demanding early military pension payments because of the depression.
Fondly I remember the protests against the Viet Nam war, in which I was too young to participate, and the protests against the first war against Saddam in 1990, in which I did participate., proudly.
These people out in the streets now, out in Wall Street, need and deserve much popular support, because, like every other protest in American history, it is demonstrably justified.
And so America was born in protest and revolution, and yes, violence.
People almost always protest against their own country, as America did in 1776 and is doing now in 2011.
As America grew and expanded westward, the protests continued, all the way to today.
With the U.S.A. tearing up one treaty after another, in 1830 Davy Crockett, in Congress, protested the "Indian Removal Act", insisting that America must not break her promises.
In 1846 Henry David Thoreau protested the Mexican War, claiming that the USA had deliberately started the war in order to steal half of Mexico (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California).
Did Crockett and Thoreau have good arguments?. History suggests that they did.
During the Civil War draft dodgers protested in New York.
In 1932 thousands of World War One veterans descended on Washington D.C., camped out all over town, demanding early military pension payments because of the depression.
Fondly I remember the protests against the Viet Nam war, in which I was too young to participate, and the protests against the first war against Saddam in 1990, in which I did participate., proudly.
These people out in the streets now, out in Wall Street, need and deserve much popular support, because, like every other protest in American history, it is demonstrably justified.
Protest
For the third week in a row thousands of people, mostly young, occupy Wall Street on a daily basis in what is being called "Operation Invade Wall Street". They are, in a sense, there to share their dissatisfaction with the world the way it now is. The world with its economic violence, inequality, and exploitation.
Many carry signs which read "we're the 99%ers", meaning, presumably, that they are among the ninety nine per cent of the world's people who are negatively imapcted by the current political and economic system. That number may be fairly accurate. The few profiting, the many suffering.
In one of the mammoth buildings overlooking the protesters is draped another sign. It says:
"we are the 1%"
Presumably this is an expression of agreement with the protesters concerning the percentages.
Apparently the one per cent power elite have no wish to conceal their existence or identity.
They seem, in fact, to be advertising it.
They'd better be careful. Ninety nine per cent is a huge majority, and it would seem that an increasing portion of that huge majority is sufficiently motivated to appear daily in the streets. How many more of us are there, around the country, around the world, who would love nothing more than to join the protesters, but cannot manage to take time away from their personal survival struggle within the corporate system?
The corporate owners might wish to reconsider their brazen approach. They govern only because of ingrained tradition, social inertia, resistance to change. That resistance may well be crumbling. The numbers seem to indicate as much.
Workers of the world UNITE!
Many carry signs which read "we're the 99%ers", meaning, presumably, that they are among the ninety nine per cent of the world's people who are negatively imapcted by the current political and economic system. That number may be fairly accurate. The few profiting, the many suffering.
In one of the mammoth buildings overlooking the protesters is draped another sign. It says:
"we are the 1%"
Presumably this is an expression of agreement with the protesters concerning the percentages.
Apparently the one per cent power elite have no wish to conceal their existence or identity.
They seem, in fact, to be advertising it.
They'd better be careful. Ninety nine per cent is a huge majority, and it would seem that an increasing portion of that huge majority is sufficiently motivated to appear daily in the streets. How many more of us are there, around the country, around the world, who would love nothing more than to join the protesters, but cannot manage to take time away from their personal survival struggle within the corporate system?
The corporate owners might wish to reconsider their brazen approach. They govern only because of ingrained tradition, social inertia, resistance to change. That resistance may well be crumbling. The numbers seem to indicate as much.
Workers of the world UNITE!
Protest
On the nineteenth day of the neo-hippie Wall Street protest sit in march or whatever it is, a middle aged lady was interviewed on television, and it turns out she was protesting the evident fact that she is strapped financially, and is concerned that she might never be able to retire.
Presumably she is blaming the system, or at least, considers society in general, or society's power structure, to be at least partly responsible for her plight.
That is a debatable point. On the other side of the debate, one might argue by asking a simple question: "who's fault is that?". And why do you have the idea that "retirement" is some kind of God given, inalienable right, rather than a luxury of a recently prosperous civilization?
To what extent is the world responsible for our woes, and to what extent are we?
Surely the world is enough to blame to justify many people gathering spontaneously to remind the rest of us of the world's blame.
Presumably she is blaming the system, or at least, considers society in general, or society's power structure, to be at least partly responsible for her plight.
That is a debatable point. On the other side of the debate, one might argue by asking a simple question: "who's fault is that?". And why do you have the idea that "retirement" is some kind of God given, inalienable right, rather than a luxury of a recently prosperous civilization?
To what extent is the world responsible for our woes, and to what extent are we?
Surely the world is enough to blame to justify many people gathering spontaneously to remind the rest of us of the world's blame.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Its protest time! Nerve ripping, screeching protest time! Faintly remindful of the halcyon days of Viet Nam. Earlier this year we enjoyed the "Arab Spring", featuring revolutions in Egypt, Lybia, the Arab Emirates,and Syria. These convulsions are not yet finished. Europe had protests this year,England and France in particular.
Now, at long last, the protest comes to our beloved America. And its about time.
On the nineteenth day of the protests young people filled Wall Street, and the streets of many other major American cities, protesting.......exactly what?
They themselves, the protesters, don't seem to know exactly. Each individual knows exactly what he or she is protesting, but.....they all seem to be protesting different things, and thus, the protest groups as a whole do not know what they are protesting. And this may be the first time in history, anywhere, that this has happened. Only in America...
Some of them are protesting corporate greed, and corporate political control. Others are protesting environmental destruction. Still others are protesting America's various current wars, all of them, or maybe just one war. The bad economy, joblessness, disparity of wealth....let's face it, we gotta passle
of things to protest, if protesting is your fancy.
And evidently it is, at least among our young modern hippies, and more power to 'em, its high time SOMEBODY started. These people remind me of the Viet Nam protestors forty five years ago; maybe they're the grandchildren of the sixties hippies.
But whatever it is they're protesting - and I think they'll figure it out - I'm all for 'em. Protests are good for society. This'll end up being good for ours...
Now, at long last, the protest comes to our beloved America. And its about time.
On the nineteenth day of the protests young people filled Wall Street, and the streets of many other major American cities, protesting.......exactly what?
They themselves, the protesters, don't seem to know exactly. Each individual knows exactly what he or she is protesting, but.....they all seem to be protesting different things, and thus, the protest groups as a whole do not know what they are protesting. And this may be the first time in history, anywhere, that this has happened. Only in America...
Some of them are protesting corporate greed, and corporate political control. Others are protesting environmental destruction. Still others are protesting America's various current wars, all of them, or maybe just one war. The bad economy, joblessness, disparity of wealth....let's face it, we gotta passle
of things to protest, if protesting is your fancy.
And evidently it is, at least among our young modern hippies, and more power to 'em, its high time SOMEBODY started. These people remind me of the Viet Nam protestors forty five years ago; maybe they're the grandchildren of the sixties hippies.
But whatever it is they're protesting - and I think they'll figure it out - I'm all for 'em. Protests are good for society. This'll end up being good for ours...
WWJD
Among my many friends are some good folks whom writer Gore Vidal would call "The Jesus, Guns, and Money crowd". Tea party types, perhaps. They are devout Christians, devout capitalists, and not only do they think guns should be legal, they think that people in general should own guns, to protect themselves. And they don't simply believe in free enterprise, they believe in profiting extensively with it.
One of my goals is to become open minded enough to understand how they reconcile all this.
WWJD? What would Jesus do? Wouldn't he recommend non ownership of guns, and non pursuit of wealth?
Perhaps not. Perhaps Jesus would advocate gun ownership, and encourage people to work hard in order to become as wealthy as possible.
But still....
One of my goals is to become open minded enough to understand how they reconcile all this.
WWJD? What would Jesus do? Wouldn't he recommend non ownership of guns, and non pursuit of wealth?
Perhaps not. Perhaps Jesus would advocate gun ownership, and encourage people to work hard in order to become as wealthy as possible.
But still....
The weather
This past summer it rained almost every day in New York. The subway tunnels were awash, and the Central Park lawn needed mowing nearly every day. Meanwhile, in Texas, the earth was parched and barren in a monumental drought.
Who among us didn't have the same thought: wouldn't it be great if we could move some of that water from New York, and put it in Texas? And someday that may actually happen.
Michio Kaku, prominent physicist at New York University, asserts that by the end of this century humankind will be able to control the weather.
Its already obvious that we understand much more about the weather than we did only a few years ago, and that weather forecasting has gotten extremely good.
Actually controlling the weather seems like a science fiction fantasy. Such a thing would be accomplished through scientific research and technology, it would seem, for the purpose of creating an earthly utopia.
It no longer seems that way. We can no longer afford to dream of utopia, and trust in science alone.
We have more pressing matters at hand. We have our obvious climate change happening now. We'll be lucky to merely survive, and learning how to control the weather and climate might at this point be our only hope for surviving.
Who among us didn't have the same thought: wouldn't it be great if we could move some of that water from New York, and put it in Texas? And someday that may actually happen.
Michio Kaku, prominent physicist at New York University, asserts that by the end of this century humankind will be able to control the weather.
Its already obvious that we understand much more about the weather than we did only a few years ago, and that weather forecasting has gotten extremely good.
Actually controlling the weather seems like a science fiction fantasy. Such a thing would be accomplished through scientific research and technology, it would seem, for the purpose of creating an earthly utopia.
It no longer seems that way. We can no longer afford to dream of utopia, and trust in science alone.
We have more pressing matters at hand. We have our obvious climate change happening now. We'll be lucky to merely survive, and learning how to control the weather and climate might at this point be our only hope for surviving.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
My mother, who is 91, complained to me about the lack of any cost of living increase in her social security payment. I reminded her that because she's been retired for twenty five years, she's really come out pretty well on the deal. She agreed.
Then she said something like "they let the illegal Mexicans in here, and pay them, but I get no increase."
That one was a little harder to deal with. I reminded her that the Mexicans here work hard, and do jobs, for low wages, that Americans won't do. I further reminded her that American corporations, which control everything, allow the open border because they want the cheap labor. Furthermore, I said, it is appropiate that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and Colorado are filling up with Mexicans, since the U.S. stole those places from Mexico in the first place. Again, she agreed.
Sometimes we simply must correct our misconceptions.
Then she said something like "they let the illegal Mexicans in here, and pay them, but I get no increase."
That one was a little harder to deal with. I reminded her that the Mexicans here work hard, and do jobs, for low wages, that Americans won't do. I further reminded her that American corporations, which control everything, allow the open border because they want the cheap labor. Furthermore, I said, it is appropiate that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and Colorado are filling up with Mexicans, since the U.S. stole those places from Mexico in the first place. Again, she agreed.
Sometimes we simply must correct our misconceptions.
The purpose of this web site is to entertain and make people laugh, and to stimulate thought. A large number of different writers will soon begin to appear here, with many different points of view and styles. The common denominator will be the theme "openmindedness".
People could in theory communicate on the internet in order to bring about positive change in the world. By sharing ideas, and spreading and implementing good ideas, together we can all bring about change for the better, everywhere in the world.
It isn't at all impossible to do this. In fact, its quite possible. Its late, but it isn't too late. It needs only be done.
People could in theory communicate on the internet in order to bring about positive change in the world. By sharing ideas, and spreading and implementing good ideas, together we can all bring about change for the better, everywhere in the world.
It isn't at all impossible to do this. In fact, its quite possible. Its late, but it isn't too late. It needs only be done.
Further Misconceptions
We labor under false notions our entire lives, and we start early.
When I was eight years old, President Kennedy was assassinated, and all of us who remember will never forget.
Horrified, I approached my older sister. (she was eleven). With utter horror in my voice and eyes, I announced "I just found out that the new president is a girl, maybe even a high school girl. Her name is 'Lynda Johnson'".
Sister looked down at me with utter contempt and loathing. She replied "You little goof. Our new president is 'Lyndon Johnson', and he is an older man".
I was instantly relieved and embarrassed. I made her promise to never tell anyone about this.
Nearly fifty years later, my shame has sufficiently diminished that I can come clean. So there you
have it...
When I was eight years old, President Kennedy was assassinated, and all of us who remember will never forget.
Horrified, I approached my older sister. (she was eleven). With utter horror in my voice and eyes, I announced "I just found out that the new president is a girl, maybe even a high school girl. Her name is 'Lynda Johnson'".
Sister looked down at me with utter contempt and loathing. She replied "You little goof. Our new president is 'Lyndon Johnson', and he is an older man".
I was instantly relieved and embarrassed. I made her promise to never tell anyone about this.
Nearly fifty years later, my shame has sufficiently diminished that I can come clean. So there you
have it...
Monday, October 3, 2011
Misconceptions
Clarifying misconceptions, the subject of recent posts, is both an individual and a societal journey. According to my father, I was sitting in my high chair, less than a year old, gazing out the window with eyes bulging, aflame with excitement and wonder. It alarmed my mother, who wondered what was wrong with me. Father calmly explained to her: "look outside. Its raining. He's never seen rain before."
When I was about 5, it was raining again, and as I watched it hit the street, driveway, and sidewalk, the thought suddenly occured to me that the rain might melt the concrete. My older sister assured me that it would in fact not.
About a year later, I was six years ld, and it was 1961. My dad sat engrossed in the TV. I asked him what he was watching, and he told me that it was baseball, a game called the World Series, between the Yankees and the Reds. I asked him who he was rooting for, and he said "The Reds". I hate the Yankees."
My mother gave me the same answer, rooting for somebody called "Reds", hating somebody called "Yankees". So did our next door neighbors in all directions: root for Reds, hate Yankees.
I concluded that everbody felt the same way. Everybody in my world, everybody in the whole world.
Poor Yankees. everybody hated them.They had no chance at all.
I have always tended to root for the underdog, and to me, that's what the Yankeees were. And to this day I root for the Yankees, only because of a childhood misconception. I'm a natural Cubs fan, but, alas, its too late..
misconceptions can change our lives forever.......
When I was about 5, it was raining again, and as I watched it hit the street, driveway, and sidewalk, the thought suddenly occured to me that the rain might melt the concrete. My older sister assured me that it would in fact not.
About a year later, I was six years ld, and it was 1961. My dad sat engrossed in the TV. I asked him what he was watching, and he told me that it was baseball, a game called the World Series, between the Yankees and the Reds. I asked him who he was rooting for, and he said "The Reds". I hate the Yankees."
My mother gave me the same answer, rooting for somebody called "Reds", hating somebody called "Yankees". So did our next door neighbors in all directions: root for Reds, hate Yankees.
I concluded that everbody felt the same way. Everybody in my world, everybody in the whole world.
Poor Yankees. everybody hated them.They had no chance at all.
I have always tended to root for the underdog, and to me, that's what the Yankeees were. And to this day I root for the Yankees, only because of a childhood misconception. I'm a natural Cubs fan, but, alas, its too late..
misconceptions can change our lives forever.......
And speaking of presidential campaigns, the American presidential campaign which begins much much too early, do we all agree that the American political system is utterly corrupt, and reduced to nothing but money? I thought so...
Our enitre political system can be purified and saved with seven magic words:
THE PURCHASE OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING IS PROHIBITED
A new national law. This idea comes not from me, but from Gore Vidal, as far as I know.
Every candidate for political office in this country purchases the election, and therefore purchases the office, and thus our plutocracy.
This law would force the media and the public to work together to provide fair, honest elections.
Our enitre political system can be purified and saved with seven magic words:
THE PURCHASE OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING IS PROHIBITED
A new national law. This idea comes not from me, but from Gore Vidal, as far as I know.
Every candidate for political office in this country purchases the election, and therefore purchases the office, and thus our plutocracy.
This law would force the media and the public to work together to provide fair, honest elections.
The other day at a Republican presidential debate there was a brief soundbite video of an American soldier, who during his comments mentioned that he is gay. A couple of people in the audience booed him, and all of the republican candidates simply ignored the booing. None of them said anything about it.
Next thing you know, President Obama finds out about it, and condemns the GOP candidates for having remained silent, instead of condeming the bad behavior towards the soldier. Obama was quick to point out that he woud never, ever have done such a thing, he would have spoken up...
Gotta part company with the prez on this one. Sometimes, in fact oftentimes, the best way to deal with bad behavior is simply to ignore it, and often the attention seeker will vanish.
Next thing you know, President Obama finds out about it, and condemns the GOP candidates for having remained silent, instead of condeming the bad behavior towards the soldier. Obama was quick to point out that he woud never, ever have done such a thing, he would have spoken up...
Gotta part company with the prez on this one. Sometimes, in fact oftentimes, the best way to deal with bad behavior is simply to ignore it, and often the attention seeker will vanish.
Global warming
The world is full of myths and misconceptions, and we've hardly time to debunk 'em all, so, moving right along....
It is widely reported, especially among conservatives, that there exists a large group of credible scientists who disput the evidnce of global warming, and who believe that it may not exist, or, if it does exist, that it might be natural, not man made.
No such group exists. There is in fact an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is real, and caused by human activity. The agreement is nearly unanimous.
There ARE a few scientists who dispute global warming, but for the most part they are being paid for their skepticism by corporations who want to avoid the expenxe of environmental protection.
It is widely reported, especially among conservatives, that there exists a large group of credible scientists who disput the evidnce of global warming, and who believe that it may not exist, or, if it does exist, that it might be natural, not man made.
No such group exists. There is in fact an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is real, and caused by human activity. The agreement is nearly unanimous.
There ARE a few scientists who dispute global warming, but for the most part they are being paid for their skepticism by corporations who want to avoid the expenxe of environmental protection.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
And now, as previously promised, a refutation of the belief, inexplicably widespread, that the United States is merely a Republic, and not an empire.
Let me put it this way; the U.S.A. is most assuredly, indisputably, undoubtedly....an empire.
There are two definitions of the word "empire". One, a country ruled by an emporer. Two, a country which has a huge and great amount of political and military control over a vast geographical area.
The U.S. doesn't qualify for emire status according to the first definition, but she most certainly does according to the second.
America started becoming an empire as soon as she freed herself from British rule, and began expanding westward.
She continued this by acquiring part of Mexico, and the west, all the way to the Pacific Ocean, after the Mexican War.
The process continued with the Spanish American War, the acquisition of Alaksa and Hawaii, and it continues today.
Today's version of empire consists in the fact that the U.S. has nearly a thousand military bases around the world in nearly one hundred different countries, and projects her military power all over the world, and has since World War Two.
If that aint an empire, there aint no such thing as empire...
Let me put it this way; the U.S.A. is most assuredly, indisputably, undoubtedly....an empire.
There are two definitions of the word "empire". One, a country ruled by an emporer. Two, a country which has a huge and great amount of political and military control over a vast geographical area.
The U.S. doesn't qualify for emire status according to the first definition, but she most certainly does according to the second.
America started becoming an empire as soon as she freed herself from British rule, and began expanding westward.
She continued this by acquiring part of Mexico, and the west, all the way to the Pacific Ocean, after the Mexican War.
The process continued with the Spanish American War, the acquisition of Alaksa and Hawaii, and it continues today.
Today's version of empire consists in the fact that the U.S. has nearly a thousand military bases around the world in nearly one hundred different countries, and projects her military power all over the world, and has since World War Two.
If that aint an empire, there aint no such thing as empire...
conservative Bias
Most conservatives will tell you that America is basically a conservative nation, a free enterprise nation, where the market determines programming. And yet they will usually tell you that the mainstream American media is liberal, and deliberately angers the mainstream American people with all the liberal garbage, even in the face of massive pretest, and that the FOX network is a lonely voice of conservative reason in a liberal media wasteland.
Conservatives seem to think that America's newspapers and television networks are slowly committing suicide out of sheer stupidity, or fanatical, unreasoning devotion to liberalism which trumps even the profit motive...
It seems incredible that anyone could believe all this, because it simple doesn't make sense or add up, yet, strangely, many people believe all of it.
All media, except public TV and radio, is about profit. Profit and only profit. Good old fashioned conservative American capitalistic profit. And, in general, they've done well at it.
Conservatives seem to think that America's newspapers and television networks are slowly committing suicide out of sheer stupidity, or fanatical, unreasoning devotion to liberalism which trumps even the profit motive...
It seems incredible that anyone could believe all this, because it simple doesn't make sense or add up, yet, strangely, many people believe all of it.
All media, except public TV and radio, is about profit. Profit and only profit. Good old fashioned conservative American capitalistic profit. And, in general, they've done well at it.
There comes a time for the debunking of myths. Here, now, is such a time. Among the most persistent myths is that the mainstream American media is biased towards liberalism. This is utterly untrue. The American mainstream media has but one bias; towards profit, and to this end, will program whatever it takes.
Some networks are more liberal than others, some are more conservative. For instance, the FOX network, though it calls itself "fair and balanced", is far from "balanced". Its conservative. Its fair, because there's nothing unfair about being conservative, but it is most certainly not "balanced". The mere fact that FOX calls itself "fair and balanced" shows that they don't want to be seen as conservative, but rather, as all things to all people, as middle of the road.
For the most part most networks are as dead center as they can possibly get, because this is where the profit is.
In the next installment we shall debunk the widely propagated myth that the United States of America is a republic, rather than an empire. You won't wanna miss it!
Some networks are more liberal than others, some are more conservative. For instance, the FOX network, though it calls itself "fair and balanced", is far from "balanced". Its conservative. Its fair, because there's nothing unfair about being conservative, but it is most certainly not "balanced". The mere fact that FOX calls itself "fair and balanced" shows that they don't want to be seen as conservative, but rather, as all things to all people, as middle of the road.
For the most part most networks are as dead center as they can possibly get, because this is where the profit is.
In the next installment we shall debunk the widely propagated myth that the United States of America is a republic, rather than an empire. You won't wanna miss it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)