THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, scourge of conservatives, claims that the united states federal government, over the past several years, has drastically increased electronic surveillance of american citizens, from about twenty three thousand a year, to something around thirty six thousand.
Who do we think we are! Russia? China? (that's just a little joke, oh russian and chinese friends)
So, you can see, oh say can you see, that the total number of americans victimized by big brother is, on a percantage basis, quite small.
Unless you're organizing terrorist activity, you're probably safe. These wire tappngs include government tracking incoming and outgoing phone calls and email, but not necessarily the contents, just the addresses, which is apparently quite legal under the patriot act.
Conservatives hate the ACLU because it is perceived as liberal, often favoring the little guy against the big powerful entity, which is guaranteed to upset conservatives. But conservatives also say they are opposed to something they call "big government", whatever they mean by that.
They don't mean the military, because conservatives like a big military. They definitely do mean social welfare redistribution programs. Conservatives do not like government taking from the rich, and giving to the poor, because it encourages people to be poor, and unfairly punishes the wealthy. And besides, government chairty is "big government", and we mustn't have that.
Do they mean government spiyng on americans? Will conservatives rally to the support of the ACLU this time, standing for privacy, liberty, and freedom from government intrusion?
MSN took a survey in which seventy one per cent of respondants say they are concerned about increased government spying. Twenty six per cent are not, for whatever reason, and three percent evidently don't understand the question.
Let's all rally together on this one, libs and conservs alike, and rise up, and strike down big brother, including the patriot act. It might be our last gasp of freedom.
Bb
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Atomic Bomb Club
CURRENT EVENTS QUIZ: name every country which has the atomic bomb. (tick..tick)...answer: the united states, russia, frqance, great britain, india, pakistan, china. israel is suspected of having it, but its official policy is to tell nobody whether it does. rumor has it that israel has lotd the united states, but agfain, that's just hearsay.
The iranians are undoubtedly working on it, and the north koreans may, or may not, have an atom bomb. Conspicuos by their omission are germany and japan, rich , modern, high tech countries whcuh are certainly capable of developing and buildig nucledar weapons.
B ut after world war two they both agreed not to, and they have stuck to that agreement fastidiously. There's a reason for that, and a very good one. Both germany and japan know very well what its like to be destroy with bombs, nuclear or conventional.
There are sill amny people, albeit fewer every day, who reme3mbver the horrors of world war two. You don't even have to remember world war two to be against nuclear weapons, all you have to do is read about it.
Thus, on those grounds, the united states is perfectly justified and correct in insisting that iran and north korea must not be allowed to develop atomic bombs. the united states would bed equally justified, if not more so, in declaring its intention of gettng rid, eventually, of all its nuclear weapons, fission and fusion.
It could also be argued that the united states, which invented the atomic bomb and is the only country to ever use it, has no moral right to insist on any other nation refraining from nuclear weaponry.
And yes, with each passing year, it is indeed more likely that some day some violent rogue terrrorist group will get a bomb, and use it, tragically. The solution is the total verifiable elimination of nuclear weaponry from this earth.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE ARTICLES! THANKS!
The iranians are undoubtedly working on it, and the north koreans may, or may not, have an atom bomb. Conspicuos by their omission are germany and japan, rich , modern, high tech countries whcuh are certainly capable of developing and buildig nucledar weapons.
B ut after world war two they both agreed not to, and they have stuck to that agreement fastidiously. There's a reason for that, and a very good one. Both germany and japan know very well what its like to be destroy with bombs, nuclear or conventional.
There are sill amny people, albeit fewer every day, who reme3mbver the horrors of world war two. You don't even have to remember world war two to be against nuclear weapons, all you have to do is read about it.
Thus, on those grounds, the united states is perfectly justified and correct in insisting that iran and north korea must not be allowed to develop atomic bombs. the united states would bed equally justified, if not more so, in declaring its intention of gettng rid, eventually, of all its nuclear weapons, fission and fusion.
It could also be argued that the united states, which invented the atomic bomb and is the only country to ever use it, has no moral right to insist on any other nation refraining from nuclear weaponry.
And yes, with each passing year, it is indeed more likely that some day some violent rogue terrrorist group will get a bomb, and use it, tragically. The solution is the total verifiable elimination of nuclear weaponry from this earth.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE ARTICLES! THANKS!
Lingerie Athleticism
GOD BLESS AMERICA, or "only in america", take your pick. American culture invented football, baseball, and basketball, all of which, like jazz and rock n roll, have achieved popularity in many places other than the united states, and now, we take it a step further.
The culture which brought commercialized sex to the free market now introduces lingerie basketball. Lingerie football has been around for a few years; can lingerie baseball be far behind?
They play in bikinis, and, at least on the football field, they play seriously, and roughly. Women's boxing and wrestling does pretty well as well.
When women were expected to cover everything from wrists to ankles, it was widely brainwashed that ladies were not suited for athletic activity of any sort. Now, in a few more years, when all long distance running records are in the hands of females, (they're getting closer and closer) the 'weaker" sex will have achieved final vindication.
Basketball broke the barrier. It was always obvious that girls are perfectly capable of playing basketball, especially in the era of two handed set shooting and passing. But of course they couldn't possibly play the exactly the same sport as men, it had to be gentled down.
So they came up with the interesting variation wherein six on a team shared the court, three at one end, and three at the other. Either you played offense or defense, but not both simultaneously, and they traded back and forth. That ended about forty years ago, and the rest, including female collegiate and professional basketball, is, as they say, history.
Three on three game at both ends of the court was really a good idea, for everybody. the court is uncrowded, and on every play nobody is irrelevant. Pay close attention to a regular modern five on five game. game, at any level, and watch the playeres who don't have the ball, or aren't guarding someone who does.
Sometimes, at least briefly, there are people not doing very much, except standing around. Then too, transitioning from one end of the court to another is often a sluggish formality, but not in the half court three on three game. Maybe it should be brought back.
Bb
The culture which brought commercialized sex to the free market now introduces lingerie basketball. Lingerie football has been around for a few years; can lingerie baseball be far behind?
They play in bikinis, and, at least on the football field, they play seriously, and roughly. Women's boxing and wrestling does pretty well as well.
When women were expected to cover everything from wrists to ankles, it was widely brainwashed that ladies were not suited for athletic activity of any sort. Now, in a few more years, when all long distance running records are in the hands of females, (they're getting closer and closer) the 'weaker" sex will have achieved final vindication.
Basketball broke the barrier. It was always obvious that girls are perfectly capable of playing basketball, especially in the era of two handed set shooting and passing. But of course they couldn't possibly play the exactly the same sport as men, it had to be gentled down.
So they came up with the interesting variation wherein six on a team shared the court, three at one end, and three at the other. Either you played offense or defense, but not both simultaneously, and they traded back and forth. That ended about forty years ago, and the rest, including female collegiate and professional basketball, is, as they say, history.
Three on three game at both ends of the court was really a good idea, for everybody. the court is uncrowded, and on every play nobody is irrelevant. Pay close attention to a regular modern five on five game. game, at any level, and watch the playeres who don't have the ball, or aren't guarding someone who does.
Sometimes, at least briefly, there are people not doing very much, except standing around. Then too, transitioning from one end of the court to another is often a sluggish formality, but not in the half court three on three game. Maybe it should be brought back.
Bb
Friday, September 28, 2012
Real Curiosity
THE MARS ROVER "CURIOSITY" seems to have a great deal more (curiosity) than the average human. Slowly, carefully, the car sized machine has been moving around in the crater in wh ich it landed several weeks ago, making great video, and even greater discoveries.
Meanwhile, all this is largely ignored by the mainstream, media, and society. If we could all find it within ourselves to pretend that Curiosity is a video game, a reality TV show, or some sort of violent competition, then our interest might spike upward.
For decades the big question has been, is there water on mars, has there ever been water on mars, and if so, how much, and in what form? And now, finally, we have the conclusive answer.
There were once deep, rapidly flowing rivers on mars. The place where rover is not looking seems to have once been a river between six inches and four feet deep, flowing fast. This means that there was something other than water for the rivers to flow over and through; land.
And just what was that land like? What, or who, lived and grew there? Those are the next questions, and odds are that more microbiological research will eventually reveal the answers.
Richard C. Hoagland, a former science advisor with NASA, believes that the human species evolved on mars, then, when the planet began to die, transported itself to the eath, and started all over, and in the process forgot about its martian origins.
And just maybe that's the way it happened. Human skin and eyes seem much better suited for greater distance from the blazing sun than we co urrently have. So who knows. Those who laugh at people with these kinds of theories have a little bit less to laugh about today.
If we ,as a culture, can drag ourselves away from our daily staple of gratuitous escape enterteinment long enough to really look at mars, and the rest of the universe in which we miraculously live, the real entertainment is just beginning.
Meanwhile, all this is largely ignored by the mainstream, media, and society. If we could all find it within ourselves to pretend that Curiosity is a video game, a reality TV show, or some sort of violent competition, then our interest might spike upward.
For decades the big question has been, is there water on mars, has there ever been water on mars, and if so, how much, and in what form? And now, finally, we have the conclusive answer.
There were once deep, rapidly flowing rivers on mars. The place where rover is not looking seems to have once been a river between six inches and four feet deep, flowing fast. This means that there was something other than water for the rivers to flow over and through; land.
And just what was that land like? What, or who, lived and grew there? Those are the next questions, and odds are that more microbiological research will eventually reveal the answers.
Richard C. Hoagland, a former science advisor with NASA, believes that the human species evolved on mars, then, when the planet began to die, transported itself to the eath, and started all over, and in the process forgot about its martian origins.
And just maybe that's the way it happened. Human skin and eyes seem much better suited for greater distance from the blazing sun than we co urrently have. So who knows. Those who laugh at people with these kinds of theories have a little bit less to laugh about today.
If we ,as a culture, can drag ourselves away from our daily staple of gratuitous escape enterteinment long enough to really look at mars, and the rest of the universe in which we miraculously live, the real entertainment is just beginning.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Consuming Ourselves in Violence
TODAY IS A GREAT DAY to attack the united states, if anyone is so inclined. just thought you might like the heads up. The entire american army is on "stand down", ignoring all regularly previously scheduled activities in order to spend the day undergoing suicide prevention education.
Yes, its come to that. So many members of the american military, about one every day, are committing suicide that the chain of command finally saw fit to do something about it, or at least try, or at least appear to try.
the process involves the entire chain of command. Barrack Hussein Obama, in the oval office, sitting on the floor in a circle with about ten other people including michelle and the girls, shoes off, lotus position, chanting "I am a child of the universe, I have a right to be here." Learning how to avoid killing oneself.
The american military is learning how to survive against itself, which is apparently its biggest threat. The iranian people, the islamic people, the north korean people, they have no interest in attacking america, notwithstanding some wayward and belligerent spokespeople. El Quada is a small group of fanatical thugs who are unpolular in their own countries. america has few, if any natural external enemies.
For several decades we the american people were lectured, coerced, browbeaten into accepting the russians as our bitter enemies to the death. Somehow, it never really seemed natural, or normal, and it was hard for we the peeps to really sink our teeth into it. That's because it was a hoax. But, we tried. We curled beneath our desks at school and played make believe every time the bomb alarm went off, which was often.
So its not that the american corporate oligarchial government doesn't try to make enemies for us, with which to stimulate our economy, its just that they aren't always very good at it.
So, we turn inward, against the only thing we have left; ourselves.The suicide rate among the general civilian population is nothing to sneeze either, not as high as sweden, but not too terribly far behind. We, as citizens of the united states, and potential members of the american military, must all learn how to survive against the worst enemy of all, the self.
Then too, of course, we have the ones running around killing others, the random mass murders to which we have become so accustomed. Our national real life drug of choice, violence. The rest of us just sit by, and watch the carnage. WE pay good money to see it.
If we americans could stop killing ourselves, and each other, and people in other countries, we might have more time to sit back, and watch a good ultimate fight or football game on cable.
Yes, its come to that. So many members of the american military, about one every day, are committing suicide that the chain of command finally saw fit to do something about it, or at least try, or at least appear to try.
the process involves the entire chain of command. Barrack Hussein Obama, in the oval office, sitting on the floor in a circle with about ten other people including michelle and the girls, shoes off, lotus position, chanting "I am a child of the universe, I have a right to be here." Learning how to avoid killing oneself.
The american military is learning how to survive against itself, which is apparently its biggest threat. The iranian people, the islamic people, the north korean people, they have no interest in attacking america, notwithstanding some wayward and belligerent spokespeople. El Quada is a small group of fanatical thugs who are unpolular in their own countries. america has few, if any natural external enemies.
For several decades we the american people were lectured, coerced, browbeaten into accepting the russians as our bitter enemies to the death. Somehow, it never really seemed natural, or normal, and it was hard for we the peeps to really sink our teeth into it. That's because it was a hoax. But, we tried. We curled beneath our desks at school and played make believe every time the bomb alarm went off, which was often.
So its not that the american corporate oligarchial government doesn't try to make enemies for us, with which to stimulate our economy, its just that they aren't always very good at it.
So, we turn inward, against the only thing we have left; ourselves.The suicide rate among the general civilian population is nothing to sneeze either, not as high as sweden, but not too terribly far behind. We, as citizens of the united states, and potential members of the american military, must all learn how to survive against the worst enemy of all, the self.
Then too, of course, we have the ones running around killing others, the random mass murders to which we have become so accustomed. Our national real life drug of choice, violence. The rest of us just sit by, and watch the carnage. WE pay good money to see it.
If we americans could stop killing ourselves, and each other, and people in other countries, we might have more time to sit back, and watch a good ultimate fight or football game on cable.
Pulling the Plug on Television
DURING THE RECENT RECESSION there has been a decrease in the number of american homes which have cable or satellite television. The percentage has gone from something like ninety seven percent to ninety five percent, so its not as is television is going out of business, but at least its a start.
In 1978 a fascinating book appeared entitled "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", by sociologist Barry Mander. He had four very good arguments, at least one of which might be obsolete now.
The argument was that images generated with thousands of points of colored light, pixels, could not physically make a lasting impression on the human brain, and thus it was impossible to truly remember anything seen on television.
The author pointed out that merely because a given technology is available does not necessarily mean that it should be developed and used. No doubt about that. By the time you finish this book, you will see his point of view, and maybe even agree with it.
Gloriously, television can be eliminated from any given household anytime given resident wishes to, as americans have in the last couple of years, in order to save money. TV used to be free, now its expensive. Several months without it and you save hundreds of dollars, and have more time to read, spend with family and friends, actually doing things, and heavens knows what all else.
The programming on cable/satellite TV is beyond all comprehension and reason.. There must be many old americans who truly believe that television was better in the 1950s and 1960s when there were three channels. They have a point. who among us does not sit with remote control, endlessly clicking, always seeking, never happy. It isn't just for men.
It almost seems that there was a time when the violence shown on televsion had a reason, a point to it, other than just adrenaline. And of sourse the sexual overtones were subtle, and again, somehow, purposeful. Now we are saturated with shocking seduction, then turned into comsuming-working units.
If the american people would en masse would cancel their television and proclaim an intent to make it permanent, all hell would break loose, and good things would happen. For one, the cost of television would come down. Then, eventually, the average american seduction consumer experiences withdrawal, and hooks 'er back up.
Another possibility might be that the americdan people, newly awakened from their seductive trance, would look around, figure things out, and do something about it.
Bb
scroll down for more posts....
In 1978 a fascinating book appeared entitled "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", by sociologist Barry Mander. He had four very good arguments, at least one of which might be obsolete now.
The argument was that images generated with thousands of points of colored light, pixels, could not physically make a lasting impression on the human brain, and thus it was impossible to truly remember anything seen on television.
The author pointed out that merely because a given technology is available does not necessarily mean that it should be developed and used. No doubt about that. By the time you finish this book, you will see his point of view, and maybe even agree with it.
Gloriously, television can be eliminated from any given household anytime given resident wishes to, as americans have in the last couple of years, in order to save money. TV used to be free, now its expensive. Several months without it and you save hundreds of dollars, and have more time to read, spend with family and friends, actually doing things, and heavens knows what all else.
The programming on cable/satellite TV is beyond all comprehension and reason.. There must be many old americans who truly believe that television was better in the 1950s and 1960s when there were three channels. They have a point. who among us does not sit with remote control, endlessly clicking, always seeking, never happy. It isn't just for men.
It almost seems that there was a time when the violence shown on televsion had a reason, a point to it, other than just adrenaline. And of sourse the sexual overtones were subtle, and again, somehow, purposeful. Now we are saturated with shocking seduction, then turned into comsuming-working units.
If the american people would en masse would cancel their television and proclaim an intent to make it permanent, all hell would break loose, and good things would happen. For one, the cost of television would come down. Then, eventually, the average american seduction consumer experiences withdrawal, and hooks 'er back up.
Another possibility might be that the americdan people, newly awakened from their seductive trance, would look around, figure things out, and do something about it.
Bb
scroll down for more posts....
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
American empire of Chaos
NOW THAT CHINA has an aircraft carrier, the united nations is calling for intervention in the syrian civil war, and the outgoing president of iran blames the united states for most of the world's problems, we are reminded of what an armed camp the world is, seemingly not getting any safer, as we had hoped it would by now.
After getting atomic bombed twice, japan decided it would become forever a pacifist nation, with no military. The only problem with that, of course, is that nobody else in the world did the same thing. Left undefended by now the chinese would have taken over japan, so somebody had to defend japan, and guess who it turned out to be. The russians and chinese were scared off by the two atomic bombs, as was their intent.
It is unclear if Truman and MacArthur had any inkling that american troops and weaponry would be stationed on japan seventy five years after the end of world war two, and it is unclear how willing and interested teh U.S. was in assuming the role of japan's post war protector. Quite, it appears. The Unites states has never insisted that japan fend for itself, because if it had, japan would be fending for itself.
And economic benefits of this arrangement have been enormous for japan, and a serious drag on the american economy, which now stands at the brink of collapse, overwhelmed with debt and devalued currency. The united states spends as much on its military as the next top ten nations combined, and maintains a worldwide military presence aka empire, which is contributing to american bankruptcy.
Most of the world's nations, most rcently the united states, have learned that expansion is not necessary, and is indeed harmful, beyond a point. If and when china learns this, the world may become a safer place.
After getting atomic bombed twice, japan decided it would become forever a pacifist nation, with no military. The only problem with that, of course, is that nobody else in the world did the same thing. Left undefended by now the chinese would have taken over japan, so somebody had to defend japan, and guess who it turned out to be. The russians and chinese were scared off by the two atomic bombs, as was their intent.
It is unclear if Truman and MacArthur had any inkling that american troops and weaponry would be stationed on japan seventy five years after the end of world war two, and it is unclear how willing and interested teh U.S. was in assuming the role of japan's post war protector. Quite, it appears. The Unites states has never insisted that japan fend for itself, because if it had, japan would be fending for itself.
And economic benefits of this arrangement have been enormous for japan, and a serious drag on the american economy, which now stands at the brink of collapse, overwhelmed with debt and devalued currency. The united states spends as much on its military as the next top ten nations combined, and maintains a worldwide military presence aka empire, which is contributing to american bankruptcy.
Most of the world's nations, most rcently the united states, have learned that expansion is not necessary, and is indeed harmful, beyond a point. If and when china learns this, the world may become a safer place.
The Aircraft Carrier Club
CONGRATULATIONS are perhaps in order to the people's republic of china, if that's what they still call it, for the official launching, activization of their first ever aircraft carrier. They join an elite club,, maybe the most elite in the world; countries with carriers. The U.S. has, what twelve or thirteen, and france and great britain and russia all have a handful, and that's about it.
With a positive attitude, we recognize that not just anybody can own and operate an aircraft carrier, so the very fact that china can, or is at least trying to, indicates an organized, prosperous, forward thinking nation, poised to contribute to human progress. A aircraft carrier takes about a million dollars a day to operate; presumably the chinese already know this; if they don't they'll soon find out.
They require several thousand well trained crew members, and they rarely do anything. Evedry once in a blud moon the U.S. or france or britain launches fighter planes off of one, to hammer some recalcitrant country like iraq. Other than that, aircraft carriers serve mostly to scare people and project airpower, warning of catastrophic capability. But they have not been used effectively on a large scale since the battle of midway, in the summer of forty two.
Any country with aircraft carriers in 2012 is intended to help police the world. The chinese carrier acquisition project began shortly after the break up of the soviet union, which is where the chinese got theirs. So their first one is store bought, not made at home. Their next one will be made at home, they say. Hwo many more they plan to build they have not said, but they do say they're in the carrier business to stay.
Within the past few months the united states has moved at least one carrier group into the china sea, to make damned sure america is respected and not forgotton in asia.
thus the world in the near future will be policed by the united states, france, russia, great britain, and china, the same bunch which comprises and has comprised the united nations security council since the end of world war two. Of those five nations, china is the only one which has grown more prosperous since the second great war.
We the world's sheep might as well accept this arrangement without complaint. It wouldn't do any good anyway. And who knows, this arrangement might be as good as any. The united states is too broke to remain the world's only controlling force, and the american people don't want to job.
The new chinese aircraft carrier was at one point slated to become a floating casino. The day may come when all former aircraft carriers become cruise ship casinos. Until then, no third world petty uncooporative dictator is safe from superpower oversight.
With a positive attitude, we recognize that not just anybody can own and operate an aircraft carrier, so the very fact that china can, or is at least trying to, indicates an organized, prosperous, forward thinking nation, poised to contribute to human progress. A aircraft carrier takes about a million dollars a day to operate; presumably the chinese already know this; if they don't they'll soon find out.
They require several thousand well trained crew members, and they rarely do anything. Evedry once in a blud moon the U.S. or france or britain launches fighter planes off of one, to hammer some recalcitrant country like iraq. Other than that, aircraft carriers serve mostly to scare people and project airpower, warning of catastrophic capability. But they have not been used effectively on a large scale since the battle of midway, in the summer of forty two.
Any country with aircraft carriers in 2012 is intended to help police the world. The chinese carrier acquisition project began shortly after the break up of the soviet union, which is where the chinese got theirs. So their first one is store bought, not made at home. Their next one will be made at home, they say. Hwo many more they plan to build they have not said, but they do say they're in the carrier business to stay.
Within the past few months the united states has moved at least one carrier group into the china sea, to make damned sure america is respected and not forgotton in asia.
thus the world in the near future will be policed by the united states, france, russia, great britain, and china, the same bunch which comprises and has comprised the united nations security council since the end of world war two. Of those five nations, china is the only one which has grown more prosperous since the second great war.
We the world's sheep might as well accept this arrangement without complaint. It wouldn't do any good anyway. And who knows, this arrangement might be as good as any. The united states is too broke to remain the world's only controlling force, and the american people don't want to job.
The new chinese aircraft carrier was at one point slated to become a floating casino. The day may come when all former aircraft carriers become cruise ship casinos. Until then, no third world petty uncooporative dictator is safe from superpower oversight.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Tort Reform
MY FATHER was a tort lawyer, and was very good at it, but he hated it. He wanted to be a musician, but his parents were willing to send him to college only on the condition that he become a lawyer, like my grandfather. He wanted to be a musician, he was a good one, and he loved it, but in the nineteen thirties a career in music, especially in jazz, was not respectable.
Personal injury legal liability trial lawyers are affectionately known as "ambulance chasers", not entirely without good reason, but wherever you have a lawyer you have another lawyer, usually opposed, on the other side of the courtroom. In tort cases these people represent the defendant, which is usually a business, a corporation, or a municipality.
My father described one of his favorite courtroom tricks: the plaintiff sits on the witness stand, wearing a neck brace. Dad walks back and forth across the courtroom, asking questions. Suddenly dad looks at the jury, and remarks, "please notice how the witness turned his head the entire time i was talking to him, following me around the room with his eyes".
Well done, dad. really something to be proud of. the insurance companies loved the money he saved for them, and mom, sis and i loved the things the attorney's fees brought.
Medical liability is often blamed for the enormous cost of health care in america; attorney's fees, mal practice insurance, huge awards by juries against those found guilty of medical malpractice.
Tort reform is a big issue in america, with good cause. probably some monetary limit should be placed on both damages and punitive awards. Since every human life is priceless, and its therefore impossible to determine the dollar value of any human life, why not require that all such determinations be reasonable, neither exoribant nor trifling?
Little people who are seriously injured by negligence on the part of big corporations, hospitals and such, should be fairly compensated for their suffering. But that compensation should not destroy the party being sued.
Fixing the System requires changes, but not comprehensive, sweeping changes.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
Personal injury legal liability trial lawyers are affectionately known as "ambulance chasers", not entirely without good reason, but wherever you have a lawyer you have another lawyer, usually opposed, on the other side of the courtroom. In tort cases these people represent the defendant, which is usually a business, a corporation, or a municipality.
My father described one of his favorite courtroom tricks: the plaintiff sits on the witness stand, wearing a neck brace. Dad walks back and forth across the courtroom, asking questions. Suddenly dad looks at the jury, and remarks, "please notice how the witness turned his head the entire time i was talking to him, following me around the room with his eyes".
Well done, dad. really something to be proud of. the insurance companies loved the money he saved for them, and mom, sis and i loved the things the attorney's fees brought.
Medical liability is often blamed for the enormous cost of health care in america; attorney's fees, mal practice insurance, huge awards by juries against those found guilty of medical malpractice.
Tort reform is a big issue in america, with good cause. probably some monetary limit should be placed on both damages and punitive awards. Since every human life is priceless, and its therefore impossible to determine the dollar value of any human life, why not require that all such determinations be reasonable, neither exoribant nor trifling?
Little people who are seriously injured by negligence on the part of big corporations, hospitals and such, should be fairly compensated for their suffering. But that compensation should not destroy the party being sued.
Fixing the System requires changes, but not comprehensive, sweeping changes.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
On a Middle Class of Wealth and Fame
WE ALL WANT to be rich and famous, right? At least, isn't that what we're supposed to want? And, push come to shove, fame and wealth might just be the most sought after commodities in the world. At least in the united states of america. Survey says!
In america, we certainly seek wealth and fame more than we seek education or enlightenment, correct? The fact that these two (wealth and fame) are always mentioned in the same breath, linked together, makes you wonder; why?
Between the two, wealth is the want you want, buddy. Trust me. Fame is worth what it brings, a wise man once said, recognition from a lot of strangers. For the most part, fame turns out to be a lot of trouble. Almost every celeberity who once sought fame frantically eventually comes to hate being famous. paparazzi, rude strangers get old.
People want attention. Man is a social animal, and recognition from others brings a sense of well being, fulfilling a psychological need. but money brings survival, material survival, as well as, of course, social status, another psychological need.
Few people every hate being rich, although most people who are eventually learn to understand that if they are happy, it isn't mostly because of the money, and if they are unhappy, the money usually can't solve the problem.
Neither money nor fame is a zero sum game. Whether you have much or little, what you have is not taking anything away from what toher people have. Contrary to what a lotta left wingers think, if you have two billion dollars, that two billion dollars is not something that anyone else would have, if you didn't, and it isn't something you took away from anyone, who should have it now instead of you.
You made it, You created it. Whether you keep it, or redistribute it, and the morality and efficacy of those choices, is entirely another question.
Likewise, we can all be famous, if we want to, just like we can all be wealthy. But we must ask ourselves whether that is what we really want? How much attention from strangers does anyone want? Are we advocating a "middle class of fame" here? Being known by many, but not by too many?
Redistribution of fame, perhaps? Ten thousand members of the Britney Spears fan club will now be transferred to joe blow. The wealthy always say, don't take mine away, create your own! You can do it! I did! And of course they are quite correct. Maybe we should let britney keep her fans, and make our own.
In america, we certainly seek wealth and fame more than we seek education or enlightenment, correct? The fact that these two (wealth and fame) are always mentioned in the same breath, linked together, makes you wonder; why?
Between the two, wealth is the want you want, buddy. Trust me. Fame is worth what it brings, a wise man once said, recognition from a lot of strangers. For the most part, fame turns out to be a lot of trouble. Almost every celeberity who once sought fame frantically eventually comes to hate being famous. paparazzi, rude strangers get old.
People want attention. Man is a social animal, and recognition from others brings a sense of well being, fulfilling a psychological need. but money brings survival, material survival, as well as, of course, social status, another psychological need.
Few people every hate being rich, although most people who are eventually learn to understand that if they are happy, it isn't mostly because of the money, and if they are unhappy, the money usually can't solve the problem.
Neither money nor fame is a zero sum game. Whether you have much or little, what you have is not taking anything away from what toher people have. Contrary to what a lotta left wingers think, if you have two billion dollars, that two billion dollars is not something that anyone else would have, if you didn't, and it isn't something you took away from anyone, who should have it now instead of you.
You made it, You created it. Whether you keep it, or redistribute it, and the morality and efficacy of those choices, is entirely another question.
Likewise, we can all be famous, if we want to, just like we can all be wealthy. But we must ask ourselves whether that is what we really want? How much attention from strangers does anyone want? Are we advocating a "middle class of fame" here? Being known by many, but not by too many?
Redistribution of fame, perhaps? Ten thousand members of the Britney Spears fan club will now be transferred to joe blow. The wealthy always say, don't take mine away, create your own! You can do it! I did! And of course they are quite correct. Maybe we should let britney keep her fans, and make our own.
Monday, September 24, 2012
No Doctors
HARVARD UNIVERSITY has everything. It has the largest endowment of any university in america, it has more sports teams and student clubs than any other school, and arguably the best faculty and education.
You are not allowed to take more than twelve hours a semester at harvard, the average class size is seventeen students, and all students are required to take a well rounded curriculum.
But harvard has no school or department of primary care family medicine. It has one of the great med schools in the world, with experts and programs in every conceivable medical field; but nothing in family primary care medicine.
If you want to become a general practitioner, don't go to harvard. Such is the state of health care in the united states, where family docors are in short supply, and much overworked. In general, they make good money, but not neary as good as doctors in ritzy specialties, such as cardiology or cancer research.
You can get a degree in nursing at harvard, but no family practice instruction.
Maybe what america needs is a large infusion of good old fashioned family doctors. Primary care physicians. That would lessen the huge workload of the ones we already have, and possibly drive down the cost of medical attention a bit.
Let's face, putting a price on doctoring is impossible. How much is your life worth to you? Everything? If there is going to be a free market in health care, then let's make it a real free market, with real competition. Let's get more doctors, even if we have to get them from foreign countries.
The more doctors, the more competition, the healthier the industry. Harvard has at least one professor who specializes in basket weaving, and they have billions of dollars. Training doctors might not be a bad idea.
You are not allowed to take more than twelve hours a semester at harvard, the average class size is seventeen students, and all students are required to take a well rounded curriculum.
But harvard has no school or department of primary care family medicine. It has one of the great med schools in the world, with experts and programs in every conceivable medical field; but nothing in family primary care medicine.
If you want to become a general practitioner, don't go to harvard. Such is the state of health care in the united states, where family docors are in short supply, and much overworked. In general, they make good money, but not neary as good as doctors in ritzy specialties, such as cardiology or cancer research.
You can get a degree in nursing at harvard, but no family practice instruction.
Maybe what america needs is a large infusion of good old fashioned family doctors. Primary care physicians. That would lessen the huge workload of the ones we already have, and possibly drive down the cost of medical attention a bit.
Let's face, putting a price on doctoring is impossible. How much is your life worth to you? Everything? If there is going to be a free market in health care, then let's make it a real free market, with real competition. Let's get more doctors, even if we have to get them from foreign countries.
The more doctors, the more competition, the healthier the industry. Harvard has at least one professor who specializes in basket weaving, and they have billions of dollars. Training doctors might not be a bad idea.
victims of seduction
PRESIDENT OBAMA is making hay out of mitt romney's remark that the 47% of americans who pay no federal income tax regard themselves as victims, and expect all kindsa entitlements. As if he has any idea.
It could be argued that everyone should pay some federal income tax, no matter how little. Ten per cent, minimum, no matter how small your income. That would enable everyone to be a contributor, a participant in building our great nation.
But to claim that half the country feels victimized is laughable, and it should be enough to cost mitt the white house. Obama also said something quite "impressive". He said that if romney wants the united states to start another war, he should say so.
That seems reasonable enough. If one wants war, let one openly declare it. Of course, that eliminates the advantage of surprising the enemy. Romney has been critical of obama's reaction to events in syria, libya, iran, and everywhere else. Mitt thinks the U.S. shouyld have stronger responses. Such as what, mitt? Its easy for a presidential candidate to accuse a president of weakness in foreign policy.
This would be a good opportunity for romney to inform the president that he does not require any advice on how to communicate his intentions, and isn't asking for any. These two guys want to be elected so bad that they are showing up on David Letterman and Jay Leno.
The advertising war, the race to purchase the presidency by puchasing the power to bequile the american people into electing presidential candidate, is utterly out of control. It now takes billions of dollars, not millions, to get elected president.
Perhaps a healthy, wealthy media is a good thing in america. But perhaps it might be better for the american people id said media achieved said health and wealth not by shocking and seducing the americna people, but rather, by educationg and enlightening them.
But that would be too much to ask, wouldn't it...for one thing, it wouldn't make a profit.
It could be argued that everyone should pay some federal income tax, no matter how little. Ten per cent, minimum, no matter how small your income. That would enable everyone to be a contributor, a participant in building our great nation.
But to claim that half the country feels victimized is laughable, and it should be enough to cost mitt the white house. Obama also said something quite "impressive". He said that if romney wants the united states to start another war, he should say so.
That seems reasonable enough. If one wants war, let one openly declare it. Of course, that eliminates the advantage of surprising the enemy. Romney has been critical of obama's reaction to events in syria, libya, iran, and everywhere else. Mitt thinks the U.S. shouyld have stronger responses. Such as what, mitt? Its easy for a presidential candidate to accuse a president of weakness in foreign policy.
This would be a good opportunity for romney to inform the president that he does not require any advice on how to communicate his intentions, and isn't asking for any. These two guys want to be elected so bad that they are showing up on David Letterman and Jay Leno.
The advertising war, the race to purchase the presidency by puchasing the power to bequile the american people into electing presidential candidate, is utterly out of control. It now takes billions of dollars, not millions, to get elected president.
Perhaps a healthy, wealthy media is a good thing in america. But perhaps it might be better for the american people id said media achieved said health and wealth not by shocking and seducing the americna people, but rather, by educationg and enlightening them.
But that would be too much to ask, wouldn't it...for one thing, it wouldn't make a profit.
Und here Vee Vill Tink
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER could probably have been happy being either a republican or democrat, the same way you sense colin powell could have been. guys like that really don't need a political party, and maybe none of us needs one. They do come in handy though, when it comes time for agreement cooperation.
When arnold was governor of california, he was careful to be positive, optimistic, uncorruptable, and willing to listen to all points of view. Now, with his acting career perhaps slowing down a bit, he remains interested in politics, and has committed twenty million dollars of his own money to contribute to the establishment of a "think tank" or institution to fostering bipartisan solutions to....
...perhaps, everything. Solutions are needed for practically everything. Moderation, bipartisanshp, open mindedness are qukalities which are noticeably absent from contemporary american discourse, and frequently ridiculed, for being noncommittal, weak spirited, chameleonesque, toothless.
In america you need to be strong, definite, unswerving, unwavering, aggressive, and victorious.
That fact that schwarzenegger, himself seeming to be the very essence of strong american traits, is encouraging yellow bellied bi partisan open minded approaches to problems is striking.
Conservatives simply believe that everyone who can should pull his own weight. Who could disagree with that? Liberals believe in sharing, at least, so they say. The world is moving towards religious tolerance and freedom. These are bandwagons we might all be able to jump on.
Small offices with computers and brainy geeks meditating, reading, seeking ideas? Educational seminars? Who knows what will be going on at arnold's joint? But whatever it turns out to be, chancers are it will be beneficial to us all, and that it will be exactly whatever herr schwarzenegger wishes.
When arnold was governor of california, he was careful to be positive, optimistic, uncorruptable, and willing to listen to all points of view. Now, with his acting career perhaps slowing down a bit, he remains interested in politics, and has committed twenty million dollars of his own money to contribute to the establishment of a "think tank" or institution to fostering bipartisan solutions to....
...perhaps, everything. Solutions are needed for practically everything. Moderation, bipartisanshp, open mindedness are qukalities which are noticeably absent from contemporary american discourse, and frequently ridiculed, for being noncommittal, weak spirited, chameleonesque, toothless.
In america you need to be strong, definite, unswerving, unwavering, aggressive, and victorious.
That fact that schwarzenegger, himself seeming to be the very essence of strong american traits, is encouraging yellow bellied bi partisan open minded approaches to problems is striking.
Conservatives simply believe that everyone who can should pull his own weight. Who could disagree with that? Liberals believe in sharing, at least, so they say. The world is moving towards religious tolerance and freedom. These are bandwagons we might all be able to jump on.
Small offices with computers and brainy geeks meditating, reading, seeking ideas? Educational seminars? Who knows what will be going on at arnold's joint? But whatever it turns out to be, chancers are it will be beneficial to us all, and that it will be exactly whatever herr schwarzenegger wishes.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Too Much Corporate Power?
THE STRATEGY of the romney campaign, obviously, is to make obama look bad. Nothing new about that. In doing so, the truth can only be stretched and distorted to a point. For instance, we all agree that when obama took office, the american economy was a train wreck.
So the question becomes, what exactly did obama do to the train wreck he inherited? De he clean it up, did he ignore it, did he make it worse, or did he make it better? The republicans want to persuade us that he has made it worse, but that's difficult, because things are obviously better now than when obama took office. For one thing, the economy is no longer collapsing.
The economy isn't collapsing, it simply isn't growing enough. In america, we expect big economic growth, by which is usually meant, in all truth, increased corporate profits.
Unemployment, inflation, stagnation, you name it, say the conservatives, and it has gotten worse since obama took office. And during the past four years, conservative policies, such as lower tax rates for all, would by now have stimulated the economy back into prosperity.
Take your pick. But let's be clear about one thing. Had the republicans been in office instead of obama, the big corporations that obama bailed out; Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, GM...would have been bailed out.
There really wasno other choice. That's how important/monopolistic these corporations have become in the american economy. If those listed above go down, the country goes down, tragically, and we all know it.
Romney wants to give free reign to corporations to grow the economy. That means less government regulation, and thus, more potential for corruption, which, if left unchecked, assumes many forms. It means ever bigger corporations, with ever more power.
"Supply -side sconomics" is a slick term that means reducing tax rates for big businesses, to give them more money to invest, thereby stimulating and growing the economy, growing jobs. As long as they invest it. They don't have to.
Obama favors increasing tax rates on big businesses, knowing it will change their investment plans not a whit, but that it will provide revenue to invest in putting people back to work.
So the question becomes, what exactly did obama do to the train wreck he inherited? De he clean it up, did he ignore it, did he make it worse, or did he make it better? The republicans want to persuade us that he has made it worse, but that's difficult, because things are obviously better now than when obama took office. For one thing, the economy is no longer collapsing.
The economy isn't collapsing, it simply isn't growing enough. In america, we expect big economic growth, by which is usually meant, in all truth, increased corporate profits.
Unemployment, inflation, stagnation, you name it, say the conservatives, and it has gotten worse since obama took office. And during the past four years, conservative policies, such as lower tax rates for all, would by now have stimulated the economy back into prosperity.
Take your pick. But let's be clear about one thing. Had the republicans been in office instead of obama, the big corporations that obama bailed out; Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, GM...would have been bailed out.
There really wasno other choice. That's how important/monopolistic these corporations have become in the american economy. If those listed above go down, the country goes down, tragically, and we all know it.
Romney wants to give free reign to corporations to grow the economy. That means less government regulation, and thus, more potential for corruption, which, if left unchecked, assumes many forms. It means ever bigger corporations, with ever more power.
"Supply -side sconomics" is a slick term that means reducing tax rates for big businesses, to give them more money to invest, thereby stimulating and growing the economy, growing jobs. As long as they invest it. They don't have to.
Obama favors increasing tax rates on big businesses, knowing it will change their investment plans not a whit, but that it will provide revenue to invest in putting people back to work.
Mitt's Lament
THE OBAMA and ROMNEY people are on television and in the other media arguing about mitt's comment that 47% of americans consider themselves victims, and they all will always vote for obama, so the president has a considerable advantage, and mitt's climb is uphill.
mitt made this comment in private, so he thought, at a fundraiser, but was eavesdropped by a political enemy, and Mother Jones magazine, definitely mitt's political enemy, published and publicized it.
It almost seems unfair, but mitt needs to learn to alsways, always, be careful what you say, no matter to whom you say it. The fact that we are still talking about what mitt said means that obama indeed has a big advantage, the event has staying power.
And it very well should. What a horrible thing to say. How insulting to half the american people, and we don't even know which half. We should all be insulted. The thousands of disabled vets on disability? Mentally retarded children? Elderly folks who worked fifty years, now finally draw social security? Just who are these people who have the audacity to call themselves "victims", mitt?
romney's people are trying to smooth it over, which is difficult because mitt himself says he stands behind his comment, even though it could have, he admits, been expressed a bit more, shall we say, "delicately".
"Not a governing princpile", romneys' people say, and that's good to know. Mitt's comments certianly seems to be indicative of his attitude, however, and seems to confirm our worst fears about him; that he is a wealthy elitist, who knows nothing about the working class and poor people.
Mitt might have been better off apologizing dramatically to the american people. We love that sort of thing.
Bb
please scroll down for more, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler.THANKS!
mitt made this comment in private, so he thought, at a fundraiser, but was eavesdropped by a political enemy, and Mother Jones magazine, definitely mitt's political enemy, published and publicized it.
It almost seems unfair, but mitt needs to learn to alsways, always, be careful what you say, no matter to whom you say it. The fact that we are still talking about what mitt said means that obama indeed has a big advantage, the event has staying power.
And it very well should. What a horrible thing to say. How insulting to half the american people, and we don't even know which half. We should all be insulted. The thousands of disabled vets on disability? Mentally retarded children? Elderly folks who worked fifty years, now finally draw social security? Just who are these people who have the audacity to call themselves "victims", mitt?
romney's people are trying to smooth it over, which is difficult because mitt himself says he stands behind his comment, even though it could have, he admits, been expressed a bit more, shall we say, "delicately".
"Not a governing princpile", romneys' people say, and that's good to know. Mitt's comments certianly seems to be indicative of his attitude, however, and seems to confirm our worst fears about him; that he is a wealthy elitist, who knows nothing about the working class and poor people.
Mitt might have been better off apologizing dramatically to the american people. We love that sort of thing.
Bb
please scroll down for more, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler.THANKS!
Maybe Moderation is Best
CONSERVATISM and liBERALISM may be defined according to abstract philosophy, or tangible issues. Liberalism wants change much more than conservatism, in theory, and in practice,liberals like socialism, conservatives like capitalism, conservatives like religion, liberals do not.
Liberals tend to prefer a secular democracy, conservatives favor faith based plutocracy.
Conservatives like their own religion, that is, which in america is christianity, and none other. Conservative christians, like conservative moslems, despise religions other than their own.
Of note is the fact that american conservatives hate abortion, but like the death penalty. This can be considered contradictory. Likewise conservatives love jesus, and they like guns. Interesting to wonder whether jesus would advocate gun ownership as a means of protecting life, property, and the nation.
Capitalism, christianity, guns and the death penalty are all traditional values, and to oppose them is to advocate moving away from tradition, moving away from our society the way it currently is, and to advocate change.
A crucial question is: do we, our country, our world, need change, and if so, how much, and what kind? Are our religions, our economies, our legal systems perfect in their present form, or can they, should they evolve?
Is it s good idea to believe that we are perfect as we are, and no change? How much conservatism is a good idea? For that matter, how much change is wise, and how fast?
maybe moderates have the right idea after all..
Liberals tend to prefer a secular democracy, conservatives favor faith based plutocracy.
Conservatives like their own religion, that is, which in america is christianity, and none other. Conservative christians, like conservative moslems, despise religions other than their own.
Of note is the fact that american conservatives hate abortion, but like the death penalty. This can be considered contradictory. Likewise conservatives love jesus, and they like guns. Interesting to wonder whether jesus would advocate gun ownership as a means of protecting life, property, and the nation.
Capitalism, christianity, guns and the death penalty are all traditional values, and to oppose them is to advocate moving away from tradition, moving away from our society the way it currently is, and to advocate change.
A crucial question is: do we, our country, our world, need change, and if so, how much, and what kind? Are our religions, our economies, our legal systems perfect in their present form, or can they, should they evolve?
Is it s good idea to believe that we are perfect as we are, and no change? How much conservatism is a good idea? For that matter, how much change is wise, and how fast?
maybe moderates have the right idea after all..
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Homelessless in America
HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA is not talked about enough. We prefer to talk about economic growth and job creation. This is all well and good, but there is much about american homelessness that people in the U.S. and around the world don't widely know.
There are several million homeless people in the america, which is shocking, considering how wealthy the united states is, with the world's largest economy, but also the world's greatest economic inequality.
Over twenty five per cent of homeless people work full time, usually at minimum wage jobs. Over twenty five percent are mentally disabled, and close to a third of the homeless are veterans of the military. Many have families and children.
They sleep in parks, under bridges,in abandoned buildings, and they visit the salvation army or homeless shelters for temporary help.
AS the cost of housing has risen, only about a third of the homeless who are eligible for low income government housing assistance ever receive it. Ever since clinton was president, federal government assistance for homeless people has been steadily dwindling.
Now there are far fewer low cost housing units than twenty years ago, and federal money for this has decreased by over two thirds. During the nineteen eighties many mentally disabled people were turned out of institutions, onto the streets.
It is nearly impossible to support yourself in the united states with a minimum wage job, let alone support a family. Millions of americans who are not yet homeless are close to it, as they are forced to spend as much as three fourths of their income keeping the meager housing they have, and causing them to fall behind on other bills, or to even go hungry.
Millions of americans scing to their homes knowing that they are constantly within one missed paycheck, one visit to the hospital, one costly accident from being out on the street.
As the middle class declines, a small fraction of the former middle class rise to greater wealth, while the vast majority sink into debt, poverty, and homelessness.
Homelessness is not merely a result of personal laziness and poor judgment. It is the inevitable by product of a social and economic system which rewards the few and expolits and discards many.
Bb
There are several million homeless people in the america, which is shocking, considering how wealthy the united states is, with the world's largest economy, but also the world's greatest economic inequality.
Over twenty five per cent of homeless people work full time, usually at minimum wage jobs. Over twenty five percent are mentally disabled, and close to a third of the homeless are veterans of the military. Many have families and children.
They sleep in parks, under bridges,in abandoned buildings, and they visit the salvation army or homeless shelters for temporary help.
AS the cost of housing has risen, only about a third of the homeless who are eligible for low income government housing assistance ever receive it. Ever since clinton was president, federal government assistance for homeless people has been steadily dwindling.
Now there are far fewer low cost housing units than twenty years ago, and federal money for this has decreased by over two thirds. During the nineteen eighties many mentally disabled people were turned out of institutions, onto the streets.
It is nearly impossible to support yourself in the united states with a minimum wage job, let alone support a family. Millions of americans who are not yet homeless are close to it, as they are forced to spend as much as three fourths of their income keeping the meager housing they have, and causing them to fall behind on other bills, or to even go hungry.
Millions of americans scing to their homes knowing that they are constantly within one missed paycheck, one visit to the hospital, one costly accident from being out on the street.
As the middle class declines, a small fraction of the former middle class rise to greater wealth, while the vast majority sink into debt, poverty, and homelessness.
Homelessness is not merely a result of personal laziness and poor judgment. It is the inevitable by product of a social and economic system which rewards the few and expolits and discards many.
Bb
Unfinished Work and Getting Booed
PAUL RYAN, mitt romney's running mate, (and yes, you should know that), seems to be having as many communication problems as his boos. He got booed by the AARP in new orleans, and that's hard to do. The AARP likes most folks.
But don't mess with their medicare and social security. For the current crop of american seniors, these socialist programs are working quite well, as far as they're concerned, and these people feel like they have earned their benefits.
Ryan was criticizing obama for allegedly removing seventy five billion from medicare to help fund obamacare, and touting the conservative republican plan to privatize both programs. He had to know going in that with this crowd he was treading on thin ice.
Among the masses of working class people in industrialized countries throughout the world, socialism is popular. Unions, benefits, revenue sharing, cooperative health care, the whole ball of wax. There are simply far more working class people than owner - manager people, and they know they're better off working together than being on their own.
Conservatism is becoming more liberal through the years, and now conservatives no longer advocate eliminating medicare, medicaid, and social security, as they once did. All they want to do now is turn these socialist programs into capitalist programs.
Obama seems to feel confident enough in his reelection that he scolded congress for leaving town for a break, even though there is much work to do in washington. He should know. He's the expert.
Since the president spends more than half his time on the reelection campaign trail, giving speeches all over the country, attracting attention, he certainly should know a thing or two about leaving town with unfinished work. Of course, he can get work done on air force one. Congress people don't have this privilege. They only have online meetings.
Bb
But don't mess with their medicare and social security. For the current crop of american seniors, these socialist programs are working quite well, as far as they're concerned, and these people feel like they have earned their benefits.
Ryan was criticizing obama for allegedly removing seventy five billion from medicare to help fund obamacare, and touting the conservative republican plan to privatize both programs. He had to know going in that with this crowd he was treading on thin ice.
Among the masses of working class people in industrialized countries throughout the world, socialism is popular. Unions, benefits, revenue sharing, cooperative health care, the whole ball of wax. There are simply far more working class people than owner - manager people, and they know they're better off working together than being on their own.
Conservatism is becoming more liberal through the years, and now conservatives no longer advocate eliminating medicare, medicaid, and social security, as they once did. All they want to do now is turn these socialist programs into capitalist programs.
Obama seems to feel confident enough in his reelection that he scolded congress for leaving town for a break, even though there is much work to do in washington. He should know. He's the expert.
Since the president spends more than half his time on the reelection campaign trail, giving speeches all over the country, attracting attention, he certainly should know a thing or two about leaving town with unfinished work. Of course, he can get work done on air force one. Congress people don't have this privilege. They only have online meetings.
Bb
Friday, September 21, 2012
Out Of Touch?
MR ROMNEY, U.S. G.O.P. Pres Cand.,has dropped in the polls considerably since the revelation of his elitist condescending sounding remark concerning half the country, the poorer half, thinking themselves victims. Yet he still doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't even seem to be anywhere close to getting it.
And even though we all, to a certain extent, are indeed victims, victims of our environment as well as our heredity, poor people, disabled people, people on social security do not tend to see themselves as victims any more than mitt's rich friends.
The term "mitt's rich friends" is intended as neither insult nor slander. Mitt's friends are indeed wealthy, generally, which is, of course, perfectly sensible and acceptable, from mitt's viewpoint.
By insulting half the country with an untrue accusation, mitt may have done himself irreversible political damage. Obama has a lead now which no incumbant president has never squandered.
Amazingly, mitt stands staunchly behind his remarks, which is probably hurting himself even more. While in florida, among the senior retirees, he becomes the great champion of medicare, which romney undoubtedly has spent the majority of his life belittling and despising.
After all, medicare is nothing other than redistribution of wealth, which is the worst possible sin among wealthy conservatives, because it deprives the wealthy of much needed investment capital, and makes dependant poor people into the victims he so disdains.
Just what do romney and people like him mean by the term "redistribution of wealth"? Progressive taxation, and programs for the poor and sick and elderly. That's what he means. Let people keep what they earn, all that they earn, and let people fend for themselves is what he means.
Mitt continues to reveal that he simply hasn't been out and around very much, among ordinary non millionaires. His chances of getting elected would be much greater if america were full of wealthy people with inherited wealth.
That it is not may well be his downfall.
Bb
And even though we all, to a certain extent, are indeed victims, victims of our environment as well as our heredity, poor people, disabled people, people on social security do not tend to see themselves as victims any more than mitt's rich friends.
The term "mitt's rich friends" is intended as neither insult nor slander. Mitt's friends are indeed wealthy, generally, which is, of course, perfectly sensible and acceptable, from mitt's viewpoint.
By insulting half the country with an untrue accusation, mitt may have done himself irreversible political damage. Obama has a lead now which no incumbant president has never squandered.
Amazingly, mitt stands staunchly behind his remarks, which is probably hurting himself even more. While in florida, among the senior retirees, he becomes the great champion of medicare, which romney undoubtedly has spent the majority of his life belittling and despising.
After all, medicare is nothing other than redistribution of wealth, which is the worst possible sin among wealthy conservatives, because it deprives the wealthy of much needed investment capital, and makes dependant poor people into the victims he so disdains.
Just what do romney and people like him mean by the term "redistribution of wealth"? Progressive taxation, and programs for the poor and sick and elderly. That's what he means. Let people keep what they earn, all that they earn, and let people fend for themselves is what he means.
Mitt continues to reveal that he simply hasn't been out and around very much, among ordinary non millionaires. His chances of getting elected would be much greater if america were full of wealthy people with inherited wealth.
That it is not may well be his downfall.
Bb
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Linguistic Relativity (or, badly spent tax payer money)
THE RADIO AD begins with what sounds like a party; voices, laughter, glasses clanking together, and you hear two young girls talking, one says to the other "this party is so totally gay." By which she means, of course, this party is lame, boring, it sucks.
Her comment is overheard by the football star, who jumps right in, heroically, and upbraids the girl, explaining that it is very rude to use the word "gay" in such a fashion, beaue it is insulting to gay people, aside from being disrespectful to the host.
At the end of the ad, we are informed that the ad was paid for and produced by the council of advertising, or something like that, some agancy of government. This is our united states government, buying time on radio to tell the american people not to use the word "gay" in a negative, derogatory manner.
Exactly why does the federal government feel compelled or obligated to do this? Don't believe for a moment that the united states government gives a fig whether anyone uses the word gay", or anything else about the well being of the americn people.
Government, at least in the united states, is not a caring institution. Do bureaucrats need to find ways to justify their salaries? Is this busy work?
The word "gay" was invented by gay people, as a replacement for words like "queer", in order to eliminate negative expressions towards homosexuals. So, the haters simply waited awhile, then started turning the word "gay" into something neagtive.
The terms "imbecile", ""idiot", and "moron" used to be scientific categories, then they got demonized, so the term "retarded" was invented to replace the negative terms, then when "retarded" became a negative term, "handicapped" and "disabled" were introduced.
And all this by popular demand. If enough people want to make the word "gay" negative, they will, whatever the government says. Soon enough, something else will come along, when the current words become soiled.
Its a constant game of linguistic hide and seek. If the word "gay" ends up being negativized, as it will, then a new term will simply be introduced, a postive new term, which, itself will eventually be demonized.
Our government cannot change human nature by trying to change our diction.
Bb
please scroll down for more, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
Her comment is overheard by the football star, who jumps right in, heroically, and upbraids the girl, explaining that it is very rude to use the word "gay" in such a fashion, beaue it is insulting to gay people, aside from being disrespectful to the host.
At the end of the ad, we are informed that the ad was paid for and produced by the council of advertising, or something like that, some agancy of government. This is our united states government, buying time on radio to tell the american people not to use the word "gay" in a negative, derogatory manner.
Exactly why does the federal government feel compelled or obligated to do this? Don't believe for a moment that the united states government gives a fig whether anyone uses the word gay", or anything else about the well being of the americn people.
Government, at least in the united states, is not a caring institution. Do bureaucrats need to find ways to justify their salaries? Is this busy work?
The word "gay" was invented by gay people, as a replacement for words like "queer", in order to eliminate negative expressions towards homosexuals. So, the haters simply waited awhile, then started turning the word "gay" into something neagtive.
The terms "imbecile", ""idiot", and "moron" used to be scientific categories, then they got demonized, so the term "retarded" was invented to replace the negative terms, then when "retarded" became a negative term, "handicapped" and "disabled" were introduced.
And all this by popular demand. If enough people want to make the word "gay" negative, they will, whatever the government says. Soon enough, something else will come along, when the current words become soiled.
Its a constant game of linguistic hide and seek. If the word "gay" ends up being negativized, as it will, then a new term will simply be introduced, a postive new term, which, itself will eventually be demonized.
Our government cannot change human nature by trying to change our diction.
Bb
please scroll down for more, and tell others about The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
Melting Pot World
THROUGHOUT the western world, primarily europe and north america, islamic communites have been springing up, growing and thriving, in large cities, medium sized cities, college and university towns, and even small towns.
They grow and thrive as continued economic collapse in the middle east, india and pakistan, plus educational opportunities in the west, attract hard working, intelligent people. They supply a huge number of doctors for the united states.
The genesis of this is european late nineteennth century imperialism, which stirred up trouble in india and the islamic world, engendered wars, creating refugees. Syria is the current example.
In most instances the islamic people form tight knit comunities, stay to themselves, and do not interact much with the community at large. Paris, and france in general, has huge inner city communities of moslems, and their is a great deal of resentment between the french and the middle easterners.
There is even a very conservative right wing french political party strongly devoted to the cause of stopping immigration into france.
Goethe once remarked that it might be good for germany, and for the entire world, if germans scattered themsleves all over the world, as a means of defusing the aggressive behavior characteristic of large numbers of concentrated germans. So said Goethe, a german.
At any given time, several hundred americans are living outside the united states, and maybe this is a good thing. The more international understanding, the better.
The next time you happen to be walking through a park in your small town, and you see a group of about ten totally covered moslem women standing directly beneath a basketball rim, flinging a basketball directly at the rim from directly below, then fighting over the immediate rebound opportunity, while giggling, over, and over again -
at least think about the wonderful opportunity you have , to educate, and to promote international understanding.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles..and tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks
They grow and thrive as continued economic collapse in the middle east, india and pakistan, plus educational opportunities in the west, attract hard working, intelligent people. They supply a huge number of doctors for the united states.
The genesis of this is european late nineteennth century imperialism, which stirred up trouble in india and the islamic world, engendered wars, creating refugees. Syria is the current example.
In most instances the islamic people form tight knit comunities, stay to themselves, and do not interact much with the community at large. Paris, and france in general, has huge inner city communities of moslems, and their is a great deal of resentment between the french and the middle easterners.
There is even a very conservative right wing french political party strongly devoted to the cause of stopping immigration into france.
Goethe once remarked that it might be good for germany, and for the entire world, if germans scattered themsleves all over the world, as a means of defusing the aggressive behavior characteristic of large numbers of concentrated germans. So said Goethe, a german.
At any given time, several hundred americans are living outside the united states, and maybe this is a good thing. The more international understanding, the better.
The next time you happen to be walking through a park in your small town, and you see a group of about ten totally covered moslem women standing directly beneath a basketball rim, flinging a basketball directly at the rim from directly below, then fighting over the immediate rebound opportunity, while giggling, over, and over again -
at least think about the wonderful opportunity you have , to educate, and to promote international understanding.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles..and tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
New Scripture?
YOU WOULD ALMOST THINK that with all the research that's been done for centuries, it would be almost impossible to discover anything new about, for instance, jesus. Nevertheless, a harvard anthropologist came up with a scrap of leather on which is written an alledged quote from joshua ben joseph himself, something about having a wife.
A piece of ancient canvas, with someone writing down an alleged quote from jesus, saying he had a wife. Well, we'll see. One thing is for certain: we will never know whether jesus had a wife, its too late to find out.
Strangely, jesus himself never did any writing, which can be viewed as very unfortunate; if he had written down everything he wanted us to know, and we had it toady, the world might be a far better place, and we might not be fighting over different religions interpretations; jesus would have set everything straight, personally, sacred text gospel - wise.
But of course, what we do have of the words of jesus, written by people long after his crucifixion, are obviously wise, beautiful, and worthy of following, and yet we do not, at least, not enough.
Perhaps someday we will build a time machine which weill allow researchers travel back in tome to witness and verify the life of jesus of nazerath. Until then, who he really was, in his entirety, and exactly what he said, will be jubject to interpretation. The four gospels certainly do not agree.
It matters not whether jesus had a wife, but rather, what we do now, in our lifetimes, to make the world a better place.
Bb
A piece of ancient canvas, with someone writing down an alleged quote from jesus, saying he had a wife. Well, we'll see. One thing is for certain: we will never know whether jesus had a wife, its too late to find out.
Strangely, jesus himself never did any writing, which can be viewed as very unfortunate; if he had written down everything he wanted us to know, and we had it toady, the world might be a far better place, and we might not be fighting over different religions interpretations; jesus would have set everything straight, personally, sacred text gospel - wise.
But of course, what we do have of the words of jesus, written by people long after his crucifixion, are obviously wise, beautiful, and worthy of following, and yet we do not, at least, not enough.
Perhaps someday we will build a time machine which weill allow researchers travel back in tome to witness and verify the life of jesus of nazerath. Until then, who he really was, in his entirety, and exactly what he said, will be jubject to interpretation. The four gospels certainly do not agree.
It matters not whether jesus had a wife, but rather, what we do now, in our lifetimes, to make the world a better place.
Bb
Striking a Balance
NOW WE SAY "bay - jing" instead of "pe king"; do we use the term "red" china? Increasingly less, perhaps, as formerly communist china becomes less communist, more capitalist, and moves from red into the green.
The chinese government, which still keeps an iron grip on the country, is now allowing a great deal more free and private economic activity, as long as the government approves of it, the government is also bending over backwards to assist chinese companies on the international market.
If both the chinese and the americans don't both keep moving in the same direction; thriving but well regulated business climate, the world may bcome a corporate oligarcy, which we the people don't want, any more than we want a political dictatorship.
We want economic freedom and political democracy, both well regulated.
The americans are mad at the chinese because they give government money to their companies, such as auto parts makers, to cut the cost of production, and thus lower prices internationally, making chinese parts "unfairly competitive." (cheap)
The chinese are mad at the americas.and have been, ever since the american government bailed out most of the american auto industry, saving it from bankruptcy. Frankly, this would appear to be a far more extreme example of government subsidizing than what the chinese are doing.
Se "we" have rules of international trade, which ruch powerful countries with strong military are free to igonre if they so choose. Maybe we need fewer rules. Hell, what's wrong with a little government assistance to business? Whcy can't socialism and capitalism work together?
To the extent that a thriving global economy eriches the human race, all the better, but it might be that food is best grown close to home, and wealth is best manufactured close to home, except when certain goods and services are not locally available.
A healthy balance between competition and cooperation must underscore all human activity.
Bb
The chinese government, which still keeps an iron grip on the country, is now allowing a great deal more free and private economic activity, as long as the government approves of it, the government is also bending over backwards to assist chinese companies on the international market.
If both the chinese and the americans don't both keep moving in the same direction; thriving but well regulated business climate, the world may bcome a corporate oligarcy, which we the people don't want, any more than we want a political dictatorship.
We want economic freedom and political democracy, both well regulated.
The americans are mad at the chinese because they give government money to their companies, such as auto parts makers, to cut the cost of production, and thus lower prices internationally, making chinese parts "unfairly competitive." (cheap)
The chinese are mad at the americas.and have been, ever since the american government bailed out most of the american auto industry, saving it from bankruptcy. Frankly, this would appear to be a far more extreme example of government subsidizing than what the chinese are doing.
Se "we" have rules of international trade, which ruch powerful countries with strong military are free to igonre if they so choose. Maybe we need fewer rules. Hell, what's wrong with a little government assistance to business? Whcy can't socialism and capitalism work together?
To the extent that a thriving global economy eriches the human race, all the better, but it might be that food is best grown close to home, and wealth is best manufactured close to home, except when certain goods and services are not locally available.
A healthy balance between competition and cooperation must underscore all human activity.
Bb
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Mitt's Imaginary Divide
"THERE IS A GREAT DIVIDE", according to mitt romney, "between the people who want to earn their own way, and those wo want to redistribute wealth". Once again, mitt's got anyone with intelligence scratching his or her head. He really comes up with some choice quotes, doesn't he..
Two kinds of people, is that it, mitt? Those who want to work and earn their own way, and those who want to redistribute wealth. Anybody know what he means by that? Anybody have any idea at all?
Bill gates and Warren Buffett both earned their own ways, mitt would probably agree. And both of them have already given away half their wealth, with more probably to soon come. Gates and Buffett both earn it, then redistribute it. So into which neat category do they fit, mitt?
Is there anyone on this planet who doesn't believe its a good diea for people to earn their own way? No? I didn't think so. When people who work pay taxes, and that tax money is used to provide SSI for someone who can't work because of having cancer, and being too weak too get out of bed, or because of being severely mentally retarded from birth, is that redistribution of wealth?
Well of course it is. Is everyone on this planet in favor of doing it that way? No, but most undoubtedly are. Everyone is in favor of work, and everyone is in favor of helping those who need it, so what's the problem, mitt?
Trying to be a bit divisive, are ya?
Mitt, let's get you up to speed, right quick like. The great divide is not between people who want to work and people who don't, or between people who like redistribution of wealth, and people who don't, or between people who like redistribution of wealth, and people who like to work.
The great divide is between the rich, and the poor.
Many people who live in poverty work everyday. And many people who are wealthy believe in welfare programs. Mitt evidently hasn't been around long enough to realize that. The "great divide" of which you speak, mitt, is in your head.
Bb
please scroll down for more...
tell people about TTR. Thanks!
Two kinds of people, is that it, mitt? Those who want to work and earn their own way, and those who want to redistribute wealth. Anybody know what he means by that? Anybody have any idea at all?
Bill gates and Warren Buffett both earned their own ways, mitt would probably agree. And both of them have already given away half their wealth, with more probably to soon come. Gates and Buffett both earn it, then redistribute it. So into which neat category do they fit, mitt?
Is there anyone on this planet who doesn't believe its a good diea for people to earn their own way? No? I didn't think so. When people who work pay taxes, and that tax money is used to provide SSI for someone who can't work because of having cancer, and being too weak too get out of bed, or because of being severely mentally retarded from birth, is that redistribution of wealth?
Well of course it is. Is everyone on this planet in favor of doing it that way? No, but most undoubtedly are. Everyone is in favor of work, and everyone is in favor of helping those who need it, so what's the problem, mitt?
Trying to be a bit divisive, are ya?
Mitt, let's get you up to speed, right quick like. The great divide is not between people who want to work and people who don't, or between people who like redistribution of wealth, and people who don't, or between people who like redistribution of wealth, and people who like to work.
The great divide is between the rich, and the poor.
Many people who live in poverty work everyday. And many people who are wealthy believe in welfare programs. Mitt evidently hasn't been around long enough to realize that. The "great divide" of which you speak, mitt, is in your head.
Bb
please scroll down for more...
tell people about TTR. Thanks!
Foot Firmly in Mouth
MITT ROMNEY just got caught in the same damnable trap which has ensnared so many other fine upstanding citizens who are constantly in the public eye: he momentarily forget that he is constantly in the public eye, that the microphone is never turned off, the camera is never turned away.
You would almost think that someone as accustomed as mitt romney to always being the center of attention would never have such a lapse, never forget about always being heard, and would never, ever utter anything blatantly stupid and self damaging.
Roughly paraphrased, he said that obama has a built in advantage in the presidential election, because nearly half the people in this country think of themselves as victims, who deserve every form of financial support the government can give them. And these 47% of the american population refuse to take responsibility for their own lives, and he, unfortunately, can't help them do it. Or something like that.
Actually he said much more, implying that many poor americans and even not so poor americans feel a sense of entitlement and victimization, 47% pay no income tax, and lack a sense of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, a sense of jump in, and get what's yours.
The people to whom mitt was speaking were elegantly dressed wealthy conservative romney political campaign benefactors. Obama smelled blood faster than a wolf near a trout farm, and started blazing away, something to the effect that his republican opponent has written off half the country.
And what's worse, mitt stands by what he said. He made the remarks in may, so it would seem insincere to repudiatee and apologize now. So he stands by calling half the american people, the poorer half, lazy, unproductive, and self serving. Considering how bad the economy is, mitt should be beating obama badly, but because of himself, because of who he really is, he isn't.
This one in fact ranks right up there with what mitt said several months ago, something to the effect that he isn't worried about the very rich and the very poor, because the wealthy can take care of themselves, and the poor are taken care of by the government.
Sometimes mitt must feel like hs should quit while he's ahead. Only, he isn't ahead, and this isn't likely to help. Romney spends too darned much time acting and talking like a life long rich kid who has no knowledge of poor or middle class people. His self proclaimed championship of the middle class emerges sounding hollow, insincere.
It quickly becomes a mystery why anyone who isn't wealthy would vote for mitt, and why he is even close to obama in the polls. If he keeps talking, he won't be.
Bb
please scroll down
spread the word about The Truthless Reconciler.
Thanks!
You would almost think that someone as accustomed as mitt romney to always being the center of attention would never have such a lapse, never forget about always being heard, and would never, ever utter anything blatantly stupid and self damaging.
Roughly paraphrased, he said that obama has a built in advantage in the presidential election, because nearly half the people in this country think of themselves as victims, who deserve every form of financial support the government can give them. And these 47% of the american population refuse to take responsibility for their own lives, and he, unfortunately, can't help them do it. Or something like that.
Actually he said much more, implying that many poor americans and even not so poor americans feel a sense of entitlement and victimization, 47% pay no income tax, and lack a sense of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, a sense of jump in, and get what's yours.
The people to whom mitt was speaking were elegantly dressed wealthy conservative romney political campaign benefactors. Obama smelled blood faster than a wolf near a trout farm, and started blazing away, something to the effect that his republican opponent has written off half the country.
And what's worse, mitt stands by what he said. He made the remarks in may, so it would seem insincere to repudiatee and apologize now. So he stands by calling half the american people, the poorer half, lazy, unproductive, and self serving. Considering how bad the economy is, mitt should be beating obama badly, but because of himself, because of who he really is, he isn't.
This one in fact ranks right up there with what mitt said several months ago, something to the effect that he isn't worried about the very rich and the very poor, because the wealthy can take care of themselves, and the poor are taken care of by the government.
Sometimes mitt must feel like hs should quit while he's ahead. Only, he isn't ahead, and this isn't likely to help. Romney spends too darned much time acting and talking like a life long rich kid who has no knowledge of poor or middle class people. His self proclaimed championship of the middle class emerges sounding hollow, insincere.
It quickly becomes a mystery why anyone who isn't wealthy would vote for mitt, and why he is even close to obama in the polls. If he keeps talking, he won't be.
Bb
please scroll down
spread the word about The Truthless Reconciler.
Thanks!
Monday, September 17, 2012
Occupy Wall Street, Redux
SEPTEMBER 17 is the first anniversary of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and also the first anniversary of The Truthless Reconciler and American Explicator. At the moment, it seems that the TTR has fared much better, endured and thrived more.
In several dozen cities throughout the united states commemorative rallies are being held, but there is no indication that the turnout will be anything a year ago, and, unlike last year, there is no indication that the protest movement will last more than a day, or, for that matter, that it will even be a protest.
Merely acknowledging the first anniversary is apparently the only intent. Will there even be any speakers reminding us that the changes which the movement expouses have not been implemented, nor has there been any discernible progress towards them?
Predictably, conservatives belittle the movement, as if any conservative would be clean after camping out a week. This ridicule attempts to conceal the fact that most americans, most of the human race, agrees with Occupy Wall Street. The masses don't know their own potential power.
Predictably, Occupy Wall Streeet, after an impressive run, eventually fizzled out, because it lacked defined purpose and cohesion, and remained instead nothing but an amorphous collection of participants and causes.
Flash Bulletin! The turnout in new york city was fairly good today, but over a hundrfed people were arrested, which not be the most positive publicity, and the actual plan was to prevent wall street from doing business today, which also might not have been the best of all possible plans. So, it appears that at least the folks in new york had more on their minds than mere commemoration, much more...
A successful revolution requires long sustained, devoted, intelligent effort. The Occupy Wall Streeters might be more successful by trying to enlighten middle of the road undecided people ( people who have not yet decided that a revolution is necessary, but are considering the possibility)
about what the Occupy movment expouses.
Because most of what they expouse, when clearly articulated, is quite popular among the masses, especially greater economic and political equality. Getting thrown in jail by trying to disrupt wall street indicates a preference for violence and chaos, rather than social equality. Where is the Thomas Paine of Occupy Wall Street?
Bb
please scroll down for more articles.
please inform other people about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER. THANKS!
In several dozen cities throughout the united states commemorative rallies are being held, but there is no indication that the turnout will be anything a year ago, and, unlike last year, there is no indication that the protest movement will last more than a day, or, for that matter, that it will even be a protest.
Merely acknowledging the first anniversary is apparently the only intent. Will there even be any speakers reminding us that the changes which the movement expouses have not been implemented, nor has there been any discernible progress towards them?
Predictably, conservatives belittle the movement, as if any conservative would be clean after camping out a week. This ridicule attempts to conceal the fact that most americans, most of the human race, agrees with Occupy Wall Street. The masses don't know their own potential power.
Predictably, Occupy Wall Streeet, after an impressive run, eventually fizzled out, because it lacked defined purpose and cohesion, and remained instead nothing but an amorphous collection of participants and causes.
Flash Bulletin! The turnout in new york city was fairly good today, but over a hundrfed people were arrested, which not be the most positive publicity, and the actual plan was to prevent wall street from doing business today, which also might not have been the best of all possible plans. So, it appears that at least the folks in new york had more on their minds than mere commemoration, much more...
A successful revolution requires long sustained, devoted, intelligent effort. The Occupy Wall Streeters might be more successful by trying to enlighten middle of the road undecided people ( people who have not yet decided that a revolution is necessary, but are considering the possibility)
about what the Occupy movment expouses.
Because most of what they expouse, when clearly articulated, is quite popular among the masses, especially greater economic and political equality. Getting thrown in jail by trying to disrupt wall street indicates a preference for violence and chaos, rather than social equality. Where is the Thomas Paine of Occupy Wall Street?
Bb
please scroll down for more articles.
please inform other people about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER. THANKS!
Cheating China
PRESIDENT OBAMA is back in ohio, again, for what seems like the one millionth time in the past few weeks, because ohio might vote for romney, might vote for obama, its close. If your state isn't close in the romney - obama polls, you will not see the president.
While in ohio, obama plans to announce that he is filing international charges against the great nation of china, for unfair trade practices, particularly in the automoblie industry. The fact that china engages in "unfair" trade practices in every other industry notwithstanding, obama will focus on the automotive industry, especially since he happens to be in ohio, right down the road from michigan.
The only thing that the World Trade Organization can do to china is chastise them verbally, but who knows, a good old fashioned tongue lashing might just chasten the chinese. About twenty years ago china decided that, yes, indeed, it wanted to be rich and powerful like america, europe, japan, and russia, and would do so by turning to capitalism, manufacturing, and foreign trade.
In american we associate free enterprise with freedom. Not so in china. Business and industry are free to flourish, but only under the intense scrutiny of the central government, which oversees the economy as a national passion to succeed. Hence, the chinese government is fond of financially propping up, or subsidizing, their own industries, which we do in the united states as well, albeit to a far lesser extent.
If the world, including the united states, suddenly quit trading with china in protest of its economic practices, the damage done would affect americans as much as chinese. Another choice would be to abolish all international trade rules, and let the fur fly; regulation only encourages cheating.
The problem is, that would probably start wars. But, hell, is there any form of human economic activity whcih does NOT start wars?
The chinese are still rather new at big time international economics, too accustomed to communism, and lack experience. As soon as they figure out that workers are to be exploited, and corporate ownership is always first and foremost, they'll start getting it right, and become a good economic partner for the american corporate empire.
Bb
please scroll down for other articles...
..be sure to let your friends read The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
While in ohio, obama plans to announce that he is filing international charges against the great nation of china, for unfair trade practices, particularly in the automoblie industry. The fact that china engages in "unfair" trade practices in every other industry notwithstanding, obama will focus on the automotive industry, especially since he happens to be in ohio, right down the road from michigan.
The only thing that the World Trade Organization can do to china is chastise them verbally, but who knows, a good old fashioned tongue lashing might just chasten the chinese. About twenty years ago china decided that, yes, indeed, it wanted to be rich and powerful like america, europe, japan, and russia, and would do so by turning to capitalism, manufacturing, and foreign trade.
In american we associate free enterprise with freedom. Not so in china. Business and industry are free to flourish, but only under the intense scrutiny of the central government, which oversees the economy as a national passion to succeed. Hence, the chinese government is fond of financially propping up, or subsidizing, their own industries, which we do in the united states as well, albeit to a far lesser extent.
If the world, including the united states, suddenly quit trading with china in protest of its economic practices, the damage done would affect americans as much as chinese. Another choice would be to abolish all international trade rules, and let the fur fly; regulation only encourages cheating.
The problem is, that would probably start wars. But, hell, is there any form of human economic activity whcih does NOT start wars?
The chinese are still rather new at big time international economics, too accustomed to communism, and lack experience. As soon as they figure out that workers are to be exploited, and corporate ownership is always first and foremost, they'll start getting it right, and become a good economic partner for the american corporate empire.
Bb
please scroll down for other articles...
..be sure to let your friends read The Truthless Reconciler! THANKS!
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Educating Russia
FOR SOME REASON, whatever it is, our russian friends appear once again to be abandoning us. Readership is down, as it has been before, and no one knows why. Doubtless it will rebound , as always.
Strange, because just recently The Truthless Reconciler was helping out, nay, pandering to, our russian friends, warning them of america's anger, and potential for aggression. surely they appreciated that. We didn't scare them away, did we?
The most popular sport in america, american football, is getting more violent each year, as the players get bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and...
..as the culture changes. What used to be a sport of blocking and tackling is now a sport of hitting, which is another name for violent colliding, or rather, blocking or tackling with unnecessary force.
The harder the hit, the more admirable. American culture is very very aggressive, oh russian friends. Just check out american television and movies, and behold the violence. Gratuitous violence, violence for the sake of entertainment, for the sake of adrenalin, for the sake of seduction, and corporate sales.
So, friends of The Truthless Reconciler in russia. please resume reading, and we will continue to describe for you conditions in the united states of america, information you may well find useful.
We'll let you in on a little secret, for starters; you are not at risk of attack by the united states of america. But north korea and iran are. the same with syria. believe it or not, the U. S. A. is perfectly capable of getting involved in syria in some way.
..what that way could be your guess is as good as ours. Perhaps an avalanche of small arms to the rebs,aka the "syrian Free Army". For you that might bring back memories, like, charile wilson and the shoulder fired anti aircraft launchers in afghanastan?
The point is, the USA is a well armed, determined, aggressive country. However, many americans are trying to steer it (the USA) in the direction of peace. They are failing. You can help by offering peace to the american people.
Helping to educate the russian people is a great honor for any good american.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles..
be sure totell your freinds about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Strange, because just recently The Truthless Reconciler was helping out, nay, pandering to, our russian friends, warning them of america's anger, and potential for aggression. surely they appreciated that. We didn't scare them away, did we?
The most popular sport in america, american football, is getting more violent each year, as the players get bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and...
..as the culture changes. What used to be a sport of blocking and tackling is now a sport of hitting, which is another name for violent colliding, or rather, blocking or tackling with unnecessary force.
The harder the hit, the more admirable. American culture is very very aggressive, oh russian friends. Just check out american television and movies, and behold the violence. Gratuitous violence, violence for the sake of entertainment, for the sake of adrenalin, for the sake of seduction, and corporate sales.
So, friends of The Truthless Reconciler in russia. please resume reading, and we will continue to describe for you conditions in the united states of america, information you may well find useful.
We'll let you in on a little secret, for starters; you are not at risk of attack by the united states of america. But north korea and iran are. the same with syria. believe it or not, the U. S. A. is perfectly capable of getting involved in syria in some way.
..what that way could be your guess is as good as ours. Perhaps an avalanche of small arms to the rebs,aka the "syrian Free Army". For you that might bring back memories, like, charile wilson and the shoulder fired anti aircraft launchers in afghanastan?
The point is, the USA is a well armed, determined, aggressive country. However, many americans are trying to steer it (the USA) in the direction of peace. They are failing. You can help by offering peace to the american people.
Helping to educate the russian people is a great honor for any good american.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles..
be sure totell your freinds about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! THANKS!
Wary but Not Unwilling
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU (nut and yaihoo?), a long time hawkish individual, is urging stronger action against iran due to iran's apparent continuing development of nuclear weapons. The united nations, which has very limited influence largely because russia, china, and the united states refuse to cooperate with it when they disagree with it, has told iran to cease and desist.
It is unkown for sure whether iran is in fact making weapons. The united states, like israel, thinks it is, but unlike israel, wishes to continue with only diplomatic and economic sanctions, hoping the pressure, which is considerable, will force the iranians to comply with the U. N.
The israelis want to attack, now, and probably would, with U.S. approval. Mr netanyahu is annoyed with america. meanwhile, the american navy is currently conducting the largest military "exercise" it ever has in the area, congregating dozens of warships near iran, promising to respond if the iranisas try to cut off oil flowing from the middle east.
The iranians have tried to cut off the flow of oil out of the middle east before, especially during their eight year war with iraq in the nineteen eighties, by trying to block the gulf of hormuz, but it has never worked; the gulf is too wide, and the iranian navy too small.
So, israel wants the american navy to attack iran, but obama and his advisors are , for the moment, content to merely let the american armada flex its muscles right outside iran's backyard.
What makes you nervous is the thought that if obama gets into trouble against romney come late october, in the polls, would he hit iran for the uptick at the polls? Surely not, you would think. Benjamin Netanyahu has been roaming around the united states, telling all the television shows that the american people should elect a president who is willing to draw a line in the sand against iran.
How charming of him. Israel could probably attack and destroy iran by itself, but for netanyahu american support is vital. He and obama don't get along. Let us hope obama does not suddenly start drawing lines and issuing altimatums to iran just to show netahyahu he isn't a wimp. Surely he won't.
Still, stranger things have happened. With the american people tired of war, tired of afghanistan and iraq, any american president would want to be very wary about attacking iran, even if iran refuses to quit making nukes. Doing so might make obama look like a tough strong leader; and it might horrify the american people with the reality of yet another war.
Wary, but not necessarily entirely unwilling....cross your fingers..
Bb
please scroll down for more articles...
be sure to share The Truthless Reconciler with friends. Thanks!
It is unkown for sure whether iran is in fact making weapons. The united states, like israel, thinks it is, but unlike israel, wishes to continue with only diplomatic and economic sanctions, hoping the pressure, which is considerable, will force the iranians to comply with the U. N.
The israelis want to attack, now, and probably would, with U.S. approval. Mr netanyahu is annoyed with america. meanwhile, the american navy is currently conducting the largest military "exercise" it ever has in the area, congregating dozens of warships near iran, promising to respond if the iranisas try to cut off oil flowing from the middle east.
The iranians have tried to cut off the flow of oil out of the middle east before, especially during their eight year war with iraq in the nineteen eighties, by trying to block the gulf of hormuz, but it has never worked; the gulf is too wide, and the iranian navy too small.
So, israel wants the american navy to attack iran, but obama and his advisors are , for the moment, content to merely let the american armada flex its muscles right outside iran's backyard.
What makes you nervous is the thought that if obama gets into trouble against romney come late october, in the polls, would he hit iran for the uptick at the polls? Surely not, you would think. Benjamin Netanyahu has been roaming around the united states, telling all the television shows that the american people should elect a president who is willing to draw a line in the sand against iran.
How charming of him. Israel could probably attack and destroy iran by itself, but for netanyahu american support is vital. He and obama don't get along. Let us hope obama does not suddenly start drawing lines and issuing altimatums to iran just to show netahyahu he isn't a wimp. Surely he won't.
Still, stranger things have happened. With the american people tired of war, tired of afghanistan and iraq, any american president would want to be very wary about attacking iran, even if iran refuses to quit making nukes. Doing so might make obama look like a tough strong leader; and it might horrify the american people with the reality of yet another war.
Wary, but not necessarily entirely unwilling....cross your fingers..
Bb
please scroll down for more articles...
be sure to share The Truthless Reconciler with friends. Thanks!
Justifiable Anger
AMERICA IS ANGRY. No brag, just fact. The united states of america is an angry place, american culture an angry culture. This may be construed as fair warning to all others nations, particulary nations such as russia, and, say, china; the greatest potential external brunt bearers of american wrath, along with mexico and any tiny country which rejects american rule.
Afghanistan and Irag already know all bout it, and to a certain extent so does iran, which might be fixin' to learn a whole lot more. The north koreans will back off just in time. They always do. Whether american anger initiates at the top and trickles down, or at the bottom, and filters up, is a fascinating epistomological causal connection question.
Let's split the difference, and say it works both ways. The question is, what causes it?
Doubtless many people will point out that there is a great deal going on in america besides anger, and that anger is not the prime characreristic of american culture. The first assertion is unassailable common sense, the second much more dubious.
Economic collapse might be a prime suspect, particularly when viewed both from above and below.
With american corporations desperate to squeeze as much more profit as possible out of a dying economy, corporate control of the political system tightens, and becomes more aggressive, more hostile to any perceived mitigating influence, such as workers well being and the environment.
The unwashed blue collar masses, always exploited, always ingnored, become restless as they sink ever lower into poverty. Even if people don't knowit or understand it, they sense, quite properly, that they have been sold down the river.
You can see the anger in the way people drive, behave in public, and deal with strangers. And of course you can see it in the violent crime, the broken families, and if you look around in homeless shelters and public parks, you'll see it there as well.
AS long as the anger is justified, it will remain.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles...
and forward The Truthless Reconciler to your friends...thanks!
Afghanistan and Irag already know all bout it, and to a certain extent so does iran, which might be fixin' to learn a whole lot more. The north koreans will back off just in time. They always do. Whether american anger initiates at the top and trickles down, or at the bottom, and filters up, is a fascinating epistomological causal connection question.
Let's split the difference, and say it works both ways. The question is, what causes it?
Doubtless many people will point out that there is a great deal going on in america besides anger, and that anger is not the prime characreristic of american culture. The first assertion is unassailable common sense, the second much more dubious.
Economic collapse might be a prime suspect, particularly when viewed both from above and below.
With american corporations desperate to squeeze as much more profit as possible out of a dying economy, corporate control of the political system tightens, and becomes more aggressive, more hostile to any perceived mitigating influence, such as workers well being and the environment.
The unwashed blue collar masses, always exploited, always ingnored, become restless as they sink ever lower into poverty. Even if people don't knowit or understand it, they sense, quite properly, that they have been sold down the river.
You can see the anger in the way people drive, behave in public, and deal with strangers. And of course you can see it in the violent crime, the broken families, and if you look around in homeless shelters and public parks, you'll see it there as well.
AS long as the anger is justified, it will remain.
Bb
please scroll down for more articles...
and forward The Truthless Reconciler to your friends...thanks!
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Uncommon Sense and Common Nonsense
THE SEMI VIOLENT protests around the arab world are directed at, you guessed it, the united states of america, and why not? The person, or small group of people, who precipitated the outrage by producing an antil islamic video are, indeed, american. Thus, all americans are to blame. Doesn't that make perfect sense? You professors of logic at Harvard: don't you just love being grouped with religious fanatics?
Nasty stupid video made by american, america is nasty and stupid. Really? That don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense. (D.Crockett)
Short clips of the anti islamic film on the internet were seen by enough people around the world to ignite the controversy. The fool responsible for it had evidently been paroled from prison, where he was incarcerated for financial crimes. A judge will determine whether terms of release have been violated.
But is the fool truly responsible for the violence? Can't we all just ingmore such foolishness?
But, most importantly, it would seem, is the fact that the film was evidently made by "devout", indeed, "fanatic" christians.
The fact that the film was mad by christians is more important than the fact that it was made by americans, because the insipid rubbish was motivated by religion, not international politics. Thus, for moslems to be angry with america is about as goofy as americans being angry as islam.
But all hatred is goofy, aint it? bin laden and his boys tear down the trade center, blame islam. C'mon now people.
what we have here is a failure to use good old fashioned common sense, which regrettably, is not uncommon. A few years ago the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed to be from Texas because of george bush. An astute analyst mentioned that they should instead be ashamed to be from this planet.
The late great carl sagan once pointed out that in america there is no shortage of intelligence, just a shortage of education, a shortage of well trained minds thinking intelligently.
Until people start thinking clearly there is no hope of really fixing or improving the currently tragic human condition. But with a little horse sense, hell, who knows what might be possible?
Bb
please tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER.THANKS!
scroll down for more..
Nasty stupid video made by american, america is nasty and stupid. Really? That don't make good sense. Hell, that don't even make good nonsense. (D.Crockett)
Short clips of the anti islamic film on the internet were seen by enough people around the world to ignite the controversy. The fool responsible for it had evidently been paroled from prison, where he was incarcerated for financial crimes. A judge will determine whether terms of release have been violated.
But is the fool truly responsible for the violence? Can't we all just ingmore such foolishness?
But, most importantly, it would seem, is the fact that the film was evidently made by "devout", indeed, "fanatic" christians.
The fact that the film was mad by christians is more important than the fact that it was made by americans, because the insipid rubbish was motivated by religion, not international politics. Thus, for moslems to be angry with america is about as goofy as americans being angry as islam.
But all hatred is goofy, aint it? bin laden and his boys tear down the trade center, blame islam. C'mon now people.
what we have here is a failure to use good old fashioned common sense, which regrettably, is not uncommon. A few years ago the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed to be from Texas because of george bush. An astute analyst mentioned that they should instead be ashamed to be from this planet.
The late great carl sagan once pointed out that in america there is no shortage of intelligence, just a shortage of education, a shortage of well trained minds thinking intelligently.
Until people start thinking clearly there is no hope of really fixing or improving the currently tragic human condition. But with a little horse sense, hell, who knows what might be possible?
Bb
please tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER.THANKS!
scroll down for more..
Friday, September 14, 2012
Sting Like a Bee
MUHAMMED ALI received yet another award of some sort recently; he's accumulated a room full of plaques and trophies, all deserved. Ali has always stood for religious tolerance and freedom, racial tolerance and freedom, and, of course, civil disobedience, for his refusal to be inducted into the military in 1967 and fight in viet nam.
In 1967, Ali was widely reviled as a traitor. Forty five years later, americans, even conservative ones, have accepted the viet nam war as a disastrous mistake, and Ali has regained his status as a hero. Such is the power of reflection.
Muhammed Ali was not alone is protesting and resisting the viet nam war. Hundreds of thousands of others opposed to the war will not recieve any award, and maybe they should.
Ali might come in handy about now. He undoubtedly finds anti islamic cinematic propaganda repulsive, as most people do, but he probably would condemn equally any irrelevant violence associated with it, as most people do.
Ali probably is not very favorably inclined towards the wars in iraq and afghanistan. He might even believe that the world trade center was atacked by a gang of thugs, rather than a nation, a religion, or a concept. Maybe he would've advised apperhending and bringing to justice the thugs themsevles, rather than abstractly declaring war on a concept (terrorism).
Ironic, that a man who made his living and reputation fighting should staunchly oppose war on religious grounds. But we'll take what we can get.
Bb
Please scroll down for more, and please tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks!
In 1967, Ali was widely reviled as a traitor. Forty five years later, americans, even conservative ones, have accepted the viet nam war as a disastrous mistake, and Ali has regained his status as a hero. Such is the power of reflection.
Muhammed Ali was not alone is protesting and resisting the viet nam war. Hundreds of thousands of others opposed to the war will not recieve any award, and maybe they should.
Ali might come in handy about now. He undoubtedly finds anti islamic cinematic propaganda repulsive, as most people do, but he probably would condemn equally any irrelevant violence associated with it, as most people do.
Ali probably is not very favorably inclined towards the wars in iraq and afghanistan. He might even believe that the world trade center was atacked by a gang of thugs, rather than a nation, a religion, or a concept. Maybe he would've advised apperhending and bringing to justice the thugs themsevles, rather than abstractly declaring war on a concept (terrorism).
Ironic, that a man who made his living and reputation fighting should staunchly oppose war on religious grounds. But we'll take what we can get.
Bb
Please scroll down for more, and please tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Leader of the world
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY talked again today, which one absolutely must do if one wishes to become president. One must attract attention to become president.. So desperately, so passionately do presidential candidates want to be president that they talk a great deal, and the thing to talk about about now is the mass murder of americans in libya.
Mitt drew criticism for condeming obama's response to the tragedy too harshly, too soon, and too unreasonably, so this time he backed up - a little. Today, instead of talking about libya specifically, he uttered rhetoric about "american leadership" in the world.
Mitt said: "a strong america is essential to shape (world) events. And that depends on a strong (american ) military. The world needs american leadership. The middle east needs american leadership, leadershp which americans can respect and which will keep us admired throughout the world."
At present, the plan is to cut american military spending, but not by much.
Mitt's comments have all kinds of problems, and raise all kinds of questions. First, is it really so important that the united states of america "shape" world events? This is done by maintaining the american military empire, and using economic and military intimidation. Does the world realy want america to "shape" world events (to control the world)?
Does the world really need and want american leadership? Maybe we should ask the world about this. We might be surprised at the answer. Does the middle east want and need american leadership? Do the arab nations? China? Russia? The answer to that is predictable, isn't it?
Do most americans really care about america being the world leader? Or would they simply prefer that the united states leave others alone, cooperate with others, and seek peace and prosperity?
Keep us admired throughout the world? Admired? "Keep" us admired? Really? Has mitt bothered to find out whether america is admired throughout the world? Assuming america is admired, a terribly dubious assumption, then the admiration has endured four years of obama, and thus obama's leadership and foreign policy ought to please mitt.
Its comforting (if one is an american imperialist) to think that the united states of america is admired by a world which craves america's leadership. Its more pleasant than believing that the U.S. is regarded by the world as an arrogant military monstrosity.
Is it even remotely possible that the nations of the world are capable of leading themselves, and that it would be best for the united states to think in terms of cooperation, rather than "leadership"?
So let's just believe that america is admired worldwide, and that the world loves being led by...
america...
Bb
please read THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER daily. THANKS!
Mitt drew criticism for condeming obama's response to the tragedy too harshly, too soon, and too unreasonably, so this time he backed up - a little. Today, instead of talking about libya specifically, he uttered rhetoric about "american leadership" in the world.
Mitt said: "a strong america is essential to shape (world) events. And that depends on a strong (american ) military. The world needs american leadership. The middle east needs american leadership, leadershp which americans can respect and which will keep us admired throughout the world."
At present, the plan is to cut american military spending, but not by much.
Mitt's comments have all kinds of problems, and raise all kinds of questions. First, is it really so important that the united states of america "shape" world events? This is done by maintaining the american military empire, and using economic and military intimidation. Does the world realy want america to "shape" world events (to control the world)?
Does the world really need and want american leadership? Maybe we should ask the world about this. We might be surprised at the answer. Does the middle east want and need american leadership? Do the arab nations? China? Russia? The answer to that is predictable, isn't it?
Do most americans really care about america being the world leader? Or would they simply prefer that the united states leave others alone, cooperate with others, and seek peace and prosperity?
Keep us admired throughout the world? Admired? "Keep" us admired? Really? Has mitt bothered to find out whether america is admired throughout the world? Assuming america is admired, a terribly dubious assumption, then the admiration has endured four years of obama, and thus obama's leadership and foreign policy ought to please mitt.
Its comforting (if one is an american imperialist) to think that the united states of america is admired by a world which craves america's leadership. Its more pleasant than believing that the U.S. is regarded by the world as an arrogant military monstrosity.
Is it even remotely possible that the nations of the world are capable of leading themselves, and that it would be best for the united states to think in terms of cooperation, rather than "leadership"?
So let's just believe that america is admired worldwide, and that the world loves being led by...
america...
Bb
please read THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER daily. THANKS!
Much Ado
A MOVIE, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT HOT AIR, is released in which the islamic prophet is portrayed in a less than respectful fashion, and all hell breaks loose. The mobs attack, and the american politicians add more hot air, all because of nothing, all because of a badly acted movie. Sticks, and stones...
Obama, before the murders in libya, sharply criticized the film as an abuse of free speech, which it really wasn't. If all stupid talk were an abuse of free speech, we all would be counted as free speech abusers. Who among us has never spoken stupidly?
And since obama's comments were made before the violence occured, romney's criticism to those comments is, shall we say, "anachronistic", if not outright foolish.
Governor Romney, looking to chalk up a few points, criticized the president's reaction as being sympathetic to the violence. Of course, it was nothing of the sort.
The easy way out would be to simply all agree that making unkind comments about religious leaders is unproductive, and that responding to it by behaving violently is destructive, and leave it at that.
But that would be too simple, too easy, and heaven forbid that a politician should ever miss an opportunity to attack the holder of the office being sought.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain...(Agathon)
Bb
THANKS for reading.
Obama, before the murders in libya, sharply criticized the film as an abuse of free speech, which it really wasn't. If all stupid talk were an abuse of free speech, we all would be counted as free speech abusers. Who among us has never spoken stupidly?
And since obama's comments were made before the violence occured, romney's criticism to those comments is, shall we say, "anachronistic", if not outright foolish.
Governor Romney, looking to chalk up a few points, criticized the president's reaction as being sympathetic to the violence. Of course, it was nothing of the sort.
The easy way out would be to simply all agree that making unkind comments about religious leaders is unproductive, and that responding to it by behaving violently is destructive, and leave it at that.
But that would be too simple, too easy, and heaven forbid that a politician should ever miss an opportunity to attack the holder of the office being sought.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain...(Agathon)
Bb
THANKS for reading.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Inexcusable Lies
YOUNG MAN FULFILLS A DREAM by playing football at a small college in the western united states, carefully concealing the fact that he is homosexual, thinking it might be better for his collegiate football career to omit mention of it.
But its harder than one might think to conceal such a thing. He is seen kissing another man, and reported. When questioned about it, he denies it, but soon his lie is revealed, and hs is kicked off the football team, ostensibly for telling a lie. Everyone knows that telling a lie is the worst possible offense a football player can commit.
We all know that he was not kicked off for lying, don't we? You can only play football in america if you are heterosexual, or, if you are homosexual and effectively conceal it.
He hopes to find another college, and try again. If he is lucky, he will find a place where nobody knows about his sexual orientation. If he is lucky.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of his former college is unspeakably evil. If a person or institution is bigoted, the person or institution should at least have the integrity to admit it. But people are always reluctant to admit their own shortcomings, and everyone knows that to treat someone differently because of sexual orientation is wrong.
Nowadays racists do not admit that they are racists. Nor to homosexual haters own up to their bigotry. This is progress, after a fashion, because there was a time in america, quite recently, when the haters were proud of their hatred.
The next step is to stop the hatred.
Bb
THANKS FOR READING!
But its harder than one might think to conceal such a thing. He is seen kissing another man, and reported. When questioned about it, he denies it, but soon his lie is revealed, and hs is kicked off the football team, ostensibly for telling a lie. Everyone knows that telling a lie is the worst possible offense a football player can commit.
We all know that he was not kicked off for lying, don't we? You can only play football in america if you are heterosexual, or, if you are homosexual and effectively conceal it.
He hopes to find another college, and try again. If he is lucky, he will find a place where nobody knows about his sexual orientation. If he is lucky.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of his former college is unspeakably evil. If a person or institution is bigoted, the person or institution should at least have the integrity to admit it. But people are always reluctant to admit their own shortcomings, and everyone knows that to treat someone differently because of sexual orientation is wrong.
Nowadays racists do not admit that they are racists. Nor to homosexual haters own up to their bigotry. This is progress, after a fashion, because there was a time in america, quite recently, when the haters were proud of their hatred.
The next step is to stop the hatred.
Bb
THANKS FOR READING!
Eternal Truth
RELIGIOUS FANATICISM, once again, as always, shows its ugliness. Idiot in the united states places unflattering anti islamic post on the internet, and three american diplomats are murdered in libya.
American bigot with too much free time posts anti islamic trash on the internet, halfway around the world angry mob attacks and kills diplomats who did nothing other than promote international communication and cooperation.
A movie is released in which the islamic faith is portrayed in a most unfavorable light.
Angry mob murders people who have nothing to do with the film.
What could be more typical of humanity? Has anyone on this planet ever been heard to say: "my religious views may in fact reflect not a trace of reality, but I cling to them, because they comfort me"
Don't hold your breath. Truth seeking is not a primary human trait. To paraphrase Goethe: "we resist truth only because we would perish if we accepted it."
And the truth is, of course, that all human religion is based more on fear and superstition than any pursuit of universal truth. In eigthteenth century france, voltaire said of the catholic church "crush the infamous thing." He might have had a point. It might be best to wipe the slate clean, and begin anew, with new religiosity for us all.
After all, unless you're a mormon, your religion was probably evolved thousands of years ago, by people who were far less informed than you. The old testament tells us that under certain conditions we should kill our own children, or sell them as slaves. The Quran contains equally delightful admonitions. This is the word of God?
We're all guilty of it. We choose our religious beliefs, then convince ourselves that we have chosen the one pathway to truth. Again, Goethe: "when I realized that everyone invents his own religion, I decided to invent mine." You can see why goethe is considered by many to have been the most brilliant human ever.
Let us establish a library for all eleven thousand religions in the world, and treat is as a museum of curious artifacts from the remote past. Then, we might await the appearance of extraterrestrials, and when they arrive, seek their spiritual guidance. They might be able to teach us things we don't already know, and help us out of this mess.
Mayber their eternal verities will be a bit less barbaric than ours.
Bb
please scroll down for more..
...be sure to tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks!
American bigot with too much free time posts anti islamic trash on the internet, halfway around the world angry mob attacks and kills diplomats who did nothing other than promote international communication and cooperation.
A movie is released in which the islamic faith is portrayed in a most unfavorable light.
Angry mob murders people who have nothing to do with the film.
What could be more typical of humanity? Has anyone on this planet ever been heard to say: "my religious views may in fact reflect not a trace of reality, but I cling to them, because they comfort me"
Don't hold your breath. Truth seeking is not a primary human trait. To paraphrase Goethe: "we resist truth only because we would perish if we accepted it."
And the truth is, of course, that all human religion is based more on fear and superstition than any pursuit of universal truth. In eigthteenth century france, voltaire said of the catholic church "crush the infamous thing." He might have had a point. It might be best to wipe the slate clean, and begin anew, with new religiosity for us all.
After all, unless you're a mormon, your religion was probably evolved thousands of years ago, by people who were far less informed than you. The old testament tells us that under certain conditions we should kill our own children, or sell them as slaves. The Quran contains equally delightful admonitions. This is the word of God?
We're all guilty of it. We choose our religious beliefs, then convince ourselves that we have chosen the one pathway to truth. Again, Goethe: "when I realized that everyone invents his own religion, I decided to invent mine." You can see why goethe is considered by many to have been the most brilliant human ever.
Let us establish a library for all eleven thousand religions in the world, and treat is as a museum of curious artifacts from the remote past. Then, we might await the appearance of extraterrestrials, and when they arrive, seek their spiritual guidance. They might be able to teach us things we don't already know, and help us out of this mess.
Mayber their eternal verities will be a bit less barbaric than ours.
Bb
please scroll down for more..
...be sure to tell others about THE TRUTHLESS RECONCILER! thanks!
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Fading Memories
EACH YEAR the memory of the world trade center becomes a tiny bit less vivid, and there will come a time when it has receded into history, like the alamo, the maine, and peral harbor. There was a time when all three of those other seminal, tragic, violent aggressive events were acknowledged each year, march 6 for the alamo, december 7 for pearl harbor, and whenever (1898) for the maine.
Now, those days slide quietly by, with only a glimmer of remembrance.
And this is how it should be. We really wouldn't want our descendents a hundred years from now to make a big deal out of september 11, 2011, anymore than we do november 22, the assassination of JFK. Back in the late nineteen sixties november 22 was a hard day to swallow each year, now fifty years after the event, we pay only slight lip service to it.
We no longer wonder what Knnedy would be doing now, had he not been shot, because he would be ninety five years old, and he would be dead anyway.
The people of the year 2112, if there are any, will have other, newer commemorations to make. All of our sacred dates, like september 11, will have receded into the backs of their minds.
And this is normal, this is natural, this is how it should be.
And this fact of human nature will never diminish the herosim of the brave people who died that day. May the dear lord bless and keep them, and us all, for having to suffer their loss, and we offer thanks to our creator, for giving us the power to heal ourselves through time...
Bb
Thank You.
Now, those days slide quietly by, with only a glimmer of remembrance.
And this is how it should be. We really wouldn't want our descendents a hundred years from now to make a big deal out of september 11, 2011, anymore than we do november 22, the assassination of JFK. Back in the late nineteen sixties november 22 was a hard day to swallow each year, now fifty years after the event, we pay only slight lip service to it.
We no longer wonder what Knnedy would be doing now, had he not been shot, because he would be ninety five years old, and he would be dead anyway.
The people of the year 2112, if there are any, will have other, newer commemorations to make. All of our sacred dates, like september 11, will have receded into the backs of their minds.
And this is normal, this is natural, this is how it should be.
And this fact of human nature will never diminish the herosim of the brave people who died that day. May the dear lord bless and keep them, and us all, for having to suffer their loss, and we offer thanks to our creator, for giving us the power to heal ourselves through time...
Bb
Thank You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)