Regrets, Too Few To Mention

THOSE OF YOU OVER, SAY, 55 will remember watergate, and the resignation (dismissal) of mister nixon. Those of you too young to remember it have read about it, and are lucky to not remember it.

 Remember the two young reporters, woodward and bernstein, who busted the president. they were portrayed by dustin hoffman and robert redford in the great movie "all the president's men". 
woodward is still working for the washington post after all these years, and has now run afoul of the obama administration, or someone high up in it. The president himself is apparently not involved.

woodward, like many other reporters, claims that this crazy sequester idea, which was originally well intended but is now fixing to bite us all in the butt, was obama's idea. Obama, of course, is inthe midst of a savage effort to pin the blame on the republicans.

bob woodward has a few unflattering things to say about obama, such as, his white house is the most cult like crazy place since nixon's white house. woodward also agrees with the republicans that obama seems to be avoiding a compromise by constantly changing his terms for agreement. Not very flattering stuff.

One of obama's assistants evidently told woodward that he would regret having written such unture things. Woodward says he felt threatened. This greatly pleases the republicans, who seize upon the opportunity to portray obama as an al capone style gangster, who orders revenge hits.

Obama would probably be best advised to call woodward, straighten this out, and then get right back to the business of blaming republicans, and accusing them of being champions of the wealthy, to the detriment of everyone else.

Besides that, woodward will probably never regret what he said about obama, just like he never regretted what he said about nixon.

Free To Choose!

AS IF WE DON'T ALREADY have enough issues and problems to ponder, now we are presented, by the good graces of our great american media, and our confusing culture, the confusing situation wherein a small child proclaims herself a female, even though there are physical indications of maleness, and the american public, or at least the school district in colorado where she is trying to attend school, insists on treating her as a male. Go figure.

Are we such a regimented type A control freak society here in america that we can't even allow a girl to be a girl? Seemingly, but let us hope not.

The parents actually treated their shild as a male for the first several years, due to the genitalic maleness. However, increasingly, the child announced herself to be a girl, with increased vigor and determination, and both parents now say that they came around to her way of thinking.

The parents say that anyone who spends five minutes with their child can tell she is a girl. Quite frankly, the pictures of her face clearly show a girl, even though among six year olds there is a certain lack of obvious gender differentiation facially.

so what's the school district going to do? Keep forcing her to use the boy's restroom until she becomes emotionally traumatized, and the parents are forced to file a  lawsuit?  Or maybe accede to the parent's, and the little girl's wishes, allow her to live like a girl at school, then start a lawsuit of their own, and drag pictures of her naked into a federal courtroom?

There are many public school administrators in this country who are perfectly capable of something so pernicious, trust me.

This is america, by god, and anybody can become whatever they choose. Individual freedom of choice. That's what my ancestors, and thousands of great americans have fought and died for.

Every week in the united states several people have surgical procedures which change their gender, hence the growing "transgender" movenet. Its the next big battleground, socially. One can scarcely imagine what weapons the christian conservatives are preparing to launch against this sweet little girl, her parents, and everyone else like her.

Well, bring it. We'll be ready, using the sacred american creed "freedom" as our weapon.

Get It On Paper, Fast

TOMORROW THE POPE LEAVES OFFICE, which is an event so rare that the conspiracy theoristsare out in force, not unpredictably. The various theories are of striking quality, in terms of creativity and imagination.

The pope is being blackmailed out of office. He will be arrested for crimes against humanity as soon as he leaves the vatican. His removal is part of a vast transfer of political economic power world wide, in which powefrul people everywhere are being replaced.

Well, whatever. A large part of the beauty of the catholic church is the mystery, especially in matters of the spirit. But, admittedly, there are times when it would seem that a bit more, shall we say, "certainty" might be nice.

Take, for instance, the gospel.  The Holy Bible, formalized, organized, codified at the council of nicea, 325 A.D. There is no doubt about this historical fact. And there is no doubt that three hundred years is a very long time to allow a church, the church, to languish without Official scriptural guidance, in a faith which places so much emphasis on; it sacred holy book.

God speaks to man through the bible, three hundred years after christ walked on earth. Jesus came to earth, for one thing, to preach, to teach the word of god. Well then, who better to write the word, to put it on paper, indellibly, forever, in front of everyone..than jesus himself?

Automatic authenticity, straight from the source. The church, with its undeniable, well witnessed gospel, in print, available for all to see and read, right from the very beginning, having come straight from the son of god himself.

Well, it just seems like that would have been the way to do it, considering how questionable books, by their very nature, are. Jesus, writing in front of his followers, could have avoided all that, all the uncertainty, and after all, wasn't he here, partly, to teach us all?

Sheer Competitive Lunacy: whither compromise?

THERE IS HOPE, after all. Some republicans are agreeing to go along with obamacare, including several governors and a congressperson or two. Before you know it, the word "compromise" will be dusted off.

Compromise is the key to american history. How else can it be in a country which for centuries was half slave and half free, with fifty one different legal systems which often conflict. Thomas Jefferson and alexander hamilton disagreed eery bit as much as obama and the republicans, but they served in the same cabinet; well, for one term, anyway.

There is a pervasive adversarial characteristic to american culture. Its written into our legal system, evident in our actions. One third of the world's lawyers are americans. IN any given year, the big book which lists the names of licensed attorneys in the U.S. contains at least a million names.

Look what's popular; whatever emphasizes violence and competition. this i can assure you; all across america, baseball and football games are held in which the players are all six years old, and the parents who are watching act for all the world as if they truly care which team wins.

Engage any educated american in a conversation in which you express an opinion about some public affair; see how long it takes someone to correct you; no, not how long it takes for a different opinion to be expressed, how long it takes someone to declare your opinion "wrong" and correct it. Not long.

Money is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Using it wisely is merely a matter of intelligent decision making. Trying to collect as much money as possible in order to impress others with one's affluence is not efficient, healthy use of a valuable tool.

Government policies which degrade the very value of the very currency the govenmnet itself establishes for the benefit of all is sheer lunacy. We the people allow it to happen, and we the people can sure as hell stop it.

Less Government

THERE IS A BILL PENDING in the great state of arkansas, U.S.A. which would allow instructors at state colleges and universities to carry concealed weapons on campus. This, along with the bill that would allow guns to be carried into church, and arkansas is thinking about becoming very well armed indeed. So is the rest of america, even as the liberals push a ban on assault weapons.

Will public school teachers be next in line to get permit to pack? Will all public servants eventually be allowed to carry heat, then, eventually, be required to? Incrementalism can work in many different ways.

Will we all eventually be waking down the street, driving our cars, wide side arm conspicuously displayed on your gunbelt, after the fashion of the old west? Is that what we want, a well armed citizenry?

Bear in mind that most gunshoot wounds in america are friendly fire. Accidental fire, mistaken fire coming from good people. then too, there are the hiterto good people, people like you and I, who, inexplicably, suddenly whip out their handgun and use it murderously, sometimes on themselves.

It is absolutely critical that in the united states we th epeople do not allow the government to take away our guns. With equal vigor we should oppose govvernmental imposition of laws limiting the size of soft drinks, or where, and what, people can and cannot smoke.

How many of you NRA members support the legalization of marijuana? You conservatives who so desperately want freedom to cary guns and freedom from government confiscation of your money might wish to consider whether you really want government to make laws regarding sex and drugs.

Guns, abortion, drugs, pornography, let it be said about them all; they are best kept legal, and unpopular by popular demand.

Stand Your Ground

YOU MAY RECALL the sheriff in arizona who made quite a splash some time ago with his stern and spartan methods of treating inmates. Living in tents, dressed in degrading attire, working long, hard hours, the whole works.

This attracted a lot of attention, whether intentionally is impossible to determine. But the people who like this sort of thing really like it. Now that same sherrif has retained the services of the actor steven seagall .

For the purposes of offering instruction to anyone who wants it on martial arts, the proper handling and use of a firearm, and methods to deal with assailants; instruction provided by..an actor? Do we all realize that people like steven seagall, bruce willis,  arnold schwartzennegger and clint eastwood, not to mention sylvester stallone, are actors, in real life, and not super heros?

All over the country (U.S.A.) states have enacted or are considering enacting these "stand your ground" laws, under which self defense killing is immune fro prosecution. This is an issue in florida, where george zimmerman will go on trial for second degree murder in the gun death of the teenager, using self defense as his defense.

If we aaaaare going to become a nation in which a high percentage of citizens are armed, which certainly seems to be the current trend, then it makes sense to pass laws defending people who use their weapons in self defense.

but its a slippery slope, and a long way down the road to justifiable violence. Self defense is often a matter of opinon, and can easily be used as an excuse to do harm.

Thank You, Mr. Koop

C. EVERETT KOOP, A SURGEON GENERAL  to remember, died today at the ripe old age of 96. It must have been his clean living. What set him apart, other than his ceaseless crusade for healthy lifestyle choices and against smoking, is his apparently contractory beliefs.

Koop was a fundamentalist christian who approved of and recommended sex education and birth control, including distributing condoms to high school students. Its a rare day when any conservative, much less a fundamentalist christian, harbors such a progressive social and health care philosophy.

That just goes to show what a little scientific education will do for you. Koop was loyal to his religious beliefs his entire life, but that didn't stop him from using his power of reason to arrive as sensible conclusion, which does not always happen among deeply religious people.

Shrew conservatives analysts often lament the liberal make up of college and university campuses in america, as if they don't understand why such a high proportion of students and professors are liberal. Maybe intelligence and education have something to do with it.

When you think about intlligence levels of recent american presidents, who comes to mind, as educated intllectuals: clinton and obama, or bush and reagan? (be honest)

when reagan appointed c everett koop to the surgeon general position, he probably did so knowing that koop was a fundamentalist christian, and most likely assumed therefore that he was a conservative on social issues, such as sex education and birth control.

Reagan lived to regret his choice, and america benefitted from it, because if we need anything in this world, its sex education and birth control, not dogmatic puritanical religiosity. Thank you, mr koop.

Protecting Ourselves Against Ourselves

THE INTERESTING THING about germany is that, although it is an extremely peaceful country, it is in the top five, globally, in selling weapons to other countries, right up there with the russians, the americans, the chinese, and the french. The united states is far ahead of everyone else, though, so, don't worry, my fellow americans: we're number one! (at least in something).

All of these weapons being manufactured and sold by the world's great military powers are sold to far less wealthy, powerful nations, and the justification is always "security" or "peace". We know better than that, don't we? How about profit and emperialism? One's weapons industry can only profit with sales to customers, after all.

the german people did not enjoy world wars one or two anymore than anyone else, and we americans certainly know how can happen when a coubtry choses the wrong government, and thingts get, shall we say, "out of hand". Every country on earth has had that experience.

Since world war, even the very mention of sending german military out of the country to participate in diplomacy by other means, along with the rest of us, has met with great resistance in germany. The germans just haven't wanted any partof it, much to their credit.

Meanwhile, the united states, bankrupt, needs to relenquish her position as the world's policeman, and hand that job over to the united nations, correct? Also, the success of contemporary germany, technologically, economically, would seem to call for greater german participation in military affairs abroad, in carefully considered ways.

The wars in iraq and afghanistan, while too healviy dominated by the united states, perhaps, were at least examples of how large numbers of countries can act in unison to provide necessary corrective measures in various parts of the world.

The era of nations competing for military, economic, and political supremacy must end, lest the conflict it engenders destroy us all. Perhaps within the foreseeable future the oceans will be home to united nations fleets, the skies will be safeguared by the united nations air force, and every nation on earth will contribute to a united nations armed  force, protecting all humanity, jointly, against ourselves...

We Can Save the World

"HISTORY", remarked an esteemed historian, "is just one damned thing after another." And so it is. And often the new history, the news, seems to keep getting worse and worse. Everyday, some new act of violence, some new financial crisis.

And now, worst of all, it seems as if the universe as a whole is ending, or rather, will eventually end much sooner than we had previously thought.

Ever since we have known about the expanding universe, the question has been whether it would simply keep expanding forever, becoming more and more empty, or woulod eventually stop expanding, and be drawn back into a collapse by the force of gravity, to begin the cycle anew.

And now it looks as if neither of these scenarios will ever come to be. Scientists are speculating that within a few billion years, an imbalance in the distribution of energy will destroy the universe in its present form, and replace it with...whatever...that part they still haven't worked out.

Its easy for us to make jokes about all this, because we know it has absolutely no effect on us. Strange to think, however, that there might very well come a day when some intellgeint creatures are forced to behold the end of the universe, and their own happy lives. However, even though we need not worry about the end of the univberse, we do need to worry about the end of the world.

NO, the small asteroid which crashed into russia last week had nothing to do with global warming. But yes, it should sever as a reminder, and a warning to us, that collisions are a common occurance in our solar system, and that our world could end, literally, at any moment, no mattter how long the universe as a whole lasts.

But the great thing about it is; we can do something about it! We can prevent a big rock from colliding with and destroying the earth, even if we can't prevent the universe from someday ending. We can build a telescopic detection system, and a rocket delivery sytetm to nudge an asteroid ever so slightly off its course, thus saving earth, and us. 

Isn't it comforting to know that we can save the world? Might as well start doing it!

.Still Fighting Science, After All These Years

EVEN THOUGH DARWIN'S seminal work "the origin of species" was published in 1859, the scopes trial took place in 1925. The beautifully persuasive, emperically verifiable, provable process of evolution by natural selection had not been acceptd by all even after sixty five years of publication.

The high school science teacher who started all the trouble in tennessee by teaching about darwin, was not trying to change any of his student's religious views, not trying to cram evolution down their throats, and replace their faith with it.

He was simply informing them that the work of charles darwin is very convincing, it passes the test of reason, it stands up under the scrutingy of the skeptical scientific method, and is therefore the best effort science has thus far made to explain human existence.

The reaction he got, including his firing, his lawsuit, and bringing in william jennings bryan to argue the case against him, is still shocking, and alarming. A whole nation in an uproar because a man distinguished between science and religion, and tried to teach science? Amazing.

Even more amazing is the fact that in 2013 the situation has not fundamentally changed. Conservative christians no longer take to the streets when evolution is taught in american public schools; there is a limit to how foolish even they wish to appear.

But, for the most part, they still don't want to accept what is obvious, because the truth challenges the literal accuracy of their religious beliefs. There is currently a bill in the Oklahoma state legislature called something like "alternative scientific explanations and academic freedom".

You can tell by the title that they've updated their approach. Now, instead of insisting that science comply with their religion, they expouse the virtues of  "alternative science", and "academic freedom". How laughable. Fundmentalist christians, advocating for academic freedom, as if seeking new knowledge is their great passion in life, rather then defending ancient, superstitious dogma. 

The bill in Oklahoma would require teachers to cover religion in science classes. The christians don't like biological evolution, including chemical human origins, and they don't like global warming, or cloning. The last two exist whether they like it or not, and the first two are science, and, we must teach science in science classes, mustn't we? Offering students courses in comparative religions is also desirable. Then too, there are quite a few churches available.

Walk a Mile In Agony

THERE IS NO GREATER CAUSE, no better dream, than the total elimination of sexual and domestic violence against women, and for that matter, the elimination of all kinds of violence against anyone and everyone.

But must we work to do this by engaging in a purely symbolic activity that is virtually guaranteed to injure anyone who participates in it? We refer to the "Walk a Mile In Her Shoes" organization and activity, which is right around the corner in most american locales.

The activity consists of walking a mile in high heels, and it is intended for everyone, but especially men. Associated with this is undoubtedlly the raising of money to fund the cause, to educate the public; the primary purpose of the event is to simply draw awareness to the problem.

It is of course well known that high heel shoes are dangerous, and unhealthy. Dangerous because of the increased chances of sprained or broken ankles, or broken necks, unhealthy because repeated use as intended results in a stooped posture, back problems, ankle and knee problems, an orthopedic nightmare.

Makes you yearn for the good old "Race For the Cure", in which participants wear running shoes, and the most dangerous risk is dehydration and exhaustion. Not only that, but there is an associated activity called "sleep in for the cure", in which participants merely send in their entrance fee, and show up for the run in spirit only. This appeals to millions of americans.

Must one bring one's own high heels? If one breaks one's ankle or one's neck, is the walk a mile in her shoes organizatoin liable. or does one sign a waver before adorning one's feet with stilletos? How long, one wonders, does it take someone to walk a mile who has never even come close to wearing high heels? Hours, perchance, crawling or barefoot at the end?

I would almost rather wear a miniskirt and pantyhose...

Down With DOMA, says Obama

WHEN BILL CLINTON became president in 1993, after twelve years of republcian presidential ascendancy, conservative americans pitched a tizzy, went off like a bucket of bottle rockets over a campfire. They started roaming around in the woods in packs, carrying powerful weapons, promising to, um, make the world a better place, or whatever; the infamous, albeit short lived "militia movement" was short circuited by timothy McVeigh's mass murder in oklahoma city. This monstrous act turned the country against the militia folks, and they quietly went away.

Exactly what was the militia movement of the early 1990s? History will have to tell. Was it a celebration of the second amendment? You can think of easier ways. An expression of lack of trust in the regular professional american military? Any clues, anyone?

Undaunted, newt gingrich, spearheading a list of right wing proposals frightening enough to reenergize the right, led the great 1994 takeover of congress by the republicans. Emboldened, they promulgated all kindsa craziness, such as the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act", sort of a rear action final offensive in retreat, using the federal government to strike one last blow against gay rights in a world increasingly tired of needless cruelty and bigotry.

So the federal government defends traditional marriage, and nobody seems to care. State after state is approving gay marriage. Society is approving gay marriage. Conservatism, on this issue, is being left behind, as always, as today's liberalism becomes tomorrow's conservatism.

Obama wants the U.S. supreme court to overturn the DOMA, and indeed soon the case will be heard, and, most probably, found unconstitutional, by a five to four vote. Good old justice Kennedy, always good for that fifth vote of sanity.

Anybody who wants to can file a brief at the high court, and thousands are, most of which one might imagine end up in the dumpster. Why obama's opinion matters anymore than anyones else's is questionable; hes has never suffered the discrimminatin of being gay in a society unfriendly to gay folk.

But rock on, mister president. Hell, the hatred which conservatives feel for you is so deep and wide that no amount of corredt thinking on your part can possibly fuel it further, and later in life, you can at least claim that you once tried to talk some sense into some sense into people who needed it badly.

Down With Citizens United! (say the people)

CITIZENS UNITED, you'll recall, is the name of the supreme court decision a couple years ago which affirmed the right of anybody, including corporations, to contribute any amount of money to political campaigns.

And of course ever since, more and more money has been raised and spent by political candidates as they frenetically collect money, and obligatoins, and purchase their way into office, through the power of advertising.

As long as you spend all the money on advertising, or travel and other campaign expenses, including paying staff members, its legal to collect as much money as possible, and to make promises to people who give you money just don't spend it on material things for your personal amusement; ask jesse jackson junior.

the system is thoroughly corrupt, no matter what the money is spent on, or what promises are made. Legalized corruption, approved by a society which seems strangely to have forgotton the meaning of the word "corruption".

The conservatives who agree with citizens united proclaim the doctrine of freeom, seemingly forgetting, or ignoring the question: "freedom to do what"?  To purchase political office? For billionaires to own the political system? In case you didn't know, they currently do.

The good citizens of the state of california are likely going to vote on citizens united in the near future, by which is presumably meant take a straw poll; whether a state can ignore or nullify a supreme court decision is, shall we say, a bit prickly, and once started a civil war.

Similar votes have been taken in various locations around the country recent years, and these ballot box opinion polls, as well as opinion surveys, strongly indicate that the american people do not like citizens united, and want to change it, by whatever means necessary, such as constitutional amendment, bless their sweet hearts.

What should it be changed to? Campaign contribution limits for everyone? How about this? Seven simple, elegant words: "the purchase of political advertising is prohibited."  We would all have to adjust to the complete absence of paid political advertising, but we could do it. Media could be required to donate time and space, for instance. (wouldn't the corporate media just love that!)

Power to the American People! Let us decide the issue by national referendum. For that matter, one can easily think of quite a few questions and issues on which a good old fashioned national referendum might be in order.

Redundancy?

SO NOW WE HAVE medicare, medicaid, and obamacare...Medicare is the socialistic government health insurance program for the elderly, medicaid is the socialistic government health insurance program for the poor, and obamacare is the socialistic, government health insurance program for...everyone who does not have health insurance.

By the time you get through with all the private health insurance providers, cover the elderly with medicade, and cover the poor with medicare, just who is left uncovered that needs coverage with obamacare? You would think nobody would be, wouldn't you? Seems confusing.

It turns out that even with with medicare and medicaid, before obama care, there are, or were, about  thirty to forty million americans uncovered. But why? Are the requirements to qualify for medicaid too restrictive, too exclusive, or ar millions of americans sumply unconcerned about their own health?

There are two kinds of people; rich, and poor. In this context "rich" refers to anyone who can, in theory , afford health insurance by whatever means they choose, which includes just about everyone from lower to upper middle to wealthy elite economic status.

there are two kinds of people: those who have health insurance, and those who don't. Those who don't are either too poor too afford it, or too irresponsible to understand the need for it.

so, really, don't we need just two health insurance providers, rather than the current four? the private sector, and , say "medicaid".  Are not obamacare and medicare in reality nothing other but redundancies? Many of america's elderly are among america's weathy, and can easily afford coverage within the private sector.

Might it not be preferrable to have a simple, efficient system, rather than a complicated inefficient  one?

Show Your Guns!

THERE IS A PROPOSAL, currently pending in the arkansas state legislature, to permit the unconcealed carrying of firearms. what is called "open carry", rather than the current law, which permits only the carrying of concealed weapons.

The purpose behind concealed firearms is presumably to allow people to defend themselves without openly posing a threat to anyone else, even by making someone uncomfortable at the sight of a weapon. But the question is: should bearers be limited to concealment only?

If open carry is passed, and in a southern, conservative, rural state like arkansas a bill like this always has a chance, it might remain legal to conceal and carry; the bearer of the arm might have a choice between concealing or exposing, or, the law might end up requiring openly carrying, and prohibiting conceal and carry, although that would seem a little bit strange. Strange, because, even if you start letting people carry openly, why suddenly prohibit them from carrying hiddenly?

Its debatable which way is better. Conceal, display, or both or either. You would think that the NRA gun lovers would be making a bigger fuss about requiring guns to be carried concealed, since the constitution does not mention concealment. Maybe they feel fortunate to have any kind of carry at all. They would probably prefer both.

You would almost feel a sense of relief knowing that if anyone near you ha a weapon, you at least have a chance to see it, intead of never knowing whether everyone near you might be carrying.

The second amendment is a perfect example of the insanity of trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant by their words. Two hundred years ago they had no concept of assault weapons, all weapons were muzzle lading muskets.

If we want guns in our society, we should write very definite laws about them, beginning with the constitution itself, and make those laws applicable to our situation in today's world.

The Most Exciting Thing Ever

IN 1995, THE FIRST PLANET was discovered outside our very own solar system, verified, and confirmed. Since then the pace of new planetary discoveries has increased steadily, and now, the smallest planet ever found has been.

This one is about the size of the moon, and has a surface temperature of 700 degrees, no air, no water, so probably no life. And that's cool. Can't expect to find life everytime you look. What is exciting is our ability to see small planets far away, and to be able to determine their temperature, and whether they have air and water. If we can do that, and we obviously can, we can do anything.

Much of it is being done with the Kepler telescope which is in orbit around the earth, and has been since 2009. The telescope isn't actually all that big, and it would/will be possible to put bigger and better telescopes in space.

the more the merrier, the bigger the better. the reason being, there seems to be no limit to the universe, for all practical purposes, with a hundred billion stars in our own galaxy, and billions of other galaxies. It very strongly appears that just about every star has planets!

Every star we look at, we now see planets orbiting it. This is incredibly exciting, more exciting than anything else happening on this planet, exceptt maybe the Sequester.  So, what we need is many more telescopes in space, as big as possible. We could see the whole universe, even if we don't travel around in it much, which, it is to be hoped, we will, sooner rather than later.

Its getting to the point now where anybody with a computer can help find new planets, by working with the planet finder folks. Directing an inquiry to NASA might prove informative in learning exactly how to do this.

Also, of course, anyone with a computer can, from the comfort of his or her own home, contribute to the process of listening for signals from intelligent life anywhere and everywhere except this planet, where such a thing is least likely to be found, anyway. Again, inquire at NASA.

What with all these planets being found daily, can intelligent life be far behind? If this aint the most exciting thing ever, danged if i know what is. Well, other than the Great American Sequester Squabble (GASS). Now that's a gas, just like searching for intelligent life, somewhere, anywhere...

Pull!

"CONFRONTED WITH GREAT MERIT, there is no resistance, but love."  Thus spake johann wolfgang von goethe, and ne'er a truer word were spoke. In other words, when someone steps up, and gits 'er done, give it up.

Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, just an ordinary guy who made it big, is quite predictably on board with president obama concerning gun control. And how does he respond to the suggestion that removing assault weapons from the market will seriously compromise america's privately owned firepower?

"Get a shotgun!" sayeth thee vee pee. and if you're honest, you'll drop your jaw, and drool "why in heck didn't I think of that!". Biden 4 President! A shotgun can fire more rounds per minute than any assault weapon ever made. In fact, a shotgun IS the greatst assault weapon ever manufactured.

Double barreled, for good measure. Isn't this weapon one of the most iconic in american history and folklore, to boot? Aint it what grannie clampett used to drive off them revenuers? How many pellets per trigger pull? About a million? and each one, a tight lil packet of lethality, just the way we americans like it.

No AK47, oozy, or M16 can hang with grannie clampett's deuce. Is this the first time anyone ever referred to a double barreled shotgun as a "deuce"? how cool is that? and how american!

like a shotfun, automatic weapons don't have much accuracy, and that isn't the point, now, is it. The point is to fill the air with metal, early and often, pronto. Well, a good ole fashioned american shotgun fills the bill.

Charitable Investing

BILL GATES AND WARREN BUFFETT have talked fellow biooionaire richard branson into donating half his fortune to chairty, reports have it. Meanwhile mark suckerburg and two or three other dot com billionaires are giving rewards to scientist for disease fighting discoveries.

Could it be that the billionaires will eventually all unite in uplifting humanity?  Gates and Buffett have a charitable trust fund which evidently contributes too all sorts of worthy charitable endeavors, and the issuing of prize money for scientific achievement will doubtless spur research.

Is it possible that the best thing these billionaires could do with their money might be to invest it in free enterprise, private enterprise, for profit businesses of various sorts? Oftentimes charitable organizations participate in alleviating suffering and economic hardship rather than attacking the cause of it, which would seem to be, an insufficient number of jobs, and gross global product.

A lack of goods and services. Not enough material wealth. Whatever you wanna call it. Whether we want everyone on the planet to have a car and a house is one matter, but whether we want everyone to have adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care is quite another.

And really, does it really matter where the new jobs are? Like air and water, the jobs will go where there is least resistance to their appearance, where the cost of labor is cheapest, for instance. And that is perhaps why globalization will prove, in the long run, to be a beneficial process for humanity. 

Bring on the billionaires!, and economic - buisness investment, job creation, and real wealth creation. You can almost see it now: Zuckerburgers....Warren's Buffet Restaurants....Gates Communities...

Misery Loves Company

THE NORTH KOREANS, or one of them, the young dictator, has threatened south korea with "final destruction", his exact words. "lL", the dictator, is a young pup, who inherited the crown from his hot shot father, and is a chip off the ole block. Hereditary monarchies have pitfalls.

A guy shoots off one atom bomb, after years of trying to , and it goes to his head. N Korea must realize that it would take more than one bomb to make the destruction "final". Maybe they have more on the drawing board, or assembly line.

Communism is a noble idea, whether or not is is workable among human animals. Why, with decades of protection from communist china, does north korea not feel the love? Possibly because red china aint near as red as it used to be.

Which raises the question; maybe north korea would be wise to follow in china's footsteps; attract foreign investment, compromise ideals, and become more prosperous. Sounds like a plan. Maybe they are afraid that they would end up with a perpetual dense blanket of pollution, like china.

The north korean army would have to conquer and occupy south korea, then, presumably, govern it.  Surely that's what is meant by "final destruction" - simple conquest and takeover. a simple, direct question from the world to kin jung il could be:

"how in the hell do you expect to govern the south, and manage its economy? Using the same methods you do in you rown country? Does that mean that the south korea will be transformed from a thriving prosperous country into a starvation ravaged wasteland, just like the north?"

It would anger anyone to see others prosper by using corrupt methods (capitalism) while your beautiful country starves, using high minded ideals (communism). They'll just have to get over it. Because what good would it do a starving country, to extend the misery to conquered lands? Well, misery loves company.

Wide, Wide Open

THOSE WHO EXTOL THE VIRTUES OF THE WEALTHY, for whatever reason, like to point out that the wealthy are economic engines, prime sources of economic prosperity for all, that whoever your boss is, if you work in a non government business, is probably wealthy, which is the only reason you have your job.

And all that's true, of course. Hard as it may be for liberals to digest, its true. And it also may be true that what this country (america) needs is less money going to government, and more money going to private business investment, as teh conservative republicans are fond of saying, over, and over....

 OK then, so be it. What if anyone who pays federal income tax is permitted to take ten percent, say, of income tax owed, and invest the amount in one or more businesses which are less than five years old, or new.

An income tax option, or, perhaps, for very wealthy income trax payers, not an option, but a requirement, that twenty five percent of taxes owed be invested in such a business, creating a requirement that all wealthy people indeed do, directly, what it is always claimed by conservatives that they do; invest in and stimulate the american economy?

Billions of dollars going directly into the economy, instead the black hole bureacracy that our government has become. Freeze those entitlements, like social security, medicare, medicaid, for several years, cut the military, legalize marijuana, let drug dealers out of prison, divert twenty five percent of the income taxes of the wealthy to private investment, and you got yourself a thriving economy, no?

The solutions which will prove effective are neither liberal nor conservative, but both. Neither capitalistic nor socialistic, but a bit of both. The minds which will find solutions are not closed, but rather, wide, wide open...

Commom Sense, and Courage

YOU HAVE TO WONDER why, since its so easy to see, so many people don't seem to get it, or refuse to accept it. You also have to wonder why universal acceptance didn't  take place decades ago, and why every high school chemistry, physics, and biology teacher in america isn't hitting the bricks, knocking on doors, explaining it, one door bell at a time.

It all boils donw to the fact that for a long time now, scientists, or anyone else, has had the wherewithall to take a sample of ordinary air, and measure, precisely, what its made up of. There's nothing too exciting about this, and the reason we don't all go around doing it all the time is, we know the results in advance. We know exactly what air is made up of.

any sample, taken anywhere, yields the same ole twenty percent oxygen, seventy eight percent nitrogen, and two percent trace elements. Over the past few decades, however, is is these trace elements which have created all the controversy, for the percent of carbon has significantly increased, while aall the other trace elements have remained at the same levels.

the carbon increase is almost always there, particularly in big cities. Even in the most remote, pristine parts of the earth there is a discernable increase in carbon. The increase, the amount of carbon there is now that there didn't used to be, is almost exactly equal to the amount that human activity has injected in to the air.

Its been that way for awhile; the carbon increase, the measuring of it, knowledge of where it came from, and also, the precise chemical properties of carbon, in particular, the heat absorption coefficient.We know enough, and have for a very long time, to know that global warming cannot be anything other than "real". Like measuring a house with a yard stick, and knowing how big it is. Just measurements, all measurments. That, and just a smidgen of common, sense, and courage.

A Lot Of Work To Do

THE POOR LADY who walked into a spanish bank the other day and set herself on fire probably did so due to extreme anxiety, anger and depression concerning her financial situation. Spain has a twenty five percent unemployment rate,and a foreclosure epidemic. Kinda like america on steroids. 

The fashion design student who jumped off the george washington bridge recently seems to have done so for reasons having to do with her relationship to other students, her peers. She was deeply committed to her success within her profession, including respect from peers, and perhaps felt she was being abandoned and abused. 

And the american singer who shot herself recently had no financial concerns or problems with acceptance within her peer group, but instead suffered extreme stress from personal relationshps involving marriage, children, and custody, leading to legal and possible substance difficulties.

Three separate pathways to self destruction. The lady who set herself on fire survived, and it is to be hoped she heals, learns, and teaches what she learns to others. It would seem that we all have a great deal to learn.

You ask any extraterrestrial the same question, and you're gonna get the same answer, and that answer is gonna be "of course you don't have to be miserable. Your whole species, and all other species, could thrive and be prosperous, merely using tools you already have."

It may very well be that home sapiens (us) is the only intelligent species on the galaxy  among whom suicide is practiced.  The most advanced of our extraterrestrial monitors, maybe the ones sitting in huge, beautiful but invisible spaceships hovering just above our heads, could well be shaking their heads.

Self destruction and organized dextruction, as in war, might very well be an expedient to progress, an evolutionary mechanism, a means of culling genes. For that matter, homosexualtiy may be nature's means of population control, like war, and microorganisms, and death. 

But chancers are, the more advanced forms of life have found a better way to that end, a more effieienct, more civilized way than crude violence. Compared to bloody battlefields, same sex sex loses its aura of shocking sinfulness.  Meanwhile, here on this planet, there is a lot of work to do.

The Million Man Carbon Hoax

LISTENING TO RUSH LIMBAUGH, if done properly, can be quite comforting. Do people in countries which are not the united states listen to rush online? Do they have software which translates el rushbo into their native tongue? Do any of them have have any idea what he's talking about?

To all these, questions, one can only hope the answer is "yes". Merely by resaurring us that global warming/climate change is a hoax does rush bring comfort. Oh, if only he could be correct. Wouldn't it be wonderful if millions of liberal environmental wackos would come forth ala lance armstrong, confess en masse while shedding tears and begging for another chance? Climatic mea culpa!

A huge press conference, with thousands of poorly dressed liberals, sobbing, begging. Beautiful!

Unless I'm dreaming, rush asserts that the hoax is being perpetuated by left wingers, socialists, whose real agenda is to destroy capitalism, and replace it with socialism. So, according to this theory, its the liberals-democrats who believe, or pretend to believe, that capitalism is killing the environment.

The only slight chink in this armor is that it appears that there are quite a few people who believe in climate change, and that human activity is responsible for it, who are not socialists. Nowadays there are moderates, and even some brave conservatives who acknowledge that humans have put a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, and that carbon absorbs heat more than  Nitrogen or Oxygen.

Imagine that, american conservatives, believing in chemistry. But only a few of them, and they are all considered traitors to corporate capitalism, and freedom, by their peers. For a conservatve to acknowledge climate change, the explanation must consist of natural cycles, not human materialism.

Extra carbon, and where it came from, and what it does, must be ingnored to be a rush limbaugh hoaxer. Easily obtained calculations of how much carbon has been released by humans, and how much is currently in the atmosphere, and their coincidental equivalence, must likewise be ignored.

The increase in the carbon content of the earth's atmosphere is a natural cycle, and worse, a hoax.

Animal Crazy

COLONEL POTTER sees the horse they have given him, and is filled with joy,he loves horses so. He slips in some horse dung, and major burns sneers "that's disgusting". Colonel potter responds "son, to me, that's a tip toe through the tulips."

My sister walked up to the tiger cage at the zoo, and stood admring the beautiful huge beaast, with a group of people. Suddenly kitten decides to mark his territory, and he sprays the crowd, but good. Everybody in the group gets hit, and all of them are shocked, horrified, disgusted.

But not sis. She feels as sudden sense of sainthood, of being special, as if she has been annointed with holy water. And she has been.  She said she never wanted to take a bath again, which might be going a bit far, but, the sentiment is unmistakable.

She simply cannot comprehend the reactons of all the other well dressed upper middle class americans. Don't they realize that they have been blessed with holy water? People like sis are heros, if only because of their amazingly positive attidude about life.

Each morning, early, my female kitten, my baby doll, hops on top of me, and parks herself, and starts purring. It depends on whether i happen to be sleeping on my back, on my stomach, on on my side at the time. Mandi reacts accordingly, hops on some part of me, and lays down. I love it.

Hungry girl. One morning I awakened with mandi atop me, on my arm, and her soft fuzzy face pressed against my cheek. Another i awakened and my cheek was wet with kitten slobber. Both times I  felt blessed. Once mandi lands on me, I don't move. I can't move. Mandi must not be disturbed.

People like colonel potter, my sister, and i would be considered crazy, if there weren't so many of us.
Then there is the guy in the phillipines who sleeps with anacondas wrapped around him...

Workers of the World...

BETWEEN 1970 AND 1995 the average import tariff into the united states fell from roughly 31% to about 7%, due to the free trade movement. Richard Nixon was the first american president to really push for open trade. Since 1995, it has leveled off. In his book "The Pooring of America", economist Ravi Batra states that this is the cause of our national economic decline.

When you consider that in the 1950s a man making minimum wage could support a fmaily of four, economic decline, collapse of the value of the american dollar, seems quite real to millions of twenty first century americans.

All this global free trade, with goods and jobs being sent all over the world, with corporations moving operations to low cost labor markets, who benefits? Why is all this happening? To improve the living standard of all humanity? To help the employees? To increase profits for corporations and dividends for shareholders?

International free trade seems to create international conflict. Every time you turn around some country is accusing some other country of deliberating devaluing its currency to gain a trading edge. All wars, it could be argued, are based on economic competition.

Nearly everyone seems to agree that international free trade is a good thing, but nobody seems to know exactly why. Some people, lilke Ravi Batra, argue that it reduces the real wages of workers, exploits labor, and impoverishes nations where labor is increasingly unrewarded, like the united states. Proponents argue that free trade is a blessing to everyone, including the workers. Well, maybe

With all these good obs leaving the united states, american workers are not doing as well at they wre forty years ago, but other countries, like mexico and china, are getting much needed jobs, and the cheap labor is pleasing to american comsumers, if not american workers.

Free trade is great if countries like the united states can create new jobs that are better than the ones they lose, and if third world countries can keep some of the watlth they nmanufuacture, and keep their workers out of poverty. But even in the united states, right now, about one fourth of all jobs pay close to minimum wage, which is poverty level. We are impoverishing the working class in america.

Internationl labor unions, including and uniting workers from from all over the world, including third world countries, would  have a common interest: survival.

Removing the Crutch

IN RESTRSPECT, the idea seems crazy, even juvenile. Why it didn't seem so by the people who implemented it is anybody's guess. Pick a future date, and if you can't cut a budget deal before then, al items spending is cut, drastically, across the board.

The big day of parsinomy was scheduled originally for january first of this year, but was moved to march first, which is now dead ahead.  so, here we go again. Oh, the games people play. It would have been just too easy to agree on a budged through reasonable compromise, so, we had to add in the drama.

Or, in the case of this current crop of clownish politicians, compromise would have been too hard. We seem to have forgotten that fine and ancient art. In today's american culture, compromise is defeat, for some insane reason.

It has been alleged that if march first rolls around with no budget agreement in congress, thus triggering the automatic, drastic spending cuts, horrible things will happen. The military won't have the resources to wage war, and the oversight of corporate capitalism by the government on behalf of and for the protection of the citizenry will  vanish.

The second consequence looms larger, more immediate. The thought of uninspected food rolling of america's corporate assembly lines is not comforting.

Ironically, this "sequester", what was once called the fiscal cliff,  but now has  fancier name, is pretty much  what this country (U.S.A.) needs, roughly. And if the american economy is so demendant on government spending that it will crash without it, well then...

its just too damned dependant on the government, and probably ought to be allowed to crash and burn, so it can get up, and rebuild itself the right way, like it should have done in the first place, like real capitalism, without using the government as a crutch.

Never Trade Liberty For Security

CENSORSHIP is being considered as a possibility in the land of iceland, specifically, the elimination of pornography on the internet. Obviously, a tiny little island nation near the north pole cannot possibly hope to get porn off the net, only to keep it off of the computers in iceland.

Exactly how this can be done is questionable, but evidently there are ways. In China, north korea, and iran, among other places, certain websites are blocked. The quickest way to enforce internet censorship seems to be government leaning on all internet service providers in its country.

Somehow, you just sense that censoring the internet might turn out, in the long run, to be about as effective as preventing illegal drugs, guns, and money from crossing international borders; namely, not at all.

The icelandic government, currently comprised of just the right combination of dull consrvative thinkers to allow consideration of censorship, claims the purpose would be to protect children, and that  parents cannot be held solely responsible for keeping children away from porn, because parents cannot be wth their children twenty four seven.

What a laughable crok of nonsense. Agreed, parents cannot protect their children from bad drivers or gun violence every moment of every day, and society in general must do this. But....any parents who can't keep their children away from porn, merely by instilling values and communication....

If you citizens of iceland give your government the power to ban one part of the internet, what's to keep your government from banning other parts of the net, or other forms of culture, communication, entertainment, or speech?

The people of the world would be well advised to form a huge special interest group, consisting of about seven billion people, devoted to preventing the national governments of the world from censoring the internet.

We the people of planet earth like the internet just the way it is; unregulated. At least, if we really think about the issues and implications, that's what we want: no regulation of the internet. So what if half of it is pornography?

 How many second amendment consrvatives in the united states, defending their right to own guns, will defend their first amendment free speech rights? Freedom of speech means freedom of unpopular speech, recall.

An internet poll indicates that forty seven per cent of internet users favor censoring porn, and thirty nine per cent are thinking clearly,and are aginst censorship, with the other fourteen percent either not caring, or not understanding the question. This is alarming, very alarming.

It would seem to indicate that about half the population wants the government to have the power of censorship.  Surely second amendment conservative american NRA members are not among the forty seven percent.

there is never a good time to trade liberty for security.

How Far Should We Go?

WE MUST HAVE LAWS, and we must enforce them, though sometimes one might wonder whether some of the laws, and some of the enforcement techniques are, shall we say, worth the trouble, worth the paper they're printed on.

Case in point. It is of course illegal to manufacture, distribute, buy or sell certain prohibited chemical substances, which are generally termed " recreational drugs". Drugs for fun and mental escape, not for healing. (But isn't healing fun, and fun a form of healing?)

The image of a dark blue sedan, with plain clothes (suit and tie) officers inside, aiming a radar gun at someone's house, thus aiming it at the wallet lying on the bedstand, finding out whether there are enough ten and twenty dollar bills therein to trigger the radar by means of the metal strands of wire inside the bills.....because if there are, illegal drug sales might be the source of revenue; who would ever have that much cash otherwise?

The image of walking through the busiest streets of a major cosmopolitan city, like London, wondering whether you will ever fail to be on camera, ever be unseen by the police, somehow hoping so, somehow hoping not, knowing that the answer is no.

And then too there's the seventeen year old high school senior. male, who develops a crush on the pretty new girl in school, and starts to "chat her up".The girl seems friendly. And available. She doesn't know anyone, because she's from a different town. So, our seventen year old boy shows her around, introduces her to people. They go out on a date or two.

One day she asks him if he knows where she might be able to score some pot. Our boy has never smoked pot or anything else nor done any sort of rec drug, including alcohol, in his entire, short life, but, he wants to impress the girl, he wants to score points.

He hands her the bag of dope, and she starts to pay for it. He tries to talk her out of paying, but she insists. A few days later several drug related arrests are made, including our boy. Now saddled with a drug record, his future suddenly looks a lot different. It is a future in which, no matter how mature, educated, and succeessful he becomes, he will always mistrust authority and have trouble making new friends, and dating.

Now, just for the record, all this stuff really happens. Should it? Is this what we want? Or is it per chance a bit too remindful of some science fiction novels, such as "1984" and "Brave New World"?

We'd better hurry up and decide, while we still can.

Free To Choose

AND SO IT CAME TO PASS that in a small western indiana town a few teachers and some students decided to have a "traditional" prom, meaning, an exclusively heterosexual one. And this has caused an international furor, in the town, and everywhere else, via the internet.

My understanding is that this straight prom will not be an official school function, and that the regular, officially school santicioned politically correct prom shall likewise commence. One wonders how many students will attend both.

The "prom", of course, being an american institution in which , usually, the high school junior class gives the  seniors a dance party as a going away present. My senior year, we didn't have one, because the juniors and  seniors couldn't get along.

With regard to this indiana gig, the question is,: so what? Who cares? Well, a lot of  people, actually. More than should. There will come a time when the people who promulgated this traditional prom will laugh at themselves for having done so.

 One of the teachers instigating the conservative alternative prom openly spoke out against gay people, and others have pointed out that the community of four thousand is highly christian. Bible believing Christians. As if this in itself justified bigotry, rather than condemned it.

The controversy is the talk of the town, and the talk of the world, via the internet, as well, with online petitions calling for the anti gay teacher's termination. Millions want to weigh in, and more power to them. I say, simply ignore the fools. The fools would be humorous, were they not in such deadly earnest, to quote a a famous philosopher.

Prom season is still a couple of months away, so, there's time to find a solution, to heal. But it needn't be a problem, for this town, or anyone else. Live and let live. Acceptance and tolerance of everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and so forth , and so on, will proceed.

In other words, people who do not like gay people are free to do whatever they want, or should be free to do whatever they want, to avoid all contact with gay people. That is the american way; freedom, freedom of association, or non association.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world, which includes most americans and most others, is free to continue to progress towards a world of universal love and tolerance, like jesus wanted. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
    

Conspiracy Theories

THE BIG ASTEROID-METEORITE which struck the former soviet union the other day injured several hundred people, mostly with flying glass, left a big hole in the ground, and apparently did a little emotional damage as well, stirring up fear and mistrust.

It was suggested in the russian media that the impact was no act of natural, but instead a deliberate attack by the people's republic of china. Either that, or a deliberate attack by the united states of america. One or the other. Take your pick.

and here I thought only americans were capable of such imaginative, twisted reasoning. Remindful of the conspiracy theories sourrounding the nine eleven attacks. However, as of now, nobody in russia, at in the media, is accusing vladimir putin of dropping a bomb on his own people. Stay tuned.

A big event requires a big explanation, among human beings. Kennedy was killed by a vast consortium involving the CIA, LBJ, and heaven knows who else,, nine one one was the work of a conspiracy of sinister forces within the american government, and a meteorite is an enemy attack.

At about the same time, a russina bomber, or maybe it was more than one, was spotted flying in circles around the island of guam, which is part of the american empire. A flock of F15 jets was scrambled which chased the russian bomber away.

It never entered guamese (american) air spce, being carful to stay in international territory. Therefore, it did not have to scoot when the american fighters showed up. But it did, diplomatically, inspiring U.S. governmnet officials to describe the incident as "professional"

Were the russians bomber cruising over the pacific, preparing to head for either china, or the U.S., in the invent a smoking gun was found in the alleged asteroid hole? We'll never know. Probably not. OUr little airplane games have been going on for decades. Must be fun for the top gun types.

Welcome to the funny farm, folks, where we the humorous little humans provide what must surely be enormously fascinating entertainment for our extraterrestrial monitors.

Putting Presidents Together

GEORGE WASHINGTON was born on february 22, and ABRAHAM LINCOLN on feb 12, in case anyone remembers or cares. Once upon a time Americans  celebrated both birthdays, separately, on the proper dates, because washington was considered the father of our country, and lincoln was considered the savior of same.

And, really, for the most part, they both still are so considered. The holidays, however, have been tightly, conveniently packaged into a single day,  a monday in late february amorphously called "president's day". Presumably we now celebrate all forty four presidents rather than merely two, which would include richard "I am not a crook" nixon, but no one seems to be quite sure.

There is nothing better than a three day weekend, granted. Its the greatest thing since sliced bread, three days off work in a row.But does that justify blurring our celebration of washington and lincoln? After all, flawed as we now know they both were, they still did what we give them credit for. Two true, great americans.

Somehow a holiday loses a bit of its power if it is noved around at will, at the whim of humanity, and not celebrated on the actual date of the event it is intended to commemorate. Or does it? Do we really have any clear cut idea of what we are actually celebrating on "president's day"? Tell me its not nixon....

early in the history of the christian church, the birthday of jesus was moved from early april to late december, to accomodate and convert the germans, we are told by historians. It worked like a charm. The germans converted, and today are largely christian.

So, maybe its for the best after all. After all, holidays are intended to be a blessing to people, not a hindrance. I vaguely recall getting out of grade school for both lincoln and washington. But I don't believe businesses tended to close. Both washington and lincoln believed in hard work.

As long as we leave Independence Day alone, I'm good to go.

Hoping Tim Talks Some Sense

TIM TEBOW is scheduled to speak at the first baptist dallas church, which is a big outfit with thousands of members with somewhat controversial opinions, ostensibly extremely intolerant. The minister, a gentleman named jeffress, and the congregation might be fairly described as " extremely conservative."

They don't like gays, jews, mormons, moslems, hindus, atheists, agnostics, non christians of any sort, and, for good measure, liberals or socialists. Nobody gets a free pass. Their attitude about catholics, hispanics and blacks remains a bit murky, but somehow, you don't feel good about the possibilities.

The scary thing is, there are thousands of church members, and, for the most part, they are white, upper middle class mainstream americans, tea party types, some of whom hold political office. Guessing wildly, republicans probably score heavily in congregational straw polls.

Their achilles heal is that they don't like anybody, and thus have a veritable plethora of natural enemies of their own choosing. Too many enemies spells ultimate defeat. Ask Hitler.

Do the good folks as first baptist dallas not understand that inclusive, non judgmental tolerance and acceptance, (the sort which seems to have been taught clearly by the teacher they emulate in very indirect, hardly discernable ways), is the way (wave) of the future?

IN the great ongoing sea (seed) change of universal ethnic irrelevancy, those who adhere to the outdated notion that religiosity is not an individual choice, but a divine mandate, shall be consigned to the dust bin of history, along with witch trials and inquisitions. 

Please note that extreme right wing politicians are not getting very far in america these days, nor anywhere else. Tim Tebow is a good guy, and he understands the truth of mike ditka's comment: "make whatever plan you want, but be ready to change it".  Maybe Tim'll talk some sense into 'em.

The Power of Positive Advertising

IN NINETEEN SEVENTY THREE THE CIA, that reputable servant of the citizens of the united states and expedient instrument of covert american foreign policy, overthrew the government of chile, because their president, salvadore allende, was a socialist.

America overthrows governments. In particular, socialistic governments which do not permit american corporate exploitation. Its just what the united states does. Shockingly, castro was never overthrown in cuba. At least, not yet.

Well, you can't win 'em all. At least we tried, and give credit where credit is due; we have made the cuban people miserable for fifty years, or tried to, and we're not done yet.

If obama hasn't taken the american boot off the cuban neck by now, he aint gonna. Hell, he couldn't even close the prison in guantanamo, which he pledged to do, much less return gitmo to the cubans, which we the american people should do, and should have done, long ago. We, the corporate sheep.

The chilean CIA  sponsored  revolution was just another example of america being america. Do not make the mistake of being a socialist country when american corporations wish to expolit your people or your natural resources, just ask cuba. It'll get you quarantined, blockaded, or killed.

The man the CIA put in power in chile turned out to be a monster, as do many of the various people around the world whom the united states has put in power. Monster pinochet inexplicably decided, after fifteen years of butchering his own people, that he wanted to make himself look better in the eyes of the world.

So, he allowed the people of chile to vote on whether to keep him. Everyone expected he would win the election, because people were afraid to NOT vote for him. His opponents were permitted only a small amount of nocturnal television time, during which they planned to point out pinochet's monstrous crimes.

A clever advertising expert realized that showing guns and tanks and death would not inspire people to vote against the dictator, and the opposition soon started showing advertising which depiced a beautiful, happy country if pinochet were defeated. Positive campaigning.

The campaign worked, the people voted pinochet out, shockingly, and the power of positive thinking, and positive advertising, popular courage was affirmed. If only american politicians would learn this lesson. Ironic, that the power of advertising and democracy served to undo american imperial tyranny. Sometimes the world seems upside down.

Togetherness at the Drive In, Once Again

IN AMERICA, there used to be a wildly  popular institution, or "cultural phenomenon" called "drive in movies". It may be that by now few people in the rest of the world are aware of this, and that few people in america remember them, or are aware of the few which still exist, or have ever been to one.

Those old enough to remember and to have frequented drive in movies can only smile and count themselves fortunate for the memories. Did drive ins ever sprout up anywhere besides america? Or is american culture alone contradictory and quirky enough to have created a popular social venue in which everyone participating was completely isolated from everyone else? (what's the point?) And isn't is kinda sad that drive ins were driven out of the entertainment market by cable television and movies on disks? Evolution.

Imagine if you will an evening at the drive in with you, britney spears, paris hilton, and, say, lyndsey lohan, all three of whom happen to be wildly successful young amarican females, all successful in a uniquely american manner.

On the big big screen that night is a double feature, "Pretty woman",  staring julia roberts, and "mildred pierce", staring joan crawford.  The lawn chairs are lined up in front of one of paris's cadillac convertibles, and the four of you have snacks, and drinks. You have a notepad and pen, ready to take notes on whatever comments paris, lyndsey ,or britney might make about the movies.

Both movies are great studies of american women becoming highly successful, financially, amid controversy of various sorts, much like your three movie companions in lawn chairs. Paris, forinstance, might espress admiration mildred, for being a great business person like herself.

Its anyone's guess how the three ladies would react to the julia roberts portrayal. The acting is superb, and it raises all sorts of questions about whether the viewer should be, or wants to be, sympathetic to her character.

Woman are now going to be allowed to fight and die for their country, which seems a natural evolutionary progression. Another social evolutionary process might result in a future culture in which people are always free to advance in life by exploiting their own youth, age, gender, and appearance, but find it difficult to do so, an account of lack of public interest.

And then too, there is always the hope that drive in movies will return. maybe this time we'll all leave our cars, and congregate in lawn chairs, en mass, in front of the enormous screen, with snacks and drinks, naturally.

Reinventing the Wheel

YOU HEAR IT OFTEN, from american conservatives, concerning the social structure of europe compared to america, and the relationship of the government to the people. "The last thing we want to do is follow in the footsteps of european countries. We do not want to be like europe."

You hope that these sorts of comments do not issue forth from upper middle class caucasian american conservatives vacationing in france, or italy. you would rather they sip their wine, look out over the mediterranean, and contribute nothing further to the continental perception of american rudeness.

And well, come, to think of it, maybe the united states, deep down, would secretly like to be a bit more like europe, with a lower crime rate, longer life span, higher per capita income, higher level of education.The americans are not as wealthy, happy, or healthy as the europeans. The americans struggle to cling to top twenty status in all the above.

The most successful and prosperous country in europe is....what...denmark? Germany?  The tax rate in denmark is seventy percent, doctors and custodians live side by side, and those who attend college are paid to do so.

In germany, the economy is strong and growing, the health system, single payer socialistic, works, and works well. Doctors there are public servants, not profit seeking corporations.

The german education system permits students who so desire to emphasize high tech and scientific training as preparation for the likely future nature of the job market. Throughout europe, of course, there is no mad scramble to find ways to lead millions of people by the hand through higher education. Higher education is for people who want it, and need it, not for those who have merely failed to create better options.

The europeans have not abandoned their railway system, and they are planning for a future of green energy. Is there anything wrong or unhealthy about the european way of doing things, other than the fact that they do them cooperatively?

we'd be better off in the united states if we learned to cooperate, more like the europeans, since the U.S. is a european country, culturally. No need to reinvent the wheel. Competition has benefits too, but  lord knows we already know about them.

Paying More, Getting Less, Sequestering

NO MATTER WHAT we're trying to talk about, we absolutely have to have some kind of clever, catchy name for it. Maybe it has to do with our five second sound byte fifteen minutes of fame culture.

The dreadful fiscal cliff, that horrible reduction of government which was scheduled to automatically take place on january first, until congress and obama postponed it, has now been renamed  the "sequester", and is scheduled to occur march first. Heaven only knows why, where that dazzling term came from.

Once again, the can is being kicked down the road. Avoiding dealing with the problem. Just like climate change, rising sea levels, out of control debt,problems being avoided, solutions being postponed from fear of losing political power.

And to think, we always thought that the word "seqauester" meant to remove from view, to isolate, as in, sequestering a jury for the purpose of conducting a trial and finding a verdict. In this case, it is government services and payments, such as social security payments, that are in danger of disappearing.

And, once again, the impending budget slashing is being described as a disaster in waiting, a looming catastrophe to the american enonomy. And, undoubtedly, it would be painful. Federal meat inspectors would be laid off. Once again hot dogs would be made of pig intestines, just like the good old days before upton sinclair.

Bring on the sequester! Pinful medicine indeed, but at this late stage in our national economic deterioration, whatever medicine we take, whatever solutions we choose will be harsh, of necessity. There seems to good a good chance  of it happening.

The republicans are not in a mood to cooperate with obama. Currently they are even fillibustering obama's nominee for defense secretary, and the nominee is a republican! Obama isn't helping matters. He lamented that he does not have a defense secretary, and he is trying to fight a war in afghanistan.

Well, leon panetta agreed to stay on as long as needed. Obama has a defense secretary, and the war in afghanistan is basically over. But, the president had to have his whine-ful sound byte. Obama and the republicans in congress are already blaming the impasse over the budget and the sequester on each other, as if its already happened, and that can't be good.

Meanwhile, the rest of us might be wise to prepare to pay higher taxes, and to get less for our money, for a very long time.

To Bug, and To Be Bugged

THERE WERE TWENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE in the arena that night, and here i was, bright and cheerful in my bright yellow "USHER" vest, standing out, a person of real importance and authority. Big time college basketball game, president clinton expected to arrive at halftime.

I had alreaqdy angered the secret service. A very serious looking young man in suit and tie, with dark sunglasses and lapel pin, was walking with a very serious looking german shepherd along the concourse, during  pregame, sniffing for bombs. Very special, highly trained dog.

All i had to do is stand there, doing my job, minding my own business, and ignore G man and dog. But no, not me, much too easy. "You should see MY german shepherd" I offered, and the young man glanced at me, then glanced away, and kept walking, possibly saving my life.

But it was true: my pet shepherd made his look like a flea, and not a very pretty flea at that. Of ocures, my german shepherd made rin tin tin look small, and ugly. R.I.P. sweet wolfgang...

Then clinton arrived, and took his seat halfway up the lower grandstand, accompanied by applause. He waved all around, then sat down. He was directly across the arena from me, and, a few minutes later, when all was wuiet, i noticed the president was looking my direction.

Again, I couldn't resiet. Robustly i waved at the president, and, lo and behold, he waved right back,m bright yellow vest coming in handy. But i had to be sure. So, i waved again, with equal robust. He saw this, and responded, this time with a much more tentative, reserved hand motion, as if to say "saw you the first time, buddy." I still hope he wasn't annoyed.

Can you imagine how much of this sort of crap someone like the president of the united states must put up with? Well. most of the time, they probably enjoy it, and are well used to it. But if people like that can put up with stuff like that, then i sure as hell can listen to my three cats scream at me for yet another breakfast, and not become too terribly annoyed.

Throwing Away the Key

THE YEAR NINETEEN SEVENTY THREE began with a big bang. Pablo Picasso died, and George Steinbrenner purchased the new york yankees from CBS. A peace treaty was finally signed formally ending the viet nam war, and the united states supreme court issued its infamous roe v wade decision.

The governor of new york state, nelson rockefeller, changed his mind about crimes involving drugs. Rockefeller had previously regarded drug abuse as a social and health issue, requiring rehabilitation and education.

Having studied the zero tolerance policies of other nations, including japan, rockefeller, almost overnight, became a hard liner. No more coddling criminals. Anyone violating drug laws, everyone from big time drug dealers to street corner marijuana sales persons would go to jail, and stay there. New York state passed tough drug laws, including long, mandatory sentences for minor offenders, and the great round up was underway.

The anti drug get tough movement swept across the country. Between nineteen seventy three and twenty thirteen hundreds of new sate and federalprisons were built, at a cost of billions of dollars, and america's prison population increased from about three hundred thousand in nineteen seventy three, to the two and a half million it is today.

Nearly half of all fedearl inmates are non violent drug offenders. There are prisons all over the country devoted only to locking up drug offenders. The cost is stagggering. Nearly a hundred billion a year tomaintain the prison system.The one benefit seems to be job creation: nearly half a million americans have jobs as prison guards.

It has not escaped the attention of observant people that the "criminals" are overwhelmingly black and hispanic, and poor. Middle and upper middle class white americans use the most drugs, because drugs are expensive, and white collar careers are stressful.

President Nixon's "war on drugs", which coincided with the rockefeller transformation, was a response to nixon's hatred of the young hippies of the nineteen sixties, the woodstock generation, who hated him in return. The "moral majority", a term we recall fondly, silently acceded to the new police state.

We should have listened to abraham lincoln: "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason, in that it attempts to control a man's appetites by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. Prohibition strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our nation was founded."

The united states has become a nation in which guns in the hands of the masses are glorified as the solution to crime, and we the people are subject to government searches inside our bodies for illegal substances.

Drug testing, inside your body, by your government, with the approval of the people. But of course, adolf hitler was elected to office, wasn't he.  Keep your guns concealed, folks, and flush your marijuana down the toilet. Come have a cold beer.

Keeping Our Values through Compromise

THE REPUBLICANS are not at all happy about obama's speech. They do not want to raise minimum waige, because, they say, if you pay more per worker, you won't be able to hire as many workers. 

This is not true. A worker costs a lot either way; anytime one is hired, at seven an hour or nine an hour, the employer can afford it. New workers are paid for either by discretionary capital, or necessity, but either way, new workers are paid for before they're hired, or they wouldn't be hired.

IF WE lower minimum wage enough, then everybody can have a job, because employers can afford to hire hordes of employees. Unemployment rate will be zero. Until wages become so low nobody will work .

 A job needs to be worth having, and it needs to pay enough to permit the worker to avoid poverty. With fewer, at first, higher paid employees, more money will be earned and spent, stimulating more economic activity, requiring more workers, expanding the economy - for everybody.

Most republicans probably oppose minimum wage laws entirely, but are afraid to say so, because the voters favor such laws. The republicans favor exploiting coal and oil, rather than solar energy, because its easier that way, more efficient, providing quicker, greater profit.

and, with all this oil , coal, and natural gas in the ground underneath america, it is understandable why people would want to use it. These fossil fuels do not produce as much pollution as they used to; but we absolutely must, along with these, develop solar energy as well.

A healthy compromise might be for obama to allow the big new oil pipeline to be built from canada to the gulf coast, and the building of new oil refineries, as long as the republicans agree to invest in solar, wind, and geo thermal energy, all of which can save humanity.

we can possibly survive a bit more oil, coal, and natural gas, and carbon in the atmosphere, as long as we don't care about the polar ice caps, or snow, or winter. But, we don't want the entire planet to become a lifeless martian desert, so, at some point, solar energy, wind energy, and geothermal energy must be developed. the coal, oil, and natural gas will run out, so they say.

and maybe we could all agree that we will not pay teacherss or custodians nearly as much as we pay celebrity entertaineres and athletes, because we will let the free market prevail, and we do have our american values, and we do love our entertainment, and despise our workers; but perhaps we can also agree that entertainers should not be treated like gods, and custodians like trash.