OK so now our prez is going off the wall and becoming a Republican – you know the type … war at any cost.
We are going t0 have a major troop build up in Afghanistan – why?
The Republicans have issued the call for a Victory in Afghanistan pledge from all its members. Of course, nobody has any idea how to define “VICTORY” – so how the hell would anyone know when it has been achieved?
Think about it. How would YOU define victory? Stop terrorists? No feasible – they are everywhere but Afghanistan. Where are the suicide bombers? Where are they killing people? Who are they killing? Certainly they haven’t attacked us in recent years – but they have killed Muslims in Islamic nations. Yet where are the Islamic armies? Has any Islamic nation come forward to stop terrorists? Or are they funding them to kill their own people, and their fellow religionists in neighboring nations?
Yep … more troops into a nation run by the Taliban … so the Taliban can continue to oppress the people of that nation and the people can blame the USA for allowing it to happen. OR … pull troops out and get blamed for the Taliban taking over the killing and returning tom power. NO WIN for USA … hence NO VICTORY POSSIBLE.
On the other hand, it is a good jobs program – if handled correctly. And the demographic reality is, and has been, that, as of this year and for the next five years, we will need all the job programs we can get. Then we will still have another fifteen years before stability is reestablished. It’s call the baby boom retirement years – after decades of low birthrates and skimping on education to enrich the Ponzi scam types who own the Republican Party.
OK, so there is a practical basis for a troop buildup … it will pump money into the support sectors of the economy without killing too many of our children and grandchildren.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Watch and Count
Count the votes against Health CARE -- note the names.
Build a list of those who want Americans to suffer or die.
Wathc those who promote "The Most Harm to the Most People" self identify.
Note they will get away with it -- because most Americans would prefer to suffer.
If that were not true, they would not have elected Nixon, Reagan, or Bush.
Reagan doubled the national debt. Bush doubled it again.
Three-quarters of the current debt -- three-quarters of the $700 Billion in annual interest -- belong to two Republicans and the GOP who claimed fiscal responsibility while blowing the budget and sinking the nation.
There is a degree of magic associated with that $700 Billion in annual interest ... just one year and you pay for ten years of national health care ...
"The Most Harm to the Most People" - ignore it you are liable for all the harm it brings.
Build a list of those who want Americans to suffer or die.
Wathc those who promote "The Most Harm to the Most People" self identify.
Note they will get away with it -- because most Americans would prefer to suffer.
If that were not true, they would not have elected Nixon, Reagan, or Bush.
Reagan doubled the national debt. Bush doubled it again.
Three-quarters of the current debt -- three-quarters of the $700 Billion in annual interest -- belong to two Republicans and the GOP who claimed fiscal responsibility while blowing the budget and sinking the nation.
There is a degree of magic associated with that $700 Billion in annual interest ... just one year and you pay for ten years of national health care ...
"The Most Harm to the Most People" - ignore it you are liable for all the harm it brings.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Have the People Spoken?
I have a habit of either predicting an outcome, or explaining why the outcome might have been wrong. On Tuesday, the voters of Maine decided that they were opposed to marriage.
Sounds strange to say a vote to repeal the right of same sex couples to engage in something deemed marriage – as defined in Civil law – would be a vote against marriage, but that is the ultimate effect. Granted, those with no religious knowledge or affiliation would not comprehend what I am saying, but the rest of us know that every theology shares a common doctrine – in Christianity, it is called ‘The Golden Rule’ of do unto others; in Judaism, the Sage, Hillel, phrased it as not doing to another what you don’t want done to you. For Hillel, it was the totality of scripture, with the text being simply explanation.
On Tuesday, the majority of Maine voters said they wanted the right to marry taken away from five, or ten, percent of their neighbors. Overwhelmingly, Washington County voters declared they wanted the right to marry taken away. It is a simple matter of doing unto others while wishing it was done to you – expect the reciprocity to be reflected by increased divorce rates among our children and their children. Moreover, we can expect the drop in marriage rates, and postponed first marriages, to increase for the very reason that we have made it clear that we oppose marriage for everyone. (Curiously, I seem to recall a Gospel where Jesus declares that everyone has the right to marry – and divorce is only allowed to three classes of ‘eunuch’: homosexual, neutered, and celibate. But that’s just one doctrine and it’s not common to all theologies.)
Constitutionally, equality before the law is an absolute right for all American citizens. If we deny tax deductions to couples who are otherwise willing to qualify for them, we are denying them equality. In Civil Law, the “marriage contract” bestows a range of contractual rights and privileges upon two consenting adults; it does so without any procreative mandate – that is, ‘eunuchs’, those who cannot, or choose not to, procreate are granted the same rights as those who select to reproduce. Furthermore, Civil Law makes no mandate for the termination of children where no “marriage contract” exists, and hence does not require the existence of the contract for procreation. Clearly, as Maine has declared its opposition to marriage for one class of individuals, it can easily declare marriage among all other all other classes to be null and void. The message of the vote is clear, as with elements across the nations, a class of Maine voter has decreed an eventual end to marriage as a civil option.
The very idea of the proposition and interpretation I have just rendered should anger a great many people – none more than those who somehow believed they were voting to facilitate the creation of families. But if the state, and influential segments of the nation, deem it unnecessary to sanction pair-bonding in the form of civil marriage – why form families, as opposed to forming transient pairings? Why would anyone want to engage in a relationship which is difficult to terminate? We have a society which seems – based upon divorce and remarriage rates – to prefer serial polygamy. Tuesday’s vote, has made a clear statement that, had modern society been given the option, it would never have adopted the institution of marriage to begin with. We know this because we have denied it to those who expressly requested it, while otherwise treating it as an obligation for those who express a preference for avoiding it – unless granted some economic benefit vis-a-vis having a spouse.
Given three child producing options – married & widow, non-marital, married & divorced – I would, from experience go with all available sociological data and assert the non-martial option is superior to the emotional and economic burdens of the other two alternatives. It is nice to see that Maine has decided to void, or prohibit, foolish people from subjecting themselves to emotional-economic cost of marriage. Granted, this was not the intent of those who voted YES and indicated their opposition to their neighbors being marriage – but it will continue to the psychological and practical reality of the future of marriage until such time as the people of Maine return to the ballot box to declare otherwise.
Sounds strange to say a vote to repeal the right of same sex couples to engage in something deemed marriage – as defined in Civil law – would be a vote against marriage, but that is the ultimate effect. Granted, those with no religious knowledge or affiliation would not comprehend what I am saying, but the rest of us know that every theology shares a common doctrine – in Christianity, it is called ‘The Golden Rule’ of do unto others; in Judaism, the Sage, Hillel, phrased it as not doing to another what you don’t want done to you. For Hillel, it was the totality of scripture, with the text being simply explanation.
On Tuesday, the majority of Maine voters said they wanted the right to marry taken away from five, or ten, percent of their neighbors. Overwhelmingly, Washington County voters declared they wanted the right to marry taken away. It is a simple matter of doing unto others while wishing it was done to you – expect the reciprocity to be reflected by increased divorce rates among our children and their children. Moreover, we can expect the drop in marriage rates, and postponed first marriages, to increase for the very reason that we have made it clear that we oppose marriage for everyone. (Curiously, I seem to recall a Gospel where Jesus declares that everyone has the right to marry – and divorce is only allowed to three classes of ‘eunuch’: homosexual, neutered, and celibate. But that’s just one doctrine and it’s not common to all theologies.)
Constitutionally, equality before the law is an absolute right for all American citizens. If we deny tax deductions to couples who are otherwise willing to qualify for them, we are denying them equality. In Civil Law, the “marriage contract” bestows a range of contractual rights and privileges upon two consenting adults; it does so without any procreative mandate – that is, ‘eunuchs’, those who cannot, or choose not to, procreate are granted the same rights as those who select to reproduce. Furthermore, Civil Law makes no mandate for the termination of children where no “marriage contract” exists, and hence does not require the existence of the contract for procreation. Clearly, as Maine has declared its opposition to marriage for one class of individuals, it can easily declare marriage among all other all other classes to be null and void. The message of the vote is clear, as with elements across the nations, a class of Maine voter has decreed an eventual end to marriage as a civil option.
The very idea of the proposition and interpretation I have just rendered should anger a great many people – none more than those who somehow believed they were voting to facilitate the creation of families. But if the state, and influential segments of the nation, deem it unnecessary to sanction pair-bonding in the form of civil marriage – why form families, as opposed to forming transient pairings? Why would anyone want to engage in a relationship which is difficult to terminate? We have a society which seems – based upon divorce and remarriage rates – to prefer serial polygamy. Tuesday’s vote, has made a clear statement that, had modern society been given the option, it would never have adopted the institution of marriage to begin with. We know this because we have denied it to those who expressly requested it, while otherwise treating it as an obligation for those who express a preference for avoiding it – unless granted some economic benefit vis-a-vis having a spouse.
Given three child producing options – married & widow, non-marital, married & divorced – I would, from experience go with all available sociological data and assert the non-martial option is superior to the emotional and economic burdens of the other two alternatives. It is nice to see that Maine has decided to void, or prohibit, foolish people from subjecting themselves to emotional-economic cost of marriage. Granted, this was not the intent of those who voted YES and indicated their opposition to their neighbors being marriage – but it will continue to the psychological and practical reality of the future of marriage until such time as the people of Maine return to the ballot box to declare otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)