Now that the "tax cut" debate is apparently over, it might be an appropriate time to examine the fact that no R or D actually debated this in real language. I have two questions.
First, wasn't this actually a debate on whether to pay government's evergrowing bill, or "charge It" again and leave the evergrowing bill to our grandchildren? And, while we were deciding how much of the credit card bill to pay and how much to put off until later, was the other option, spend less, even mentioned? The debate instead centered on whose tax bill should be reduced, and what effect that would have on today's economy, with little regard for the effect in the next generation. In a society where everything is supposedly "for the children", they will grow up to the biggest debt mankind has ever seen. Not our problem, apparently, we really don't care about the children, just what we are getting NOW.
Second, one must study the debates very closely to discern that many people don't actually pay income tax, they get a "welfare payment" instead. Call it earned income credit, call it child credit, call it negative income tax, the fact is that some get a check instead of a bill from the IRS. How many I don't know, and that information is damned hard to get from the TV news. Or Google, for that matter. The actual phoney "debate" was whether those "rich" people who actually pay tax should have the amount reduced, or whether to just increase the welfare payment for those who recieve that.
Apparently, when we reduce the questions to "how many votes do I get", neither R's nor D's actually care about the children. Which means that apparently the voting public doesn't care. "Just give me mine, to hell with the kids." Perhaps this provides the answer for what will happen when Social Security goes broke. Nothing will happen, the kids will pay for it. Might it not be a perilous path to actually believe that this course can continue indefinitely?
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
I can't believe this shit.
So what is a phantom? When I was born, and for many years thereafter, I did not have to show my "papers" at a checkpoint to travel. I did not have to look down the barrel of a gun to drive down a road. I did not have an army guarding me with a loaded weapon.
That is only the beginning. Almost any "right" mentioned in the Bill of Rights can now be ignored if I am called a "terrorist".
Now any American Citizen can meet many examples of liberties they once had and now, under Mr. Ashcroft, do not have. Try, for instance, climbing on an airliner before and after the current administration. Then tell me that your lost liberty is a "phantom". If you want to be sure, carry your scissors with you, see what happens.
I suppose I could live with an admission that terrorism requires that certain liberties could be restricted "for the duration". But for our government to tell us, first of all, that the only thing we have lost is phantoms, and second, that the duration is forever, since we're in a "war" or several "wars" which will never end, is indeed lost liberty. Not Phantoms.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
The memes I want to promote are those which will extricate us from the untenable position we are in. But as we consider such new memes, we must understand what "works" and what doesn't work. I know that many memes are so hardwired into my brain that they are unchangable, and new ones must just avoid these hardwired "clash points".
An example which has recently come up on Smith2004 is the choice of ZAP to replace NAP. That Z in Zap refers to the word Zero, which has been so negatively hardwired into my brain as to be unchangeable. See Zero Tolerance in my March archive.
While I believe that positive memes can be generated by the use of the principles and the words of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, it will take smarter persons than I to do it, and they must understand the hardwired unchangable clash points in the minds of others.
For myself, if one is to play the music of the National Anthem, I will immediately want to stand at attention. But, if one is to use the words "homeland security" in my presence, I feel I should jump to my feet, extend right arm and hand forward, and repeat loudly "Seig Heil". Likewise, the more I hear the words "safety", "be safe", "for your safety", etc. the more I believe that one no longer needs to potty train children. A lifetime of Depends will render one "safer".
The fact that such ideas have been promulgated successfully by our present government means that they have been doing a better job than the opposition. "Safer is the goal. Always wear your Depends" (and every other appliance which makes you safer) And "Safer is the goal. Looking down the barrel of a loaded gun makes you safer, as long as that gun is held by someone who also has a badge or uniform".
So what can we use to counteract this shit? I know there are people out there who want Freedom, not Safety, and who want to raise children who don't need Depends, and don't want to spend their lives looking down the wrong end of gun barrels "for their safety".
I personally believe, as always, that the biggest perversion, and the biggest immorality of politicians, is the belief in "party", or the idea that any "party member" could be any part of a solution. My ideas are libertarian, and I would vote for any person who would not go along with any "party". L. Neil Smith comes to mind, as one of the few who would never vote with a "party" just to get along.
So what are the proper memes? I myself would like to see one of our talented cartoonists deal with the R's and D's as street gangs, where one is supposed to choose which "gang" will better represent you. But the problem is that most people will still not want to vote for a person, but for another gang. One must insert a Person as the answer, not a third gang.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
I don't want to get into religion here, or ancient philosophers. But wherever they got it, the founders of this country understood the difference between right and wrong, and generally tried to stay on the side of right. I don't think Christianity had much to do with it, as many of the founding fathers were Deists, but our country was founded by those who generally knew the difference between right and wrong. Many in our country don't even seem to know any more. To choose a generally non-political example, I'll pick Bill Gates.
Microsoft chose some very unethical positions. I know, business is a rough world, but ethics still belongs. So when that company chose unethical positions which bundled their software to eliminate competition, then strongarmed their customers to choose only their product, they crossed some ethical lines. While the courts may fumble their way along trying to determine the limits of the law, and Microsoft builds products which please the government, I will, because of my ethical beliefs, use Linux, or anything else which doesn't support an unethical company. Whether I use something better or worse is irrelevant, at least I won't support an unethical company. Your mileage may vary regarding my example, and I don't want to debate that. I am trying to say that if the ethics of another offend you, you should take appropriate action.
So what is ethics in politics? And what, to me, is the bottom line for what I will never support? My understanding is that we vote for representatives who represent our position, either directly, or, when we are obviously too stupid to know what we need, indirectly. A good example is economic policy. Since few people really understand the issues, a representative can and should vote in such a way as to accomplish the results his constituents want, rather than take a poll. But there is no situation where anyone elected to serve his constituents should instead decide to vote with his gang, or any gang. One of the most unethical things any politician could do is to vote with a gang. I feel that for a politician, to vote with either the R or D gang is worse than keeping an intern under the desk of the oval office or hiring some friends to burglarize the Watergate. I also won't support an unlimited amount of lying, cheating, violating the oath of office, etc. etc. etc. But I feel all those ethical violations pale compared to the ethical crime of being a gang member and voting with the gang. While my general philosophies are libertarian, and I feel that some ethical people can be found in that group, I will personally "bail out" if Libertarians ever becomes a gang voting in lockstep.
Note that the Constitution of the United States doesn't even mention gangs (or parties), they are totally a construct of their members. As are the voting laws now, where only gangs can be on a ballot. So our only choice for ethical government is to vote for individuals who have to claim a relationship with some gang, but will not be bound by its groupthink. Note also that one member of the House of Representatives displays enough ethics to not just vote with his gang. Representative Ron Paul of Texas. An exception to every rule.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
I have heard enough about our President's carrier landing. Did Dennis Tito pay $20 million for a trip into space? Why did President Bush do the carrier landing? Because he could. And if I could have, I'd have been there in a hot minute. Was it political? If it was, I'm willing to believe that was very secondary to the fact that it was something he could do, and get away with. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead...", but apparently we will have to listen to the bullshit regarding it for a long, long time.
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
I have a problem with discussing many topics on this blog. Many people who read something critical about one street gang think that this implies that the other street gang would rule us in a better manner. They won't/wouldn't!!! So any criticism about street gang R does not imply that street gang D would be better. As I have stated before, any vote for either gang perpetuates our loss of freedoms. Since our "system" requires that we vote for an individual who claims to represent some gang, we have no choice but to vote for an individual who nominally allies himself/herself with some gang, but I personally feel that when any government official "votes with his gang" my support ends. So I intend to end every blog entry with the following "standard disclaimer".
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
I believe this common term is a misnomer. The Public Service Announcement is actually taxpayer paid propoganda. I can't believe that the recent "drug money funds terrorism" commercials, which began with the most expensive TV time possible, the Super Bowl, were done as a public service, for free. I find it hard to believe that the frequent repeats on Cable News channels were free, either. So last week I was surprised to see a new one. The same guys, Nick? and Norm?, were discussing the fact that using drugs destroys the environment.
I have several comments on the above. First, I am always offended when my tax money is spent telling me what to think. This seems to be a good way for a government to perpetuate itself and its policies. Second, it appears that the number of such commercials bears a rough relationship to whether or not State elections on associated issues are imminent. Third, both the R's and D's do it on this issue, which reinforces my theory that one must never vote for either one.
The recent "environment" commercials were so ludicrous I at first thought they were a Saturday Night Live spoof, but apparently not, as they were shown live on Foxnews about a week ago. I am trying to remember some of the points of the old "reefer madness", and if there's any material from there that could be used next. "Drugs cause zits?" "Drugs give you cooties?"
I have not seen them for about a week, so maybe the government realized how stupid they sound. But I doubt it.