Society’s problems

I generally like Robert Herold's (The Inlander) opinions on any number of topics. I do reserve judgment when his opinions turn to guns. Apparently, according to the gun debate, you can only be pro or con. In a complete agreement that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to your toys, or you are all for gun bans, gun control. I think that both sides miss the point. 300,000 people who have died from gun violence over more than 12 years, since 9/11/2001, is not something to be so easily dismissed. That's 4.33 people on a daily basis; friends, neighbors, coworkers, children, moms, dads, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins; who die senselessly and tragically. That's just since 9/11/2001. Yeah, I guess that this many people who have died from these kinds of tragedies apparently can't be factored into the equation of why we have so many deaths by gun violence. Why that violence may even have risen sharply over this more than a decade since that terrorist attack. What are the factors for it. What was the trigger that could produce that kind of violence at all. If "we" are unwilling to discuss this, then no pro or anti-gun debate will solve the problem of criminal violence. The personal ownership of a gun, conceal/carry laws, won't prevent a hoodlum from taking a legally armed man out during the course of a drive by shooting. Nor will banning the manufacture of AR 15 types of weapons, prevent a criminal malcontent from manufacturing something to kill an innocent party with.

We have plenty of churches, plenty of people who go to those churches. With so many churches and people who are religious adherents, why do we have the gun violence that we do? Can we blame it on emotional or mental instability? No. Can we blame it on violent movies or video games? No. Can we scapegoat the news media for showing us “Breaking news,” the aftermath of the latest in senseless killings? No. How about if we fault the killer for his decision? That wouldn’t do, huh? Actually holding a young man responsible for buying an AR15 style weapon on line and afterwards, going into a movie theater to mow down a bunch of movie goers in a senseless act of carnage, that wouldn’t do. The NRA, we want to shove the blame on Hollywood. The gun ban people, there is too much easy access to guns. What isn’t asked, is why this even happened.

So, maybe we don’t want to know the “whys” as we take sides over toys. Maybe we aren’t interested in discussing the victims and the grieving survivors those victims leave behind. Maybe we are simply too cold, callous to put a human face on where this actual debate should go. After that Sandy Hook, elementary school shooting; there was quite the run on “dangerous weapons,” wasn’t there? The news media was all about reporting how fearful people were, to the idea that gun control measures would go through, and they wouldn’t have another toy to buy in the near future. 20 first grade school children died, along with 6 adults, and the gun buyers were more afraid of loosing access to their favorite toys. That would definitely suggest a moral sickness in this society that no gun debate will ever come close to addressing or curing.

Can we scapegoat, feminism? Legal aborticide? Gays being able to marry? Secular Humanism? Political correctness? Multi-culturalism being taught in the schools? Ecology, global warming, environmental protection? Or can we ask the pastors and priests of their respective churches, why politics matters more than reminding people that murder is a sin? There are penalties for sinful acts, not only can it put you in prison here on Earth, it can condemn you to Hell in the hereafter. Why don’t these preachers and priests inform their congregations and parishes about the positive decisions people could make in their lives that don’t lead to senseless acts of brutality? Of what parents could be teaching their children in their younger and more impressionable ages? There are no external scapegoats to be found to justify these criminal acts. In the absence of an AR15, anyone who decides to commit a criminal act can always find ways to kill others. The rest of society needs to reflect on why it happened. To finally address the moral lack that already exists for this kind of violence to occur at all.

Many of us are poor. Many of us grew up in bad, truly tragic circumstances. Many of us can be considered certifiable nut cases. Many of us were exposed to violent video games, TV shows, and movies. Many of us personally experienced some form of violence in our lives. Most of us however, make a conscious choice to not engage in such acts of violence ourselves. Then how do we explain the people who make the conscious choice to engage in horrible acts? Maybe we can’t. But we can set aside the debate over toys, I’m sure, to grieve as a nation for those who were lost. And ask of ourselves, can we do something that reduces the likelihood of such acts of violence occurring again? Even if it means restricting people who should not have them, from obtaining these guns.

Sunday, Mother’s Day, being nice and warm if cloudy. I got in a good walk on Sunday and worked on a few projects besides. Come Monday morning however, the storm is finally moving in, heavy rain, wind. Abrupt changes in weather can raise hell with my Bronchitis. The nice thing about recycling walks, if you don’t feel quite up to getting out, you don’t have to. Because I elected not to, I watched a good part of the news today:

The Republican party likes to keep Benghazi and the events that occurred at the American Consulate front an center. Never mind that they had their own role in why there wasn’t more security for the consulate in question. After all, they only elected to cut the security funds. Nor have they yet to ask some real questions about Al Qaeda affiliates who might have decided to “take advantage of a riot in Cairo” to target the American Consulate in Benghazi. That wouldn’t do, I guess. Instead, as Stephen Colbert was to show his viewers, seems the GOP are more into engaging in games of schematics over word usage than addressing where there might have been actual problems and what needed to be done to correct them.

In the Coeur d’Alene Press, that local newspaper featured a video circulating in which certain types of kids complained about being bullied for being “Christian.” Seriously? Sounds like a rehash of the kinds of letters to the editors I saw published in the Press years ago. When “Christians” would complain about multi-culturalism, or secular humanism. A twist on the argument, that from the standpoint of what kids are being taught or otherwise experiencing, and there fore, I want an opportunity to put them in a new school setting. Since I don’t take the paper, then I would just have to ask; there are so many churches throughout the entire Kootenai County area that I’ll make a comfortable bet that most kids go to one. The minority kids who don’t, are the ones who stand the greatest chance of getting bullied. You just won’t hear about those kids though will you?

Finally, the IRS. The IRS should thoroughly investigate all applications for the 501(c 4) status. Especially if the organization wishes to claim a charitable purpose in what they do and defines themselves as non profit besides. Only I don’t believe that most political organizations can make that claim. The IRS problem stems from the fact that they chose to investigate Republican associated groups such as “The TEA Party” in what can be described as: in a partisan manner. That is wrong. I’ll agree that it is wrong. We all have our sundry issues with the IRS. It wasn’t all that long ago, in fact, that Jim Hightower had a few issues with the IRS that dropped a heavy hammer on people who simply made honest mistakes with their tax forms. I guess those people need to be forming a politically partisan group that seeks a tax exempt status through the IRS before anyone is likely to hear what real outrages they have experienced. My personal view is, the 501 (c) status has been much abused and various partisan political groups have taken real advantage of it. The IRS should ask very real questions about how legitimate these organizations purport to be. But that in all cases, not just selected groups and for political purposes besides, all such organizations should be investigated. The IRS should only do the job it was assigned to: collect taxes.

On a more personal note, I was facing a good many health issues last year, which meant that over a two month period, I was in the emergency room three times. Now the VA appointments line always does include the message of “If you have an emergency…” Meaning that the VA Hospital will authorize and pay for an emergency trip to the local hospital. Well, following the last such emergency trip, steroids given to combat Bronchitis. The steroids never affected the Bronchitis, but did cause some real concerns with everything else, I started getting these separate billing statements from the EMS people at least once a month. So much was owed… But I have a zero payment to make. The Kootenai Medical Center was sending out their own bills. I wasn’t exactly told, at the time, that the people in the “charge master’s office” weren’t supposed to send me anything. Well they did. They’d find something to nickle and dime me over, and of course I’d pay it. Same thing with the VA authorized mammogram. I started getting these separate bills after the VA hospital and set up the appointment. Of course I did pay them. However, three months later, the billing office at the Kootenai Medical Center was still finding these outstanding balances to continue to nickle and dime me with. There was one problem, they asked for a fairly large co-payment soon after the mammogram, which they got, then returned it. Then they started nickle and dime billing me for the same mammogram that they first claimed they didn’t need the initial co-payment for. I still had that check, voided now, and sent a copy to them. I also wrote to the VA in Washington, D.C. about this and the VA Hospital. To the best of my knowledge, the final payment that was tendered has not gone through. The people I talked to at Kootenai Imaging chose to give me the runaround. And I got the latest from the VA Hospital that Kootenai Medical Center was never supposed to send me any bills, period. I’ll blog this, just to vent about it. What I do figure, I’ll hold that slot open of the “good faith payment” that was tendered to the hospital. But if it never goes through, then I’ll update my account balance, at that time, to what it currently shows by way of the bank. I’m not the only one who thinks that the medical staff hears the ringing of cash registers when ever a prospective patient comes in. But they just don’t choose to listen to the patient. Fortunately, for most things, there are alternatives. If the Kootenai Medical Center really wants to style itself as a for profit commercial enterprise, they just lost my business.

Letter: Too stupid too publish

The latest letter to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press, written by Jim Yates, was definitely one of those the editor should have thrown away in the trash. He has done enough of those, on more than one occasion, when people wrote more thoughtful letters that he would not publish at all. Well, he has certainly done enough of that where certain letters of mine were concerned. And publish a ton of attack letters in response to anything that I had said. But here is Mr. Yates’ letter.

OBAMA: Help him ‘go home’
Recently our Community-Organizer-in-Chief Obama gave a speech to “Murder Inc.,” better known as Planned Parenthood, praising them for what they do. In the same speech, he insulted at least half the population of the country because we are not as enlightened as he is as to why they are so essential to America! Does anyone find him as condescending and arrogant as I do? Royal Presidency is an apt term for him, is it not?

Recently he was whining at his 100-day news conference about not being able to get anything done. In response to a question about the lack of instigating his agenda, he said, “Maybe I should just go home.” On that note I am letting everyone I come into contact with that I am creating the “Obama Travel Fund Home” by donating $5. If you would like to contribute, send what you can to: Obama Travel Fund Home, c/o the Whitehouse, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500 Let’s pull together and help the Obamas out so they can go home.

JIM YATES
Careywood

First of all, I wouldn’t know what the poll numbers are on whether people are stridently against aborticide and birth control measures. Or how many people are actually pro-choice. Polls only take samplings of population. Depending on who does such polls; the polls could in fact be agenda driven, highly politicized, and most likely to be skewed toward one end of the ideological spectrum or the other. So, how would Mr. Yates know if President Obama insulted half the country or not? Unless Mr. Yates actually wants to argue that half the country is filled with political and religious extremists like himself. I highly doubt that. If he actually checked Obama’s poll numbers at the time he was handily re-elected in November of 2012, more than half the voters preferred him to Mitt Romney. And the GOP? Well, they have an ever shrinking base of support and a lot more of a disapproval rating. That must be exactly why Mr. Yates complains so much about Obama’s “Royal Presidency.” Or other people on Face book commenting to “Politico.com” want to sneeringly refer to him as “our Savior.” That letter, transcribed above, was a gush of pure hatred as I have ever seen.

It isn’t Obama’s fault that the GOP behave like two year olds. It isn’t the voters’ fault that the GOP talked just crazy enough and insulted people’s intelligence to the point that Mitt Romney never made it to the White House. Instead of the GOP manning up, they still act like a bunch of punks. What has that to do with Obama’s second term? The news media should in fact be asking the Republicans in Congress why they don’t want to do anything. Why they won’t represent the people who put them back in office. If the news media want to create a “Royal Presidency” by hanging all the credit or the blame on one man, that is the news media’s problem. President Obama represents the executive branch. It is Congress that does the real work of legislating and governing the country. Congress puts forward the bills and budget proposals. Congress provides the funding. If there is anything that Congress wishes to wax outraged over, it is Congress that holds the hearings. The Senate confirms whom President Obama can place in his various cabinet positions. So, I propose that if there is anyone who is condescending and arrogant, for whom the appellation of “Royal” ought to be applied, it would be members of Congress. Also, whether Democrat or Republican; they tend to insult our intelligence well outside their own districts and states. By the way, President Obama has term limits, Congress does not.

As for Yates’ not so “moral” attacks on Planned Parenthood? Bet the guy would be totally opposed to restrictions on the other form of “Murder Inc.” Where crazy guys who can ultimately legally purchase firearms over the Internet and eventually engage in mass shootings. That wouldn’t do. But we can turn around and utilize a politicized “religious” canon to regulate the behavior of women. To what end?

Zombie Economics?

I generally like Ted McGregor’s brief columns that appear in “The Inlander.” Today is generally no exception. But it does need some fleshing out. Austerity arguments do only apply when the opposite party is in control of the White House. Or when an opposition party is in control of Congress. Bottom line, when you want to accuse the Democrats of “spending too much, wasting a whole lotta taxpayers’ dough,” then austerity arguments get dusted off and publicly discussed. Just don’t remind the Republicans that they are known to be very big spenders as well. Of course, the juxtaposition argument involves, too much government. If we invoke “austerity,” we can “reduce that dependency on government,” through the shrinking of “entitlements.” Applicable to the Democrats and those most likely to vote for the party of the Donkey. However, never remind the GOP that they are definitely into pushing entitlements, subsidies and tax cuts are included.

McGregor provided a pretty good history of what he thought austerity measures actually did to a country’s economy. Well, I believe that Herbert Hoover was “credited” with such measures (rightly or wrongly), and that his tight-fisted approach to government helped create the economic disaster called the Great Depression. All anyone would need to do is check out a good history book with regard to the late 1920s, early to mid 1930s, to discover just how bad the economic situation really was. Obviously, you couldn’t get very austere during such economically tough times, for the country and the people to economically survive. And that maybe, while it is entirely possible that the Great Depression would not have been prevented, had other measures been considered by the Hoover administration, the economic damage might not have been quite so wide spread.

I will agree with McGregor that members of Congress are pushing a worn out [Ayn Rand style] theory that probably doesn’t have a basis in fact. I recently picked up this book, “Free the Marketplace” (I beileve) that I have since distributed to the Oak Crest library for anyone who is interested to eventually peruse. A clearance book at Hastings for only $0.50. That author disclosed in the opening chapters, the Chicago school of political economics. Something that Robert Bork was prepared to argue on the behalf of. Even when the author of the economic model, having to do with efficiency and cost cutting measures should companies merge. A way of thinking that could be easily challenged and the author himself said that his theory was extremely limited. Yes indeed. Karl Marx only had a theory about how better everything would be if the proletariat ruled the world. (Efficiency in government, perhaps? If you got in the right people, maybe?) Rather regrettably, that “Chicago school of economic politics” reminded me a little too much of just how Marx’s own social theories couldn’t stand the test of — people. As time would prove, especially by 2007/2008, that view of economic politics would help create wide-spread disaster. I’ll further add, people who have since tried to exploit that disaster for personal gain. Bet they didn’t have a problem with that “Chicago school” up and until banks and investment firms started keeling over. Now, they want to find a scapegoat to hang it all on. They’d do better reviewing their own political history. As it is, the GOP continue to be very spiteful little children because they lost to Obama, twice. I doubt that “Zombie economic theory” has anything to do with GOP obstructionism. The GOP just want to get back at the American voters and the guy they put back in office. Unless and until (The Daily Show) they are inconvenienced by their own austerity measures. Of course, for those of us who will never likely set foot inside an airport ever again: Who cares? The GOP also made it very plain that they have a cognitive disconnect when it comes to applying austerity measures and ultimately whom it hurts. Those commercial jets are privately owned. These are some big national/international companies that fly these jets. When the GOP are into forcing the sequester to take hold, because they want to get back at Obama and the American people who elected him, who is most likely going to feel the pain of the sequester and the dangers it might cause? The airline companies. The commuters can go by car or bus, Amtrak if they wish. When the GOP refuse to think out of extreme Obamahatred, they also turn on the very people who load their campaign war chests with lots of dough. This is something that can cause any rational person to shake his or her head in wonder. Quite frankly, I think McGregor should keep on reminding the American electorate of how goofy the situation is in Washington, D.C. these days. Obama can’t run again, but in 2014 the American electorate has a chance to vote the children out of office. Will they rise to the challenge?

Define perversion, define holy

I went walking for aluminum cans today and ended up going briefly into one of my favorite stores; people who sell all kinds of kitchen gadgets down at the Silverlake Mall Square. So, I started to discuss my book that I am writing, and mentioned bringing biblical scripture into the main theme of the book, that is: who is the “us” who went down to create man in our image. Let alone, why they might choose to do so. Well, a science fiction book, that is why people write what they do. Because it is all about exploring different possibilities and alternative theories. Sometimes, what is written, becomes materially factual. And even further, what gets written in a science fiction book is nothing more than conjecture, an opinion. Factually, that is true of a good many books, even historical novels. So? When you read anything, that is precisely what you will read, what the author thought, the opinions or conjectures that he or she places in writing. Which means, that this being true, I’m not likely to get upset by what the customer in the store said. However, when he went on to discuss a book which he had read and expressed that the authors of this book applied scripture to “alien abductions,” etc.; apparently, he was prepared to take everything they said as factual and practically gospel. Never mind, that he was probably reading a perversion of scripture.

First of all, he was prepared to ascribe certain powers of creation to Satan. —Which the bible never granted. Second, he was prepared to discuss inter-dimensional entities. —Which God never discussed with His chosen people. Finally, third; he wanted to demonize or Satanize alien visits to this planet. —Given Ezekiel’s space ship of Chap. 1, 1 through 28, then I guess that this must also apply to that “Presence of the Lord” in that extraordinary craft. Be careful how you spread out this labeling of how “Satanic” it all is, because it offers a direct challenge to that “inspired word of God.” Nor did he stop there, the “anti-Christ” was Satan himself. If he bothered reading the Book of Revelations, the Anti-Christ” is an individual who can be seen as a highly influential individual. A person, undoubtedly possessing a great deal of power. Only, what he pronounces is a false doctrine, one that actually runs counter to the teachings of Christ. Well, which meant that people of influence or positions of power, who are a little too willing to lead trusting and gullible people down the primrose path, could indeed be such an Anti-Christ given the dire consequences of their actions. The people who wrote the bible-based book on alien visitations could even be anti-Christs.

Then the fellow let his bigotry show for all the world. Biblical scripture never informs us that God might have created more than one Earth when he created the heavens. Well, the bible never said anything about the solar system of nine(?) planets that became part of the heavens along with the sun and the moon. Nor did the Hebrew people, the children of Israel, know that there were other worlds in the heavens besides the Earth they lived on. The technology simply did not exist, then, for that people to have such a knowledge. Given the fact that they were a highly primitive people, they would only know what they saw of the world as it was. You could also apply opinion and conjecture to the pages of the bible. But you could not have told this rigid ideologue that. How would the bible’s writers know for a fact that God created the heavens and the Earth in seven days? The bible wasn’t written until probably some thousands of years after the fact. And that is to give it an entirely generous estimate.However, creating the heavens and the Earth in “seven days” would unquestionably justify the formation of the Jewish religion. If, on the other hand, God created the heavens and a good many Earths over many billions of years, and isn’t done yet; that would definitely shatter what is nothing more than a religious opinion or conjecture. When I expressed to this fellow that in the Qur’ an “all the men of all the worlds,” he abruptly dismissed Mohammed as a guy who had nothing holy about him. He was “just some guy.” Well now, I happen to be an Earth Priest, for all I care, Jesus is just some guy. A teacher, a Rabbi, who threatened the established order because of his liberal, even radical tendencies, and was hung on the cross for that. The people of Israel were just some guys too. And the God they wanted to worship instructed them to lay waste to anyone who didn’t think like them. Somehow, I highly doubt that “Christ” fits into this picture of holocausts, unending war, etc. Not when, by the time of the New Testament (Luke), Christ is telling people to love even their enemies. Blessed are the peacemakers. Says a lot about the guy who wants to read a bunch of baloney from people who probably don’t know anything more about the way things are than do the rest of us, but doesn’t want to read through what the bible actually says himself. Agreed, the bible has to be taken as a whole. It is however doubtful, that the book this fellow was touting, the bible was ever taken as a whole. I chuckled after the dude left the store, this is one fellow who will never read my book. Then again, I may never read the fictional crap that he wants to think is the “truth.” He has a right to believe what he wishes. That is what makes this country a wonderful thing and a place to call home. Regrettably, I highly doubt he appreciates it.

The Roy Diteman demonstration of ignorance

I won’t transcribe Roy Diteman’s letter published in the 19^th of April 2013 edition to the Coeur d’Alene Press, but I will discuss it. Titled: “U.S.: It’s church v the state,” Mr Diteman bemoans the idea that up and until 1954 and apparently an act by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson to grant a 501(c)3 status to churches, churches were free to do what ever they wanted and say what ever they wished. Well, I have yet to see churches being curtailed from doing what ever they want and saying whatever they wish since that time. And since that singular moment in 1954; churches have definitely been in the public arena and pushing political ideologies special to their own interests and agendas. If anything, since 1954, Christians who don’t see a government role in their religion and who don’t want a religious role in government; are going to be the people more greatly threatened with a loss of essential freedoms than the politically activist churches are right now. Right along with the threats to essential freedom of belief for all other minority religious views as well.

To the best of my knowledge the 501(c)3 status confers a tax exemption to nonprofits and charitable organizations. There is no question that it has been abused and very specifically for political purposes. Without question, the first thing that churches would have to be able to declare is that they are essentially nonprofit or provide charitable services. Well, I assume that the former and the latter are factual enough. Churches in the main would carry a nonprofit status and further provide charitable outreach to their communities. So, what would be the problem? And exactly how does this 501(c)3 status put the church’s finances directly in the hands of government? The above status makes the church tax exempt. They don’t have to declare something to the government in the way of income like a business must. What they don’t have to declare, the government as far as I know, doesn’t have a controlling interest in.

In more recent years, there have been arguments raised, that because churches have become too politicized, the buildings and properties have become fronts for well-financed political movements, to then eliminate their tax exempt status because they are no longer nonprofit and/or charitable. Well, Mr. Diteman could more thoroughly research what the New Testament says. Especially in that part of the bible that tells the “followers of Christ” that the scriptures are not a means to an end to achieve certain personal ambitions or to gain material power. Apparently, that is one scripture to ignore as churches literally do invite a government role into their very existence even as they demand a role in government. Not only does the bible not permit a political use of itself, but the first amendment tells us that government should be constrained from having any role what so ever in religions of any kind. Apparently, the churches ignore that too when a political agenda is being pursued. Then you have Article 6 to the U.S. Constitution that declares no religious tests are to be performed when politicians seek elected office. An article to also be ignored as the GOP in general runs on the most strident of religious platforms they can find. Then, on top of that, says some of the most goofiest things imaginable while catering to the politicized religious base. If Mr. Diteman wants to bemoan the “loss of freedom,” before he writes a letter, he should have a long heart to heart talk with a lot of different people.

I could start with the anti-abortionists who can’t stomach the idea that not everyone living in this nation today is going to think they way they do. Abortion as a politicized issue to coerce, through government, people to conform to this religious canon even if they aren’t believers. The “freedom of conscious” movement that wants government to confer certain rights and privileges to say pharmacists at drug stores or drug counters, to not fill a prescription if they don’t want to, on “moral grounds.” Well, their “moral grounds” that interfere substantially with other peoples’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One’s individual health being key to all of the above. Somehow, I don’t think that Christ would be applauding this politicized view of “freedom of conscious” that precludes charity, humanitarian concerns, and forgiveness of others. He could talk to the “TEA Party” people who slather pure hate and bigotry on the back of their trucks and cars while abusing the American flag and one of the flags of the American revolution. The more off the deep end these people portray themselves as being, the less inclined other people will be in even wanting to listen to them. Mr. Diteman could again refer to those teachings of Christ where he chastised those of his faith (Jewish), for literally pushing away people [through their actions and dogma], who would have desired to be believers as well. I am familiar with “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” I don’t see any sign of “love” in these “TEA Party” bumper stickers. He could talk to the religious letter writers who want government to be more activist on their behalf. Especially when it comes to wanting taxpayers to pay for vouchers for private religious schools. Or to push heterosexual marriage as an amendment to state constitutions. Or to demand coerced ultrasounds if woman are seeking to terminate their pregnancy. (How applicable would it be, that ultrasound, if a woman has a miscarriage?) After all, the more demands that politically activist churches make of government, the more freedoms they cost themselves and others.

---

The 14^th of April, I turned 59. I gave myself a dinner and a movie at Red Robin, down at Riverstone, and watched “The Host” at Regal Cinema. In the days that followed, the horrific bombing of the Boston Marathon. Why it would trigger a memory of the terrorist bombing at the Munich Oktoberfest back in the early 80′s when I was still in Germany, I’m not quite sure. The two probably have no relationship at all. Well, beyond the fact that they happened to both be tourist attractions and an opportunity for someone to target a lot of people. A fertilizer production plant that blew up the next day with force enough to take out an entire town. My deepest sympathies to the victims and their survivors in both tragedies. The Senate keeps caving into the NRA instead of representing the people who voted for them. Apparently, 6 and 7 year old victims at Newtown, Conn. can’t be heard as well as the gun lobbyists constant whining about their toys! Well, 2014 is coming up and it just may be that the almost 90% of people who want to see an enhancement of gun safety and a reduced amount of gun tragedies will wake up and vote the people in who will make it happen.

GOP, still stupid

If there was ever an argument for outreach and re-branding; the GOP seems to have missed it. Not all that many weeks ago, Guv. Bobby Jindal told the GOP that they needed to end being the party of stupid. Tonight, on “The Daily Show,” Jindal’s approval ratings are in the 30s. Why? People at the “CPAC” conference were making the argument that they needed to attract more voters to their core message. Which message is as follows: we want to be the state that regulates your personal behavior and absolutely oppose any limits on weapons or bullets. Or, we want to absolutely alienate the minority voters with expressions of bigotry. Oh yes, that absolutely should bring new blood into the Republican party.

Why don’t the GOP simply get real for a change? Ayn Rand was a writer of fiction, not a molder of political philosophy. Abraham Lincoln would not recognize the party he founded that opposed slavery and promoted a more liberal brand of Christianity. Just because mega-rich dudes fund super-rich lobbyists to funnel cash for special interest legislation; does not mean they are factually the only constituents the GOP are bound to represent. Any law out there, must affect far more than just the special interests. And not always so beneficially, everyone else. If the GOP are that unwilling to think outside the box, then they will with time, become the next dinosaur to become extinct. So-called “Libertarians” beware. Too close an association with failed ideologies means that you will be next.

I bring up for discussion a book review about Karl Marx, the history of the man and the workers’ revolution he tried to foment. I don’t recall the name of the author of this biography of Marx as a quite obscure man in history. But, I am quite sure for anyone who is interested, “Google,” or “Bing” Marx and the book should pop up at some point. It was actually quite an interesting review about Marx. Seems the fellow was a real glutton for attention. The more outlandish the political theories and philosophies, the more weird people he seemed to attract. Well, much like Ayn Rand. And these days, the GOP themselves. So what happened to Karl Marx’s ideas about Communism? Uh, last I recall, it became a means to grab power from the Tsars and the Russian aristocracy, and bestow that authority upon well, the next set of Tsars and Russian aristocracy—who referred to themselves as the Communist Party. And just like any other ruling elite, set themselves far apart from the rest of the governed. Just like the previous Tsars and Russian aristocracy, you can be imprisoned and even tortured for expressing the wrong opinions. In short, the label Communism was a means to an end. But in the end, it wasn’t Communism that controlled Russia. It was simply a bunch of usurpers taking over from a prior group of ruling elite. And the serfs could still be serfs farming land that never belonged to them in the first place. It is from this lack of honesty that Marx’s theories really could fail.

The GOP could take a lesson from why you don’t want to become so hardline that you become blinded to shifting realities. Societies do change. People become more accepting. Technology does advance. There is no constant that can truly exist in the time line of existence. Of what can you become “conservative,” if the society you prefer hasn’t existed for more than a hundred years? And, for that matter, probably never existed at all. Or, what you want to argue as “values” in the Judeo-Christian sense, actually have no biblical basis in fact. Instead, it is a fabricated mythology to justify a religious intrusion into government. Or a government that can intrude into people’s freedom to believe what they wish. Never mind what James Madison argued. So, while some GOP elected official uses magazines for semi-automatic weapons that are manufactured in such a way that you can only load ten rounds at a time, in order to harp about bigamy, or harems, etc. (but not necessarily about divorce—the most common cause of the dissolving of heterosexual marriages); Jon Stewart is right, the one has nothing to do with the other. And it is definitely not going to bring more people into the party or vote for what sounds like a nut case ideology.

There is only one expression of conservative that will serve the purpose— be true to yourself. Bear in mind, that the NRA is just like any other special interest group that wants something from government. In other words, big government works very well if it does something for the gun lobby. Like anti-gun control legislation, as an example, slipped into a “continuing resolution to fund the government through September.” The NRA want their toys more than they are concerned with whether some other mental case with a legal access to guns will mow down yet another large group of school children. No, the NRA doesn’t at all mind a big government acting on their behalf, they just don’t want that big government acting on the behalf of potential victims. Being true to your principles is to first recognize the need to be humanitarian and compassionate. If you lack that, then you have no moral premise to base “conservatism” on.

The case for capitalism

I recently had an interesting discussion with a neighbor down the way on Marlborough Avenue. Among other things, we discussed the Koch brothers Commie ties—seems a grandfather(?) of theirs did active business with the Soviet Union during the 1930s (according to what the neighbor claimed, anyway). Plus Rupert Murdoch and his ventures into monopoly. Fact, he owns 75% of the news media in Australia. Oh, yes, that’s right; the biggest threat to capitalism isn’t a totalitarian state. Even if that is the one argument the GOP would like to trot out the most. The biggest threat to capitalism happens to be monopolies. Capitalism is all about competition that gives consumers a choice about the products and services they wish to buy. Or, for that matter, whom they choose to buy it from. Monopolies are totalitarian in nature. It isn’t only a question of tremendous wealth concentrated in a few hands. It isn’t only whether Joe Sixpack gets to work at the monopolist sweat shop or that Chi Long Li will do so instead. It is telling consumers that the car they buy, the newspaper they buy, etc. is going to be determined by some super rich guys out of New York City (as an example). Precisely, what features the car will have (nor will the prospective customer have any other choice in the matter); or what content the newspaper will carry. Again, the customer doesn’t actually get a choice.

So what, you may claim. This is the private sector! The captains of industry can do what ever they want and the government simply shouldn’t interfere! I hate to have to break it to any of my readers, but the monopolist minded captains of industry very much want government interference. As long as government can be there to subsidize their endeavors, protect them from unwelcome competition through regulation or legislation that falls more heavily on that potential competition. The only time these “captains of industry” might do some screaming about government interference, is when government acts on behalf of the customers—when it comes to shoddy products and services. The labor force—who want to actually get paidsomething for the work they do, plus health care, days off, pensions, and vacations as well. Or the neighbors—who maybe do not want to get very sick or die from toxic pollution.

Then this is something to think about, when Teddy Roosevelt put the kibosh on the corruption of monopolies based on what the leaders of these monopolies were doing to buy politicians. They were called, “anti-trust” laws. Until the anti-trust legislation was signed into law, this country was actually not a capitalist system. Only after the anti-trust laws had truly begun to take effect, could capitalism truly come into its own. Through Roosevelt, government restrained monopolist endeavors. This singular act actually brought more freedom to the marketplace as more businesses could start up and flourish. So, if the GOP want to tout a “free market” today, they need to remember that it takes laws, rules, and regulations to make one possible. Without them, you can have a literal anarchy that can decimate the “capitalism” you say you want to protect. As well as a nation that bases its economic system on that concept. Something that very much proved true by 2007-2008.

I told my neighbor about what Conservative actually had to mean for it to have any value as a label. I.E. a conservative is a person who operates first from a moral perspective. From that moral basis, determines what he or she would value, and preserve at all costs. If a free market is valued, then corrupting politicians to write legislation in favor of monopolies, would run counter to the idea of the free market. If capitalism is valued: then to make a business climate possible requires investors, lenders, entrepreneurs, workers, and yes; customers. Then corrupting politicians to write favorable legislation on the behalf of a business interest wealthy and large enough to afford such an act, would only undermine the concept of what capitalism would be about. Considering that money is the driving influence behind politics today, where those with the most of the money are considered to have the most influence in the public arena. If what I say in defense of capitalism can be called “leftist;” then capitalism is itself a leftist concept.

The GOP can’t actually fault President Obama for being “anti-capitalist” or anti-commercial enterprise. President Obama through the majority of his tenure at the White House has tried to recreate a business climate in this nation. Especially one that would take people off the unemployment rolls and return them to becoming productive, taxpaying citizens. Why would anyone want to be opposed to that? unless you are a radical member of the GOP (TEA Party, anyone?) who just happens to be blinded by money, ideology, and hatred for the fact that a Democrat ran for this office, twice, and won. There is not much of a moral underpinning to the above statement if your neighbors matter less than money, ideology, and hatred of President Obama. Or, in the case of politicians (GOP in particular), Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, the deep pockets of the Koch brothers matter more than the constituents who actually voted for them. How do you proclaim a moral underpinning under the above circumstances in order to even be regarded as a “conservative” or “right wing?” Money is the driving influence, then the only label that can actually apply: is corruption. From the position of corruption, nothing is valued and therefore, nothing is preserved. Neither, free markets, families, nor the U.S. Constitution itself.

It is time that we saw a resurgence of honesty here in this country. That our politicians of any stripe put aside blatant hypocrisy. If Rupert Murdoch wants to argue that retaliatory acts against his monopolist enterprise ought to be labeled “anti-capitalist.” No, those retaliatory actions are in opposition to the abuse and corruption brought about by his monopoly in the news media business. There is a difference between capitalism and monopolism. The latter in particular I am sure Murdoch (or others of his ilk) wouldn’t mind having government underwrite. Capitalism actually doesn’t need government to underwrite it; just the laws and regs that enable it to exist and flourish. So, think about this, my readers. Without money could you buy a home, furnishings for that home, food for yourself and family, clothing and education for your children, health care, etc.? Of course not. If capitalism is the conduit for that money, and it is, then monopolies are counter productive to everything about the American way of life.

All in the day’s snooze

Today, about the most exercise I got was to walk over to Oak Crest’s club house and have some coffee, look at the Super One ad, and check out the letters in the Coeur d’Alene Press. Or later on at around 4 pm to go down to the mail box and get some catalogs that had been delivered. Otherwise, it was work on the Sci Fi novel, get some naps in, watch the news, and work on Farmers’ Market and Fair projects. Well, I did not walk today. It was raining hard when I went to get some coffee. Although, that would not have stopped me from walking. Chatted with the ladies in the park over our weekly kaffee klatche. Described the oldest brother’s interesting attitude about not quite getting things right when it comes to the right forms, documents, or even information when it comes to the dreaded tax time. Well, he didn’t send me the right stuff. He sent forms and schedules related to commercial enterprises and self-employment tax. So, I sent it back to him merely letting him know what these forms and documents were applicable to. As of yet, I haven’t heard from him. I might not hear from him.

I set about making some chocolate chip short bread cookies after I fixed myself some breakfast. Weather started acting pretty severe as soon as I got the first pan of cookies in the oven. Lightning started crackling in the sky and thunder rumbled pretty fiercely. It was also moving from a generally southern direction to the north. A matter of minutes, with concentrated lightning overhead, pea size hail whacking the far side of the mobile home’s windows from where I am currently sitting on the couch, heavy pounding rain; then it blew itself out. KREM 2 News reported that this poor fellow living up on Chase Street in Rathdrum, Idaho, saw his entire property tore up from downed trees. He said it acted like a supercell. From what I saw up at Oak Crest, it wouldn’t be a surprise. Also, given the various directions in which those trees came crashing down, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that there won’t be an assault weapons’ ban. Yet half the letters to the editors in the “Readers Write” section of the Coeur d’Alene Press all came from people whining that they were going to lose their toys. Only one letter writer had a real question about the Idaho state legislature wanting to dictate “purity” by banning certain kinds of TV shows. Maybe they ought to define what they mean by “purity.” Even further, maybe they need to start with themselves. Otherwise, what the GOP in Congress may not allow in banning assault weapons and certain types of magazine clips, seems the state of Colorado now has a law that does what the Congress won’t do. I do believe that Colorado is GOP friendly, even further, a gun happy state. But after that theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado; it seems lots of folks are getting pretty fed up with being turned into targets. The only folks who’ll be upset are the NRA types. I also highly doubt that Colorado bills itself as a “socialist” state.

I am into the 10^th chapter of my book. I don’t know now how many people might recall the alien abduction movement. I do recall some editorial or article in one of the weekly news magazines that treated the whole idea of an alien abduction with quite a bit of derision. What the author wanted to see, was aliens come down from their U.F.O. and go into an ice cream parlor and order a cone a piece. That idea stayed with me a long time. So, now I am putting into the 10^th chapter, American born space aliens are talking a space born space alien into eating some Chinese take out. No, I don’t recall what news magazine, or what author. But, I will give him credit where it is due and thank him for the idea.

In other news, someone is claiming that chemical weapons were used on Syrian rebels. The POTUS’ armored limo broke down because the driver put in the wrong fuel. I hope that isn’t a sufficient firing offense. The threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is on the horizon. And President Obama stands firm with Israel.

Replace facts with talking points

The typical Hans Neumann letter showed up in the Coeur d’Alene Press today, and I shall simply let Mr. Neumann speak for himself:

ABORTION:Don’t be deceived

I once had a long talk with a pro-abortion woman who finally confessed, “Yes, I know it’s a baby, but I still want the right to kill it at my decision.” She is the only honest pro-abort I’ve ever met and I told her I respected her for her honesty, though of course not for her position.

Joan Harman (Letters, March 6) falls into the other category; those who deny the obvious either through ignorance or self-deception in order to justify what they know in their secret hearts is just plain wrong. She rejects religion as a basis for facing the truth, but ignores that all of western civilization’s laws grew from a Judeo-Christian heritage—including that killing the innocent is wrong. To be blunt, that’s called murder. Self-deception notwithstanding, Harman falsely claims that “most abortions involve miscarriages.” Not even close to true. 97 percent are for convenience, 40 percent are repeats for birth control, 3 percent are for rape, incest or life of the mother. America’s total abortions have now exceeded 55 MILLION—most involving miscarriages? Gimme a break—and give you a break from these deceptions that lead so many young women into killing their own babies and being haunted for the rest of their lives

HANS NEUMANN
Spirit Lake

I actually could start off with the sort of “Judeo-Christian values” that created the “Western Civilization” that recognizes that killing the innocent is just plain wrong. Uh, from the time of the Judeo part of the bible to the present age of “Christian” involvement on the world stage, plenty of innocents have died in the name of religion. Nor was it regarded as “wrong.” Or, I could remind the readers that this “Christian” anti-abortion doctrine was based on the idea of setting themselves apart from the Pagan culture. What ever pagans agreed to, the “Christians” would therefore be against. Or, I could even argue that the ressurrection of this doctrine was in immediate response to the feminist movement. I don’t think so. Out side of the fact that medically, most abortions are miscarriages, a smaller percentage are still births; Mr. Neumann doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between an abortion (miscarriage) and aborticide (the deliberate ending of fetal life). If he has a problem understanding the difference between the two, then he has a bigger problem trying to tell me what I am supposed to think.

What I believe I said in the letter he actually doesn’t refer to as he lined up his talking points ducks in a row; was that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts certain constraints on Congress with respect to the establishment of religion and certainly, that there can be no prohibiting of the free exercise of religion. Just because Mr. Neumann wants to regard me as a convenient target doesn’t change the facts of what is in the first amendment. Nor does it change the facts that the 14^th amendment grants the same rights at the state level that exist at the federal level. The states have no more authority to enact religious doctrine into law than does Congress.

I don’t reject religion as such. I just don’t happen to be a Christian. I also know a few things about “Christianity” that has less to do with the “Judeo- culture” and more to do with articles of pagan faith. Most holidays and celebrations are founded upon pagan holidays and celebrations. Well then, Mr. Neumann is flat out wrong about the foundings of western civilizaton. On another note, I don’t control the decisions of others. If that has Mr. Neumann all bent out of shape because I say that, so be it. This is a free and democratic society; if that also has Mr. Neumann all bent out of shape over that fact, so be it.

Mr. Neumann doesn’t know who I am. A long time ago, I made the conscious decision to never have children, because of the medical reasons of scoliosis and also, because children happened to be something I could never have afforded. That’s right, a choice was made. For other women, if they didn’t want children right away, they could make a choice as well. Many different choices could have been made: abstinence and birth control. Only in the worst case situation would aborticide be considered. I also noted that Neumann carefully wrote out of his tirade any idea that men ought to accept responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. If the man didn’t want to be saddled with children: then he could resort to abstinence or a condom. But, abortion for “convenience?” Abortion as the premier form of “birth control?” The figure Mr. Neumann wants to hysterically cite, 55 MILLION!— covers a period from Roe v Wade 1973(?) to the present time. Neumann’s tirade is undercut by specific facts: We are talking about more than forty years in which doctors could legally perform acts of aborticide. Out of those forty years, 55 million means what statistically? Approximately 2.65 women on a daily basis over a period of 40 years chose to have “abortions for reasons of convenience” or “abortions as a method of birth control.” Uh, sorry Neumann; but I fail to find a holocaust argument in all of this. I do however find a very good reason to reject Mr. Neumann’s radical leftist demands for a bigger and more intrusive government.