Archive for the ‘The failure to think’ Category

Vanity press

September 7, 2015

Throughout much of last night, I was quite the subject of snobbish behavior. Because I had not spent $400.00 on a garish piece of graphic art, and therefore my book covers (Nikon), sucked; to put it mildly.

This is my view of a book cover, if displayed on line, then obviously you will see the front of the book in full. However, a hard copy book displayed on a traditional bookshelf; you will only see the spine and not the rest of it. Nor does a cover however stylish, tell anyone about the contents of a book. Rather, the graphic art that looks more suitable for framing, doesn’t necessarily add to a book. I think if anyone wishes to spend $400.00 on graphic art, had best have a book worth reading. Otherwise, the “art” only serves to mask the content of the book.

Next was the complaint (jeers really) of my over use of commas. I suspect I always did have that problem, and it is not likely to improve now with age. It could be worse, I could write much like Henry David Thoreau. Where his paragraphs would be all of two or three sentences and sprinkled heavily with “out of place” commas. And yes, Mr. Thoreau was college educated, circa about the mid 19th century. I will grant that styles of writing can be taught differently depending on where you live, and how you were taught in public school. I haven’t seen the inside of such an institution, since my late twenties or early thirties. Or I could write like Cassandra Clare. Presuming she has a good editor,I could critique her work as having a dangling participial here. A lack of commas in all the right places, to make it harder to read, there. From that perspective, no editor is 100% perfect. So far, if the only argument my (LOL!) detractors have, are the commas; then I must be doing pretty good.

Finally, what sparked the “outrage” on the comments thread, was a singularly useful cover concerning a book, written by an AIDS victim. Thus the title of this blog post, “Vanity press.” I saw a full frontal display of garish art, like you would never believe. I am only going to be “nice” on the comments thread. Because otherwise, you wasted $400.00 on that? “HIV in the Eye,” had a perfectly satisfactory cover. The majority of comments however were, acts of oneupmanship (Oh, I can do better than that!), with the intent of various authors attempting to out-impress each other. Then comes the pop-psychology, I am passive aggressive. Or I am “coming across” in a manner, that no one else likes. Excuse me, but that is bullying folks. Nor are you going to have provided a useful criticism, by jeering and laughing.

Yep, as a senior citizen; I believe I have seen it all and heard it all, for close to the entire sixty years of my life. And likely by my personal experiences, I have a different perspective from the people I am blogging about. What impresses me about a book: there may be no cover at all. An author whom I am familiar with, it will be the first reason I reach for that book. His or her other books were good, the one I purchase should be just as good. The title, it is a new title. Of least impression to myself, is the cover art. No, the cover art tells me nothing of what is inside the book. Nor is it expected to, that’s why you read the book.


Scam Report

June 14, 2015

I visit Facebook about daily. At times, I get any number of “friend requests.” The problem with some of them? The people who want to “befriend” you are looking for a highly vulnerable person. Well, to put it bluntly, I am not.

  • I won’t mention any names here, but the dudes want a “girlfriend” they can cry on the shoulders of. — My wife isn’t treating me right, or she simply doesn’t understand me. Can I hook up with you instead? I am 61. No, I don’t do cradle robbing. Young fellow, you are going to have to find someone more your age.
  • I am looking for a new wife, I am 57… Or this guy claims to be a general stationed in Afghanistan, and a “secret agent” as well. As they say, Too Much Information with an aim toward impressing people? Then the guy who puts a “rose” in the place of his profile pic, starts engaging in name calling, because he isn’t getting a female to manipulate. He should just be happy that I am not a member of the CIA or the FBI.
  • A few personal messages into the conversation: I want money!
  • I have this job, I am located at X, I am having trouble with (fill in the)________ bank. I would like to deposit my money in your account. Just in case the dude is not aware of this? That is already a red flag remark. Refusal of his “offer” leads to: What kind of human are you? Etc.

I live alone for a reason. I may be a senior citizen, but I am not stupid. I can and do pay attention to people trying to bilk you out of your life savings, or trying to cost you (con artist) a great deal more money than you actually have. No, I do not need a hubby with a “child,” who is likely already an adult, and already living on his own. I am not a replacement for the family feud, either real or imagined, as the girlfriend or mistress on the side. No, I am not a doofus female, who is going to melt at the mention of rank, and etc. All that I can say of the kind of people, who want to prey on those they think are vulnerable? Yeah you are most certainly a despicable group of people.

So, what can I say in response? I write books. Hey, here are some (factual) links to my e-books. Yes, I am single and fully intend to remain that way. Why should you ask me what sort of human I am? Why, I am not a human at all! I am a space alien, and you have contacted Zhan Ananar. Dude! Give it up!

Seriously, there is all kinds of information out there. AARP has warned senior citizens in their “Fraud Watch” series: about people who use social media to prey on people, who are of just the right age, to not think very smart when it comes to a “Michael Greene” attempting to “deposit some money” in their bank account. A guy like this who will use any ruse to commit an act of fraud. Or get you involved in a criminal act, that you couldn’t possibly get out of. As long as the information is out there, it is worthwhile paying attention to. I’ll just use this blog post, to reinforce the warning. Don’t be a doofus.

Immoral Authority

June 1, 2015

I let the Josh Duggar case sit for awhile, because of how nauseating it truly was. Then, when “The Week” came out with a synopsis of this matter, I was finally ready to tackle the issue. “Western Journalism” immediately leaped to the defense of “19 and Counting” [Patriarchy] fringe Evangelicals, whom by the way, TLC would no longer be airing. What ever the rationale for women being in complete submission to men. The “Patriarchy” fringe of the Evangelical Christian belief, still needs to realize, that the bible opposes Josh Duggar’s taking advantage of his siblings. Let alone any other girl, “being home schooled and therefore brainwashed” into a cult like atmosphere.

What really gets me, is how quickly anyone could leap to Duggar’s defense. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee: What Duggar did was inexcusable but still forgivable. According to which bible? The teachings of Jesus stipulates, anyone who exploits (molests) a child, should have a mill stone placed around his neck, and tossed into the sea. Jesus would not forgive Josh Duggar, then why should Pastor Huckabee? Oh but you see, Duggar was a member of the Family Research Council and one of its rising stars. Duggar was quick to offer his endorsements, of the right kind of GOP candidate. Then came the revelation of just how flawed Duggar truly was.

“The left has no right to be outraged!” Thus intones a self-described righty. “The left with their sexual experimentation…” It is fact that “the left” did know its heyday of sexual promiscuity. Or trot out Bill Clinton as a canard. “Because he insisted on doing it with a young (and therefore vulnerable) intern.” True, he did. And Monica Lewinsky had no problem performing certain services on the former President. Does that somehow excuse Josh Duggar’s behavior?

It factually reminds me of when G.W. Bush left office. Suddenly, Bill Clinton could be blamed for any and all events that led up to Bush becoming President. Post Bush’s eight year tenure, his successor President Obama, could be blamed for everything Bush did that drove this country to near bankruptcy. Either it was to be an egregious attempt at whitewashing a presidency, that was inexcusable and quite unforgivable. Or it was an equally egregious effort to deny that the Bush years even existed. Thus when Josh Duggar, a product of religious extremism is found to be fatally flawed; let us now point fingers at our favorite scapegoats. “The left” has no right to be outraged because of Duggar’s truly shameful acts.

Anti-aborticide movement, holds up their assorted “save the fetus” signs. How about if some counter protestors just happen to walk past this group with a “#JoshDuggar” sign. A question of: why would you want to “save the fetuses,” when they could easily fall victim to guys like Josh Duggar. Isn’t moral outrage supposed to be Christian in nature? The Apostle Paul was all about throwing sinning miscreants out of the church. Josh Duggar tarnishes himself with some truly horrible acts, he should be unwelcome by any church anywhere. Those are the facts of the matter. It is not the “permissive left,” who ought to be “outraged” by anything. Josh Duggar did something, that no one in his factual right mind should ever do. The moral outrage should then come from the very people, who proclaim themselves conservative. Actually, they end up sounding just like the “permissive left.” A pity.

The Rudy Giuliani issue

March 9, 2015

In the last couple of weeks, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani went public about how President Obama “doesn’t love this country” like Mr. Giuliani does. And further, how Mr. Giuliani “couldn’t be racist” just because he said that, for after all, Obama’s mom happened to have been white. So, in the latest issue of “The Inlander,” Robert Herold addressed the latest problem that Giuliani caused for himself. It was well put, eloquently stated, and doesn’t need to be added to. His article can be found at

Instead, I’ll say this. It would take being an utter moron, for Rudy Giuliani to say what he did. Or for other members of the GOP, to defend what Giuliani said. And I stand by that. Prior to the upcoming Presidential elections of 2016, there are somethings you ought not do; especially whereby anyone who does the research can immediately call you out. In Mr. Herold’s “Inlander” editorial, he refers to an author who did his research on Giuliani’s personal bio. Obviously, if the research is correct, then the GOP are hardly the party of high morality, let alone the party of law and order. Just as they have already made it plain that corruption has become a standard. The facts of doing business in government today.

Of course in tandem with the Giuliani issue is that of the GOP who wouldn’t take the road trip to Selma on the anniversary date of “Bloody Sunday” some 50 years ago. That is no way to attract new votes. Just like the voter ID laws/voter suppression laws are also guaranteed not to keep the GOP in power. But that’s to be expected, when you become increasingly the party of bigots. Added on to this particular issue that has become even uglier by the minute for the GOP, a Hindu priest is asked to open the morning session of the Idaho state legislature. Some Idaho pols turn their backs and walk out, and try to justify their blatant bigotry with all things “Christian.” Problem is, they have a bible and a Jesus Christ who would definitely disagree with their opinions of their beliefs. So some interesting individual seems to think the GOP are “bigoted against” (Idaho Statesman on the Facebook news feed) if the GOP are “criticized.” Do the research, you aren’t “bigoted against” for differences in political beliefs, only in race, religion, gender, or as of now; gender identity. Either you live in a country where political diversity can be freely held—democracy. Or you live in a country where only one political view dominates—totalitarian. And history shows us that many totalitarian regimes did exist over many thousands of years. Which is why this country became a democracy. But today, the poor “bigoted against” GOP can’t handle political, racial, and religious diversity. That would suggest, that the GOP is now the party of the totalitarian mind set. Never mind what the U.S. Constitution says, or for that matter, what their vaunted “faith” may declare.

So obviously, this isn’t just about President Obama. Next on the list, no one forces anyone to mourn for a television actor (sometimes featured on the big screen, as well); just because President Obama praised his fine career. Seems to me, that either you do, or you don’t. But to politicize such a death, because of whom you hate as the President, is also obscene and just plain moronic. The more the GOP go the route of jumping off the deep end, the more they will make any Democratic contender look even better.

I am going on record here, that Jeb Bush wins the GOP nod going into the 2016 November elections. Even further, regardless of his substantial baggage, he gains the Presidency. I mentioned this prediction the other day on a news feed featuring James Randi, the so called skeptical nemesis of all things paranormal. I will therefore repeat it here. It is not a good prediction to have, but compared to the GOP clowns who will also crowd the campaign hustings, Bush will be preferred as the candidate “less likely” to hurt the party. On the flip side of the coin, I also predict that he will get attached to him, a highly hostile Congress. No matter what it’s ultimate make up will consist of. As I said on that news feed that day, “Watch for it.”

When being “anti-tax” makes you Red

March 2, 2015

Remember Grover Norquist? Would you be prepared to argue that his “opposition to taxes” so that it ultimately “reduces government to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub” as conservative? In this historical biography of Karl and Jenny Marx, “Love and Capital,” by Mary Gabriel; it seems that Karl Marx also touted an anti-tax argument. In fact, his argument about government’s dependency on taxes, “and the people who pay the government to keep them enchained,” sounds downright Libertarian, does it not? But in the context of the crowned heads of Europe and mid 19th Germany, the refusal to pay taxes was an argument for undermining and overthrowing an oppressive government. Incidentally, a very similar argument that Mr. Norquist has also made.

Personally, I see Mr. Norquist’s arguments as being based less on ideology and more on pure greed. He wants what the best things this country has to offer, but he doesn’t want to help pay for it. Nor does he take into consideration, that business interests who rake in a lot of subsidies, tax breaks, and etc.; actually do present a tax burden to someone. It becomes a tax burden against education, the poor, the struggling middle class, most certainly the elderly, and children, as well as the public workforce. What government gives away to the monied interests, it must then replenish from other sources. And once programs and the so-called “entitlements” have been squeezed dry—principally programs and entitlements to benefit the elderly, the children, the disabled, and the poor—then our sources of continued revenue comes under even more duress. The monied “class” doesn’t want to pay taxes, the very poor can not, and the “middle class” such as it is, can’t hope to make up the difference in over all city, county, state, and federal revenue. Which is why we become a debtor nation to such hostile financiers as China.

Believe it or not, unlike mid 19th Germany, taxes in the U.S. do not typically go to keep bourgeoisie in “liveried” comfort. Even if the “monied class” would like that very much. Actually taxes must pay for a lot of things, including the roads Mr. Norquist drives on. the public libraries he has ever frequented, emergency first responders, in the event his home was to burn down, the U.S. Military and the Coast Guard that keeps him safe, the public school he attended, and the members of Congress that he has lobbied. Just as, as I have already described above; the monied interests also find themselves highly dependent on those taxes, as a percentage of their profits. All you have to do is recognize the fact that government outsources much of what it does to private businesses. It pays the businesses on a contractual basis, for what ever work the business does. That would just be one example. It is still a telling example. The money to pay the business interests for their products, labor, or services; comes out of yours and my wallet. Absolutely it does. And while Mr. Norquist has been known to vent about “tax theft” from his wallet (a la Marx?); he is nonetheless a beneficiary of what that “tax theft” has done on his behalf.

Or you take such people as “The TEA Party” and their spokeswomen such as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Undoubtedly some people would say how “Ayn Rand” it is to oppose taxes based on the “enslavement” argument. But factually, if Ms. Rand fled the Soviet Union that had presumably based its ideological principles [at all] on the theories of Karl Marx, then no that would not have been Ms. Rand’s argument. After all, she was supposed to have rejected the communal whole in the name of the individual goal seeker. But societies do not happen to exist as a collection of individuals, who in an anarchist manner, each goes their own way. Yes we are individuals, and yes we do seek individual goals. Mine, as I have since become a senior citizen, is to finally write my books. But, it takes a society to operate and make profitable, a business. It takes society to create an operational government. It takes society to care for the least of these among us.

I fully understand what Karl Marx meant by “Communism.” I knew that even before I finally acquired this particular biography of him. An advocacy of the proletariat. And the conditions that “working class” had to deal with, and they were very deplorable conditions by the mid-19th century; you could certainly understand Mr. Marx’s advocacy. And at the same time, shake your head at the people who “controlled their countries” through divine entitlement: they wouldn’t do anything for their citizens. People got sick, they starved, they got angry and began fighting. Then the government cracks down on them, and lays waste to a huge number of people, who only wanted to better their lot in life. In reaction, would Mr. Marx’s thesis have gained traction, if the monied interests, the royalty, the nobility had better taken care of their own? No, I don’t think so. The “red” argument, then was against obvious greed and the tragic consequences that it caused at the time. Now it seems, this same “red argument,” is on the behalf of greed. Thus in summary, my opinion is this: if for what ever reason you want to borrow left wing dogma and co-opt it for your own purposes, don’t call it “conservative.” Being anti-tax was an argument of rebellion, even in the founding days of this nation. Rebellions are left wing, because they are uprisings against established institutions. Well then, just call it left wing, and with Karl Marx also touting such a thing at one time, call it RED too.

Haters gotta hate

March 1, 2015

You wouldn’t know Lesley Haskell from Eve, anyone who doesn’t live in the greater Spokane, Washington area. But you will know the language of pure and unadulterated hatred. As it is a truly universal language. Mrs. Haskell? She is the wife of Spokane County Prosecutor, Mr. Larry Haskell. And according to social media accounts, Mrs. Haskell has stirred up quite a controversy, that borders on certain political embarrassment for her hubby. That’s because the woman went on social media, and started “tweeting” her hatred of Muslims (Muzlims, is how she spelled it) and anyone who disagreed with her.

That is when “The Inlander” picked up on this social media ruckus, and published a column about it…

Considering that the column will also be republished at; anyone who wants to read Mrs. Haskell’s embarrassing commentary, can check it out there. Or, they can even search for Mrs. Haskell’s social commentary, for a tad more than some selective albeit, distasteful quotes. Just to get a better grip on what she was saying. Suffice it to say, I have read plenty of garbage comments like hers, on Facebook and other forms of social media. I have especially read the kind of garbage comments that come from people: “You disagree with me…” and basically, “I” become your victim. Right. Apparently, Mrs. Haskell and others who share this attitude in common, forget how quickly their hatred of others, creates victims. Of anyone who justifiably opposes such public comments, do in fact, ably demonstrate tolerance. That is, for the people who could easily be victimized by hatred. —Not political bias, or racial and religious bias, hatred! By the way, Mrs. Haskell, while you are demonstrating how offended you are by the deaths of the “unborn;” I don’t guess it would occur to you, that if those “unborn” were born instead, Fagan’s (who is currently serving on Spokane County’s Health Board) anti-vaccination stance, would have an argument that is counter-productive to this religious “pro-life” point of view. You should be outraged at Fagan’s position, as it could prove real costly and deadly, to all those babies you want brought into the world.

Among the remaining quotes, republished in “The Inlander” column, they were by and large, pretty childish. And obviously, those comments are not very helpful to a recently elected, country prosecutor.

Besides the fact that I am now five chapters away from the final editing of my new book, “Aesgard Awakening!”, I have read even further into Mary Gabriel’s biography of Karl Marx. Did you know, that outside of abolishing private property, that Mr. Marx held a similar opinion about: free speech, the freedom of the press, the right of the individual to be armed, the right to vote (suffrage) to be universal, and separation of church and state. Incidentally, these weren’t “new” arguments, because you will find them to also exist, in the Bill of Rights. Does this mean, that James Madison who authored the Bill of Rights, was a communist? Or instead should it mean, that Mr. Marx somehow learned about our American constitution, and incorporated its better qualities, into his overall ideological agenda. Seriously, it is interesting how these histories seem to parallel each other, at least in the beginning

Thank you Ray L. Fink

December 5, 2014

Before I actually transcribe this letter to the blog, the reason for its headline, I wondered if I might have something to blog about yet this week…

Letter: Pushing back vs. liberals

The letter from Luanne alluding to discrimination against Joan Harman is hypocritical hogwash.

I saw no mention of sexual orientation mentioned, and it seems just another “Honk, Sniff” poor Joan the victim, of the same harsh words and judgment she has used on others for years. She has used vile and childish rhetoric to those who disagree with her liberal agenda for years with little pushback.

She then falls back on the “I deserve respect because I’m a veteran.” She was a reservist who guarded Dalton Gardens while others in her unit deployed to war zones. Since she either wouldn’t or couldn’t deploy, she was ultimately let go with the low performers.

In touting her “veteran status” and superior views, she didn’t hesitate to criticize other veterans who disagreed with her. Case in point was her judgment that an E8 retiree with war zone service “was unfit to wear to wear a uniform.” To say that Joan deserves more respect is hypocritical because she has neglected to extend it to others.

Hopefully Luanne’s claim to veteran status is superior to the mediocre resume of Joan.


First, Mr.Fink has never met me. At no time on a personal basis, has the man ever had the occasion to ask questions of myself in order to learn something about me. What he knows, and all that he knows, are what I have written in letters to the editors.

What I do know about Mr. Fink however, is that since he had written letters over many years, he has spent most of his time engaging in a very harsh judgment of this country, “We don’t do a thing for Vietnam Veterans.” It’s citizens, “They cursed and spat on returning Vietnam veterans.” Our government, if it is run by Democrats. Other veterans, (including myself) if they disagree with himself. Obviously, the above letter is but one example.

So, for what he does not know about me, then this is what I will explain to my readers:

  • I am a native of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Born on 14 April 1954. I grew up in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho and had not moved anywhere, until I joined the active Army around March of 1979. Ultimately, I deployed to Cold War Germany where active terrorism targeted its citizens, NATO, and the American military. My Reserve status was from 1983 to May of 1991. When I was let go, after the first Gulf War ended (No I was not deployed, wrong MOS so I was told at the time.), first, it was with an honorable discharge and second, I still resided in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
  • I did not move to Dalton Gardens until three or so years after my dad died. By then, I had already been out of the service—Army Reserves—for more than ten years. That was by 2003 or 2004.
  • What is also factual, is that Michael Patrick has no interest in publishing corrections to the sort of “attack letters” that are based on false assumptions and completely ignorant premises. So, people like Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fink, Ms. Cook among others; can fabricate any fantasy they wish without pushback.
  • I wouldn’t exactly know what Mr. Fink can identify as a “liberal agenda” or why he thinks [victimology speaking], that my views must be “superior.” Does that mean then, that his views are inferior? Then why are his letters published? Quite frankly, his views of an actual “liberal agenda” are those of people who totally agree with him and never argue. Literally, that grants him some kind of totalitarian authority to have the first, last, and only word on the subject. Well then, I’m afraid I am not a “liberal.” In a Democracy, even Mr. Fink needs to face the competition of ideas.
  • Further, if you put on a uniform and swear an oath, it doesn’t matter in what capacity, whether you served in a war zone or not; you put on that uniform to defend the U.S. Constitution and the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of your fellow citizens. To then turn on people as Mr.Fink has done down through the years, as Mr. Sheridan has also done down through the years. Why did you put on the uniform, if you can’t stand and absolutely hate the neighbors and fellow citizens, you ultimately defended?

When I put on a uniform, I knew that I not only defended the U.S. Constitution, but also the democracy that this founding document created. If this is something that Mr. Fink can not appreciate, I suggest a slow boat to still remaining totalitarian countries, where he may feel more comfortable.


November 15, 2014

Symbol, symbolic, symbolism: with reference to an image, however usually lacking in substance. I started this blog post in just this way, with reference to the latest George Nethercutt editorial, found in “The Inlander.” Make that, after the midterm elections, it was a lot of hot air and fluff, particularly lacking in substance. So instead, here are a few issues that it seems, Mr. Nethercutt can’t seem to wrap his head around. Nor is he prepared to have the “future leaders of our country,” found exclusively at Gonzaga U., natch; be prepared to wrap their heads around those factual issues either. So, we will briefly take a tour on why world powers can suddenly collapse and finally go the way of history. Precisely, it is called “rot at the inner core.” That rot existed prior to the Russian empire, comprising much of Eastern Europe, finally collapsing with the rise of the Bolshevik revolution. That rot pre-existed the fatal collapse of the Roman empire. It also caused Great Britain to cease to be a great naval power. That rot is not what Mr. Nethercutt is prepared to address for this nation, here and now. Especially a group of Gonzaga students.

Oh and by the way, ISIS isn’t a “group,” it is a terrorist Jihad movement that is going around slaughtering everything in sight. But then I figured old Nethercutt, would suddenly be among the GOP who’d totally downplay the importance that a Jihadist group like ISIS, would have post 4 November 2014. It is no longer a terrorist Jihadist organization, it is now a “group” that we must somehow deal with. Over that, I had to roll my eyes. Just as I had to roll my eyes at Nethercutt’s assumption that we might eventually have to act unilaterally. That is where the rot within America’s inner core, becomes a little too glaring.

You must have the finances available to effectively create a strong military. Which also means, you should not be indebted to a viable enemy who can call in the chips at any time. Say China, for example. Therefore, since it takes tax dollars to finance a strong military, to also take care of our veterans after any war, then that is a whole lot of money we are talking about here. Under our present circumstances (and that is despite the new employment figures), we don’t have a sufficient tax base to effectively supply a military in equipment or boots on the ground, in order to even act unilaterally. Mr. Nethercutt never expressed whether his particular assumptions about our ability to carry out such a unilateral mission, was ever challenged. Well, it should be. Rot in the inner core of this country can be found elsewhere. How do we treat in reality, the homeless? Facebook as social media, allows a lot of stuff to be put out there, of photos, memes, videos; regarding our real world social ills. “Cop block” photos or videos routinely show up. “No veteran should be without a job, etc.” can be found on the news feeds. 34 cities now criminalize the feeding and housing of homeless people. Nothing is suggested when it comes to the latter, whether the public officials of the cities in question, would prefer instead to offer jobs, and return the homeless population to a more productive life. Maybe the surer bet of eradicating a homeless population, would be to actually invest in fellow human beings. Or, as was also found in a following “Inlander” editorial, Rachel Dolezal discusses very poor race relationships in Spokane, Washington. One glaring example of why this country could totter on the brink of collapse, was when white students posted anonymous messages online, such as: Do black lives matter? No, they do not! I will also bet you, that the same anonymous white students, would say how much a fertilized egg is a human being at conception, and no it should not be slaughtered. I could have labeled this blog post “Ironic,” but I don’t think it would be quite as fitting.

If the midterm elections proved anything at all, it had absolutely nothing to do with our “freedoms,” “rights,” or “democracy.” Outside of two left wing political parties, GOP and Democrat: seeing who could scramble the most for money, who could lash out harder at the POTUS, who could make the most cynical use of hate and fear; but who couldn’t seem to get through their heads that if you want the power, there is a responsibility that comes with it. Meaning, now that the GOP have that majority they craved, they should no longer act like whiny and tantrum throwing two year old children; but they still do. Circa, Mitch McConnell, who is only “Senate Majority Leader” when the next Congress convenes, came out declaring how he could tell the President what to do, even how to think. I don’t believe that the U.S. Constitution gave a belligerent two year old the right to tell the President how he should tend to his business. Mitch McConnell actually has nothing to say to the President at all, unless it comes to “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Considering that the GOP chose for six years to not work with President Obama, McConnell doesn’t have any business telling the man how he should act. Whether he can issue executive orders or not. Instead, it is the voters who should tell McConnell, what he needs to do for them. I have no doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin recognizes how much in disarray our American politics really are. Undoubtedly, that is why he is getting in our faces with overt displays of military power.

SCOTUS loves corruption, the midterm elections were all about, the voters were persuaded that getting past a deep recession/near depression was not in their best interests. Having a better health care/health insurance option, should not work on the voters’ behalf either. So speaking of, a tape surfaced in which (I’ll take it that is was definitely out of context but…) a consulting guru on the Affordable Care Act, during its drafting and legislative phases, regarded the American populace as, “stupid.” Better than a year later, that same guru would only have been proven correct.

What’s at risk?

October 15, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court decided to sit out the gay marriage ban debate in their non decision of only a few weeks ago. Since that happened, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, Governor Otter personally demanded an emergency stay which was also ultimately struck down, and now gay marriages are legal in Idaho set for today: 15 October 2014. I didn’t write any letters to the editor extolling the civil rights victories for gays. I don’t figure that I need to, since I am going to make my opinions far more public than the local newspapers. And that is, by putting them on this blog. I am not a Christian, I do not have religious issues with gays and lesbians partnering up and marrying if they wish. What I go by, is what the Declaration of Independence had to say in part, all men (humanity) are created equal. And being equal, have the rights granted by their creator, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will also argue, that the founding fathers insisted on this country becoming a secular nation. You are free to believe anything you wish, as long as it is a privately held belief. As for what amounts to your public morals; the real argument should be, how you treat your fellow man, not what you impose as religious law on people who can legitimately disagree with you. Which a lot of big government religious activists have yet to wrap their heads around.

So, on this 15th of October 2014, the Coeur d’Alene Press was already hosting at least two anti-gay marriage letters to the editors, and one statement by a writer who saw an economic upside to it. One letter headline read “What went wrong,” another letter headline warned that marriage as an institution was at risk. Of course it is, and heterosexuals put marriage as an institution at risk every day. But you don’t hear about that when it comes to the big government religious activists. Where they are concerned, someone else (such as the gays, for example) must be at fault, because heterosexuals can’t handle having a marriage between one man and one woman. To the heterosexuals I argue this, get your own house in order before you complain about what your neighbor does. The institution of marriage is more at risk because of the attitudes and habits of the heterosexuals, than it will ever be from gays and lesbians.

No, it isn’t marriage that is at risk, it isn’t because you are a heterosexual that you are at risk. Rather, it has to do with the push back from the secular base of this nation, that has successfully won ground from the new religious left. I could also see where that push back could find its way into the voting booths in November, as well. When people finally get tired of the following:

  • Race, gender based, against the elderly and the poor (because they might vote Democrat), voter suppression laws
  • Religion as an excuse for government to regulate women’s reproduction and reproductive health to the most extreme measures, that can be set into law
  • Political ideology that is more about fear mongering than actually addressing a positive future for the citizens of the country
  • Blatant corruption that a recent SCOTUS decision now declares can be unimpeded by law

Then the voters will do their own push back at the polls. You can be certain of it.

Last night, the latest “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” had a particularly hilarious response to the “get money out of politics” movement. Who of course fund raise constantly for money to win against the GOP come November. Under the circumstances, maybe the argument should not be “get money out of politics.” The argument should instead be, does your candidate behave as though he or she has an intelligent grasp of the issues? How about his or her constituents? Can you say that the opposing candidate has been caught in numerous lies? How about felony charges and convictions? Jon Stewart made particular fun of the Democrats last night, and personally, I think they deserved being mocked. But I think that both he and I would personally agree, that we could work toward erasing corruption in politics. Currently, that corruption centers around the GOP. If Democratic affiliated groups are spending more money, to try to get their candidates into office; it is because they are plainly fed up with the current Congress and its failure to “do something.”

A slightly different theme, but still in line with the headline of this blog post: “What’s at risk?” A Facebook “discussion” came up recently about the cons and pros about GMO or frankenfood. With respect to Monsanto, who insists on inserting insect repellent into seeds. Or rendering corn, “Round Up” proof. What has not been studied, are the long term consequences of levels of toxicity, that may factually build up in a human body. That like Mercury in fish, may not just digest and ultimately pass out of the human body. If it hasn’t been studied, because Monsanto a chemical company wishes to broaden their market base and rushes these doctored seeds out to some very eager agribusiness buyers, then yes there would be a legitimate concern by a good many people as to whether such seeds would produce edible food. IE, food that won’t sicken or kill you. So, on Facebook were a couple of fellows who took turns trying to defend the “science” behind frankenfood. We unlock the secrets of DNA through scientific research, and companies like Archer Daniel Midland or Monsanto, commercialize transmutation by artificial means. I fail to find the “scientific” method behind what amounts to the work of mad scientists. If there are no long term studies about the health effects of frankenfood, if companies like Monsanto pour a lot of money into opposing anti-GMO ballot measures through out the 50 states, then I think we obviously have a problem. But no one among the Monsanto apologia choir is discussing the countries that have banned frankenfood and with good reason. Thus, while populist liberalism is all about making fundamental changes in the social, political, and economic order in a nation. Monsanto’s corporate liberalism, is all about making fundamental changes about our food supplies. With no thought about the long term consequences to our collective health; because the bottom line is all about profits, not people.

Hilarious politics

September 17, 2014

Of course it is not just Facebook where certain arguments will be presented in a written, photographed, or possibly a digital format. You could find the same thing on various websites or YouTube video. Very precisely on websites where pure bigotry against President Obama takes center stage. Or YouTube videos in which the ignorant misrepresent their understanding of another language, plus the era and context in which it would have been initially penned or spoken. Say for example, biblical scripture found in the Old Testament. Over the course of centuries in which the Old Testament (also the Tanakh) would have been jotted down, and those books contained within it finally accumulated together and canonized, there were pagan cultures surrounding the Jewish people. But as of yet, there were no Islamic peoples or Christians then in existence. Christianity did not officially get its start until well into the first century AD. Islam as a religion, did not arrive until about the Tenth century AD. So, I don’t know how the original Jewish language of many thousands of years before, could be made to apply to Barack H. Obama’s name today. But someone trying to employ a scripture out of Isaiah, I believe, tried to do just that. Just as they tried to photoshop “devil horns” for the man, during his ISIL speech. The latter in particular was being shared extensively throughout Facebook.

I also saw this hilarious photo of a guy writing this comment on the dusty back window of his car, to display his foolishness to the world: Obama is the antChrist. That’s right, “ANT CHRIST!” Just as more locally, the ignorant GOP and “TEA Party” types post “your savior” Obama, to the Democrats who also happen to post comments to the Spokesman-Review website. However, “savior” and “Christ” are not interchangeable. A savior is a person who preaches a message, to inform people of what it would take for them to lead a better life. A happier and more healthy life. Christ however denotes a “king.” Being an Aramaic word for king. And the background for saying someone is a “Christ,” has to do with that person being anointed for that particular role or task. This is according to some religious scholars.

Well then, “anti” having two meanings: in opposition to, or false; coupled with “anointed one” or “king;” then an “anti-Christ” is a “pretender to the throne.” In this case, “the throne of God.” A person who tries to make certain claims to greatness under very false pretenses. Really, is it all that hard to figure out? In Jesus’ lifetime, he literally did warn his followers and disciples against people who make specific false claims. Inclusive of seeking to cast out demons in Jesus’ name. At one point Jesus warns that his putative followers “will not find him” among those who falsely make this or that claim. At another point, Jesus said of those who would “cast out demons in his name,” that if they have not followed the teachings of the master, Jesus would not know them. Here are two very telling examples of false teachers or would be false leaders. Expounding on the same theme, the Apostle Paul would later declare, “do not follow this man or that, do not even follow me…” For everything that was being instructed, presumably was so that his congregations would follow Christ (King) Jesus. The argument of false teachers and being warned against them, was around even before the Book of Revelations.

With the Book of Revelations, the anti-Christ took on the dimensions of an ultimate tyrant. In the centuries that have since followed the writing of this last book in the New Testament; regrettably, there have been many occasions for ultimate tyrants to make an appearance. Only as human migration entered new territories, has the reach of any “ultimate tyrant” expanded. Under the agenda or cause deemed either religious or political, agendas or causes for which wars and invasions were made possible, could an ultimate tyrant lay waste to far more territory and many more people’s lives. With the advent of greater and more sophisticated technology, could even more property and territory be absolutely decimated, and many more lives lost. To pin the “ultimate tyrant” label on a single president however, because you hate the fact that he isn’t white and a Republican, with an “American name” (what ever that is supposed to mean); must be met with a derisive snort. We still do elections here,we can replace any politician every two, four, and six years. “The ultimate tyrant” is the guy you can not get rid of.

Citizens United among other recent SCOTUS decisions has led to “Corporations are people,” “as people, corporations can claim religious exemptions to federal laws,” “money is the same as speech.” SCOTUS rulings that give the Koch bros, Monsanto, those who comprise “War Inc.” (another video viewed on Facebook), unlimited access to the same government that the voters install through our election cycles. With understandable cries of alarm from the (old) left about the rise of Oligarchies. Or even more out there, fascism. With reference to the Book of Revelations, the third horseman of the apocalypse was a man who carried weights and measures. You know, a man of business. If in the course of his career his apocalyptic ride was to bring the false king in his wake (according to the History Channel), well that false king wouldn’t necessarily be found in our Presidential elections. Rather, the false king is a coalition of people who turn politicians into corrupt puppets, so that they will only be answerable to the money used to buy them. With very brazen ads to that effect found even on Facebook. George Bush was a businessman (however he failed in his various ventures) before he entered politics. You can say of him (as you can say of any Republican desirous of having him become President) that the conditions were set up to make our current circumstances (where business oligarchies rule behind the throne) possible. After all, government should be run more like a business. More correctly, government ought to have precisely one special interest that it most surely should answer to, those with the most influence and money to make things happen. As noted above, the ultimate tyrant is the guy you can’t get rid of. With plenty of money to spend or otherwise hoard, ultimate tyrants could rise up in an otherwise “capitalist system” and use that system to beat humanity into compliance. We already saw the start of it when President George Bush entered office. Given the international reach that these people like the Kochs, Waltons, Monsanto, etc. have now; the world is quite ready for the rise of an anti-Christ all right; but he isn’t in the White House. No, they are the ones buying judges and politicians.