Is It Just Me?

Not Obsessed

2008-01-09T13:18:00.000-08:00

I have ignored this blog for so long. Sigh.

Regarding the current race for president, I am soooooo tired of the obsessive 24/7 coverage that gives us redundant playbacks of all of the "critical" moments of the campaign and the constant coverage and analysis.

Here is my take. Any, any one of the Democratic candidates would be better than any of the Republican candidates.

Right now, the pundits are microscopically examining the results of the Iowa and the New Hampshire voting. What's the big deal?

This election will most likely offer up a strong candidate from the Democratic party that will either be a woman or a non-white male. What a historic event. I could live with either or Edwards for that matter (or Kucinich for even further afield that matter).

What I cannot live with is someone who believes the world is flat, evolution is an illusion, that walls should be built around the United States, that starting wars is the proper model for a world super power, that tax cuts are the solution, and that global warming is caused by trees.

I look forward to the election.

Global Warming

2007-04-08T17:34:00.000-07:00

I am reminded of the old story about the frogs in the pot. I've never actually tried it so I don't know if it is true. I will gladly bow to those who are more sure about that than I. You know the one I'm talking about though. It's the one that says that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right out, but if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and then turn the heat on gently, it will sit there until it boils to death. What do you think? Is it true?

I was just reading another blog out there in this amazing soapbox space where folks who live south of where I do were railing about the weather and how cold it was. There were the usual comments about global warming and Al Gore and how it's a bunch of horse puckey and he's an idiot. Perhaps. We humans are easily spooked and have jumped to a number of wrong conclusions about the earth and what it is and what part we play on it.

Some hold that we are the top of the heap and blessed by a supreme being and have some divine role to play out as foretold in whichever religious text you care to quote. Some say that we are just in another natural cycle that causes the temperatures in the air and the oceans to rise and fall. Some believe that the earth is a sentient being and we are no more than a form of virus or bacilli that live on the very most outer layer. I have learned that when I jump to conclusions, more often than not, I am seldom as right as I might wish.

There seems to be little disagreement about one thing however - temperatures are rising overall all over the globe. Whether mankind is the sole cause of this or not can be debated ad infinitum, but let me go out on a limb here and say that to rule out a role by mankind, and to say that we should not try to rethink our present lifestyles and energy usage, is to hear ourselves croaking in the pot.

The scientific data, as far as I can tell as a layman, is very clear. The correlation between the rise in average temperatures in the air and in the ocean is too tight to the increase in carbon dioxide to be coincidental. You can argue that we are not the sole cause of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and as far as that argument goes, you would be correct, but humankind and its burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause. You can call those who say that "idiots," but when you do, I hear croaking.

I am no angel in this matter. I am as guilty as the next with my cars, my computers, my refrigerators, my air conditioners, my TV's that never turn all the way off, my clock radios that always glow red. I am a very guilty American and have no reason to tar and feather any fellow consumer of four times the energy per person than the rest of the world. But, I also believe we need to change or we will see our children, or their children dying in this big blue pot we live in.

You can think what you wish about Al Gore, but on this one, he is right.

Drug War Gone Bad

2007-04-03T05:55:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, there were a couple of specials on our local NPR station, one local and one national, about the state of the War on Drugs and how effective it has been over the last 40 years. Predictably, the opinions were all over the map as were the suggestions for the future. For what it's worth, here is my view.

Where there is a market demand, there will be suppliers that will meet that demand. If you criminalize the product, the suppliers will be criminals. At that point, maintaining criminalization will result in four negative conditions: 1) the criminal infrastructure will be strengthened and their coffers enriched. 2) Taxpayers will be charged to persecute the "war" on illegal drugs (a largely futile exercise). 3) Citizens who lead otherwise legal and productive lives are labeled criminals for using drugs other than alcohol to alter their mood. 4) Citizens who seek a drug such as marijuana are forced into contact with a profit motivated and increasingly violent sub-culture to acquire the product. The suppliers encourage the users to try more profitable and perhaps habit forming products (taking cues from the tobacco industry) to ensure a steady cash flow.

In my view, the US government is achieving the exact opposite of its stated objectives. It puts its citizens in the position of dealing with criminals to satisfy a market condition. Those citizens then become criminals themselves. The flow of resources from the market goes to a crime-based economy that does not participate in the support of the US infrastructure (other than through bribes).

The solution (agian in my personal opinion) is to legalize drug use and supply said mood altering products through state owned outlets. At the same time, advertising of such products would be prohibited. Just because it would be legal to purchase beer, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or wine, there is no reason to encourage or manipulate the public into buying. The demand is there already.

Change the flow of money from the illegal suppliers to the legal infrastructure that is already in place. Tax the purchases appropriately. Fund treatment programs for those who need or wish to change their usage patterns. Protect the public at large from inappropriate use of drugs such as driving while intoxicated or other antisocial behavior.

Of course, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, but I continue to be puzzled that the public at large continues to participate in such a negative and hippocritical process as the "war on drugs" while happily guzzling their favorite lite beer and toking on a tobacco cigarette.

Ta ta.

Support a Terrorist - Drive an SUV

2007-02-24T07:15:00.000-08:00

Is it just me? When you hear the strident calls from the middle east saying, "Death to the infidels," don't they mean "imbeciles?" Because that's what I see when I look around me at all the giant behemoths of the beltway, each trying to outdo the other in size and weight as they jostle on the freeways and try to squeeze into the parking places while their patriot owners graze at the malls. It is so ironic to see the "Support our Troops" ribbons slapped all over the flanks of these suburban assault vehicles. Their owners ranting about the undermining of freedom from the left while they send money with every mile to the true threat to their lifestyle.

Infidel? Imbecile? Interchangeable here, really. And for those in the Middle East who wish to see us dead - have patience. We are taking care of that ourselves.

Marriage

2007-02-02T06:03:00.000-08:00

Don't know bout how it is where you come from, but up here, we periodically have to suffer through periods where the state legislature gets it in it's little head that they have to straighten out the whole debate about marriage. This predominately focuses on the question of whether same-sex marriage is a blasphemous act, or one that should be worthy of the same high regard that two-sex marriage is held (and let's just disregard the divorce rate statistics for now, oh, and the spousal abuse stuff too).

These periods of legislative navel gazing correspond usually to times when more pressing business on their agendas becomes too depressing for the poor representatives of the people, or times when the Republicans gain a majority. Let it not be said that they don't know how to worry a bone to death either. If they put as much work into the health care problem, or the environment, or funding a decent education system, the citizens of this good state would be in clover.

Now, it seems to me, that all this brouhaha is just so much bunk. There are two sides to this argument and they are not right/wrong, left/right, Democrat/Republican or anything like that. There is the civil side (legal contracts, inheritance, medical coverage and visitation, power of attorney, etc.) and the religious side (is God happy with your choice of mate). These are clear and separate issues and should be handled as such.

On the civil side, if two adults decide they want to set up shop together, they should be able to enter into a contract and everyone should be treated the same. Plain and simple. Done deal.

If two (or more) adults want God in all its names to recognize their union, they should go to their local church of choice and talk to the head shaman about having a ceremony. Said ceremony would have no impact on the civil contract.

Adults could do one or the other or both, but the contracts in each case would be unique. God doesn't decide custody or inheritance and the state does not interpret religious mores. The only time there would be interference between the two adjudicating bodies would be if a person's spiritual beliefs advocated for behavior that would contravene the laws of the land in which case the state would have the legal say so.

So, there you have it. Simple.

Patriot Act

2007-02-01T06:37:00.000-08:00

Patriots don't drive SUV's.

Passing More Gas

2007-01-31T05:59:00.000-08:00

Everybody is talking about global warming, but once again calling to mind the old adage and warning about confusing activity with progress. All of the politico's are posturing and positioning, preparing their stances so they can say "Look. Look at what I good thing I did to fight global warning." And while I am happy to see that the topic is finally being pulled out from under the carpet at last, I continue to be disappointed in the level of action.

Both at the state and the national level, the focus is being put on alternative fuels and increased domestic production. You guys just don't get it. Where's that 2x4? You need a good smack upside the head.

Global warming exacerbated by carbon-dioxide production that is a result of using hydro-carbons as a fuel source. That's gasoline, coal, AND ethanol. Plus, to grow all that corn, you need increased production and consumption of fertilizer (more petroleum product production) and then you need to convert it to ethanol, which requires more energy input using - guess what? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

No, if you want to do something right now to reduce CO2 levels, put a big, fat, tax on gasoline and gasoline products. That is the only thing that will get you and I to drive less and to start using something other than the ubiquitous Supreme Ubergazzolholic Vehicle to haul our overweight asses around while we talk over the latest goings on of Oprah with our best buds through a cell phone that has been permanently inserted into our ear.

Windmills won't do it. Ethanol won't do it. Nuclear power won't do it. Mandating another mile or two per gallon of gas won't do it. Only a sizable tax on gasoline will do it, AND it would do it right now.

Who's got the guts to put that in place? Not the Republocrats. When one filters out the political verbiage, the miracle cures, the oh-so-careful nudges that might move us in a too-little-too-late manner toward a "better" place vis-a-vis global warning - there is no one who has the gumption to propose the one thing that would have two big positive results - a reduction in driving and an increase in revenue. No one.

And who out there reading this (yes, I mean YOU - the one person to actually stop and read this far in the last two weeks) would agree to such a plan? I would bet that most of us would reject it. For it would mean we would have to think twice about firing up all six, eight, or ten cylinders in our eight foot high, 12 foot long, 14 mile to the gallon suburban land yacht to go get junior at the mall. Good God, can't have that.

Gas

2007-01-28T07:48:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or is Bush really this clueless?

I watched the State of the Union speach last week as an antidote for the depression that had been gripping me. It worked in a way, but at what price. I had to sit through an hour of listening to someone who will struggle with a two-digit IQ for the rest of his life, and who is incapable of saying more than four words at a time without stopping to let his mental process catch up with his tongue. And we, the electorate elected him! Shame on us.

So, what were the takeaways? We have to save on the consumption of gas. Well, that's good, I agree. But then, a couple of days later, our Leader By Example gets in Air Force One and flys 96 miles to give a speach on conservation. Doh!

TA #2 - we have to send more forces to Iraq to clear things up. "Just give me a chance on this one," he says. Pardon me for being a bit skeptical, but the Iraq invasion was wrong from the beginning, it was mis-handled from the start, the long-term damage caused from this debacle will take decades to fix - if ever - and you want us to "trust" you on this final part? No, no, no. I don't think so.

And finally, what would we do without Michelle Bachman? The Lips from Looney Land, the Praying Mantis from the Prairie, the Freshman Femme Fatale from the Farm State? What an embarrassment. I thought the Secret Service should have stepped in. Clearly, she was planting a device in the President's brain using her tongue. We'll see if he makes another trip here to give us Midwesterners more tips on how to conserve.

BBFN.

Booo

2007-01-19T13:11:00.001-08:00

http://buffalobeast.com/113/50_most_loathsome_2006.htm

Fear

2006-09-02T07:56:00.000-07:00

We are hammered on a daily basis with reminders that we are at war with a perfidious and evil foe, and because of this "war on terror" we must support our leaders and show no weakness. This is a lie.

If we were ever engaged in a war on terror, that war was lost long ago. It was lost when we gave up our first liberty out of fear.

On September 11th, 2001, a small cadre of fanatical fundamentalists struck a blow to the United States that reverberates yet. They made us afraid. And in our fear, we have done things that we would not have done otherwise (at least my conscience hopes that is so).

We allowed a different band of fundamentalists to wrest control of the United States government and let them walk us down a path that has led to death, dishonor, and the relinquishing of any and all good will held by other nations as a result of the tragic events of 9/11.

We lost the war on terror when we gave up our right to privacy out of fear. We lost the war on terror when we turned airports into cattle chutes and meekly place our shoes in plastic trays.

We lost the war on terror long before the degrading images came out of Iraqi prisons.

A terrorist lives for only one thing - to instill paralyzing fear in the general populace. Airport checkpoints are not going to resolve that. Torture in secret prisons hidden off shore is not going to resolve that. Giving up our constitutional rights of speech, assembly, and privacy are not going to resolve that. Building tall fences along thousands of miles of border is not going to resolve that.

The only thing that will defeat a terrorist is the lack of fear. Until we, as a nation, can once again bring ourselves to live without fear, to treat our neighbors with respect and compassion, to live up to a moral code that does not contain torture, coercion, and bullying, can we begin to defeat terrorism.

The current occupant of the White House and his fundamentalist supporters understand that very well and are one hundred percent opposed to it. They came to power, and cling to power through the subversion of those ideals. Without a fearful electorate, their words would ring hollow and empty. Without a fearful electorate, their squandering of America's heritage of freedom, justice, equality (with all of its tarnishments) would be rewarded with a swift boot (not boat) to the rear, propelling them out of office and into incarceration.

But we don't have a fearless electorate. We surrendered that to the fundamentalists long ago. We lost that war, and continue to capitulate to those who's strident language tells us that we need to be afraid.

What we need is to replace our government with reasoned individuals, who do not thrive on fear, who see the United States as one country on an earth of many countries, and while we may be the richest, or most powerful now, we have no guarantee that we will be so in the future and that we must cultivate relationships with our neighbors rather than threatening them with a stick. We need to look within ourselves and make a decision - do we continue to live in fear, or do we decide to stand up and live our lives freely, honestly, and once again provide the world with an example of what can be.

You decide.

On the Brink

2006-07-30T12:54:00.000-07:00

It's another fine kettle of fish we find ourselves in right now.

The Republicans can't govern and the Democrats are inept and so concerned with offending that they sit paralyzed. Congress pats itself on the back for raising its own salary and defending the honor of a piece of cloth while refusing to address issues of real substance (healthcare, out of control spending, corruption, desecration of the Constitution, environmental denigration, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor).

The American electorate continues to hit new lows in communal intelligence with a majority of voters believing that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida and had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Religious extremism is flourishing around the globe, setting the stage for the mother of all conflagrations. The fundamentalist Christians in the US are as dangerous as the fanatical Muslims of the east. Israel is pouring gasoline on the fires raging in the Middle East while moderates everywhere refuse to step up to the plate and wrest back control of their respective governments.

What's a poor guy to do?

The only thing I can do is vote, AND write my elected representatives and tell them when they do something bone-headed. Oh, and maybe I can write what you read here (all 35 of you who have stopped by). One more thing. I can try to raise my children to do a better job with this world than I did. I regret that I will pass my torch along after making such a mess of this.

Still Another Reason I'll Never be an Elected Official

2006-07-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but I am so tired of listening to all of the radio interviews of candidates. They are all asked the same questions and they all do the waffle dance so as not to offend anyone and not to say something that will end up in their opponent's blogs 30 seconds later. Who cares if you offend someone? Most of the electorate is beyond offense. The ratings of Fox News make my point. We are talking about electing leaders here. How can you lead without taking a direction that is counter to a portion of the electorate.

My current favorite interview question is "If elected, what steps will you take to address the energy issue and the price of gasoline?" Out come the rote answers from the playbook. If Republican, we have to find other sources of petroleum to reduce our dependence on overseas suppliers (read shifty terrorists in robes). If Democrat, we have to have balanced approach and look at renewable sources of energy. If the Green party, we need to stop killing the whales.

If someone asked me that question, my response would be:

Immediately apply a $2 per gallon gasoline tax. There is no way we are going to reduce our consumption of gasoline (and thereby have any impact on the worldwide cost of oil) unless we:

Drive less
Drive more economical vehicles
Use mass transit - and since we seem to be too dumb to figure this out on an individual basis, raising the price of gasoline and using the tax revenues for energy efficiency research will motivate consumers at their wallet, where they may actually pay attention.

Establish a rational approach to vehicle licensing so that the huge and inefficient SUV's and pickup trucks pay a much higher fee than the small, lightweight and fuel efficient Hondas and Toyotas.
Mandate that all electrical appliances have a "sleep" mode where they truly shut down and use no electricity.
Mandate that incandescent bulbs be taxed highly, fluorescent less so, and LED lights even less.
Restructure the real estate tax system to penalize the McMansion craze.
Offer prizes for innovative design ideas for community planning and transportation infrastructure redesign.

These are just a few more reasons why I will never be elected.

P.

Another Reason I will Never Have a Future as a Politician

2006-07-03T06:57:00.000-07:00

You can't pick up the paper without reading of politicians and politician wanna-be's trying to make points by proposing solutions to crime. Their ideas always fall into the same tired and shop-worn categories, i.e. more cops, more jails, longer sentences, etc.

What is that old adage about the definition of insanity? "Insanity is expecting a different result when the inputs are the same," or something like that.

More cops, more jails, longer sentences will only move more minority males off the streets (fairly or otherwise) and place them in environments that promote inhuman and degrading behavior amongst all within the walls - staff and inmates alike; place them in a concentrated criminal environment where they can really earn their criminal chops; spit them out at some point down the road with little or no redeeming skills for the society they are expected to enter; and all at great expense to society as a whole.

This is how it has been and this is how it will be. Is it just me, or does this seem a little bit insane?

An additional effect of the placement of minority males in these criminal behavior incubators is that they are not able to be present and active as a family member. The fact that they may or may not play a positive role is another issue, but by sending them to jail, society ensures that another generation of children grows up crippled.

So, what is my proposal regarding all of this? I said it once before in a post on this blog. I propose that any male that is convicted of a crime involving violence to another human being (assault, rape, murder, etc.) and where the evidence is conclusive (no room for error), they should be castrated.

No jail time - just the snip.

And if that does not put me out of the running for political office, here is another concept I would push.

If a country proposes to do violence to another political entity (go to war in other words) the leaders of that country - the political heads, the military top brass - have to be on the front lines leading the charge.

That would put a stop to a lot of fighting.

P.

Border Blues

2006-05-16T05:57:00.000-07:00

One thing about George Bush is that he never fails to provide fodder for the bloggosphere. His latest proposal to line the U.S./Mexican border with National Guard is like the ancient king who commanded the tide to stay out. Both he and King George suffered from the same delusion. One cannot alter the rules of the Universe just because you want to.

The flow of people from one country to another in search of a better life is one of those rules of nature. It is like osmosis in that nature seeks a balance and will achieve it whether you wish it so or otherwise.

If George W wants to stem the flood of our southern brethren into our country, he should work at making things better for them at home, not erecting a barrier at the border.

Silly boy.

P.

The Highs and Lows of the Drug Business

2006-04-30T07:55:00.000-07:00

While not condoning or condemning the use of drugs in a recreational mode, it is clear to me that there is a significant market in this country for just such a use. And, as we all learned in school in our study of economics, where there is a demand, there will be a supply and there will be a profit made. This is the natural rule of a capitalistic society.

The problem we face is that we pretend it is not so, and by doing that, we create a whole world of problems that plague us every day. We have forced the market to turn to illegal sources for the demanded products, creating a criminal enterprise that is clever, rich, and far more resourceful than the official drug enforcement agencies that are trying to control them. This criminal subset of our society wrecks havoc upon the populace and diverts resources that could go towards the treatment of other societal ills.

The solution is simple - decriminalize drug usage and create a legal supply chain that would allow the marketplace to function while providing a product that is free of harmful additives or adjuncts.

The arguments against this approach do not stand up under examination. Critics claim that such a move would foster addiction, breakdown society, and promote immorality. Bullshit pure and simple.

Addiction already exists and along with it comes crime to support a junkies habit; disease from shared needles and impure products; and regulation to societies lowest levels for indulging in illegal behavior. People will use these drugs whether they are legal or illegal. What we should be doing is to remove the criminal element from the supply chain, guarantee the quality of the product, minimize the medical complications related to usage, and promote better treatment options for those wishing to minimize or eliminate drug use from their day to day existence.

As for the breakdown of society one has to look no further than the nearest low income section of the closest city, or the barios of Mexico, Columbia, or Sao Paulo. Our society is broken now. Maintaining our present head-in-the-sand position merely ensures that it will remain so.

In this country, we have prison systems that are filled to overflowing and many of the occupants are there because of their participation in the drug system either as users, providers, or both. These are human warehouses that exist only to remove the unsightly from societal eyes. They do not operate as a positive change agent for us. Indeed, they function in the opposite manner - serving as training institutions for increased criminal activity. The cost to society to maintain these human cages is huge, and for the most part wasted.

Regarding the immorality of drug use, I charge that we maintain an indefensible and hypocritical position. We condemn marijuana use while celebrating beer consumption. We revile the junkie and subsidize the tobacco industry. We fund herbicidal spraying of thirdworld cash crops while funneling billions into the pockets of corrupt politicians around the world who then ensure that the "war on drugs" continues ineffectually so as to perpetuate the resulting cashflow. That is immoral.

One does not help change a person who has an irrational and unhealthy desire to over indulge in mind altering chemicals by denying them access. Someone else will be only too happy to supply them with an over priced and impure product. Such a problem must be dealt with by helping such a person address the underlying needs that drive them to such an escape. A sick society will encourage sick behavior and produce sick citizens. We are living in such a society.

I am not promoting an abstinence from drugs for I believe there is an appropriate time and place for these things, indeed a need for these things. What I am suggesting is that we take a realistic approach to societies needs and act responsibly with regard to them. We need to remove the criminal aspect from the drug business. We need to decriminalize the use of drugs. We need to provide high-quality and pure forms of drugs at reasonable prices for those who want them. We need to use the profits of those operations to fund functional treatment programs for those who wish to avail themselves of them.

We need to promote and enforce the concept of "appropriate usage" when it comes to drugs. This goes for all drugs and would include stiff penalties for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the usage or trafficking of drugs in educational settings, the harming or harassing of any citizen by an intoxicated person.

The only reason this irrational system still exists is that it is in the vested interest of the powers that be to keep it that way. The only way it will change is when we as citizens get tired of the sick junkies, the drive-bys, the muggings and thefts, and decide to do something about it. My belief is that we need to change the basic premise rather than build another prison training school.

P.

Gas Pains

2006-04-28T07:10:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular opinion, I believe gas prices should be raised, not lowered, in the US. We are a nation of junkies, addicted to cheap hydrocarbons and our greed and need have made for a lifestyle that is doomed. Why in hell should we gleefully skip down this descending path to ruin? I suspect it is because we are growing progressively dumber as a population (see my previous post here), plus we find ourselves locked into an "automotive" society that requires extensive use of the automobile to function. What I do know is that this cannot continue.

This is why I find it so repulsive when our "leaders" bravely take stands to lower the cost of gasoline for the poor suffering American. Our "leaders" who have solid financial connections to that very oil industry and have every incentive to keep the American driver firmly addicted to the black goo. And what is even harder to listen to is the constant whining of Joe Public who stands there mainlining liquid heroin into his Behemothmobile so that he can go screaming off onto the concrete arterials of the suburban wasteland.

I think that if you are not driving a vehicle that gets at least 35 mpg, driving 55 mph or lower on the freeway, or commuting via bicycle, you have no right to complain. I put those restrictions on myself as well. My car doesn't get great mileage (bout 20-23 avg) and I like speed more than the average guy, but I don't sit around complaining about gas prices. Last I checked, we still have the cheapest gas around by far. In other places of the world, it is the equivalent of $4 to $5 a gallon at the pump and it will just keep going up.

The whining we are now hearing is just the start of a giant sucking sound that will only grow in magnitude as the slumbering giant of China and their mini-me cousin India slowly awake and begin to gradually open the valves that will divert more and more resources into their hungry and insatiable maws. Joe Public, you have no idea of what is coming. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

P.

An Open Letter to Haters

2006-02-13T06:11:00.000-08:00

Dear Fuckstick,

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the problems the world faces is a lack of love? Why would anyone try to create conditions where we limit that most wonderful of all human emotions? Why would anyone, particularly a devout christian, try to prevent two people from loving one another and declaring that love for all to see? And why would that love degrade your life (miserable as it must be), or your love (though I fail to see that you are capable of actually knowing or giving true love), or your marriage (cold and barren as it may be) in any way?

I see myself as a normally intelligent, well adjusted adult and I can't think of any logical answers for the above. So why are you trying to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit two adults from declaring their love in the form of marriage? Because you are a bitter, repressed, fearful, insecure fuckstick? I think so.

You claim that if two men, or two women enter a committed relationship and ask for legal and societal recognition in the form of marriage, that this act will somehow take something away from your own marriage (assuming you found someone who was willing to commit to a lifelong partnership with you, you ignorant fuck). I don't get that. Could you expand on it?

Perhaps we (all of society) should ask those who beat their spouses about the quality of marriage. And what about those who divorce after taking that vow of lifelong commitment? What percentage of these failed and corrupted relationships are between one man and one woman (as opposed to the "perverse and profane" pairing of same sex)? Tell me about the sacredness of this.

You people make me tired. Is there a shortage of problems in the world that we really should be paying attention to? How about trying to get along and fix some of the environmental issues that have turned our food and water into a giant petri dish of uncontrolled biologic mutation. How about the unacceptable level of child poverty and piss-poor health care in this class-divided country? Perhaps we could quit playing the global bully and glutton and actually try to set a positive example.

Perhaps you could take your unbounded energy and pick another verse or two from that age old fairy tale called the bible and love your neighbor, regardless who they choose to love, and get off your hate trip for a while.

If not - piss off.

P.

Cut to the Quick

2006-01-25T07:12:00.000-08:00

So, do we want to get serious about stopping violent behavior or not? Most would say “Yes” to that, don’t you think? If that is so, why doesn’t society (us, in this example) do anything truly meaningful to put an end to violence?

This is my take on it, and if I seem to over simplify, bear with me. Who perpetrates the violence on members of our society? That one is simple – men. True, women can be violent, but in terms of statistical representation, they do not figure into the problem.

So, men are the bad guys in this scenario. Not all men by any stretch, but almost all violent offenders are male. OK so far?

If society is serious about putting an end to violence, we have to come up with a deterrent and a penalty designed to work on violent men. What might that be? Prison? Not so far. Who out there believes that jail time prevents violent crime? Raise your hands. Bueller?

Prisons are temporary warehouses and training institutions that further corrupt individuals at state expense. They are the anti-cure to violent behavior.

What else then? Monetary fines? Social shunning? Sitting in the corner?

No. If you want to get a man’s attention, look down. The answer is hanging there just below the belt line. The crown jewels. The noogies. The cajons. The center of the male universe. (drum roll) It’s time for castration. That’s right. If society wants to put a dent in violence against its people, start de-balling the perps.

Let’s look at the advantages first.

It’s cheap. It’s a one-time expense as opposed to paying the daily costs of incarceration.

It’s effective as a deterrent. Believe me, no male wants to put his balls on the line.

It’s effective as a cure. Neutered male humans would exhibit the same behavioral changes as neutered males of other species (and we certainly have no qualms about using “the snip” to calm dogs, cats, horses, etc.).

It would stop the genetic passing of violent behavior from one generation to the next. No nuts, no offspring.

What are the negatives?

Well, as always, can we be sure that we have the right guy? We have a deplorable track record when it comes to punishing the right person. This becomes even more important when the punishment is horrible and permanent.

What to do with juvenile offenders? Does society impose the same penalty? I spose on the plus side, we would have a better class of boy’s choir.

What do you think? Is our present system working? Do you feel safe from violent crime? Do you want your tax dollars being spent on human warehouses where life is even more violent and depraved that on the outside?

Maybe its just me, but I think we need a change.

Splain that agin, cos?

2006-01-23T15:53:00.000-08:00

Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill -- Verbatim Quote

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan
going to fix the problem?'

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'

What a fucking idiot.

That Sinking Feeling

2006-01-21T06:57:00.000-08:00

New Orleans is back in the news. Much ado about what the federal government did or did not promise; did or did not do. You know the drill. Is it just me, or does any of this strike you as a bit strange? I like New Orleans. I really do. That city knows how to party down. It has an atmosphere of its own – kind of a “devil may care” freedom from prohibition, if you will. Might have something to do with knowing that the “not too distant sea is looming about three feet over your “hurricane slurping” puss at any given moment. It’s a great place to visit.

But, is it a great place to live? Maybe, but should I pay you to live there? Noooooo, I don’t think so. But that’s just what the displaced New Orleanians are asking me to do. There is great hew and cry about how the American taxpayers should help to rebuild a city that is built below sea level (not all of it, granted, but a bunch). Is this really a smart thing to do?

I don’t have anything against fools that want to build their house in a flood zone, in hurricane alley, or on the edge of an unstable sea-side cliff. If someone wants to build a straw house in the middle of a tinder-dry patch that regularly suffers from wildfires – go for it I say. But don’t come running to me when it burns down and ask me to cough up so you can rebuild the damn thing in the same spot.

Why should New Orleans be any different? Why should we rebuild a city, or a portion of a city in a hole below sea level in the middle of a known hurricane path? What about this makes any sense? If you want to live there, knock yourself out, but foot the bill on your own. You want my money? I will happily give it to you when I stroll down the boulevard sipping that “hurricane” or when I ride your streetcar; for services rendered in other words. Not so you can build a house that will once again get soaked and ruined.

Just my two bits.

P.

2006-01-20T06:18:00.000-08:00

I keep resolving to do more with this spot. I mean, it’s not like there is a shortage of things that get my blood pressure up.

Take the administration’s response yesterday to the OBL tape that surfaced. “We got them on the run. We don’t negotiate with terrorists; we put them out of business.” Ya, right. You bet. They're shaking in their boots, Dub.

Or our soon-to-be-next supreme jurist. This guy’s a cannon waiting to go off and he is pointed right at the freedoms of women, minorities, and gays. This is my worst nightmare about the Bush administration – not what they can fuck up in four or eight years, but what they can do to the Supreme Court, which lasts a lifetime.

Then, there is the congress. What a snake pit. How can we be so stupid as to elect this bunch of cretins and pickpockets? I am reminded over and over that a democracy gets the government that it deserves, but it makes me sick all the same to be a part of it. There has to be a better way (see “Draft” post”).

On a lighter note, I was just at the Detroit auto show, where the worlds automakers put out their finest for all to see, and I was reminded why the American big three are in such a bucket of shit. Both Ford and GM had vehicles on display that were SO big that they would not fit through the doors and had to be lowered through holes in the roof suspended from blimps. Of particular note was the Ford truck designed on the “locomotive” concept. It would look better if there were a bison smeared across its front to demonstrate its awesome power. Then there was the GM counterpart that came with its own look-alike step ladder to enter and exit the cab. There was the “oxygen-mask” option offered on that one. It made me sad.

There was actually one correlating design factor that I noticed at the show however. I couldn’t tell which was driving which because it was one of those chicken and egg things, but it appeared that the crowd was growing to suit the design styles. I thought the State Fair was bad, but it couldn’t hold a candle to the beef that was loose on the floor of Cobo Hall. The folks that were at that show must have tipped in, on average, over the two hundred pound mark. All of them lumbering around admiring the latest Behemouthmobile.

OK, enough. Gotta quit now or I’ll have to slit my wrists and that would put a blot on an otherwise nice Friday. Have a good weekend folks.

P.

The Smoking Dilemma

2005-12-27T07:51:00.001-08:00

Let's talk about smoking.

Normally, I would say of myself that I generally subscribe to an anarchist's point of view - I don't need a judge to tell me what is right and what is wrong, and oh, by the way, get out of my face. People should be able to do what they want as long as it does not impinge on another's freedom to do the same.

When I smoked, there was nothing that riled me more than some goody two shoes who thought they could take away my right to light up when and where I wanted to. When I quite smoking, I vowed that I would never turn into that person. That was thirty-five years ago.

I would like to think that I have grown some in that period of time (and no, I'm not talking about the waist). I have had to rethink my earlier position and here is what I now believe.

Folks should have the right to do what they want as long as it does not impinge on another's right to do the same.

Hmmm, looks familiar - no? Problem is, smokers just can't do it.

What would you think if when you went down to the local pub with some friends on Friday night and every time your buddy on the left finished a beer, he would toss his cookies all over the table, your lap, your face, and even splash some into the beer you were just now raising to your lips? Would you:

A. Punch him out?
B. Punch him out and leave?
C. Stop going to the pub with him?
D. Suggest that he limit himself to intake and forgo the oral output?
E. All of the above?

If people could smoke without sharing the process with those around them, no one would complain (let's ignore the medical costs to society here. That's another kettle of fish.), but so far, no one has come up with a process that does that.

So, in my book, someone who smokes around anyone who objects violates my cardinal Rule of Freedom. For that reason, I am in favor of a complete ban on smoking in any public place. Let those who smoke do so freely in private (homes, clubs, private transport), but let those of us who choose not to smoke exercise our right to do so.

Broken System

2005-12-16T14:13:00.000-08:00

Pols grant themselves pay raise while cutting social support systems.
Business heads overseas due in part to high health costs of american system.
Average CEO makes one bazillion times the common employee wage.
Congress votes to exploit remaining natural resources in race for consumption.
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera......

Excuse me, but is it just me that thinks this system is broken? I have some suggestions. I would like others to join in a discussion on their merits and make some of their own in an attempt to find new, and more sane, ways of moving all of us into the future.

My first suggestion is the abolishment of congressional elections. Instead, we should institute a draft that is mandatory and random within current electoral boundaries. My thoughts are these:

The current electoral process is too long, requires too much money, and tends to filter out all but the rich, the power hungry, or those willing to hitch their wagon to the nearest cash-laden special interest.
An arbitrary, mandatory, and random draft would select a representative group from amongst the governed instead of the elitist bunch we have in there now.
The draftees would enjoy the same benefits as the "common" person they govern. In other words, there pay would be tied to the "average" wage, their health care would be the same as the statistical "average" american, their pension would likewise mirror the conditions of the average Joe/Joette.
They would serve one term, but their non-governmental compensation "package" (what they were earning prior to being drafted) would be adjusted up or down by a percentage to bring them closer to the "average".
Since we would be trading "experience" for "uncommitted common folk", the goverment would have to be served by a dedicated civil service, not subject to replacement by the Congress. This civil service branch would also be rewarded in a fashion that would be tied to the "health" of the average american.

These are starting points for discussion. Obviously, much needs to be thought out and diagrammed. Let the fun begin.

Neophyte Ramblings

2005-12-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

It's been a while. Part of the reason is that I am new to this world of blogs and sometimes unsure of what to do. I have so many questions. Like, how do you add other peoples blog sites to the side column of your own blog? I know one way to do it (copy the blog address of the other person's site while there, go back to your own log-in screen, go into edit template mode, search through the endless lines of html code for the right space, paste the address in, and republish) but this is such a long and arduous method. There has to be a better way.

And how do you adroitly post photos? How am I ever going to be a HNT regular when I fumble around on the most basic of things?

And what's with "tagging?" I read someone say, "So-and-so tagged me..." What does that mean?

Then there is the "meme" thing. I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole.

Not that I am complaining. I find this whole thing facinating. I spend WAY too much time just hitting the "next blog" button to see what pops up. Where else can you sit in one spot and entertain yourself with politics, religion, sex, crafts, craft/sex, diaries in mandarin, pet foto's, pet/sex, sport rants, recipes, sex/recipes, it goes on and on.

One thing I wish is that I had a laptop next to me when I read the paper in the morning for that is when I have the urge to expel my political gas. By the time I actually make it to the computer and go through my morning routine, I have lost my train of thought. Oh well. Ta.

Just Great

2005-11-19T09:14:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it is wonderful that Congress gave themselves a pay raise while cutting services to the neediest members of our society. Way to set new standards of behavior, guys. You make me so proud.

Deflation

2005-11-18T08:24:00.000-08:00

You know, I thought that when I started this blog, I would post regularly with wickedly written views of current events. What I found was that I was woefully empty of the sharp analysis I thought lurked within. No one likes to admit that they are not as good as they once thought, but here it is folks - I'm lousy at this.

I guess that in part, it is because all of this seems so banal. How much whit is called for to make light of the Bush administration? Dubya is a caricature, Cheney is a smart, but dangerously twisted madman. Rove is channeling Machiavelli to the max. Condi is scarely earnest. To me, these guys are a trainwreck in the making. To me, this is so "in your face" evident, that it requires no special talent to point it out.

So, what's with the rest of us? How is it that 50% of the electorate thinks these guys are the cat's meow? This is what really perplexes me. How is it that normally intelligent types listen to the same speeches, see the same footage, read the same pundits, and then believe this group is the best thing since canned spam?

I am completely in the dark on this. Maybe it is the lead (see first post here). Or, maybe quantum mechanics does have it right and we are living in two parrallel universes that have partially merged. Dunno. What I do know is that we (the electorate) have to get off our asses and get rid of these misguided individuals before they complete make a hash of it.

With that in mind, go to your phone right now (or your keyboard) and contact your senators and congressfolk in DC and give them a piece of your mind. Let them know how you feel. It's time to wake up.

Keep It Coming Boys

2005-11-12T08:07:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the administrations behavior strangely self-destructive?

Cheney responds to the indictment of his top aide by appointing a pit bull.

Bush lashes out at all who question the “tar baby” he stuck all of our hands and feet into by calling such behavior “unpatriotic”. Have we heard this before?

After nominating his nanny to the supreme court and receiving a predictable shellacking, he puts up a right-wing, white, male (what a surprise) that guarantees a divisive and nation bruising fight. Where is the “uniter, not a divider” now?

You know it is getting bad when the House of Representatives starts to distance itself from the administration.

I love it. Keep it up.

Gas Junkies

2005-11-04T12:55:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or are we really a nation of junkies?

The Senate just gave another display of amazing backbone by awarding the Bushies and the Oilies with an invitation to despoil one of our few remaining wilderness regions just to hold off the no-gas jags for about as long as it takes for you to read this post.

What is it about us? We seem incapable of seeing ourselves shitting in our own nest. What other animal does that? What twisted sense of values allows us to buy and drive Hummers while at the same time we complain about terrorists from the middle east and prepare to rape another pristine shoreline a little closer to home. It depresses the hell out of me.

I'm no saint. I drive a car that only gets 20-24 miles to the gallon. I even take it to the track occasionally and then I get about 10. So I don't have a lot of room to stand on a soapbox. But there is something about being in traffic, surrounded by these beheamothmobiles, looking out my side window at hubcaps, having some lamebrain on my ass with his eight million candle power quartz hallogen landing lights shining through my rear window right at eye level, that tends to get me pissed off. And why do we drive these things?

I can understand the "guy" thing where compensation is required, but what's the excuse for the well coifed suburban mommy with the cell phone in one hand and the half-gallon starbux in the other? Do we really need that extra ground clearance? I admit that some of those speed bumps can be killers, but come on.

Or maybe we require the four-wheel drive for those days when we JUST HAVE to drive through the inch and a half of slush that fell last night and junior has to get to his clarinet lesson.

Or it could be that we need to feel more secure in this dangerous world of today. I mean who knows when someone might try to fly a jumbo jet into your personal vehicle. It's a proven fact that someone wrapped in six tons of steel has a much better chance of walking away than some eco-freak in a samerai foilmobile.

Well, all I have to say is that I don't know what kind of world I am leaving to my kids. Makes me kind of sad though. That much I do know.

Why?

2005-11-01T21:35:00.000-08:00

Why do people who believe in all powerful invisible being not believe in ghosts?

Why do people who care so much for the unborn care so little for the living poor?

Why do people who believe government has no place in the market think it belongs in the bedroom?

Why do people attack gays and protect pedophile priests?

Why do people rant about "tax and spend" liberals while they bankrupt the country?

Why do people believe that someone else's love can destroy their marriage?

Answer me this.

On the Nature of Love

2005-10-29T09:10:00.000-07:00

How do you know when you have it?

What are the signs and symptoms?

Is it acute or chronic?

Is it when you feel like the interstices between your cells have filled with helium and your feet no longer touch the ground?

Is it when you wake in the hours just before the dawn and watch your lover sleep, lips slightly parted, looking like an angel?

Is it when your heart swells so that it is hard to breath when your love walks through the door, even if you have only been apart for two hours?

Is it when you sit at the dining room table after dinner and discuss what to do and you decide to stay home and play?

Is it when your friends start referring to you both in the singular, as if you had melded?

Is it when you watch your lover dress and realize that you are both old, but your mind's eye still sees the young, lithe body that once was?

Is it when you lie together in bed as spoons, skin touching skin along your entire length, and you feel the fullness of being, and long for nothing?

Is it when you watch your lover being consumed by the hot breath of the dragon, skin turning slightly yellow with an undertone of green, stretched tightly over the bones so that the surface looks shiney and transparent; you can do nothing; you wish it was you instead?

Is it when you wake one morning and realize twenty years have passed since you first felt these things, and you remember them as if it were yesterday?

Is it when you see your mortality in your lover's eyes and feel as though you have been through this before, and will again?

Dumb and Dumber

2005-10-25T09:45:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder where the responsibility of the electorate has gone?

There appears to be no shortage of outrage out there (strident on the right, disorganized on the left) over supreme court nominations, disaster response, war in Iraq, environmental stewardship, balloning deficits, and ethical lapses at the highest levels of government. How is it that we have come to this? Who is to blame?

Well, certainly, blame can be rightly put square on the shoulders of the current administration and there are no shortage of voices out there calling for just that. What is missing is the sense of outrage at ourselves. I mean, we put this sorry group of bunglers right where they can do the most damage. I don't hear anyone chastising us - the electorate - for what we have done.

Why is that? And how did it come to be in the first place?

One might say that the electorate was not entirely to blame for the first corronation of King George. The honor of that coup goes straight to the supreme court. That said, the second election is harder to wiggle out from under. Slightly more than half of the people voting in the last presidential election voted for George Bush, and that is after experiencing him for four years.

How is it that half of the participating electorate voted for a man who can barely get more than four words out of his mouth before he has to stop and wait for the next synapse to fire? How is it that the electorate bought dubya's contention that Sadam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? How is it that the few who vote in this country could believe that the proper and responsible fiscal policy should be to reduce revenue through massive tax cuts to the weathiest one percent while at the same time increasing spending by going to war against a third world tin pot on the other side of the globe (and creating the greatest terrorist training tool conceivable in the process)?

How can this be?

Want to know my theory? It's the lead in our bodies. Yup. You see, back in 1923, when the auto was just starting to make its big splash, a fella named Midgley invented something called tetra-ethyl and saw that it reduced knocking in car engines. So far, so good. Problem is tetra-ethyl is basically lead and it started going into every tank of gasoline, and then promptly out the tail pipe and up our noses. This was the case for the next sixty years or so and by 1986 when it was finally banned in the US, there were shocking amounts of lead in the environment, and also in us. In fact, those of us alive today (those born after 1923 and before 1986) have 625 times more lead in our blood than our ancestors had 100 years ago (this from Bill Bryson and his work "A Short History of Nearly Everything").

Now, as you all know, lead is a neurotoxin. It leads to physical and mental breakdowns, up to and including the staggering jags, halucinations, and death. My belief is that enough of us are mentally unhinged and dumbed down due to lead poisening that we have elected an incompetant and corrupt administration (amoung other things).

Just look at our level of entertainment if you doubt the premise. "Reality TV" (or just about any TV for that matter), modern sports, congress. I have no proof of this of course. I do wonder at the decisions being made all around me. We seem to be incapable of looking honestly at ourselves and our environment and putting two and two together. We are in massive denial (or perhaps a group hallucination).

Whatever the case, I don't get it, but that's just me.