To Answer The Proposal

“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with”
Thomas Sowell

Intentional misunderstanding of question.
A policy is created to address a valid issue.
Policy is not synonymous with a fire.
A disastrous policy is using gasoline to put out fire. The replacement is water.

To address the question,
It would behoove all of us to ensure that everyone in this nation is healthy and can make informed decisions.
We have to decide what 'healthy' entails and how we have to decide how we can guarantee that.
The same goes for informed decision making.

The government has proven that it is ill informed about all of the above.
The alternative is for the people to decide what they need.
The alternative is empowerment and community

Benghazi

Here's the thing...

The only people there were CIA agents

Benghazi was a CIA operation that went bad
The people they were dealing with or the enemy of the people they were dealing with, used an inflammatory video to attack the consulate (read: CIA post).
The CIA called more CIA agents to help.
You don't call in the military into a CIA operation when they don't know anything about it.
The government is not going to tell the public about a failed CIA operation.

Sexist thought of the day

Men set lower standards for women because they think women are inferior.
Then they get mad because women are held to lower standards.
Then when women try to reach higher standards, men laugh at them or tell them to stop trying because they think women are supposed to be inferior.
Or men are disgusted/outraged because they think the women are trying to be manly...
Hence the reason you should do whatever the fuck you want
and set whatever goals you want for yourself
Realize you're probably going to fight for what you want.
And when you reach your goal, cherish those who supported you
and piss on those who tried to stop you by offering to help them reach their goals (don't worry, their pride will usually stop them from accepting your help).

and hold a moment of silence for those women who think women are inferior and don't support other women in reaching their goals.

I suck at sports

In order to be competitive, you have to give a fuck about what other people are doing.
I can't be bothered to pay attention to other people.
I'm not about that life

Faith

Belief

Acceptance that something exists or something is true

Faith

Complete trust and confidence in something or someone

Belief and faith are two different things

Belief is a firmly held opinion or conviction

Faith is letting that acceptance guide and control your life

Deep Thought

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor doeshuman life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg—despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby—why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

-Carl Sagan 

A true Republic

A truly representative Government

I'd like to change the voting system to be more representative
A person could petition for a seat and if they get the apportioned amount of signatures, they get a seat. And anyone can revoke their signature at any time.  When the number of signatures goes below the apportioned amount, they lose their seat.


Constitution
article 1
section 2
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

http://static.newrules.org/voice2004/askdave/23askdave.html


Or what if, a person campaigned to be a representative in congress.
That person got 30,000 people to sign a contract with them. The contract stated that they would be the representative for that 30,000 people.

One argument is that congress would become too big
The efficiency of decision making goes down as the number of decision makers goes up

Life of a politician

If something good happens during your reign, your supporters say you get all the credit;

Your critics say it happened in spite of you

If something bad happens, your critics say it's all your fault;

Your supporters say you had nothing to do with it

And you just do what you are told

Self sustainment

Self sustainment should start with self.  Every person should be able to do as much as possible to support themselves without outside influence.  This could be taught by the family, self taught, or schooled.
Then the community should be self sustaining.
Not relying on state or national governments, not relying on national corporations.

No Truth in Your Media

Don't watch much Television

Don't trust what I hear on the radio

All Biased

All incomplete

There may be facts but no truth

It's all make believe

It's all one sided

Not much to rely on

No role models

No healthy examples

Question what you see

Question what you read

Question what you hear

What happened to true journalism?
What happened to the what, where, who, when, and how?
Now we have the pundit.  People who rarely know what they are talking about but think everyone should care about their opinion.
The news exists, not for facts or truth, but for ratings and advertising.
Say what the people want to hear so they buy the stuff that is paying your salary.
And we are all left to do our own research, or more likely, not care anymore.

Queerest of the queer

you want people to be more comfortable with their sexuality. These new generations are just that.
If you want people to come out of the closet, you're going to have to deal with the fact that most of them are not going to be like you.

The people coming out of the closet don't act like you, they don't like what you like, they don't look like you, they don't like your labels.
This is something older lesbians are going to have to get over.
You get pissed when women identify as lesbians but sleep with/kiss men. So no one wants to identify as lesbian anymore
you talk shit about/ostracize anyone who identifies as bisexual, so no one wants to identify as bisexual.

People are now in a place where they don't feel the need to identify as anything, they will get shit from all sides for whatever they choose to identify as.

Teenagers don't even know what the hell they are. They discover. They don't need a label. They don't need to act the way you want them to

Am I hearing this right?

If a child bullies another by broadcasting their torment, And the person being tormented commits suicide. Fuck them. They're weak. The tormenter should face no consequences

But if a man's own words are recorded by another, and that man loses his job. The person recording him is a worthless piece of shit and should be prosecuted to the fullest level.

capturing someone's face or actions or words, in any situation, is a violation (of rights).

Deep Thought

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me

Ayn Rand

Credit where credit is due

Foundation of the -isms

I'm going to change my view on this
There are four foundations for the -isms.
The fourth one being power.
Maybe the most important reason I don't use the -ism words
Is privilege the same as power?
If you have no power over me, can you be a part of the -ists?
Or are you just an ignorant delusional asshole?

Realize that you are talking to people who think discrimination and prejudice are good things. And no one should be scorned for antagonism because...free speech

Now, If you call someone a racist, that means you are playing the race card and the issue you are actually addressing should be minimizes and disregarded.
Then the concentration should be on you and how you are the actual racist. And the person you called a racist is actually the one being oppressed (or just say something negative about black people. It's a good catchall.).

*previous post

I'm a little black and white about the -isms. Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, etc.
When talking to people, I usually don't even use the -ism words.
I like to talk about the foundations.
For me, there are three foundations for the -isms.
Ignorance,
Delusion (usually of grandeur). Actually, the basis of this delusion is usually fear.
and Assholes.

Ignorance you can fix. It's usually the fact that they haven't had much interaction with 'the other'(that they even think there is an 'other'). They believe what they've been told. They think the media speaks truth (big no-no). They rely on preconceived notions with little facts.
All curable with time and patience.

Delusion is a little harder. This is based on passed trauma (or conceived trauma) It might take some serious counseling. Their mindset might never change.

Then there's the asshole. You have to watch them and realize that they're not focused on the -isms. They're focused on hurting people or finding entertainment from people's suffering. I wouldn't recommend interacting with them. Call it what it is and move on.
*Last posted 5/16/11

White Privilege = House Negro

Divide and conquer

I think, in order to get people to acknowledge their privilege, you have to show them how that privilege oppresses them.
Privilege is just that, privilege. Privilege is something that can be given and taken away by a more powerful force.
White privilege was given so that workers would be divided.
White privilege was given by the heads of private industry in order to prevent worker (slave) revolt

What's happening now, is that white people are seeing white privilege as the sham it is, but in a clouded mirror.
They see that white privilege is not real power.
We've never met the people with real power. The people who give white people their privilege and take it away.

The leaders of private industry have us so twisted that we still fight amongst ourselves when white people see that their privileges are being taken away.
What white people need to see now, is that the heads of industry don't need white privilege as much as they did back then.
We are successfully divided. They use class privilege now.
They don't need working white people to have more privilege because they have successfully created a global economy where they can oppress us and people in other countries.
They can use class and nationalism to divide people of the world.
So when white people talk about their current struggles (struggles that people of color have been going through for centuries before), they need to know that their privilege is being taken away. Because it's almost unnecessary.
The leaders of private industry have complete control over our government, our laws.
The leaders have created a culture where they can redistribute wealth to the wealthiest individuals and make us believe that the poor and people who can't find jobs are the ones threatening our prosperity.
And yet, institutional racism, the racism where a person of color is sent to jail with higher frequency, higher sentencing, less opportunity for jobs and housing when they get out of prison, is still working very well.
When white people get more government assistance, yet the face of welfare is black... we're successfully divided.
The seeds have been planted and the trees are fruitful
WE have fallen for the best strategy of the minority (wealthy) against the majority (working class).
Divide and Conquer

There is no need for an apology.
There's no need to be ashamed to be white
There is a need for seeing the part you play in a game you didn't create
There is a need to see that working class white people are pawns
You didn't create the game. and it's time to stop playing along



We're made to believe that marginalized groups had no true power to begin with. When really, their power was just systematically taken from them
and barriers people can easily overcome, or rather, traits about them have become barriers because we perceive them to be barriers.
All people are strong if they are allowed to find their strength and learn how that strength can be used in cooperation to form a better society

Patriarchy is still about providing false privilege to men by denying women access to the tools (and each other) that give them power.
It's still about this false premise that women are weaker or that being a woman is somehow a physical barrier to something
But when you look back on your childhood and the childhood of our ancestors, you see how men are given tools and training to develop their physical strength and women are not given those same tools.
You see the difference in physicality of the women who are given those tools at an early age.
The idea of women has the weaker sex is a lie. It's a product of male privilege that, like white privilege, can be given and taken away

patriarchy is still about power and control of the few over the many.
It's still about wealth. Patriarchy is about maintaining power and control over property, resources, people
The leaders just changed the nature of the game.
It's still divide and conquer.

It's easy to exploit perceived weaknesses. It's easy to convince a person they are weaker than others, even when they are not.
It's easy to exploit perceived weaknesses in an individual when you demonize cooperation.
An entire family who is oppressed by one man, because they are pitted against each other and don't realize that they can overcome that one man if they unite as a true family.
Physical and mental barriers are barriers because we refuse to cooperate.
We refuse to acknowledge the strength of those with perceived weaknesses.

Originally posted 3/14/11

Purpose of Government

A forum where people come together for the purpose of protecting their rights

From plantations to prisons

Why oppression isn't a thing of the past

And we can't just get over it

take money out of science

accept the fact that everything you see/hear/read is shrouded in bullshit of some kind, to some degree

I would say to do your own experiments, but people have been known to bullshit themselves.

The pure scientific method works
But it's like the free market.
Ideally, it's great;
in reality, It doesn't work as well as you think it does.

When you add the human factor, things get screwed up

The best thing you can do is know what the bullshit filters are and try your best to remove them
Go straight to the source of the data and know how to interpret it. Don't let someone else interpret it for you.

And lastly, admit that you are going to believe what you want to believe, regardless.

There will never be a free market.

The realistic point is that capitalism as you want it, will never exist.
The 'free market' will never exist

Certain People will always have the means to use force to subjugate others
Certain People will always want to use force to subjugate others
Power, control, and Profit will always come before humanity.

This has been proven all throughout history and to the present.

It is true that America has never had a free market because private enterprise would never allow it.
Private enterprise took the minimal government we had and changed it into the USA. They increased the power of government in order to increase the force they could exact over workers and citizens.

If you think those who have power over the government are just going to lose all power because you get rid of the government, you are mistaken.

There will never be any such thing as a minimalist government because that does not serve the people who are in power.
IF you tear down the means for people to control others, they will create other means.

Again, look at the USA. Economic powers controlled America through the British government. They kept power even after British lost it's hold on America.
They turned the articles of confederation into the constitution. And they are the reason we are where we are now.

Realize that any freedom you want, you will have to fight for it daily.

Deep Thought

Race is an economic construct

BOOM!

wage math

So people are balking at minimum wage increases
Stating that people are asking to be paid more than they are worth

Let's look at worth on the other side

What is a no-skill worker worth compared to the owner of a company (assuming they are the highest paid person)?

Let's look at it in raw hours
Say a part time employee works 20 hours a week
A motivated owner works 140 hours a week
That means that motivated owner is putting 7 times more effort in.
Let's double it for skill
14 times more

Hell, let's triple it,
I can deal with an owner making 21 times more than the people who actually produce and sell the product.
I can even deal with 70 times more

But that's not reality is it?
McDonalds decided that their CEO's 'Fair Share' was 1,196 time what their workers make. Without ever flipping a burger, or taking an order, or cleaning a floor, or fixing a fry machine

Do you want to talk about stock? Well, new CEOs usually don't buy stock with their own money. The company gives it to them. So the stock is a part of their earnings.
It's not anything they sacrificed for.
They didn't risk any of their own money.

And I wonder what would happen if a CEO would actually give their workers more of the fruits of their labor?
Oh, the CEO would quit. Well, good ridden. There are others that can take their place.
And if no one takes their place?
Fine. I don't eat McDonalds anyway. The companies that do shaft their workers don't make anything that betters anyone.


Or you want to talk about raising prices?
So you want me to back off because someone making 1000 times more than their workers would rather screw customers than make maybe 500 times more than their workers instead?
You'd rather get mad at me for wanting better wages for workers. Or wanting more people employed at better wages.

But you ignore or even praise the person who could actually make a difference yet chooses not to for their own gain.
You make excuses for the people who can give better wages and jobs so people don't need government assistance.

you want to talk about small business?
Small business isn't the problem
Small business pay their people much better in terms of what they make compared to their workers.
Small business doesn't pull in the capital or profits that these big companies do.
These companies are the reason small business has it so hard. Yet you want to blame it on workers who actually want to be able to live off of what they earn.

You can scoff at people for judging the person who makes 500 to 1000 times more than the people actually producing the product and selling it. But when someone tries to fight for the people who actually make the profits, you say they are not worth it.

People are arguing about a person asking for a higher minimum wage when owners are the ones increasing their wages at the expense of the workers.
The other argument is that the higher minimum wages would increase prices
Like this is an automatic force of the economy and not a consequence of greed
When a company makes a billion in profit (And still complains that the market is 'challenging'), and thinks they have to raise prices in order to raise their worker wages,
fuck them.


You ask people to justify a minimum wage increase
Justify a person making 200 to 300 times more than their workers


talk about worth

Entitlement

word of the day

noun

the fact of having a right to something
• the amount to which a person has a right

New Oxford American Dictionary

the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment

Entitle

to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim

Random House Dictionary

There's a difference between what you are inherently allowed to do and what people are supposed to do for you or give you.

There is a big difference between rights that are given to you by law and intrinsic rights

The issue is, if someone is given something, should everyone else be given the same thing.
Should everyone have the same access to all entitlements?

Article iv section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

14th amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

late 14c., "to give a title to a chapter, book, etc.," from Anglo-Fr. entitler, O.Fr. entiteler (Mod.Fr. intituler), from L.L. intitulare, from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + titulus "title" (see title). Meaning "to bestow (on a person) a rank or office" is mid-15c. Sense of "to give (someone) 'title' to an estate or property," hence to give that person a claim to possession or privilege, is mid-15c.; this now is used mostly in reference to circumstances and actions. Related: Entitled; entitling.

And to the idea of entitlements being a current generational occurrence
Thinking you have the right to take someone else's land by force is pretty entitled
Thinking you can own other people is pretty entitled
Thinking you can beat and rape your wife freely is pretty entitled
America has been dealing with entitlements since it's inception
It is not a new thing
It's not even worse than it used to be
Original: 2/21/12

Deep Thought

...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774)

Deep Thought

"Just being you.. Because you're never to be repeated again in the history of mankind.. So, why not be the most beautiful authentic version of yourself" -Charlotte Sullivan.

Deep thought

‘In politics, there are no permanent friends or foes, only permanent interests’ (Bismarck)  

Declaration of liberty

The foundations of my perfect society are liberty
And informed consent

Everyone is completely autonomous
In their person and their property

And all interactions must be consensual
And that consent depends in all parties being fully informed of their associations

All people have the inherent right to self defense and the defense of others


"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. (or prohibit such actions that restrict the liberty of another)
(And those laws can only be enacted by the consent of the governed)
Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its (law) foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes."

There needs to be a clause in the constitution that mandates that government powers are explicitly granted by the informed consent of the people
Meaning a person would not have to follow a law or fund a law they didn't consent to

updated from
*9.19.12

The Hebrew Spiritual Anthology

The Bible is a beautiful peace of artwork. An anthology written thousands of years ago in languages that have evolved along with the culture of those who wrote it. It tells the collective story of a people. Their struggles, their migration, their victories, defeats, and, apparently more importantly, their relationship with this thing they called יהוה
(the name may have been lost in translation)

A body of rulers (the church) amassed the writings of these ancient people and compiled stories that they thought showed a consistent picture of a thing they called 'God'. This thing called 'God' is used to help them rule to this day.

Like any other form of artwork, people tend to interpret it based on their own experiences, emotions, and needs. Sometimes the artist fails to construe the true meaning of their artwork because they can't overcome simple human perceptions.

I agree that it's the people who teach it, interpret it, read it, perceive it rather than the writing itself. It seems that people lose sight of basic reading comprehension skills when they read sacred texts. The skeptics and the apologetics
It's why I'm all for the Bible (at least certain portions of it) and other religious texts being taught in public schools. Put on the reading list right along with Crime and Punishment or the Illiad. Make students do a book report discussing the same concepts you would for the tales of the Brothers Grimm.

Oddly enough, before I went to Kuwait, I had a cultural brief where the man told us that you just can't pick up the Quran and read it. Reading and understanding the Quran takes many years of learning. And don't even try to read it in english; that's just a waste of time.

I've always thought the biggest problem with religious texts is that people throw reading comprehension out of the window.

What is the bible, really?
Who wrote it? Was it written by one person or by multiple people?
Was it written all at once or over a long period of time?
Were the events written as they happened or did a significant amount of time pass before the events were recorded?
Was the bible written as one book or was it a bunch of smaller documents compiled well after they were written?
who compiled these documents? Why did they?
Are there more documents? Why were they left out?

WHat language was it written in? how many times has it been translated? Has it been translated from it's original language directly to english or was in translated into other languages before it got to it's present english form(won't mention how the english language has changed)? Is every english version translated the same?

Who said it was inspired by God? What does inspired mean?
Who said that God wrote the bible? is there really any passage in the bible that makes that claim?
Every other book (fiction and non-fiction) is read with consideration for the person who wrote it and the time/culture they wrote it in? Why isn't this considered when reading the bible?

If you read a book about thomas jefferson and found it inspirational to your life, are you obligated to follow all of Jefferson's teachings and do everything just like jefferson did?

*Edited
original Oct 2010

Deep Thought

What is liberty without love?

Deep Thought

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
White Racism and Black Consciousness
Steve Biko

Taxation is NOT Theft

Taxation is extortion

When you are hired for a job, you sign a w-4.
That form allows your employer to withhold taxes from your paycheck.

Who has refused to sign a w-4?

Taxation is not slavery either. The comparison is ignorant.