San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 14, 2016

Amerika's Syria Policy

I was scrounging around some recently (last year) declassified documents produced by the State  Department of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika when I came across a gem.  The official title of the document, in case you want to check it yourself to prove that I am not making this stuff up, is "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015."  The best way to convey the full impact of this prime example of the imperialistic nature of the Amerikan Empire is to quote large portions of the document for you:  (the bold highlights are my own)

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weaponsprogram — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier
to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons
would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region....
Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes."

I trust you are as flabbergasted as I am by what is written above. How can the idiots at the State Department be so dumb?  How can our rulers be so ignorant of world affairs?  How can anyone in his right mind believe the things those who rule over us apparently believe?  How can they be so blindingly ignorant of the recent history of the Middle East?  How can they so misunderstand basic human nature?  And, most depressing of all, how can these people be trusted with the power to do the things they want to do?  Let's consider the highlighted points in the above document in this blog post today.
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."  Did you get all that?  Despite what you read or hear on the news, the fact of the matter is that the SDA does everything it does in the Middle East to support Israel.  I am shocked and amazed that the State Department would declassify a document in which it is flatly stated that the SDA is covertly and overtly attempting to overthrow the properly appointed government of a foreign country in order to protect Israel.  The fact that Israel is the flashpoint for all international problems associated with the Middle East is well established.  Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948 the various warring factions in the Middle East were minor players on the world stage.  They were free to wage wars of jihad against each other to their heart's content until the SDA-backed Israeli government was created.  Now the State Department simply assumes that "the people of Syria" worship and adore the Amerikan Empire and can't wait for its military forces to show up and murder their leader.  All past sins against them perpetuated by the SDA are forgiven.  The dispossession of the Palestinians is apparently no longer important to any Syrian.  No justification is given for those beliefs despite the fact they run contrary to human nature and the political history of the region.  Nevertheless, our rulers believe them to be true. 
"For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today"  This long paragraph reveals a tremendous amount about the mindset of the military and political leaders of the SDA.  In public we are always told that Iran can't be permitted to develop a nuclear bomb because some crazed Imam will eventually detonate one in Israel.  In private the State Department clearly does not believe its own propaganda.  Shockingly, this document reveals that Israel's primary motivation for its actions in the Middle East as a pawn of the SDA is something they cannot talk about in public.  What is the primary motivation for Israel in the Middle East?  To maintain, by means of SDA hegemony, its nuclear monopoly.  The SDA is terrified of the prospect that some country might actually fight back.  I have posted articles to this blog before pointing out that North Korean dictators are free to do as they please because North Korean has nuclear weapons.  The SDA will not fight any country it does not know in advance it can annihilate.  A nuclear weapon changes all of that.  Suddenly the big bully on the block has to back down.  The State Department blatantly admits that Israel engages in military strikes against Syria and Lebanon primarily because it has nuclear capability and they don't.  Why are these truths never revealed to the public via the major news outlets?  Why are we, the citizens of the SDA, not told what our rulers really believe?
"It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security...The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance....In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria."  Why is Israel's national security the business of the SDA?  Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say that one of the functions of the federal government and the military is to support the governments of foreign nations?  Why are my tax dollars being used to equip the Israeli military?  If you are not a Dispensationalist, and therefore bound to support Israel because you wrongly believe they are God's chosen people, what is the moral argument for arming and equipping a nation that came into existence by stealing the land and property of thousands of people?  Furthermore, how can the State Department confidently declare that killing Assad will end the alliance between Syria and Iran?  How do they know that the next government that arises in Syria will oppose Iran, just like the SDA does?  Answer:  Because the SDA rulers intend to establish a puppet government in Syria just like they have in Iraq.  Now tell me, how has that Iraqi puppet government been working out?  Are the people of Iraq pleased as punch with their Amerikan saviors?  The use of moral terminology by saying that the SDA military must overthrown Assad and create a puppet government in Syria as the "right thing" is straight out of Orwell.  Only a person committed to the adoration of the Amerikan Empire and to belief in the absurd principles of Amerikan "exceptionalism" could make such an assertion with a straight face.
"But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region... The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes."  These final statements are perhaps the most ridiculous of all.  The people in the State Department responsible for expanding the Amerikan Empire in the Middle East, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, continue to persist in their belief that Amerikan soldiers are liberators and that the peoples of the various countries of the Middle East will embrace them as heroes after they come in and bomb them to oblivion.  They stupidly and blindly continue to hold to the view that Amerikan interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations is always perceived positively by the people who live in those countries.  They persist in these outrageous beliefs despite the fact that no, read that again, no, intervention in a sovereign country has ever ended well.  We need look no further than the disaster the SDA military has created in Iraq.  After a day or two of celebration by the handful of people who hated Saddam Hussein, the great majority of the citizens of the country were plunged into a civil war that has destroyed their property and taken millions of their lives.
If the SDA is successful in overthrowing Assad and establishing a puppet government in the land I predict that things will go from bad to worse.  I also predict that everything predicted by the bozos at the State Department will not come true.  On the contrary, the safest prediction for the future of Syria would be to believe the exact opposite of what our rulers expect will happen if and when Assad is murdered. 

Note to regular readers:
I am taking the next two weeks off to travel the world.  I will return with my next blog post on Tuesday, November 1st, Lord willing.  And thanks for reading.  

Thursday, October 13, 2016

What Does It Mean To "Empower" Women?

Megan Schrader is a God hating columnist for the Denver Post.  In general she believes Evangelicals are stupid hypocrites.  She wrote a column yesterday entitled, ironically, "Of course evangelical Trump supporters aren't hypocrites."  Allow me to give you a few choice selections from her unsolicited opinion about those of us who believe in the God of the Bible:
"The evangelical support of Donald Trump no longer puzzles me.  If I too were a single-issue voter, and that single issue embodied the literal opposite of empowering women, I would vote for Trump.  But I am not and I won't.  In Colorado a number of faith leaders have backed Trump.  Key among them is James Dobson, the founder of Colorado Springs based Focus on the Family.  That Dobson, the preacher of family values, of raising children with strong discipline and a moral compass, could still back Trump after video proof showed him boasting of groping unnamed women seems the height of hypocrisy.  But I would argue it's not all that hypocritical.  Evangelical pastors haven't exactly made empowering women a top priority."  I appreciate the fact that Megan only considers me to be a mild hypocrite.  Thank you Megan.  Still she seems to be quite upset that I have not done enough to "empower" her, whatever that means. 
The single issue that Megan writes about is abortion.  She confidently declares, "Abortion for the religious right isn't a casual issue:  For many it is genocide. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, evangelicals deeply believe that life begins at conception and any intentional end of that pregnancy, even while still an embryo, is murder."  I have now learned two things from Megan:  1) I am a slack-jawed single-issue voter who is either unwilling or unable to see the complexity of life from her higher level of sophistication and 2) I am a member of the flat earth society, still stuck in the ancient ways of soothsaying and Aristotelian medicine, while remaining ignorantly and stupidly in direct opposition to the clear truth propositions of modern science, especially those propositions that declare abortion to be nothing more than a medical procedure akin to liposuction.
I wish Megan would enlighten me and explain how science has proven that life does not begin at conception.  By what definition of "life" can she so confidently declare that an "embryo" is not alive?  It seems rather obvious to one as intellectually obtuse as I am that an embryo has all of the characteristics of a living organism except perhaps one.  That would be the ability to survive outside of the womb.  So is that how "life" is now to be defined?  Is something alive only if it is self sufficient?  If so, why would a person on life support be considered to be alive?  Apart from the mechanical support device keeping the person alive the person dependent upon that machine would not be able to sustain his existence.  Does that mean, like abortion, that it is a morally good and proper thing to turn off the life support and "kill" the lifeless entity lying there?  If Megan's argument does not revolve around the sustainability of life outside the womb, what is it based on?  If an embryo is not alive and, in the normal development of things, it will eventually become alive, when does her precious science tell her that life takes place?  Is a zygote alive?  Is a fetus alive?  Is a six month old fetus alive?  Or is it the case that a baby is not scientifically alive until the moment it exits the womb naturally?  If that is so I guess all babies delivered by Cesarean section are not alive, according to Megan's science.
Megan goes on as she writes, "But what slays me is the evangelical leaders who aren't taking a stand on abortion but instead lean heavily on the religious liberty argument.  They are essentially saying that they are more concerned with empowering themselves and their livelihoods....than they are for empowering women."  Let me get this straight.  Megan believes that she is a moral paragon and that it is a very good thing when she attempts to use the government to empower her.  On the other hand Megan believes that when Evangelicals attempt to use the government to empower themselves they are behaving immorally.  Like Megan, I am beginning to detect some hypocrisy here.
Megan believes Christians who oppose murdering babies are somewhat hypocritical but she reserves her most potent vitriol for Christians who believe they should be free to live according to the Law of God, without State interference in their lives.  What a terrible thing it is in Megan's world when Christians attempt to live consistently with what they profess to believe.  According to Megan Christians never win.  When they attempt to live biblically consistent lives they are hypocrites.  When they fail to live biblically consistent lives they are hypocrites.  No matter what Evangelicals do they are always hypocrites in Megan's eyes.  
Megan continues with, "many of those leaders don't have a track record for supporting women's liberty.  They preach in fact about a woman's proper place as being in the home."  How preaching that a woman's proper place is in the home constitutes an act of enslavement is not described.  Why preaching what the Bible says about the role of women in the family does not support freedom for women is not explained.  All that is clear from what Megan has written is that she disagrees that a woman's place is in the home.  Good for her.  God has a different opinion.  I wonder who will win this debate in the end?  I also wonder if Megan wants to use the power of civil government, her true god, to suppress the right of Christian preachers to preach that a woman's proper place is in the home?  This much we know, she believes Christian preachers are hypocrites when they seek to maintain their God given right to speak freely.
Megan concludes by informing me that "Clinton empowers women and will fight for their right to choose." Choose what?  I have to know.  Megan finally gets around to defining what she means by the vague and ambiguous term 'empowerment' and all she tells me is that it is the "right to choose."  Empowerment is all important for Megan.  She lives, breathes and dreams of being empowered. She also believes that her empowerment, whatever it is, comes from the all knowing, all caring, all powerful and beneficent civil government.  She will cast her vote for Hillie because Hillie wants to empower her by granting her the right to choose something.  Since Megan does not tell me what she so desperately wants the right to choose I have to guess what it is from the context of her letter.  As I see it, Megan believes she has power only when she can murder her baby legally.  Furthermore, Megan hates Christians because they do not agree with her that women become powerful when they murder their babies.  I have only one word for Megan.  Repent.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

A Ridiculous Argument For ColoradoCare

Amendment 69 on the Colorado ballot would establish a program called ColoradoCare.  ColoradoCare is Obamacare with a vengeance.  ColoradoCare is full blown, single-payer, socialized medical insurance.  It would enact a 10% flat tax on all income earned by the citizens of Colorado and use those funds to pay for all medical insurance in the state.  I have posted on this issue previously, found here, and would recommend you read that post prior to reading further today.  Today I would like to examine a small part of an argument made in defense of ColoradoCare.  It was found in the Denver Post on October 2nd of this year and written by Irene Aguilar.  Irene is a Colorado state senator and a member of the Board of Directors at Denver Health.  Let me tell you a little bit about what Irene believes in regards to health insurance in Colorado.
Irene's defense of ColoradoCare begins with the usual envy-filled diatribe against profit seeking insurance companies.  She writes, "We all know our health care system is broken.  Millions of Coloradans face debt and bankruptcy from high medical costs.  Health insurance premiums are forecast to rise an average of 20.4 percent next year, with some spiking as much as 42 percent.  And there is no end in sight to the rate hikes.  Year after year, status quo health insurers have managed to score record profits by finding ways to reduce payments to providers and ways to limit patient care.  UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley took home a cool $66 million in 2014.  Meanwhile, more than 800,000 Colorado citizens are under insured.  And over 350,000 of us have no health insurance at all."  Let's consider some of her arguments for a moment.
I don't know what a health care "system" is, despite the fact folks like Irene drone incessantly on about it.  I have health insurance and I am not a part of a system.  I also pay for doctors without being part of a system.  Granted, my options for health insurance and health care are dramatically reduced as a result of Obamacare but I still have some limited freedom when it comes to health insurance and I have not yet been forced to join something called a system.  Since I don't know what system Irene is writing about I am unable to join the chorus and pronounce it to be broken and in desperate need of a government fix.
My health insurance premium, which I just received yesterday, has gone up 20% since last year.  The reason my premium has gone up is directly related to Obamacare and the fact that so many health insurance companies have had to abandon Colorado because they could no longer make a profit.  Another reason my premium has gone up is due to the fact that I have to subsidize the people who are getting subsidized rates on their insurance premiums.  That too is a direct result of Obamacare.  So I will grant that Irene is correct when she complains about the high cost of health insurance but she is dead wrong when she assigns the blame for that fact to profit seeking corporations.
Irene's heart bleeds when she writes about the 800,000 people who are "under insured."  Of course she never defines what it means to be under insured.  I would like more health insurance also if someone else can be forced to pay for it.  Does that make me under insured?  Furthermore, Irene is depressed by the fact that 350,000 citizens of this state carry no health insurance at all.  Irene is ignoring the fact that most, if not all, of those 350,000 citizens have made the voluntary, rational and moral decision  to forgo purchasing health insurance.  Why have they made that decision?  Because Obamacare has made health insurance prohibitively expensive for them.
What is Irene's solution to all of these self perceived problems?  Obamacare with a vengeance in the form of ColoradoCare.  How ColoradoCare will escape the problems associated with the socialized medical insurance program known as Obamacare is not defined or described.  Irene, due to her intense religious faith in the power and beneficence of civil government, believes that if Obamacare is bad, ColoradoCare will somehow end up being good.  Like most religious doctrines held by religious people, she provides no rational argument in defense of her position.  She simply assumes she is correct.
The reason I decided to post this article to my blog today is because of what Irene has to say about the profit motive.  Later in her article she writes, "By taking the profit motive out of health care and streamlining administrative costs, ColoradoCare saves $4.5 billion in annual expenses."  For the sake of argument I will not dispute her numbers.  What I find interesting is her profoundly religious belief in the socialist doctrine that the profit motive causes consumer costs to increase whereas government run bureaucracies are capable of lowering consumer costs.  I would love for Irene to cite one single example in the history of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika where a government bureau was ever able to perform a service to consumers for less cost than the free market.  How about the Post Office?  FedEx and UPS prove that wrong.  How about VA hospitals?  Don't make me laugh.  How about government schooling?  Once property tax subsidies are added to the equation government schools cost far more than private ones.  Government operated prisons?  The data say no.
On the other hand, we have plentiful examples of how the profit motive has decreased consumer costs.  The field of technology is perhaps the best example.  Have cell phone costs gone up or done?  Have computer costs gone up or down?  Have HD television costs gone up or down?  And what about Wal-Mart?  Has Wal-Mart driven costs for consumers up or down?  Indeed, the only situations where profit seeking companies have brought about higher costs for consumers are when those profit seeking companies align themselves, via cartels, to the federal government.  Legal fees are much higher than they should be thanks to the Bar.  Medical fees are much higher than they should be thanks to the AMA.  Prior to Uber the cost of using a taxi was much higher than it should have been thanks to the Medallion.
Irene is dead wrong when it comes to the profit motive.  If she truly wants to serve the consumers of health insurance in the state of Colorado she should commit herself wholeheartedly to the free market and abandon her support for ColoradoCare.  Doing so, however, would require Irene abandon her religious faith in civil government and that is never going to happen.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Libertarians Are Selfish Jerks

Libertarians are selfish jerks.  Did you know that?  I didn't.  I assumed that Libertarians were no more selfish than Democrats or Republicans but I recently discovered that, like so many things I believe these days, I am completely wrong.  Let me tell you a little bit about my journey of self discovery.
Beverly Springer of Longmont, Colorado, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post a week or so ago.  In her letter she expressed her infallible and inerrant opinion, which nobody asked for by the way, that voting for a candidate who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat is a selfish act.  But don't take my word for it.  Here are her words:  "We are in the midst of probably the ugliest presidential campaign on record.  Neither of the top two candidates wears a halo.  Understandably, people are turning away.  Some people are taking satisfaction in planning to vote for a third-party candidate.  They feel they are being good citizens by voting, but remain virtuous by not voting for either of the tarnished major candidates.  In reality, they are being selfish.  The candidate of one of the major parties is sure to win.  The new administration will be composed of a flawed individual, but also of the policies promised in the election and of a psychological milieu generated during the campaign.  The potential consequences for the next four years are enormous.  Good citizens must recognize that they are not voting for a saint but for a government which most closely promises values that we can live with.  A third-party vote truly is a vote for the major candidate whom you most oppose."
Bev, if I may call her that, makes a lot of assertions in her argument in support of her doctrine that all people who vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican are behaving selfishly.  Let's consider each of her assertions in turn.  But first, let me make clear precisely what Bev believes about you if you make the voluntary, moral and legal decision to vote for a third-party candidate.  If you vote for a third-party candidate you:
  • are aggrandizing yourself by taking satisfaction in your perception that what you are doing is a virtuous act when, in fact, it is not.
  • are being selfish.
  • are not being a good citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, whatever that means.
  • are actually casting a vote for either Donnie or Hillary, depending upon which one of them you dislike the most.  We have heard this argument before.  I still don't understand how voting for someone is actually voting for someone else.  Unfortunately Bev does not explain how this belief is true.
Bev believes this is the "ugliest presidential campaign" in the history of the SDA.  I suspect Bev has a very limited view of history.  Would you agree that challenging your opponent to a duel and then shooting him dead rises to a level of ugliness higher than what we are witnessing today?  If you do, then go here and here for the sordid details.   What Donnie and Hillary are doing today is a mere squabble compared to some of the amazing actions of their political predecessors.
Bev believes that "neither candidate wears a halo."  That is an interesting observation but tautological.  For her observation to carry any weight she needs to show how at least one prior candidate wore a halo.  As far as I am aware no prior candidate for the office of King of the SDA was cannonized as a saint by the Pope.  It therefore follows that all candidates for the office of King were "flawed" men and her observation about Donnie and Hillary is irrelevant.
Bev displays her religious adoration for the Amerikan Empire and its sacrament of voting when she praises those who vote for third-party candidates for the fact that they are at least willing to engage in the sacrament of voting.  She then goes on to express her disdain for those who refuse to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.  Her entire argument reminds me of the debates between the Lutherans and the Calvinists about what happens during the sacrament of communion.  Both parties believed in the religious significance of communion but they could not come to terms about what actually was taking place while observing the sacrament.
Bev's slam dunk is in the middle of her letter where she declares all people who vote for a third-party candidate to be selfish.  She then follows up that declaration with a series of assertions I believe are her best attempt to justify that view.  Her primary argument is that "one of the major parties is sure to win."  That is a most interesting assertion.  How does she know that to be true?  Furthermore, how can a candidate from a different party ever win an election if all the citizens of the land are required to vote for one of the two existing parties or risk being excommunicated for political selfishness?  Where is it stated that each citizen must vote for a candidate in one of the two anointed political parties?  In essence, Bev is making the argument that citizens who vote for third-party candidates are profaning the sacrament and should be punished for their sin.  It is an interesting religious argument but her position should not be backed up with civil sanctions.
Bev loses me with her next argument.  She writes that the winner in the race for King/Queen of the SDA will create an administration that will generate a "psychological milieu" which she believes will bring about the immediate destruction of the empire.  As she writes, "the political consequences for the next four years are enormous."  Why they are enormous she does not say.  How they are enormous she does not describe.  She also makes no attempt to define what a psychological milieu is.  All that I can deduce from what Bev has written in this part of her letter is that she zealously holds to a religious view about voting and anyone who does not share her view is perceived as being dangerous to her religion and worthy of condemnation.
Bev goes on to inform those who would vote for a third-party candidate that they are bad citizens because they are not voting for a "government which most closely promises values that we can live with."  I don't know who the "we" is that Bev is writing about but it most certainly does not include me.  According to Bev, both the Democrat and Republican parties have a system of values that we can live with whereas the Libertarian party does not.  Bev does not argue for this position, she merely assumes it.
If I had to pick a party that most closely approximates my take on the political universe it would be the Libertarians.   Despite the many immoral positions in their political platform they are at least opposed to the principle of theft by majority vote (the main doctrine of the Democrats) and the expansion of the Amerikan Empire (the main doctrine of the Republicans).  I guess that makes me selfish too. 

Monday, October 10, 2016

Donnie Is Just Like All Men

I find the current firestorm about Donald Trump's comments regarding his sexual exploits most interesting.  I also find them most hypocritical.  Let's think about that for a bit today.
Donnie didn't say anything that most men have not said many times during their lives.  Over half the men I play golf with will make exactly the same sort of comments at some point during our round.  If I spend any time in the presence of men at a social gathering at which women are not present most of the men will make similar comments at some point during the conversation.  Most of the men I worked with during the early days of my janitorial career said exactly the same sorts of things that Donnie said.  So I guess I don't understand why so many Republican men are walking around in shock, claiming that they have never heard expressions like the ones Donnie used ever before in their lives.  Can it be true that they have lived such morally pure lives they have never come into contact with someone like Donnie?  I don't think so.
This website lists 25 prominent and influential Republicans who have committed adultery.  The list includes Rudy Giuliani, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Dole, George Bush and Ronald Reagan.  Here is another list of prominent Republicans who have committed adultery.  Most of the fellows on this list are not on the first list.  The list includes Neil Bush, Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Laura (I realize she is a woman.  I am not a sexist and will label women as adulterers as quickly as I will condemn my own gender).  If I expand the search from sexual immorality to criminal behavior many more career politicians are ensnared in the trap.  This website lists all criminal convictions of recent career politicians.  Here is a list of all sex scandals involving career politicians since the founding of this immoral country.  Twenty two prominent career politicians have been caught since 2000.  Most of them continue to "serve" their constituents as career politicians.  The Democrats are not immune to sexual misconduct.  Here is a list of prominent Democrats who are guilty as well.  This list contains 48 names and restricts itself to those Democrats who are well known.  It includes some of my personal favorites like Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy and Eliot Spitzer.
According to this website, "29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses, 3 have been arrested for assault, 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card, 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 21 are current defendants in lawsuits, and in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity."  Talk about a rogues gallery of immoral men!  I especially like the fact that spousal abuse is on the list. 
It seems as if I have strayed a wee bit from my original point.  That is easy to do when I get to thinking about the follies, foibles and downright immoral behavior of the career politicians who rule over us.  Let me get back to the point.  Do you believe for one second that most of the men who are "serving" as our elected rulers do not share Donnie's perspective on women?  Do you believe for one second that most of them are not guilty of doing exactly what Donnie did, or at least wishing that they could have done what Donnie did?  Do you not believe that the only reason they have not been exposed is due to the fact that, as career politicians, they are aware when the mic is still on?  Do you honestly believe that most of the men who rule over us have not made sexual advances on their staffers?  Do you expect me to believe for one second that the power, honor and glory (praised be their names!) that comes with political office has never been exploited by the great majority of our male leaders for their own sexual satisfaction?  If you believe those things I have some prime Florida coast land I would like to sell you.
Donnie is no different than all unregenerate (a theological term....look it up) men and no different than a lot of regenerate men.  He is enslaved to his flesh, like all men either previously were or currently are.  The only thing that distinguishes Donnie from most other men is the power he has that is a by product of  his wealth.  Put in a position of power similar to Donnie's most men would act  out their fantasies exactly as Donnie describes the way he acted his out.  Put 100 career politicians in a locker room with Donnie and they would have been fist bumping him as he described his sexual exploits.  So don't try and tell me that he is any different than almost all other men.  Indeed, his common nature perfectly qualifies him to be the next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.